MovieChat Forums > Hocus Pocus (1993) Discussion > James Berardinelli review - ** out of **...

James Berardinelli review - ** out of ****


https://www.reelviews.net/reelviews/hocus-pocus

It's 1693 and a trio of witches (Winifred, played by Bette Midler; Sarah, played by Sarah Jessica Parker; and Mary, played by Kathy Najimy) are preparing a spell that will ensure them immortality and eternal youth. However, before the magic is complete, the people of Salem capture and execute them for consorting with the devil. Before their deaths, the witches vow to return on some future All Hallow's Eve. 300 years later, a skeptic by the name of Max (Omri Katz) ventures into the ruins of the witches' house, daring the supernatural to manifest itself. Heedless of warnings of his sister, Dani (Thora Birch), and schoolmate, Allison (Vinessa Shaw), Max lights the dreaded Candle of Black Flame. Suddenly, the three Sanderson sisters have a second lease on life, and this time they don't intend to waste it. Now it's up to Max, with the help of Dani, Allison, and a talking black cat, to correct his error and stop the witches before it's too late.

Like so many films that mix genres, in trying to do too much, Hocus Pocus succeeds at very little. The comedy is sporadic and not often funny, the horror won't frighten anyone over 8, and the adventure is dull and routine. As a family film, Hocus Pocus is passable -- provided you don't have particularly high standards.

In the absence of nonstop, uproarious comedy or pulse-pounding action, strong characters are needed. What we get, however, are poorly-developed caricatures taken from the writers' stock of readily-available personalities. For the most part, the scenes intended to further relationships are laughably absurd.

Omri Katz is a poor choice for the hero. Actually, "hero" might not be the right word for his role -- Max is so irritating that we wish the witches would stick him in their kettle and boil him alive. He treats his little sister like a burden (which is not entirely unrealistic for someone his age) and does some of the most amazingly stupid things. Everything that happens in Hocus Pocus is essentially his fault.

The normally-steady Bette Midler has fun chewing on the scenery. Clearly in her shadow, Sarah Jessica Parker and Kathy Najimy give such muted performances that they're virtually invisible. They do a lot of Three Stooges' physical gags, but they haven't mastered the timing.

Hocus Pocus lacks energy. Kenny Ortega's direction is flat, and the cinematography is workmanlike. The film basically amounts to a great deal of pointless running around. The inventiveness that we keep expecting never materializes, and, by the end, we're still wondering if and when something's going to happen to galvanize this motion picture.

Hocus Pocus is an occasionally dull, mostly pedantic motion picture with little to recommend it. It belongs on the long list of summer movies that will quickly be buried and forgotten until the surface on video in six months. For real fun at the expense of the dead, see instead Sam Raimi's Army of Darkness.

reply

"It belongs on the long list of summer movies that will quickly be buried and forgotten."

No 2 at the boxoffice in 2020. And a beloved holiday favorite. Man was this guy wrong.

reply

Indeed he was! (He’s no stranger to that, hehe.) Although to be kinda fair, considering how poorly this movie did at the box office back when it was originally released (still makes zero sense releasing it in July), nobody - that includes the cast and crew - could have expected/predicted Hocus Pocus to become the phenomenon it is today. It’s a movie that definitely could have (not should have) been forgotten, yet luckily it achieved cult status and it’s now widely considered to be a bonafide holiday classic.

But yeah, he was wrong in every way. This movie rules.

reply


I never read or watch reviews. Reviewers like what they like, hate what they hate, and what they like and hate has absolutely zero correlation to what I like and hate.

Some of the most brutally reviewed movies were some of my favorites, and many highly touted films are torture for me to watch.

Not only do I get no useful information from a review, I don't find them entertaining in the least.

Oh, and I never heard of Army of Darkness...


reply

Oh, and I never heard of Army of Darkness...

Same!

reply

Berardinelli is right on the money. This turd is barely passable. Army of Darkness is on another planet, it's unfair to compare them.

reply


Okay, I Googled Army of Darkness as I never heard of it (the irony).. seems like it might be interesting and fun watch, but it doesn't change the total screw up by the reviewer and his claim that HP would be forgotten unlike Army of Darkness which seems to have been. Oh, and Roger Ebert, while generally liking Army of Darkness, did say it seemed aimed at 14 year olds, which is kinda right up my alley.




reply

For a movie you've never heard of, it sure had been referenced and spoofed in countless movies, TV shows, and video games:

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0106308/movieconnections/?tab=mc&ref_=tt_trv_cnn

reply


I'm not saying it was unknown, I'm saying that I've heard of Hocus Pocus and I've never heard of Army of Darkness until this thread. I'd bet any amount of money that HP is far better known than A/D is, which is the whole point of this discussion about the reviewer incorrectly predicting HP quickly disappearing into obscurity.

reply

Strnz, Army is waaay more famous.
It's known worldwide, Hp has a small cult following in Usa.
But I agree that it was not forgotten after 93 and it still holds some interest.

reply