Roald Dahl's The Witches

A lot was changed in this remake and I thought it would irk me. After about twenty minutes I thought I had been wrong, the opening had some originality and it seemed like something fresh. then they arrived at the Hotel and Anne Hathaway came on the scene like a wrecking ball. Any potential that this movie had was suffocated by Hathaways incredibly poor performance. Watch Anjelica Huston's performa... Read more

A lot was changed in this remake and I thought it would irk me. After about twenty minutes I thought I had been wrong, the opening had some originality and it seemed like something fresh. then they arrived at the Hotel and Anne Hathaway came on the scene like a wrecking ball. Any potential that this movie had was suffocated by Hathaways incredibly poor performance. Watch Anjelica Huston's performance in the original and you will see the MASSIVE difference in ability. Hathaway's performance is akin to an amateur impressionist. It feel more like an insult than an homage by Hathaway, she put zero effort or spirit into this character. Her accent is atrocious and her presence is almost nonexistent. Also the CGI already looks cheap, c'mon they had better puppets in the 80's. All witches now have joker smiles and shark teeth? This could've really been a good movie and it is just marred by an extremely poor performance from the lead villain, an overuse of cheap effects, poor pacing, lack of originality in the second half and a horrendous ending. The only highlights of this movie are Octavia Spencer and Jahzir Bruno who do a fantastic job of filling and updating their roles. Unfortunately as most fans know, Jahzir spends the second half of the movie as a poorly CGI'd mouse. Leaving Octavia Spencer to carry the entirety of the movie from there on out almost seems like a cruel prank. Tucci is decent as is Codie Eastwick as Bruno but there characters are so poorly written and used they practically add nothing. The addition of a third mouse is also meaningless and changes nothing in the story. Ultimately this movie is a far worse version of the first one. They actually managed to tell less of the story, give characters less development, and have worse effects than a movie made over 30 years ago. Some of this may have been forgivable if they added any decent original concepts but again this is a poor retread with no added substance. Its disheartening to see so many big names attached to this film. Guillermo Del Toro should not put this on his IMBD page. Of course your children will like it, they like Peppa Pig.Show less

When you hear the names Robert Zemeckis, Guillermo del Toro and Alfonso Cuaron, you expect something visually engaging. These three names paired with Dahl's work could have been something really special, but this is just another bland adaption. The more you compare it to both the source material and previous adaptions, it comes across as bland and missing the mark. The same could be said about the... Read more

When you hear the names Robert Zemeckis, Guillermo del Toro and Alfonso Cuaron, you expect something visually engaging. These three names paired with Dahl's work could have been something really special, but this is just another bland adaption. The more you compare it to both the source material and previous adaptions, it comes across as bland and missing the mark. The same could be said about the star-studded cast led by Hathaway and Octavia Spencer, with Stanley Tucci playing the forgettable hotel owner. This team really could have made something unique, but this is not it, witch. - Chris dos Santos Read Chris' full article... https://www.maketheswitch.com.au/article/review-the-witches-horrifying-for-all-the-wrong-reasonsShow less

Unlike what a lot of people seems to think about this movie I though it was a fairly decent family movie. It’s not great but decent enough. I quite enjoyed it at least. The story is what it is. It is a Roald Dahl story so it is somewhat dark but funny and with some light at the same time. Of course there are a bunch of whiners complaining that it is too dark and not suited for children. Well, e... Read more

Unlike what a lot of people seems to think about this movie I though it was a fairly decent family movie. It’s not great but decent enough. I quite enjoyed it at least. The story is what it is. It is a Roald Dahl story so it is somewhat dark but funny and with some light at the same time. Of course there are a bunch of whiners complaining that it is too dark and not suited for children. Well, everyone knows (or should now) what to expect from a Roald Dahl story so just go and see another movie then. My kids, even when they where younger, would have no problem with this movie. But then I would spend the time to watch it with them. It is called parenting. The beginning felt a wee bit slow perhaps but once the grand witch, and in particular the three mice, entered the scene it became rather funny. The one thing I did not like that much was the over the top silly acting of the witches, especially the grand witch. They could really have toned down that it bit to make her a bit more scary. Now she just became silly and somewhat annoying. The special effects were quite nice. The mice was a bit cartoonish but that was okay for this movie. I quite liked how the grand witch’s mouth split open from time to time to reveal her “witchiness”. Apparently a bunch of disability advocates, including British Paralympic swimmer Amy Marren, got unhinged and claimed the movie was “perpetuating bias against individuals with ectrodactyly and other limb differences.” Seriously? Get a grip. It is fiction and a family movie about witches for Christ sake! Presenting witches or other supernatural creatures as having “abnormalities” like crows feet, fangs and God knows what is what makes witches. If these obsessive whiners and cancel culture freaks would have their way no movie worth watching and no book worth reading would ever be made. Anyway, I felt it was an hour and 45 minutes that I enjoyed.Show less