DVDizzy Forum

TheSequelOfDisney wrote:

PatrickvD wrote:That said, the original film is pretty awful. Why a sequel? Because we need more fairytales?

Just stop this.

I whole-heartedly disagree with the bolded. My Halloween wouldn't be complete without watching Hocus Pocus, and it's certainly one of my favorite Disney films. It's hilarious, highly-quotable, and makes for a good time.

Seriously. Patrickvd, you must be watching the wrong movie. Awful?!

SWillie! wrote:Seriously. Patrickvd, you must be watching the wrong movie. Awful?!

Many people think the movie was/is awful, it has a 32% rating on RT with 22 reviews counted. Siskel and Ebert gave it two thumbs down, Maltin gives it 1.5/4, etc. it was hardly a cirtical favorite.

It's the kids who grew up with it who really love it.

The movie is just so fun. It's really good for what it is. Seriously, it's better than most crap these days. The movie's not supposed to be taken seriously, yet its serious moments actual work well, you feel for Zachary and his predicament, and it even shows teenagers, kids, and adults rather realistically compared to many movies. Maybe there were just too many good movies coming out back then they didn't realize this is actually a great non-Oscar-attempting film.

REINIER wrote:she turned her husband into " the book"

The book is so demonic, the whole thing is so satan real witchraft stuff that I feel something like that would ruin the idea the witche's book came straight from hell, it's alive with evil, hence the twitching eye.

Jules wrote:I want a hug now.

*HUG!*

TheSequelOfDisney wrote:

PatrickvD wrote:That said, the original film is pretty awful. Why a sequel?

I whole-heartedly disagree with the bolded. My Halloween wouldn't be complete without watching Hocus Pocus, and it's certainly one of my favorite Disney films. It's hilarious, highly-quotable, and makes for a good time.

I agree with PvD on this one. Over the past 2 months, I've rewatched the film at least 4 times. Each time, I feel weirder and weirder. Not about the movie... about myself. And I think I can safely say Hocus Pocus is a terrible film. With good qualities but seriously... I could make a list of what doesn't work about it. However, I think I can really nail the worst aspect(s) in one category... EVERYONE is taking it too seriously except Midler, Najimy, and Parker. There are multiple characters who just POISON the movie's enjoyment for me. The first is the actor / voice dub combo for Thackary Binx. Our introduction to the witches is through this ominous tone of the movie. Even though the music is suggesting a fun blockbuster ride, the Bad Accented Boy characters are reacting to what's going on as though the audience will be able to view the witches as a threat. As though they're in The Crucible or Warlock or something; as though the whole movie will have a serious tone. Then you meet the witches and... you get the distinct impression that the movie's major influence for these characters was The Three Stooges. Just take note of all the scenes featuring Winnifred pulling Mary's nose and ears, hitting Sarah in the stomach and choking her. It's a slapstick routine which you have to admit stands out in SUCH strong contrast to the rest of the characters acting as though the witches are bringing doom and destruction. A little girl dies and the movie follows it up with the witches tossing out one-liners and singing. Two trains are not meeting in the night.

The second is Thora Birch. And she's a whole other world of trouble. It's much too absurd for a movie like this trying to be sincere about the brother and sister feeling completely out of place (meanwhile: their parents are so stupid, they are entirely oblivious to the fact that their kids are so upset over the move that they would turn on each other and get into fights). One minute. The next, you get pandering "jokes" like Danni trying to embarrass Max in front of Alison or being a brat and having the parents force him to take her trick or treating and the "joke" here is that he has to make sarcastic excuses about how his school clothes qualify as a costume. This movie doesn't have a clue about real kids and what they go through. And even if it did, it doesn't know how to pick a tone for the movie. If kids actually did want to sit through a serious story about finding a way to make it in a new place, do you think they want to sit through scenes like the "bullies" insulting the witches and ending up spinning around in cages until they want to vomit (nice Problem Child touch there, by the way, Disney)? And even then, the bullies are only about as effective as Beavis and Butthead. Which doesn't make the movie anymore entertaining, that there's no way they could function as threatening characters. Especially not when you have such an idiotic conflict between Max and Danni spring up over what was clearly her fault to begin with. She got what she wanted when he took her out, she had no right to say anything about him to anyone.

Now, that's bad enough. But can you believe I've found something even more uncomfortable in the film? The Nostalgia Chick had a comment in her review that used to bother me, about the witches coming off like pedophiles. But when you consider how unbelievably creepy certain moments are (that she didn't even mention), it hurts the fun aspect to the witch scenes. Which are the only fun ones anyway. I'm mostly referring to the movie's pre-set double standard involving young boys being the target of physical violence from the witches but never the girls. Three women, ya know, being in charge of manipulating young boys' bodies and violating them through aggressively physical tricks. What do they do to the girls? Cast spells on them. Make potions. And hold onto them in what is hardly a suggestive manner when you compare this to what they do to the boys. Yes, it's far more disturbing in comparison when you have Winnifred zapping Max in the stomach and running him up the walls like the mother in Poltergeist. Even though you'd think this would be in the vein of Evil Dead II / Army of Darkness type slapstick... it's really not. Not when you compare Bruce Campbell's hammy, not-taken-seriously dramatic readings of lines like "give me back my hand!" and "who's laughing now?" They're a world away from the freakishly 'I'm on a mission' intended-to-be-serious tone to the readings by Max and Binx. The biggest difference is in the physical mugging Campbell gives even in the most extreme moments of Raimi's films. Max and Binx look like they're trying to sell their scenes as believable. And that's so unsettling, especially considering how many times Parker says "let me play with him" and "I'll be thy friend" in her ultra-vampy, ultra-lusty manner.

If you can honestly ignore all that, I don't think you're looking at the movie closely enough.

Flanger-Hanger wrote:

SWillie! wrote:Seriously. Patrickvd, you must be watching the wrong movie. Awful?!

Many people think the movie was/is awful, it has a 32% rating on RT with 22 reviews counted. Siskel and Ebert gave it two thumbs down, Maltin gives it 1.5/4, etc. it was hardly a cirtical favorite.

It's the kids who grew up with it who really love it.

Well, Maltin's "review" of the film came down to 1 statement (that I remember). He criticized it for not being family-friendly enough. Which likely means he objected to the mere mentioning of virginity. Which of course branched out in the movie to the yabbos scene, the jealous wife, the motorcycle cop, the mother's Madonna reference, and the bus driver who of course had this delightful exchange with Midler (I hope everyone picked up on the double entendre):

Winnifred: "We desire... children."
Bus Driver: "Well, that might take me a few tries but I don't think it'll be a problem."


In short, Maltin was just being a prude. Most of the sexually suggestive dialogue was generally kept in the correct age barriers: adults mostly tried to seduce adults, and teens lusted after teens. Look at me, now. I seem to be defending the movie even though my intention is to blast Maltin for making a fuss over this aspect of the movie. This movie hardly turned a generation of young moviegoers into degenerates and who says Disney shouldn't make a movie that parents can't enjoy? Which, of course, brings up another shortcoming of the movie. That it really seems to want to be a more horror version of something like The Goonies or a less risqué The Monster Squad. And if you've seen those movies (especially the latter), I think you know how bad an idea that is. As was getting Mick Garris to write the screenplay. His most previous to 1993 non-R-rated work was Critters 2. Which had a subplot involving an alien taking the form of a Playboy centerfold complete with full topless shots.

Any of the witches being more sexual with the (for their time, of age) boys is no worse or more "pedophilic" than Maleficent keeping Phillip in her dungeon or the Evil Queen wanting Snow White's prince as was storyboarded as well as indicated in the final film.

As for the tone of the film, what you call a mess, I call an alright balance of serious moments and humorous ones. Perhaps the witches simply shouldn't have acted so silly sometimes, especially in the beginning, but other than that, the movie wanted to some serious and even emotional aspects even though it was supposed to be what would be called overall a comedy.

Leonard Maltin is right in that the movie is not very family friendly, but he's wrong for it being bad because it's not family friendly.

Lazario wrote:...the bus driver who of course had this delightful exchange with Midler (I hope everyone picked up on the double entendre):

Winnifred: "We desire... children."
Bus Driver: "Well, that might take me a few tries but I don't think it'll be a problem."

Haha, of course I didn't catch that one as a kid, but since a normal bus driver wouldn't want to do that with Winnifred, I can only accept that as him completely joking. But yea, that's definately not family friendly.

Yes, yes, yes. I think even those of us that love it understand...

It's not a good movie, but it's such a good movie!

Any fans of “Hocus Pocus”, the 1993 flick starring Bette Midler, Sarah Jessica Parker and Kathy Najimy as three vacuum-riding witches doing battle with trick or treaters on their night of their resurrection?

Only Mary flew on a vaccum! Sarah got a mop and Winifred claimed the only broom left in their house because she's the eldest sister. This was all after trick or treating little girls took the witches' brooms while the witches were visiting the house of "Satan". The person who wrote the article claims to have never watched the film and probably only seen the film's poster which has all three witches flying on one vaccum together.

I personally enjoy this campy film and am not eager for a sequel to it. I remember back in the 90's the Disney channel showed making of Hocus Pocus footage.

Disney Duster wrote:Any of the witches being more sexual with the (for their time, of age) boys is no worse or more "pedophilic" than Maleficent keeping Phillip in her dungeon or the Evil Queen wanting Snow White's prince as was storyboarded as well as indicated in the final film.

A long-standing Disney tradition, you say? I certainly won't argue with you about Snow White- those story sketches were downright kinky. All that was missing was male moaning and a Lords of Acid track playing in the background (this one is extremely fitting). But that movie certainly always portrayed the Prince as a man about 20 or so. I'm not saying it was intentional- but they did cast an actor much older than the women he was auditioning for the role. It's only by luck that Caselotti was 19-20 (before her, I hear he turned down a 14-year old but she was close to getting the part), the voice she was doing was considerably younger than the voice the Prince was doing. Not that I have a problem in any way with that - I like to pick my battles and Snow White as a character comes first. Lastly, I'm not sure pedophilic is the right way to describe a lot of what the witches do but there's no denying there's a sexual vibe to Parker's performance and she only really comes on to children. Her flirting with the bus driver was turned into her just wanting to play with the bus. You could call the movie's overall problem here a bad use of political correctness (again, not a Mick Garris specialty- remember something, Duster: I have you at a disadvantage since I know quite a bit about Garris, the screenwriter, as he usually works in horror) and that if the movie has to have the witches fighting the children, the girls should - I dunno - take a hit or two. I didn't write this thing. But let's say, again, The Goonies was a lot smarter about this. The girls were treated exactly like the boys (except for the whole pink bike incident)- no better, no worse. Its' an adventure film marketed to kids. And if you expect girls and boys to join in together on the action, the film needs to treat them the same.

Disney Duster wrote:As for the tone of the film, what you call a mess, I call an alright balance of serious moments and humorous ones.

I know it comes down to expectations and personal preference. The film is in fact a very big mess but nobody has to view it that way. But don't think for a minute that you're enjoying it sincerely. I never draw this distinction typically - as a huge fan of The Worst Witch, I usually don't give a flying frick - but it's pretty clear the fans of this movie enjoy it ironically. Turning on their blinders, putting on their nostalgia goggles, holding up their hand a-front the film's flaws and saying "the face don't understand." The last thing I want to do here is correct anyone. Just do what I do with TWW. Although I do want to say that film doesn't really have the same flaws. There's a huge difference between glorious cheesiness and technical flaws (acting is a technique in my opinion) and the extraordinarily painful bad moments of Hocus Pocus. Because, trust me, there are moments in that movie that make my hair stand up on end. And even though I said in my last post that the witches were the best part of the movie (and I might have been flat-out wrong since there's nothing wrong in my eyes with the film's cinematography, music, special effects, costuming, makeup, etc), a lot of those agonizing moments are theirs. HP's problem might be that it's so incredibly obnoxious. Which comes from a Hollywood routine: showing off its' budget and rubbing it in your face. Drastically affecting its' sense of tact. How the hell do you enjoy a scene like the witches versus the townspeople? During the hanging, when you have in effect what is one of those 'time to get real' scenes (I'm trying to think of an example in a kids' movie about a kid getting the 3rd degree from a parent and they know the parent is right but I'm coming up dry) of a character having to face the music for something they've done wrong. And... the movie is completely lost. The witches are laughing, singing, and cracking jokes and, if you actually saw the movie, you know that does not jive with the cut aways to the "um, you just MURDERED our child, ladies; stop laughing, or you're gonna DIE" expressions on the faces of the villagers.

Disney Duster wrote:Perhaps the witches simply shouldn't have acted so silly sometimes, especially in the beginning, but other than that, the movie wanted to some serious and even emotional aspects even though it was supposed to be what would be called overall a comedy.

I think I more than proved that the film failed in its' attempts to be serious. However, I'll make an exception in my ruling: perhaps some kids did respond to what the film was saying. Of course, they would have to be the most sheltered kids in history. But, I think this was already covered by my charge that the movie's biggest fans have real blinders on for this movie.

Flanger-Hanger wrote:Many people think the movie was/is awful, it has a 32% rating on RT with 22 reviews counted. Siskel and Ebert gave it two thumbs down, Maltin gives it 1.5/4, etc. it was hardly a cirtical favorite.

Now that's just sad. The film is hilarious. Some critics need to find a sense of humor.

The fact that the girls "took no hits" is basically a double standard that has been around in TV and film for decades now though. It goes hand in hand with the fact that girls are usually smart, capable and sophisticated whereas many men, in comedies especially, are usually the idiots. Look at sitcom husband/wife teams to see that for yourself.

However, I think that this will change in the wake of last year's "Bridesmaids". It was a movie that featured women doing what was essentially up until then, almost exclusively male humour. I mean the food poisoning scene? ANYTHING that Megan did? This may sound a little melodramatic, but in terms of comic style, that movie was revolutionary! So the fact that girls perhaps got let off a little easier in Hocus Pocus, while I'm certainly not saying that it's fair, is simply a product of the time that the film was produced.

Would I like to see a sequel? Not really, seeing as the witches were dead at the end of the last one and it wouldn't make all that much sense. A stand alone film made in the same vein? Could be fun, as long as it's not a rip off or a poor, low budget TV movie.

PatrickvD wrote:That said, the original film is pretty awful. Why a sequel?

This, a hundred times this.

Well Lazario, I guess I'll just have to see it again to know if I really agree that the points you bring up actually make the movie bad, or if they quite simply don't. The serious moments work for me as I remember even if they don't work according to you. What's bad about the movie is the obnoxiousness and cheese and sometimes it does make viewers feel uncomfortable but none of that is enough for me to think it's actually a bad movie.

Also, I will say that girls treating other girls differently...that's not that unbelievable, it makes sense the witches want to hit the boys harder, and hell, they came from a period of time when they thought boys were stronger. You could easily say any bad feelings that come from the boys getting treated differently just adds to how horrible the witches are. If they're worse on the boys, it shows even more how unfair and cruel they are.

candydog wrote:The fact that the girls "took no hits" is basically a double standard that has been around in TV and film for decades now though. It goes hand in hand with the fact that girls are usually smart, capable and sophisticated whereas many men, in comedies especially, are usually the idiots. Look at sitcom husband/wife teams to see that for yourself.

However, I think that this will change in the wake of last year's "Bridesmaids". It was a movie that featured women doing what was essentially up until then, almost exclusively male humour. I mean the food poisoning scene? ANYTHING that Megan did? This may sound a little melodramatic, but in terms of comic style, that movie was revolutionary! So the fact that girls perhaps got let off a little easier in Hocus Pocus, while I'm certainly not saying that it's fair, is simply a product of the time that the film was produced.

Not arguing this but how does any of this change the quality of the film? It wasn't my idea to base this kind of idea around much edgier adventure films with danger and horror element marketed to kids. Just re-watch Goonies and Monster Squad and please tell me how Hocus Pocus can touch either with a 10-foot pole. Or 1990's The Witches. The only difference is, if I'm not mistaken, being set on Halloween and having musical numbers. I've always wanted this movie to be better than it is but one of the biggest reasons why some movies will never work is that they've already been done before. The only way to change it is to take what the other movies meant at their essence and make this new one mean something else. Or in this movie's case... anything at all. What "substance" is at the heart of this movie? Being a white upper-middle class teen in America is really, really hard, moving is not fun, respect urban legends because they might be true, and don't be a virgin. Real compelling stuff...

Disney Duster wrote:Well Lazario, I guess I'll just have to see it again to know if I really agree that the points you bring up actually make the movie bad, or if they quite simply don't. The serious moments work for me as I remember even if they don't work according to you. What's bad about the movie is the obnoxiousness and cheese and sometimes it does make viewers feel uncomfortable but none of that is enough for me to think it's actually a bad movie.

Also, I will say that girls treating other girls differently...that's not that unbelievable, it makes sense the witches want to hit the boys harder, and hell, they came from a period of time when they thought boys were stronger. You could easily say any bad feelings that come from the boys getting treated differently just adds to how horrible the witches are.

Okay, I'm having a really hard time following that. If you're trying to say that the ye olden days where the witches were from influenced them to be nastier to males because of unfair advantages men had over women in the...ye olden days, that's an interesting idea. But you see, the film has to sew this into its' framework. For something to work as a means to explain away a rough aspect of the movie, you have to have it present in the actual story. According to the story, for all we know women might have always been seen as physically stronger. The story does not make this an issue... though it certainly does have, as I said, the witches getting far too fresh with the boys in terms of just having their way with them any way they wanted it (in this case being violence). That's why I dismiss both your theory and Candydog's. In this movie, sometimes it feels like there's something behind the violence. And it's not explained.

As for the serious moments working... this is where I will be forced to point out Thora Birch's acting and say: yeah, right. She'd have to be a mini-Meryl Streep to make this character's dramatic "inner-workings" function after what the story served up as tension between her and Max. They - perhaps unintentionally - turned her into one of mainstream cinema's all-time greatest brats. And I don't mean "greatest" as in really good.

This movie is supposed to be a comedy with some serious moments, while all the other movies you mentioned, Goonies, the Witches, were more like serious adventures with some comedy. Hocus Pocus is supposed to be different. Except maybe Monster Squad, which I haven't seen, but if that's better, oh well, Hocus Pocus is still good enough to me for what it is.

And I was just saying that "in ye olden days" they thought women were actually weaker while men could take punches. That's what they thought, it doesn't need to be explained, it's known. And it doesn't matter because I understand why the witches would be unfair and harder on the boys anyway. If it makes you uncomfortable, yea, okay, well they're evil witches they're not supposed to make you feel good, it still works.

As for the serious moments, well maybe not all of them work, but enough for me do. It's not just limited to Thora Birch's moments you know.

PatrickvD wrote:That said, the original film is pretty awful. Why a sequel?

Oh, come on! It wasn't THAT bad!

Anyways, I've seen plenty of sequels and I'm pretty sure this one wouldn't really be easy, given how the original ended.

Remember, Duster, I said it's the movie's job to work things into story's framework. There has to be some trace back to it somewhere in the film for it to work, you can't just say "well, back in these times- this is the way it is." The movie has to place this inside its' story. And there are zero references to the witch characters choosing to torment males- the movie simply throws it in. This wouldn't be an issue anyway if the filmmaking was skilled enough not to shoot these boys acting so 'this is such a horrible, bad, extreme situation'. Again: Three Stooges. If you took the clips of Max and Binx going on and on about how dangerous this situation is and how extreme the circumstances, snipped them out of the movie, put them together and then between each cut away to a clip of The Three Stooges where Moe, Larry, and Curly were dressed as women- you'd have this movie to a T.

See what I'm getting at? It is weird, with that in mind, that the movie then chooses to have the goofy women touch and refer to the boys in wholly suggestive manners (again, if you compare it to what happens to any of the girls). But, really, I say it all comes back to the movie not knowing how to direct the actors. Which is a huge flaw. How can the movie possibly work if the drama (this is what I meant about the movie making me feel weird- to say there's drama in this film makes me feel dirty somehow) and the comedy don't link up. Hell, the scenes with MNP going loose and just having fun were probably the result of no direction, they just did whatever they wanted to. I'd like to say this works, separating the two extremes but... it doesn't. It's jarring to watch so many scenes of confrontation that do not work. The girls get it. The boys just don't. The one exception to this rule: Gary and Penny Marshall.

And we already went over the whole "this works for you" thing. That's yesterday's news. This is not subjective anymore, we're talking objectively. I mean, if it really works so well for you... how about some details as to how? Something that proves you really thought any of it over? What about you personally allows you to relate to something so remarkably shallow and superficial, remembering that you said the serious stuff worked for you?

All that, of course, excluding "Come Little Children." Because that scene is awesome. Too bad the rest of the movie couldn't be.

I don't think anybody would claim Hocus Pocus to be one of the all time cinematic masterpieces, but it is a reasonably fun film for what it is. However, I never thought even the biggest fans were clamouring for a sequel. In any case, it seems a bit belated.

Lazario wrote:the scenes with MNP going loose

Who?

Anyway, it makes perfect sense why the witches would get sexual with the boys, and not the girls. So in that way it also kind of makes sense why they would be more physical with them even in just fighting, too.

It does not need an explanation. I find it pretty self-explanatory.

Oh and I forgot, the Prince in Snow White, no matter the real age of the voice actor, is supposed to be 18 in the film while Snow White is 14. The Queen wanted an 18 year old.

As for the scenes working for me, all I mean by that is what they were trying to make serious is serious enough for me. I don't have to explain it anymore, and perhaps I can't, no more than you can explain the sugar they put in Oreos is just the right amount for it to work for you. I love your avatar by the way.

And yes, "Come Little Children" is awesome. But I find most of the rest of the movie awesome too, so that I can feel safe in calling it an awesome movie.

Hocus Pocus is one of my favorites. It isn't Halloween until I see it! Bette Midler and Kathy Najimy HAVE to be in it if they do a sequel. I am pretty sure they would both do it but I don't know about SJP....

Anyway I found this vid on Youtube and I think it's great lol:

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/-gDuScPPJbQ" frameborder="0"></iframe>

Great casting!

Maleficent: Winnifred
Ursula: Mary
The Evil Queen: Sarah

HuffPo says the rumor is a bust. I don't know why it took Disney four days to release a ten-word statement, though.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/1 ... 62809.html