Roald Dahl's The Witches: Will Gompertz reviews the film starring Anne Hathaway.-_115053222_1f4ae2d3-4658-43b2-8ead-b3f4a8257324.jpg

Robert Zemeckis' screen adaptation (Back to the Future, Forrest Gump) from Roald Dahl's 1983 children's book The Witches is good in many ways, but sadly is lacking in one important aspect. There is almost no movie magic.Yes, Anne Hathaway gave her a "horrible" performance as the great witch. (Think Joker and Miss Jean Brody's darling, then add a surreal Eastern European baddie accent.)And yes, the spell was cast and the supernatural potion was drunk.

But for the series that สล็อตxo hook Hathaway's evil snakes and magic and her dastardly shrewd crew, the movie has more B-minus than it gets to its charm.Its fundamental fault was evident from the start when you hear the usual great Chris Rock performing the role of the narrator until he lost his senses in Dahl's dark comic creation.

He is not to blame

The issue becomes clearer in the following scenes, which reveal the version is not set in Norway and England as in the original book. (Or America and England, as in the 1990 movie) moved to Chicago and Alabama, where our hero, a recently eight-year-old orphan. (Jahsir Bruno, the lively) to be with his kind grandmother. (Played with Homely Home by Octavia Spencer)Location change is fine, convenience script is not.

This surprised me more than any other film in this film, as it was co-written by the talented and Oscar-winning guilder model Toro (The Shape of Water). Co-wrote Peter Jackson's The Hobbit's screenplay, he knows how to adapt modern British literature. He was immersed in the idea of ​​being other. He is a very talented writer.The witch should slap the bang in the middle of his interesting point.

But he and his co-creators failed to grasp the essence of Roald Dahl, his malevolent humor linked to the master artisan's facilities with the English language. Dahl chose words like a code breaker to open a safe. He will listen and listen and listen until he clicks on the correct words, which he will use at the right time to unlock the reader's reaction.If he can't find the right word, he should recreate it - better than using the wrong word at the risk of destroying the carefully designed narrative atmosphere.

Unfortunately, the attention to language detail is unclear in this film adaptation, which comes 30 years after the production of Nicolas Roeg starring Anjelica Huston as Grand High Witch and Rowan Atkinson as a strict hotel manager. (Less effective roles in this version by Stanley Tucci)The screenplay is inevitably disappointing, which is a pity because it isn't all bad.The basic story is still true for the book: A young boy and his grandmother stay for renovations at a seaside inn at the same time the witch army arrives at their annual convention disguised as a wealthy woman who attends. Charity event for children The Gritted Hand Covenant hates children and horribly plans to turn them all into mice, thinking that little enemies will be later killed by their own parents, who mistaken them for them. It is a poisonous beast - thus saving the witch from trouble. Dreadful actionSweets and chocolates are used as bait for unsuspecting children - an unbearable temptation for our greedy Bruno Jenkins (Codie-Lei Eastick), our hero, watching from a small stage as his fat friend. Fall victim to an evil witch, who all took off their wigs to reveal a bald head covered in scarlet.

There is only one thing for it. Grandma and grandson have to join the fray to try to save Bruno.Octavia Spencer and Jahzir Bruno make a strange couple on screen that can be watched as they take on missions. But it is overshadowed by Hathaway's performance, whose energy and body cause moments of danger. Even if she doesn't steal the show The award goes to the CGI team, who has combined animation and live action, so you start to think it's normal to have a talking mouse in your chest pocket.Well done, but not so good when computer graphics are best for movies.I think it would make sense to sum up by saying that it was a charming film that should not be praised in this case, as it is the opposite of what Roald Dahl's mischievous genius intended.