Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

Hello and thank you for being a DL contributor. We are changing the login scheme for contributors for simpler login and to better support using multiple devices. Please click here to update your account with a username and password.

Hello. Some features on this site require registration. Please click here to register for free.

Hello and thank you for registering. Please complete the process by verifying your email address. If you can't find the email you can resend it here.

Hello. Some features on this site require a subscription. Please click here to get full access and no ads for $1.99 or less per month.

“The Witches” Remake Trailer has Dropped!

Starring Anne Hathaway.

Looks like shit.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 108Last Saturday at 8:26 PM

UGH! Loved the original

by Anonymousreply 110/02/2020

cultural mash-up

by Anonymousreply 210/02/2020

This looks terrible. I also loved the original. It was way dark for a kid's movie and Angelica Huston was terrifying!

by Anonymousreply 310/02/2020

Roald Dahl would definitely not approve.

by Anonymousreply 410/02/2020

Anne hathaway? Pfft no thanks. I prefer actresses to have a personality

by Anonymousreply 510/02/2020

Anne with an E? Hard pass. I’ll just watch the original again.

by Anonymousreply 610/02/2020

Anne really thinks a lot of herself.

by Anonymousreply 710/02/2020

There's things I like about it (the black characters, the song), and things that I don't (Anne Hathaway as the Grand High Witch).

by Anonymousreply 810/02/2020

Catherine Zeta-Jones would have made a great Grand High Witch.

by Anonymousreply 910/02/2020

I agree, R9. The best part is that they wouldn't need to spend a fortune on special effects for when the Grand Witch gets her wig and shoes off, and shows her true grotesque self: they would only need to film CZJ without makeup!

They could also save quite a bit of money by adding Michael Douglas as part of her retinue of witches. He already looks like a wrinkly old hen - again, no makeup and special effects needed.

by Anonymousreply 1010/02/2020

She could have done a different accent for the Grand High Witch.

I didn't love how the original movie changed the ending from the book, but I loved spotting Bubble from "Ab Fab" in the film as a witch.

by Anonymousreply 1110/02/2020

These are all supporting actors. Who is the lead?

by Anonymousreply 1210/02/2020

Hathaway seems like she'd be better fit as the Assistant Witch that Bubble from Ab Fab played in the original.

by Anonymousreply 1310/02/2020

You people are such sticks in the mud. You all hate every movie or tv show that comes out.

The Hathaway hate was pure bandwagon mindlessness.

She always brings the fun to a movie. She makes them real. She is a good actress and gets no credit.

by Anonymousreply 1410/02/2020

The CGI in the trailer looks so lifelike.

by Anonymousreply 1510/02/2020

I agree, r14. Anne is a very good actress, and fun to watch. I don't get the need for such seething malevolence. I have been in mosh pits more civil than this place.

by Anonymousreply 1610/02/2020

Meh

by Anonymousreply 1710/02/2020

Anne is my kind of actress. The type that absolutely loves movies and acting and the types that were always trying out for all the school plays etc...

But besides that, think about all the terrible people in Hollywood and get back to me about bad Anne is.

by Anonymousreply 1810/02/2020

Roald Dahl called the Nicolas Roeg adaptation "Utterly appalling". He was notoriously hard to please...

by Anonymousreply 1910/02/2020

what accent is Anne using?

by Anonymousreply 2010/02/2020

[quote] what accent is Anne using?

Generic Eastern European.

The kind of accent you hear in a U.K. branch of Aldi shouting at someone to hurry up packing their shopping as there’s a queue.

Or the kind you hear in the White House.

by Anonymousreply 2110/02/2020

[quote] Roald Dahl would definitely not approve.

Roald Dahl is the Mel Gibson on kids books, i.e. a sympathiser who abused women.

by Anonymousreply 2210/02/2020

Glasgow Smiles are going to be the next body-mod trend. Hopefully they replace rather than have to sit on the same faces as those awful caterpillar eyebrows.

by Anonymousreply 2310/02/2020

[quote] Roald Dahl is the Mel Gibson on kids books, i.e. a sympathiser who abused women.

That should be a NAZI sympathiser.

Repulsive.

[quote]There is a trait in the Jewish character that does provoke animosity, maybe it’s a kind of lack of generosity towards non-Jews. I mean, there’s always a reason why anti-anything crops up anywhere; even a stinker like Hitler didn’t just pick on them for no reason. I mean, if you and I were in a line moving towards what we knew were gas chambers, I’d rather have a go at taking one of the guards with me; but they [the Jews] were always submissive.”

by Anonymousreply 2410/02/2020

He was a racist, an anti-Semite, and a wife abusing, cheating scum. His first wife was divine, though.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 2510/02/2020

I hate Anne Hathaway so much, so this is a no from me. Why remake the Anjelica Huston one?

by Anonymousreply 2610/02/2020

Robert Zemeckis used to be the trendsetter but now his film is being dumped on streaming. Sad.

I think Anne looks like she'll do a decent job, but Huston was perfect.

I didn't realize they were switching the story to America but Octavia Spencer is a great choice for the grandmother.

by Anonymousreply 2710/03/2020

Love the dark original Grim fairytale mood of the one with Anjelica Houston, but even that one chickened out and turned the kid back into human again at the end.

This one looks more kids friendly (aka. Disney) fun. And I love Octavia Spencer. And I am sorry if I am alone with this, but Anne seems to chew the scenery with such gusto that I find it quite entertaining.

by Anonymousreply 2810/03/2020

It would have caused Dahl great distress to know that his beloved granddaughter Sophie married not just a Jew but the grandson of a Jew who fled Nazi Germany. Sophie and Jamie Cullum have 2 lovely Jewish children.

by Anonymousreply 2910/03/2020

[quote] Robert Zemeckis used to be the trendsetter but now his film is being dumped on streaming. Sad.

Have you heard about this thing called Covid? It’s this thing that turns people into coughing zombies if you cough on them and lots of people cough in cinema because of the popcorn dust mixed with carbonated sugary drinks so most cinemas have closed and the big film companies are delaying the big budget films until they find a cure or putting them on tv streaming.

by Anonymousreply 3010/03/2020

What a fucking mess.

by Anonymousreply 3110/03/2020

Dahl's grandson just married a Princess of Jordan.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 3210/03/2020

Is this "Everyone Hates Chris"?

by Anonymousreply 3310/03/2020

Even one of Hathaway's signature bad accents couldn't ruin this one for me. Looks great all around.

by Anonymousreply 3410/03/2020

This is supposed to be scary?

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 3510/03/2020

[Quote] but even that one chickened out and turned the kid back into human again at the end.

How does the book end??

by Anonymousreply 3610/03/2020

What is this shit?

by Anonymousreply 3710/03/2020

I am not (totally) ancient - just 37 - but this is why I won't watch anything made after 1994. Filmmaking lost its balls... Trailer is vom-inducing. *Hurrrrrl*

by Anonymousreply 3810/03/2020

R29 The children are not jewish jewish.

by Anonymousreply 3910/03/2020

[quote][R29] The children are not jewish jewish.

They're Jewish enough for Dahl to have been sickened by it, which is Jewish enough for me.

by Anonymousreply 4010/03/2020

Another bland, focus group, inoffensive kiddie feature...

by Anonymousreply 4110/03/2020

Death Becomes Her is the only good Zemeckis film

by Anonymousreply 4210/03/2020

If I recall correctly R36, the book ends with kid just living out the rest of his life as a mouse with his grandmother.

by Anonymousreply 4310/03/2020

Who will play the Bette Midler part?

by Anonymousreply 4410/03/2020

R43 hmm i can see why they wouldn't want to stick with that ending for the movie.

by Anonymousreply 4510/03/2020

[quote]How does the book end??

He stays a mouse. The book is very faithful to the book except that I believe the with drools blue drool. Anjelica speaks exactly the way the character speaks in the book and looks exactly as she does in the illustrations. Dahl was elated that she had been cast.

by Anonymousreply 4610/03/2020

I love the question on another site that said, "How are black folks staying in a white hotel in the 1960s?" This film is so faaaaar away from the source material. I knew it would be horrible the minute Hathaway was cast. The book isn't set in the 1960s with a black family. They're Norwegian. So they can't say, "Our version is more faithful to the book and that's why we made it."

So limme guess, it's only the bottom half of Hathaway's face that's fake?

by Anonymousreply 4710/03/2020

Did they just film this shit on a blue screen?

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 4810/03/2020

At least they're saying 'Re-imagined by Robert Zemeckis". It's not the book.

by Anonymousreply 4910/03/2020

R42, Back To The Future is a really good movie.

by Anonymousreply 5010/03/2020

No one goes to see Anne Hathaway in a damn thing anymore. get real

by Anonymousreply 5110/03/2020

The desperation in her eyes is really obvious now. AnnE we’re just not that into you as Oprah would say.

by Anonymousreply 5210/03/2020

I think the casting is creative with Hathaway and especially Spencer as the grandmother but the CGI looks awful.

by Anonymousreply 5310/03/2020

[quote]This film is so faaaaar away from the source material. I knew it would be horrible the minute Hathaway was cast. The book isn't set in the 1960s with a black family. They're Norwegian. So they can't say, "Our version is more faithful to the book and that's why we made it."

It must be so exhausting being you.

Last Christmas a ne BBC production of A Christmas Carol got the loonies out screaming WHY IS BOB CRATCHITS WIFE MIXED RACE ITS SO UNREALISTIC ITS LITRULLY RUINED MY XMAS when they had no problem the concept of ghosts and time travel.

Now it's WHY ARE THERE BLACKS STAYING IN A HOTEL ITS SO UNREALISTIC and when the concept of children being turned into mice is just OK WHATEVER.

by Anonymousreply 5410/03/2020

Putting aside my disdain for Anne Hathaway, the parts without her actually seem like an improvement on the original. I loved The Witches as a child, but Anne is a poor successor to Angelica Huston. When I first saw the movie poster I thought she was Kate McKinnon, which would’ve been an improvement.

by Anonymousreply 5510/03/2020

Zemeckis can be a great filmmaker. I Wanna Hold Your Hand from 1978 is a fun movie and Romancing the Stone is fun, too, mostly because of Kathleen Turner.

by Anonymousreply 5610/03/2020

This is a reimagined take on the source material. And there were integrated Hotels in the 60s 🙄🙄🙄

Some places started integrating in the 40s, for Christ’s sake.

by Anonymousreply 5710/03/2020

[quote]This is a reimagined take on the source material. And there were integrated Hotels in the 60s 🙄🙄🙄

It's set in Alabama in the 1960s.

by Anonymousreply 5810/03/2020

[quote]Last Christmas a ne BBC production of A Christmas Carol got the loonies out screaming WHY IS BOB CRATCHITS WIFE MIXED RACE ITS SO UNREALISTIC ITS LITRULLY RUINED MY XMAS when they had no problem the concept of ghosts and time travel.

Way to miss the point. The word they gave as the reason they were doing this, was to make a film that was closest to the source material. It now turns out that it couldn't be any further if it tried, making this adaptation completely useless.

by Anonymousreply 5910/03/2020

Alabama began the process of desegregation in the 1960s. The film probably, or at least should reflect this.

That being said, there was no need for this reimagining. It adds nothing and if anything, it's a slap in the face to the original and the book. If Dahl was upset with the 1990 version, this one would have outright killed him.

by Anonymousreply 6010/03/2020

The original idea was for Guillermo del Toro to make a stop-action version. That would have been interesting. Not this crap.

by Anonymousreply 6110/03/2020

The last good film that Zemeckis made was "What Lies Beneath" and that was 20 years ago.

by Anonymousreply 6210/03/2020

R62 i can't believe Clark Gregg wrote that movie.

by Anonymousreply 6310/03/2020

why, r63?

by Anonymousreply 6410/04/2020

[quote]Way to miss the point. The word they gave as the reason they were doing this, was to make a film that was closest to the source material. It now turns out that it couldn't be any further if it tried, making this adaptation completely useless.

It's a film about WITCHES WHO TURN KIDS INTO MICE and you're complaining about how historically authentic the film is for casting black actors!

Your point is not being missed, it's crystal clear!

by Anonymousreply 6510/04/2020

AnnE hasn't had a hit for years. I do like Octavia though.

by Anonymousreply 6610/04/2020

r35's photo reminds me of the drag queen, Yvie Oddly, Out of drag.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 6710/04/2020

Here he is in drag:

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 6810/04/2020

frightening R68

by Anonymousreply 6910/04/2020

Roald Dahl treated our beloved Patricia Neal like shite.

by Anonymousreply 7010/04/2020

[quote]It's a film about WITCHES WHO TURN KIDS INTO MICE and you're complaining about how historically authentic the film is for casting black actors!

That's not what I said. You're an idiot. I'm sure you've been told that repeatedly throughout your miserable life.

by Anonymousreply 7110/04/2020

A drag queen as the Grand High Witch would be amazing, or Cher, which is much the same thing.

by Anonymousreply 7210/04/2020

Indeed, r72. Plus Yvie has a condition which makes all her ligaments super loose, so she can crabwalk upside down, Exorcist style, and has a scalp that looks like a brain:

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 7310/04/2020

Well that didn't fucking work. Let's try this:

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 7410/04/2020

wonder why hathaway has become so unappealing. not sure....seems smarmy n stuff..

by Anonymousreply 7510/04/2020

Her Oscar campaign turned people off. She's never really recovered from that. Winning the Oscar really didn't do much for her career.

by Anonymousreply 7610/04/2020

Hathaway isn't a bad actress by any stretch, but she just doesn't have much screen presence. But to be fair, not many actors do anymore.

by Anonymousreply 7710/04/2020

R72 Cher was among those considered for the role that eventually went to Huston. And while Cher is my #1, Huston was PERFECT in the role, and achieved a performance that I just don't think Cher was capable of. But now that they've remade it, I'd love to see what she'd have done with it.

by Anonymousreply 7810/04/2020

"not many actors do anymore" - so true, r77

by Anonymousreply 7910/04/2020

This looks dreadful and not at all scary. Anne Hathaway is a terrible choice for the Grand High Witch; she’s not intimidating and her accent work is terrible. Eva Green or Famke Janssen would have been much better, but no one could top what Anjelica Huston did in the original .

Octavia Spencer I find far more likable as a personality, but not a particularly skilled or versatile actress. Her line readings are safe and predictable and she’s just not that interesting to watch. Swap her out for Lorraine Toussaint and we might have something decent.

by Anonymousreply 8010/12/2020

R18, of course Anne is a wonderful person and would great fun to have as a friend. She's awesomely cool and I like her a lot.

But as an actor, she's bland to the point of being unmemorable in almost everything. She's OK in a few things like the Devil Wears Prada, because the character is a really good person who is basically bland. But as a performer she's generally boring, and over-the-top makeup and special effects are not going to change that.

by Anonymousreply 8110/12/2020

I have no issue with the casting, but will the grand high witch be ripping her face off? Will the little girl be captured and stuck in that painting? It already looks like the witch with the snake who tries to capture Luke will be far less sinister and come with a computer generated snake to boot. There's no way this will be anywhere near as terrifying as the original.

by Anonymousreply 8210/12/2020

R35 no but this is.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 8310/15/2020

Miss Huston had to suffer big time on the set of the original one. But it was definitely worth it, because those practical makeup effects looked only a million times better than the awful CGI mouth on AnnE.

[quote] The elaborate makeup effects for Huston's Grand High Witch took six hours to apply, and another six to remove. Huston described a monologue scene she had to do where "I was so uncomfortable and tired of being encased in rubber under hot lights for hours that the lines had ceased to make sense to me and all I wanted to do was cry. The green vapour used extensively at the end of the film was oil based, and would obscure the contacts in Huston's eyes, which had to be regularly flushed out with water by an expert.

by Anonymousreply 8410/16/2020

R83 Dear God in heaven!

by Anonymousreply 8510/16/2020

The movie should instead be called "Karens".

by Anonymousreply 8610/16/2020

The movie should instead be called "Karens".

by Anonymousreply 8710/16/2020

R83 reminds me of Fright Night.

by Anonymousreply 8810/16/2020

yes. it's not very original or anything approaching the practical effects of the original

by Anonymousreply 8910/16/2020

Please stop dropping trailers. I just vacuumed.

by Anonymousreply 9010/16/2020

CGI lacks charm and artistry.

by Anonymousreply 9110/16/2020

Looks like shit

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 92Last Saturday at 6:32 AM

[quote] Catherine Zeta-Jones would have made a great Grand High Witch.

CASA Zeta Jones!

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 93Last Saturday at 6:51 AM

Hope it flops

by Anonymousreply 94Last Saturday at 7:07 AM

It won’t.

by Anonymousreply 95Last Saturday at 7:15 AM

Im watching it right now...via Putlocker...so far it looks good, but sorry, Chris Rock is narrating as the little boy grown up and man is it distracting. He takes you right out of it....

by Anonymousreply 96Last Saturday at 8:21 AM

More faithful to the book...production was good, its a kids movie.

by Anonymousreply 97Last Saturday at 9:30 AM

Is it more faithful to the book though, R97? Yesterday I watched the new one on HBO Max and today I went ahead and rented the old one on amazon. My husband was complaining in the background during both movies, but even he admitted the original was more captivating and a better movie.

The CGI is lackluster compared to the extensive makeup and Jim Henson puppets used in the original. Not only does it serve to make the witches seem more scary and lifelike, it makes for a much more exciting film from a filmmaking perspective. The story is not an easy one to translate to film without CGI, and I was constantly impressed by how inventive and original the filmmakers were to make the story work. The new movie just seems lazy in comparison.

I agree with the poster who said that Chris Rock takes you just completely out of it.

The casting of Anjelica Huston was perfection. Eva or Famke are interesting ideas too. AnnE did her best, and was fine. Maybe I liked the boy in the new one better— the actor in the original didn’t really add anything to the movie, but everything else was just so inspired it didn’t seem to matter as much.

Overall, the original was just more exciting and captured the sinister vibe perfectly. I loved it.

by Anonymousreply 98Last Saturday at 9:46 AM

Yes, the original was better due to Angelica Houston...the production was better in the sequel...the ending was more like the book in the sequel. Chris Rock was a major misstep in casting, Anne Hathaway held her own. Loved the girl turned into a chicken in the beginning.

by Anonymousreply 99Last Saturday at 9:57 AM

I always like Anne Hathaway (despite the Datalounge hatred of her), and I give her credit for trying to make it doing character work now that her ingenue days are gone. She's still a beautiful woman, and she's a genuinely good actress.

She did indeed act like an asshole the season she was up for Best Supporting Actress for "Les Miserables," but she freely admits it now and makes fun of how ridiculously she behaved, and she didn't do anything that hurt anyone--she just came across as too desperate for the Oscar and to desperate to be a pretty princess on TV. BIG DEAL. At least she's not a stuck-up cunt like Gwyneth Paltrow who tries to get women to shove jade eggs up their vaginas, or someone who helps Donald Trump through her selfish politics like Susan Sarandon.

And as for Datalounge mocking her for years because she made a point of insisting her first name is spelled with an "E": Barbra Streisand will correct interviewers on TV right on the spot if they pronounce her last name wrong, and no one mocks her for that.

by Anonymousreply 100Last Saturday at 10:10 AM

Were there any twists?

by Anonymousreply 101Last Saturday at 10:18 AM

I though it was lady Gaga in the OP ......

by Anonymousreply 102Last Saturday at 10:20 AM

I'm gonna watch it, but that reveal scene flopped. Hathaway can't do the accent. It is extremely unfortunate that this role went to her.

by Anonymousreply 103Last Saturday at 12:20 PM

Anjelica Huston is still alive, looks great and is available for work. She should have reprised the role. Was she even offered it? Age discrimination.

I can list about 10 actresses right now that could have played this role better than Hathaway.

It's honestly a hate crime that this ever was allowed to happen. I'm sorry, Anne. You'll always be the queen of Genovia

by Anonymousreply 104Last Saturday at 12:26 PM

AH wasnt bad...so get over your hate.

by Anonymousreply 105Last Saturday at 12:29 PM

R105 I don't share your mediocre perspective.

by Anonymousreply 106Last Saturday at 12:35 PM

Look homosexuals, Vox’s perma-triggered trans culture critic, “Aja” Romano, completely agrees it’s shit. “She’s” our ally on this one!

Bonus points — “she” points out all the reasons the original story is “problematic.” Of course “she” does!

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 107Last Saturday at 6:47 PM

R107 There's been so many nuanced and clever takedowns of transes issued in the last decade and exactly 0 of them have come from you.

"She" haha, get it? See what I just did there? "She." Incase you missed it, again it's "she."

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 108Last Saturday at 8:26 PM
Loading
Need more help? Click Here.

Yes indeed, we too use "cookies." Don't you just LOVE clicking on these things on every single site you visit? I know we do! You can thank the EU parliament for making everyone in the world click on these pointless things while changing absolutely nothing. If you are interested you can take a look at our privacy/terms or if you just want to see the damn site without all this bureaucratic nonsense, click ACCEPT and we'll set a dreaded cookie to make it go away. Otherwise, you'll just have to find some other site for your pointless bitchery needs.

×

Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!