Hocus Pocus

Boy, when they say "Disney version of witches," they ain’t kidding. It’s remarkable to think, in retrospect, that this live action film was being produced roughly contemporaneously as the same company’s animation unit was creating Aladdin, Beauty and the Beast, and The Lion King. Clearly, the live-action side of the lot did not catch up to its fellow filmmakers for several years (and arguably, based on some recent efforts, it never did). Indeed, while this effort tells a cute story and has some enjoyable elements, it is also true that there is little in this work that is inventive, especially clever, or particularly artful. The quality here is about on a par with your average Disney-produced TV movie. I’d expect a similar quality effort today to premiere on Freeform (the erstwhile ABC Family Channel), or perhaps direct-to-streaming on the Mouse's own platform (as did this one’s long-germinating sequel). Yet this got a major theatrical release when it opened! I guess enough people liked it to make a sequel desirable—or, alternately, the streaming service is that desperate for content. Probably the latter. I’m not saying anyone involved here needs to avoid being seen in public; I’m merely suggesting that this movie may not be all that it’s cracked up to be. Watchable, yes—but hardly spellbinding.

3:10 To Yuma

For all the shooting and other assorted noise, this powerful film is subtle and nuanced--almost philosophical--when it counts. Wonderful performances by Crowe and Bale as polar opposite characters--on different poles, separated by the entire globe, yet still on the same planet--lay the foundation for the story's stunning climax. Not to be missed.

Melinda and Melinda

Two divergent and competing story lines feature smug, pretentious, rich New Yorkers vs....smug, pretentious, rich New Yorkers. Perhaps that wasn't the wisest choice. But this one has problems from the ground up. The movie presents a concept story, one that may have merit in its own right, but all concepts take place within a context, here that context really works against the tale(s). The Architectural Digest interiors, the profoundly elite lives and professions of the cast, the insular feel of the presented milieu--all are distracting and work to hamper the viewer's appreciation of the philosophical puzzle being put on display. Worse still, the stories have their own share of weaknesses: the dramatic events seems shallow and unimportant, the comedic turn comes across as bland, unfunny and lacking in true wit. Both threads suffer from weak, stilted writing, and feel artificial, flat, and too "inside" to appeal to most viewers. Top it all off with the violently unfunny Will Ferrell pretending to be Woody Allen--a tired act we've seen before, and done better by better actors--and the movie comes up short in every facet. This film would have been an inferior effort from a first timer; from writer/director Allen, it's a disaster.