Halloween will soon be upon us and with it, classic Halloween films. Ask anyone who grew up in the 1990s or early 2000s what their first or favorite Halloween films were, and Hocus Pocus will probably top the list. With three incredible lead actresses (Bette Middler, Kathy Najimy, and Sarah Jessica Parker), quotable lines, and bewitching songs, the film will probably endure much longer than the Sanderson sisters.
This said, many critics feel Hocus Pocus is overrated and too campy. It's not necessarily scary, unless you're around little Dani's age (played by Thora Birch). Many critics are unsure why a Disney movie aimed at kids and tweens talks so much about virginity and sex. Others claim that though they try, the Sanderson sisters just aren't that funny.
So what's the truth behind Hocus Pocus? What makes it good? If the elements listed above are not done well, what is (or is the film scarier, funnier, or smarter than we give it credit for)? Did the three lead actresses give their best or sell themselves short/"phone it in?" Discuss.
I've always been mystified by the popularity of this film. A critical discussion about its craft and elements would be very interesting. Perhaps, this exploration could increase my appreciation of this quirky romp. – L Squared7 years ago
I watched it last year to see what all the fuss was about (saw it as a kid, but in an elementary cafeteria with poor acoustics, so I didn't hear/understand a thing). IMHO, some parts are good but it's not the A+ film a lot of people seem to think it is. I'd argue that with films like this, the nostalgia filter blinds viewers to certain flaws. Of course, that could be good or bad. – Stephanie M.7 years ago
Definitely need to address nostalgia goggles and how the new generations react to this without that previous experience. – AGMacdonald7 years ago
A modern trend as it would appear, in superhero films-especially those within the DC comic book universe, would be the darker, more realistic cinematic portrayal of the heroes themselves. This trend seemed to be pioneered by director Christopher Nolan in his critically acclaimed 'Dark Knight' trilogy which showcased the most critically installment of Batman thus far. This article could discuss these titles as such.
With online services like iTunes and Vudu offering consumers the chance to buy movies and TV shows digitally, has the relatively new 4K Blu-Ray arrived at the wrong time? How much longer will DVD formats in general last?
It may be worthwhile to look into media history comparing Blockbuster and Netflix to see how they adapting to changing consumer trends in the same DVD and streaming challenge. – Munjeera7 years ago
Good topic. In my opinion I don't think DVD will die, maybe it will evolve more and more but never completely die. Some people love to have their own physical copy. Just like people collection toys, cards, decors, some people collect physical copies of their favorite movies. As an example, look how vinyls have done a huge comeback, and all because people love to have a collection of them, even if there are services like Spotify, Deezer, Apple music and more. Actually, digital music has been around for quite a while, but physical copies still sell. – Andres Tovar7 years ago
Analyse why the new Chinese movie Wolf Warrior II have witnessed great success in such a comparative low budget? And also, what is the advice for making national cinema to go internationally competitive in the Hollywood context? Would big budget or cooperation with Hollywood crew be a must?
It would be interesting to expand this topic to include examples of other medium-to-low budget Oriental films that have had great success globally and, perhaps what impact or influence these may have had on Western film makers. I confess I haven't seen Wolf Warrior II, so I'll put it on my 'to watch' list. Also worth addressing is whether there is actually a need to compete with Hollywood when domestic audiences in China or South Korea for example do engage with their domestic film makers enthusiastically. – Amyus7 years ago
Frank Grillo does decent work. On the other hand, ‘The Great wall’ was not as successful as Matt Damon had hoped it would be. – Dr. Vishnu Unnithan4 years ago
A detailed analysis of the existentialist nature of films by Woody Allen. It's pretty interesting how many of his films challenge contemporary societal issues through existentialist ideologies. This article could be a break down of his various films and the manner in which they explore ideas relating to existence and the meaning of life, often in a comical manner. From Bananas to Annie Hall to the more recent Cafe Society, Woody Allen films are typically incredibly humorous whilst also a great insight into the meaninglessness of life. What you all think?
I would love it if someone explained Woody Allen. I have never gotten the appeal. – Munjeera7 years ago
Perhaps a disclaimer could be written to focus on the movies only and not his personal life. I was never a fan and his point often escaped me anyway. – Munjeera7 years ago
That's a good point Munjeera! I feel like often the point of his films can go over your head. They're not necessarily supposed to be extremely thought-provoking or anything (excluding Interiors and a few others) but they still have that reoccurring theme of existentialism which I personally quite enjoy and find very interesting.
– ninaphillips277 years ago
I take great interest in revisiting the past works of screenwriting. I felt the same way about Robin Williams; could never really engage with his early comic charades, his escapades into worlds of fantasy, and finally his masterpieces: Dead Poets Society, Good Will Hunting. All the pieces of that literary puzzle eventually came to light. Robins and Allen teach us that life is as jovial as it is entrenched in trivial matters--much ado about nothing--if I may. – lofreire7 years ago
His films certainly have a cynical overture too them, this article could reveal the intimidation of existentialism and that it often leads to pessimism. – Iliasbakalla7 years ago
Discuss the political climate that existed in the American entertainment industry in the early 1950s that was exploited by Senator Joseph McCarthy and the House In-American Activities Committee (HUAC), and ramifications of the committee's investigations.
This could be a great topic. There is a play that deals with it, "Are You Now or Have You Ever Been?" Check it out!
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1844626.Are_You_Now_or_Have_You_Ever_Been_and_Other_Plays – L Squared7 years ago
Movies can be said to entertain us, thrill us, scare us, and even make us cry. However, there are certain movies that reach a new level of violence that can cause nightmares, tears, and the desire to copy it and send it back out into the real world causing real harm to others just because it looked cool in a movie. When is too violent?
An interesting topic, and definitely one worth pursuing. It might also be interesting to see how the standards have changed. When some films from the 70s and 80s were transferred to DVD, their censorship ratings were often downgraded, particularly in regards to violence. You might also consider how Western society seems to be far more squeamish and conservative about sex (even to this day). A perfect example was seen here in Australia. Game of Thrones has been given an R rating every season except for season 3, despite this being the season containing The Red Wedding. A pregnant woman was stabbed in the stomach, and yet this was the only season (so far) to be given an MA15+ rating. So, apparently fifteen year olds can watch the murder of a unborn child, but they're not mature enough to watch characters having sex. – AGMacdonald7 years ago
Are we making a distinction between the demographic who watch them and the demographic who they are intended for? If a film is a incredibly violent and it's classification accurately conveys that then the demographic watching the film likely won't find it too violent. I don't quite understand your topic, unless you were to focus on something like issues with film classification, as AGMacDonald mentioned in the above comment. – LeonPatane7 years ago
I think people are only hit with "too violent" when the movie was improperly advertised. People dumb enough to reenact violent things from movies are going to happen, so debating the censorship of all movies ever made isn't quite helpful. I think the focus should be on movies that went too far from what viewers were made to expect, and how that impacts people. I remember liking to watch horror movies with my friends as a preteen and we popped in something we thought was strictly a suspense slasher. Blood, gore, and a little bit of soft core porn were considered acceptable. But then five to ten minutes of the movie was spent depicting rape. My friends were deeply disturbed and wanted to shut it off, for them that was "too far" whereas I agree with AGMacdonald in that our idea of certain kinds of violence over others at a certain age is terribly askew. What levels and types of violence are acceptable at not just which age rating but in which genres? – Slaidey7 years ago
As someone in the filmmaking world, I don't ever want to tell someone to "tone down" their movies. I think movies are great ways of communicating something important in an entertaining way. But I agree with Slaidey, they need to be properly advertised. Also, I think if you are someone who knows they will be offended by strong violence, it's your job to find out before watching a movie if it's going to offend you and then make a decision as to whether you will watch it or not. Good topic, I think it's one worth pursuing. – maxxratto7 years ago
Most of the comments I would have made regarding this topic have already been more than adequately addressed by other commentators. Perhaps an historical context would work best, as suggested by AGMacdonald, combined with a look at the psychology (or should that be psychopathy? [sic]) of violent films that would, unfortunately by necessity, have to include an acknowledgment of snuff movies. As long as there is an audience for this stuff then extremely violent films and/or TV series will continue to be made...sadly. – Amyus7 years ago
This is certainly an interesting question, but one that might be impossible to answer. Perhaps if you changed the question, such as, "How violent is too violent for X demographic?" There's plenty of research and controversy on what kids, teens, and even adults should expose themselves to. I think choosing one demographic will help your article tremendously. – Stephanie M.7 years ago
Netflix recently released its live action adaptation of Death Note, and people were less than impressed by it. A few people who have not seen the original have said that they enjoyed the film for what is was. Without associating it with the source material, is there joy and entertainment to be found here? Also, is it possible that the whole 'white washing' element cast a dark cloud over the whole production (which seemed a bit odd considering that it is the most diverse iteration of Death Note with a wide array of characters from many different races). It would be very interesting to find reasons while the Netflix adaptation, though flawed, was not as bad as people made out.
I feel like what made people so upset about this was not necessarily the "white washing", but the uprooting the entire premise of the show and moving it to America. – ees7 years ago
It's embedded in the nature of adaptation. Rampant fandoms prove to be a consumer lock but also a social media nightmare. Manga/anime fandoms are serious and tough. If we were talking about any number of other adaptations, it wouldn't be that big of a deal. That people are mad for the Obha & Obata manga (and subsequent, concurrent anime series) automatically sets an absurd bar for any adaptation. Check *Oldboy,* maybe. It's done a series of adaptation loops. Regardless, good topic. – Paul A. Crutcher7 years ago
