Spoiler - alas, more the latter and clearly inferior to the 1990 film "The Witches." But why? Let's try to figure it out.

The days of witch hunts are over – now witches hunt us

We all once believed in fairy tales, right? Dreamed of seeing the real Santa Claus, placed a fallen milk tooth under the pillow for the Tooth Fairy, waited for a letter from Hogwarts. Some of us, who got their hands on books by Roald Dahl, started looking for a golden ticket in chocolate bars - hoping to meet Willy Wonka - or trying to awaken telepathic abilities like Matilda.

At the same time, Dahl knew how to scare as skillfully as he lured with bright colors – we never found out what happened to the naughty children at the Chocolate Factory, and how it came to be that a rhinoceros could swallow someone's parents. And of course, "The Witches." In "The Witches," everything inspires terror – from the mysterious deformed strangers who want to destroy all children, to the prospect of living only nine years as a mouse. In short, you couldn't imagine a more fertile ground for dark children's fantasy.

The new film by Robert Zemeckis cannot be fully called a remake of the first attempt to bring "The Witches" to the big screen by Nicolas Roeg in 1990 - in some cases, the new film is much closer to the original source. However, it is not a more accurate adaptation either, as in other cases it adds many variations on the theme. Whether it's fair to compare the new film with its predecessor is a separate topic for discussion, but in this case, it's simply impossible not to do so.

Why?

The 1990 "Witches" left scars on the tender psyches of TV viewers worldwide. Many current adults recall scenes from that film and shudder. Yet everyone is ready to express their love for this film out loud for a long time, no matter how many questions there are about the ridiculous practical effects or strange directorial decisions. Anjelica Huston was magnificent, the themes were truly creepy, and despite it all, the ending was optimistic (though clearly deviating from the bittersweet conclusion of the book's original source).

What can Zemeckis's new offering give us?

The first impression that formed in my mind from the very beginning was "a film for style's sake." There is a type of cinema where style doesn't so much serve to reveal the story as it is needed for a pretty picture. But after a while, the music kicked in, followed by charismatic actors, and gradually the film began to unfold as a story in its own right. Whether bad or good, it's a story, and that's already an achievement.

Pros

Anne Hathaway has been generating a lot of talk for a long time – some people simply can't stand her, for no particular reason, while others started to feel less favorable toward her after a very strange Oscar for the mediocre musical "Les Misérables." I've always been exclusively positive about her, especially after excellent work in sketch skits on SNL. And she somehow manages to carry this film on her fragile shoulders – and that's despite the fact that Zemeckis, it seems, didn't fully figure out how to work with her.

Sometimes she overacts, sometimes she becomes too much like Bette Midler's character from the film "Hocus Pocus." But overall, in some scenes, she managed to find a good balance between moderate overacting and truly fear-inducing acting. If you watch it in the original, you can even appreciate her Scandinavian accent, which is a nod to the Norwegian characters in Dahl's book.

Octavia Spencer and Stanley Tucci didn't show anything outstanding, but they were in their places and looked pleasant enough. The music set the right mood, and the soundtrack sometimes pleasantly surprised. However…

Cons

However, the cons heavily outweigh the pros (in the humble eyes of this reviewer). The child actors on screen clearly couldn't handle the task, and the moment in the plot after which they continue working solely as voice actors brought almost relief. And that shouldn't be the case. All animals were created using computer graphics, which, alas, are absolutely not top-notch. If the images of the witches can still be called successful, then the snakes, mice, and cats only pulled you out of the narrative, they were so obviously fake.

The very presentation of the story… I was extremely disappointed that one of the most poignant episodes about the girl in the film (which, I'm sure, many remember from Roeg's film) was completely replaced with an unimpressive transformation scene into a 3D animal. Moreover, for dramatic effect, the ending was slightly lengthened and reworked, but a spectacular climax at the highest point of tension, alas, was not achieved. The film turned out strangely unbalanced, not paying due attention to developing relationships between many important characters (hello, Bruno Jenkins, for whom we are supposedly supposed to care) and constantly trying to use Hathaway to the fullest, rather than bringing something new or at least being a full-fledged adaptation.

Verdict

Is it worth watching "The Witches"? If you like Hathaway – yes, if you want to extend Halloween – maybe, if you're curious to see a new masterpiece from Zemeckis – no. The film might scare a child a little and be too childish for an adult, but it definitely won't be memorable and is unlikely to become a classic. And that's a shame.

You can check out the film's trailer here.