I didn't like the name. I avoided this movie. Because I don't like esoterics. I also didn't know it was from Updike's book. Puncture out. Now I can say that the film is great. I did because I was in quarantine.
I didn't like it at all. The actions of the heroines are incomprehensible and unexplained. How and when did they realize they were witches? Why we were not told about this and other events taking place in the city, and the audience should get to everything themselves. It felt like they were shooting a lot of material, but they had to cut and cut everything. Hence, it is as if from pieces a glued film. In the '90s, it looked like a hurrah, and now it's not a cake at all.
After reading the good reviews for Eastwick Witches, I had no doubt I would watch Halloween tonight, as the title seems intriguing. But despite the fact that this is a recognized classic, I still write a negative review. Why? I'll tell you.
I’ll start with the positives – this is an excellent cast, the quality of which is pleasant to watch and ... perhaps this is the only one.
Among the minuses: first, the unclear message of the picture, what exactly do the heroines want from life, from men, from themselves? I will tell you right away, I have not read the book of the same name, but I know from the plot of the book that many storylines have not been disclosed, perhaps due to the fact that they have been omitted, and some connections have disappeared.
Second, the incomprehensible logic of the characters and the reason for their actions. You know, you always empathize more with the characters when they are close to you, their actions are clear or in any case, their feelings, the logic of their actions are so revealed that you sympathize with them, and even if you disagree with them, you still understand why they do this. There's no such thing. The film seems to “jump to the tops”, without delving into the forest, into the souls of the heroes. And the point here is not in a concise narrative, there are small fragments of films where the character could skillfully describe and bring closer to the viewer in a short time.
Third, if you expect in this film a different interpretation of the relationship between men and women, a kind of sparkling comedy, or even sarcasm on the vulgarity of life, which they like to play and often very cleverly, then you are unlikely to find it here.
So, what is it? Our three main characters Alexandra Medford, Jane Spofford and Suki Ridgemont live and miss in a small provincial town. And since they have problems with their personal lives, they dream of meeting a man who would change their lives. Typical story, right? And, oh miracle, this man, in the person of Daryl van Horn, who is brilliantly disgustingly played by Jack Nicholson, appears as a result of a mystical coincidence of the thoughts of three women.
The dialogue between the characters is not too deep, although it seems to be claimed. The only glimpse of common sense flashes in the heroine of Share - Alexandra in her dialogue almost at the beginning of the film. But disappointment quickly follows. The rest of the witches. Jane and Sookie don’t even resist much, and you won’t hear any arguments from them. Again, neither motivation nor logic is clear. Here only circumstances rule over the heroes, and they obey them.
I don’t know why, but it seemed to me that it had to be a fairy tale, albeit with witches (why would they not experience happiness?), the idea of finding love, although it may be mistaken, but it turned out to be a degradation of the main characters.
Honestly, I do not understand how this film entered the treasury of world cinema. In my opinion, there was no sparkling comedy, no “cute” horror, and some scenes are generally unpleasant to watch (purely visual).
The bottom line is that women are dissatisfied with men and men are dissatisfied with women.
In the behavior and condition of the heroines, we do not see progress. The plot in the film is quite weak, I did not laugh and did not empathize with the characters, but was surprised by their slowness and dullness. I believe that the film was essentially drawn only by actors who tried to convey the moods of their strange and poorly motivated characters.
Writing the novel ' Eastwick Witches', the writer John Updite of course wove an element of mysticism into his story, but in his work the main plot was still close to reality. This was his creative style - to show the American way of life in small cities with a certain amount of eccentricity, which nevertheless is not fully detached from reality. but when the decision was made to film the film adaptation of the Istwick Leads & #39, the director George Miller went much further than Update and shot a real mystical tragicomedy.
According to the synopsis, three best friends, namely Suki, Alexandra and Jane, periodically gather together on dreary evenings to discuss their personal lives, with which problems, and also to lament that happiness constantly eludes them. Women lack a strong shoulder, the perfect man to bring color to their lives, and one day their dreams become a reality. But do not be in a hurry to rejoice in this fact. . .
Arriving from afar in a local luxury mansion, Daryl Van Horn immediately becomes a local landmark. And he immediately begins to go around from all sides of our three friends, I dream to put each of the women in bed. But very soon it turns out that the stranger is not just a man, but a real ruler of darkness, a serpent-temptor who came to the city to have fun and implement some insidious plan.
What George Miller did best was work with the cast. Here is not a name, so the real deserved stars. three friends here played by Michelle Pfeiffer, Susan Sarandon and Cher. But Daryl Van Horn was played by Jack Nicholson himself, who always had the image of a charming villain.
To be honest, it was Nicholson who hooked me as a girl in this film. He can not be called a handsome writer, he can even push away from himself, but he is terribly charming. There is a spark in him that attracts women and that he always used in his work to enhance the effect of the role. Thanks to this, Daryl Van Horn turned out to be so attractive, deep and frightening.
' Eastwick witches' have become classics of their genre, they famously handle the original materials, making a routine household novel a real sinister story with a mystical motive.
Michael Christopher and John Updike (let the earth rest on him) wrote the script for this film. Yes, I understand that you know this information or simply do not need it, but still.
We can talk about this scenario both good and bad. All because of some moments that seem a little ridiculous, but not much funny (not related to the comedic narrative). Some scenes that are poorly explained can spoil the impression of attentive viewers. The plot is not perfect and sometimes leaky like Swiss cheese. But that's what makes him good. Yes! That's what he's good at. Why empty and ridiculous dialogue? Chaos (in a good way) is enough. You know, I think most of the scenes were cut on purpose. In order not to spoil the impression of the viewer.
There is drama, experience, magic, not much madness and rampant chaos. Yes, the modern viewer may not like such a plot, because he is used to the fact that everything is explained to him, chewed.
This story will be clear to those who first read the book, as it can cause interest in reading the book on which the film is made. I didn’t read the book, but I was interested in reading the movie. I’m not going to read the movie, I loved it.
History raises some of the themes ingrained in our daily life and can make some people plunge headlong into reasoning.
Initially, the plot will seem funny, even very, but closer to the middle of the film it will be replaced by passion and desire to look further. If you don’t, you’ve either watched more movies than I have, or you don’t have a sense of humor.
Jack Nicholson's play is vivid and memorable. He may not have finished, but he got into the role. I can feel his presence. I think when he played, he said in his heart, ‘Look how angry I am.’ It didn't suit him very well. Even in makeup, it didn’t make me feel afraid, after all, it’s not a horror movie, it’s a comedy. Consider that he has accomplished his task.
Everyone played well. But Nicholson was half a step ahead. That's why I've mentioned it.
Raz said about Jack, I think it would be more correct to mention the Russian dubbing, performed by Vladimir Eremin. The game did not surprise him, but still, he gave an emotion.
Dubbing itself is a complicated thing. But when you hear that the director of synchronized text Olga Kuznetsova, you can breathe and calmly enjoy. There are movies that don’t make it, but that’s okay. True, in some places some moments in the form of sighs, slightly clouded my mind and reminded me of something.
The picture, first of all, does not spoil the eye. That's what matters. Not a quick change of plans, transitions. Also good. The stunts are good. Even the animation doesn't seem disgusting. Beautiful production, costumes. Everything is done and shown as if in one breath.
The musical accompaniment was surprising. No wonder they gave this film an Oscar for the soundtrack. The music is really pleasant, memorable, and I want to listen to it again.
Music not only gives the atmosphere, but also supports it.
We can safely say that this is a successful film directed by George Miller. He didn’t get an Oscar for Best Director.
New England has long been known for its puritanical customs. In particular, the city of Salem, which at one time was the home of witches and was reflected in folklore and popular culture more than once. Another in this regard is no less well-known, but already fictional city - Eastwick, created by the writer from the same New England John Updike in the dilogy of his "Eastwick novels", the first of which directly "Eastwick witches", and the second respectively "Eastwick widows", which was never adapted into cinema. Later, on the basis of books and the success of the film with Jack Nicholson on the ABC channel in 2009, the series Eastwick was implemented, also telling about three girls who, in addition to being more attractive, had unusual abilities opened by a mysterious foreigner who stirred their feelings. The pilot series attracted more than eight million viewers, ahead of the pilot of “Charmed” gathered almost a million fewer viewers. However, by the end of the first season of “Eastwick” the popularity of the series fell very low and less than two weeks after the start of the project was closed.
The film, released in 1987 by Australian director George Miller, who at that time had already gained wide fame thanks to his dystopian cycle Mad Max, describes the story of three women (Alex. Jean and Sukie) embodied in the images of Cher, Susan Sarandon and Michelle Pfeiffer. The first is engaged in sculpting figures for a local souvenir shop, the second is a conductor in an elementary school, the third works for a local newspaper. But despite the fact that girls are busy in some positions and engaged in business, they are unhappy in their personal lives. Every Thursday night they have a bachelorette party at Alex's house and dream of love. In the town in which they live several thousand inhabitants, and when an unusual foreigner with the name Darel Van Horn (Nicholson) comes there, the news passes through all the nooks and crannies. Having bought a mansion with a beautiful view and impressive possessions, which, in addition to the already mentioned advantages, is known for the fact that witches were burned there before.
After the first meeting and a series of incidents, having attracted the attention of all honest people and “our” three girls to his person during a performance in the Philharmonic of the symphony orchestra in which Jean (Sarandon) played, he slowly begins to seduce one of them after another. There is no doubt that the male charismatic, albeit extravagant, and attractive, albeit eccentric, mysterious foreigner Nicholson will charm everyone, and then discover new facets of the magical essence in them. In fact, their attachment to the devil will pay for it.
The film appealed to the author. All the versatility of Jack Nicholson, the attractiveness of the female trio Cher, Sarandon and Pfeiffer. Instead, if you look at the column “genre”, the film positions itself not only as a comedy fantasy. Here and female drama, and melodrama and psychological subtext. And the positioning in this film of the image of Nicholson as an allusion to the serpent tempter in biblical literature is simply not in the eyebrow, but in the eye. And if the film does not like people who prefer a simpler and more ordinary without unnecessary curvatures, conversations and troubles of the main characters, then surely lovers of the beautiful, unusual and delicate.
Free yourself from the secret bonds of Beetlejuice, Beetlejuice, Beetlejuice!
The film fascinates with the spirit of carelessness and freedom. And, of course, the theme is witchcraft, sweet sin and secrets behind every turn. Donelsya “immoral”, anti-Domostroevsky, it illustrates the conflict between the old and the new, between conservatism and freedom, between conformity and a firm personal will.
You can look at the film differently, albeit from a similar angle. The devil, sometimes in the role of Incubus, in archaic culture, reflected the fear of a young girl before a mysterious creature of a man, before the oncoming sometimes sexual life. Forget right now in Google Bryullov’s painting “The Dream of Grandma and Granddaughter”. A young girl dreams of a terrible ghost on a horse. He is the archetypal image of a man - an image as yet unrecognized and therefore awe-inspiring in the young creature.
And the film is like a continuation of the painting by Bryullov: three former such girls, who have already met the age of maturity, soaked the sides of this demonic ghost. The very fact that they are witches is secondary and called to life insofar as they are. After all, to fight the forces of darkness, you need to be yourself a little from the dark world, yourself looming somewhere on the border of worlds. Think of the gloomy Van Helsing, the “not of this world” man who fought vampires and werewolves. Remember Riddick, this very dubious representative of the “human race”, who saw in the dark and fought with the creations of this very mist.
Man is a rather demonic creature. But a woman won't take offense. She's a bit of a devil herself. Society, of course, in a difficult moment will be on the side of men. If he were the last Casanova, he'd get away with it. But the woman will certainly be called a “red whore”, and representatives of her own sex. Mutual enmity and rivalry, instilled in women by the laws of the patriarchal world, render them helpless, thwart female friendship and solidarity. In the end, this friendship and solidarity are stronger than the devil.
Three unmarried friends from a small patriarchal town in New England become the objects of courtship by a mysterious stranger who lives next door in an old castle. The ladies do not immediately realize that they are dealing with a materialized infernal evil, and when they understand this, they decide to tame it with the help of a ritual rite read out in a book on witchcraft. This phantasmagoric story about the Devil, who, in the person of Jack Nicholson, harbors the secret passions of provincial women not of the first youth, is sustained in that fashionable comic book key, when moralizing, shaded with unobtrusive irony, deftly combines with spectacular stunt shootings.
Continuing to master Hollywood after the completion of the trilogy about Mad Max, Australian George Miller demonstrated an enviable ability to radically change the genre, style and theme, but, most importantly, the ability to combine different semantic elements. The occult hyperbole of this black comedy, used to show the life and mores of the American province, was extracted from not the most revealing novel by John Updike and had nothing to do with the previous films of the director, who painlessly adapted postmodern recipes to his needs.
Skillfully combining social satire, including the problem of women’s emancipation and feminist habits, amorous intrigues and a fairy tale plot (the effect of being in an almost toy city is a merit including the operator Wilmosh Zigmond), the Hollywood recruit managed to gracefully bypass all the pitfalls, demonstrating the originality of thinking in a rather limited genre framework. The film, which eventually became a hit, offers not so much a edification about dangerous games with the Devil, as a fascinating comedy extravaganza on the theme “In the quiet pool of witches are found.”
Witchcraft is happening around us—nature seeks and inevitably finds its own forms of existence; crystalline and organic structures are placed at an angle of sixty degrees in an equilateral triangle, which is the basis of everything. – John Updike, Eastwick Witches
John Updike's novel "Eastwick Witches" can only partly be called fertile material for the film adaptation. Shrouded in a mystical flair on the surface, it has a less romantic social core, and half of its charm lies in the author’s unique language, sensual and tangible, with which he sang this peculiar Hymn to the Woman. Transferring the Updike atmosphere to the screen was hardly possible: metaphors and images are too fragile material, and director George Miller, who shot the previously apocalypticly stylish Mad Max, went the other way. He kept the basics of the story, but simplified its essence, unmistakably betting on the magical component. Miller's "Witches" is a fantasy black comedy in which three bored friends accidentally bring to life their collective ideal of a man who turns out to be not a prince at all, but a self-confident rich man with negative charisma and a horned surname Van Horn. And miracles begin...
The heroines nailed to the routine - divorced housewives and mothers with many children who lost the joy of life along with the hymen and the status of unmarried - suddenly experience a new birth. Their magical abilities, dormant under the burden of everyday life, are released, but most importantly, tired and disappointed women find their way to themselves, to their feminine nature, to their nature. Their femininity, forgotten out of necessity, awakens from sleep and returns them to the fullness of existence, turning the heroines into happy and contented daughters of Eve. Most clearly these changes are noticeable in the character of Susan Sarandon – a musician who is complex about excess weight, whose emotional tightness affects even her play, preventing her from reaching new heights in her career. A gray mouse with glasses and hair tightened into a strict braid turns into an uninhibited passionate madam with a stack of red hair and the manners of a young girl. Two of her friends, played by vocal singer Cher and cold beauty Michelle Pfeiffer, also experience something similar, but not so noticeable. All these changes occur thanks to Daryl Van Horn, who fulfills all the whims of the ladies, while taking them as they are, with all the advantages and disadvantages, skillfully emphasizing the first. What else does a woman need to blossom? Van Horn, the devil in the flesh, embodied in the same way as this hero, the negatively charming Jack Nicholson, whose joker smile and crazy look is impossible to place in this ironic film, is in many ways a reminder to men, they say that this is what women need. By the way, this character is most similar to his literary original, "that always wants evil." There is another character in this film that can be called one capacious term - public opinion. As Eastwick’s newest witches learn, society is not always loyal, especially when it comes to awakening someone’s inner goddess who dances samba too openly. It is public opinion that will break the established witch idyll and will cause further developments.
Let "Eastwick Witches" Miller somewhat lost in the sense as a film adaptation, half simplified and partially deprived of its social sharpness, and acquired a noticeable touch of black humor and pop feminism, but the director managed to preserve what was laid in the original - the hymn to female power and solidarity, the ode to female nature - the most amazing and natural magic in the world.
Back in 1987, when the mega-popular TV series “Sex and the City” and “Desperate Housewives” were not even a project, experienced director George Miller, who made a name for himself on the cult “Mad Max” took up the film life of ordinary American women who for various reasons did not have a personal life. Taking as a point of reference the novel by John Updike “Eastwick witches” Miller set out to combine the problems of unsettled female life and fantasy in a comedic, and therefore understandable way. Company for the next film Warner Bros. Pictures picked up what you need: who was at the zenith of his fame is already a two-time Oscar winner Jack Nicholson, already then an outstanding singer Cher, famous for their roles in the films "Hunger" and "Scarface" respectively Susan Sarandon and Michelle Pfeiffer.
So, the backwater American town of Eastwick, with fewer than 8,000 inhabitants. Among them are three bosom friends Alex, Suki and Jane. Alex (Cher) is a sculptor, a widow with a child in her arms, freedom-loving and independent. Sookie (Pfeiffer) is a capable journalist, single mother with 6 (!) children, languid, windy and good-natured. Finally, Jane (Sarandon) is a music teacher, just separated from her husband, serious, focused, all her unspent love, investing in double bass. Young women arrange weekly gatherings, with some stretch resembling covens. On one of these evenings, “soaked” martini, ladies begin to share with each other dreams of the perfect man. As a result, they have a compositional portrait, and by an incredible coincidence, a certain important gentleman arrives in Eastwick in a terrible thunderstorm. Soon he acquires an infamous estate, and gives such an impression to the dulled provincials that no one can even remember his name. This gentleman is the mysterious Darryl Van Horn (Nicholson). The quiet lives of three single women come to an end. A self-satisfied, vulgar, but meanwhile possessing diabolical magnetism, a stranger managed to charm all three at once, groping for the right strings in their souls. Eastwick is restless, the appearance of Van Horn shocks many and among them Felicia Alden (Veronica Cartwright), who sees Satan himself in the alien, and the three friends are real witches. What's going on here soon...
It is worth noting that the events of the film develop very quickly. Even in the middle of the picture, it is difficult to determine its genre affiliation. There are elements of a ladies’ novel, comedy and, most importantly, mysticism. Appeared on the stage, Nicholson immediately switches all the audience attention to himself, giving the three ladies the role of backing vocals. His hero, a kind of allusion to Mephistopherus or the biblical serpent tempter, is much broader and deeper than it initially seems. Naturally, with his bad manners, he immediately turns women against himself, but after opening their ears to his speeches, they later open to him both heart and female honor. For each "witch" he has his own recipe for seduction, many of his turns are just a ready-made manual for the "picture". The scene at Jane's house is particularly impressive. Such a seemingly prim and fresh musician, even she discovers in herself a hitherto dormant animal passion.
Darryl breaks the stereotypes of society, he is equally successfully shared by three mistresses (how not to draw parallels with Dracula). But as you should guess, sweet temptation is followed by retribution. Van Horn has little control over their bodies, he needs their souls. He reveals to them the limits of his power, he managed to use their individual phobias in a terrible mixture. Ladies in horror realize that they can influence the surrounding reality in a way that they could not imagine before. Are they willing to throw themselves into the devil’s mouth? Or will the chains of habitual life be stronger? Darryl believes in himself and his strength, but not everything is under his control. In this crazy and exciting fight, each of the heroines will make their choice.
The movie was quite specific. In it, for example, there is no gloomy Gothic film “Witchcraft”, but the gum for housewives it, fortunately, does not pull. Philosophical overtones decipher clearly not every viewer, but the absurdity of some scenes will certainly catch the eye. It is not known how much Miller aspired to this, but his “Witches” did not do without an excessive grotesque. For example, I really didn’t like Darryl’s cartoon in the end. That was unnecessary. But even in such an unusual picture, maestro Jack Nicholson demonstrates his potential. The role of a damn charming scoundrel seems to be attached to his personality. And not nearly his best role, but we can safely say: if not at Miller Nicholson’s fingertips – the cinema would hardly pay close attention.
The main characters look very good, but the stereotyping of their images pretty much cuts the eye. However, none of them spoiled the lunch. Cher is the most integral and reasonable of the heroines. Susan Sarandon looks more like a witch than others, thanks to her huge eyes, with such appearance and special play is not required. As for Michelle Pfeiffer, we all know she can play better. Somehow she does not resemble the mother of six children, even if her “flying” is noticeable in almost every frame.
Let's take stock. Not everyone will like the movie. With buffoonery here went too much, stereotypes they are stereotypes - not everyone likes such a satire on characters. However, a lot of bright, mesmerizing scenes, excellent (and how else?!) Nicholson's play, a funny plot - make the film interesting to familiarize yourself with. If you abandon excessive seriousness, you can learn a lot of interesting and useful things in the dialogues of the heroes. I recommend
“Eastwick Witches” is a wonderful American fantasy, which has been around for many years, but the film has not lost its relevance and it is quite possible to watch it now. There are few good, high-quality films about witches in world cinema, but this movie turned out to be original and interesting. His story is charming and alluring. I really liked the atmosphere of this magical film and the film itself turned out to be twisted and worthy of attention.
We see the town of Eastwick, where three witches live, but they do not know their abilities. They created a man who turned out to be a terrible monster at heart, and we see the story of witches, which was so wonderfully and tastefully shown to us.
Jack Nicholson is a wonderful American actor who has acted in many worthwhile films, and in this fantasy he played as believable as ever and looked in his complex, controversial role great. He’s an interesting and strong actor, and I can’t imagine another actor for his role, because he played it brilliantly. Cher is a charming and delightful actress, who at one time was very popular and played many interesting roles. In this film I was pleased to see her. She has an unusual appearance and a wonderful acting talent, and of all the actresses she obviously stood out. I consider her a unique and exceptional actress and singer, and I love her films. Michelle Pfeiffer is one of my favorite American actresses, and she has captivated me since childhood. She always plays both comedic and dramatic roles, and so in this film she looked great and played well. Susan Sarandon is also a good and strong actress who has an Oscar and a great acting career, and in this film I was also pleased to see her. The cast is wonderful, so the film turned out bright and attractive.
“The Witches of Eastwick” is a bright and interesting fantasy with elements of comedy and horror, which reveals the story of witches, in which magic, love, desire, fear, secrets and much of everything interesting and secret from the enchanting world of witches reign. The movie was great, and I really like it. I believe that this film is the golden collection of American cinema of the last century, and not watching it means really losing a lot. The film enchants and intrigues with its story, and is a wonderful gift for all fans of this genre and actors, who gathered in his film Director George Miller. “Eastwick Witches” undoubtedly still deserve the attention of the audience of a new generation and a positive assessment. I’ve seen this movie several times, and I think it turned out to be a delightful and excellent gift of American cinema.
9 out of 10
It is not for nothing that since childhood, a young peasant woman is taught so that she does not associate with devilish forces, does not lure anyone to her with a bewitching potion, does not deceive anyone and does not hold evil against anyone. The child grew up in a Christian environment and believed only one of his conscientious patrons, the Lord God, and always did the right thing, as the Bible says, and always forgave and put up with those who looked at him with disgust. It was natural for the little girl not to break the holy traditions and to rejoice in every day after a long and exhausted night. It is not necessarily a noble maiden or the daughter of a noble count—children of different social classes are taught a morally benevolent ideology, and whoever teaches them this must follow the instructions given by the Eternal Word. The word, as they say, is law for them, and the rest are consequences. But different things are written in the family, even with blood, and a frail child can learn anything that is considered acceptable in their family, and it can submit to different forces, and, alas, you will not find a counterbalance to this.
What if this beautiful young creature with golden curly hair looks like a cunning and vain witch? What if this girl brings only misfortune and will bear all her damn existence? What can I do to help? It is strange that a mere mortal can do for a sorcerer: to banish the dark power from her, to resurrect and revive her into the light, or to deceive her and harness her to his dominion? It's best not to mess with those strangers who have so struck your face like beautiful sirens. But who knows, maybe witches can love.
Famous films with a free mythological network of followers of Satanic Eden wanted to answer this question, but, in general terms, they were more like horror stories about terrible ghosts, horned demons, and screaming witches. That's what we're talking about. Now film directors are trying to recreate the newly revived drowned women in the image of a human, and in confirmation of this, it should be noted the work “Eastwick witches”, in which the witch is a character and disgusting and gracious at the same time, servile and reasonable, passes that familiar line between opponents and supporters of black magic, the very majesty Devil is trying to adapt to the other world and not without his faithful retinue.
“Majesty Himself” was played by the seductive pest and prankster Jack Nicholson, whose important figure is just about to take over the entire sinless universe, but he is constantly waiting and every century of his boring forbidden years bears fruit. So, the 20th century brought him three new virgin bodies, three shy Evas, three girlfriends - and Mephistopheles' Smile doubled. This trio turned out to be brunette-beauty Cher, pleasant blonde Michelle Pfeiffer, and melodic-tuned red Susan Sarandon. Three servants of the Devil, three of his servants, three mistresses, and three of his enemies. They, like the same young Eve, discovered a shameful attraction to the great, submitted to foreign gods who betrayed them, fulfilled all the whims of their masters, and rose together like a good Trinity, the one on the icon.
This icon was gilded by the master George Miller, who carefully watched that nothing significant was missing and that the whole essence looked clear and intelligible. This film cannot be called a horror, although there are some unpleasant and intimidating scenes, but also a drama. This is a multi-genre creation, a mixture of black humor with a thriller and fantasy with drama. This mixing is not only more interesting, but also carries a different line - between the heavenly world and the underworld, carries the submissive force of good and evil, it is not just a movie about a small creature that only studies life, it is a movie for older girls and ladies who are ready to give this life for the one who gives it. So, what did Satan give us – avarice, pain, vicissitude, death, and what does the Lord give us?
A new Trinity of good witches, not mean but sensual! From the servants of the smiling Hades to the golden-headed warrior-nymphs!
10 out of 10
This is a good, good movie! Classic, what else can you say?
The film is playful, charming, attractive and filled with deep thoughts. And it is certainly an ode to a woman.
The plot is simple, but how played, what a stunning mystical and humorous atmosphere is preserved in it from the beginning to the very end. The cast is brilliant. Perhaps it is better to choose actors for this tape is simply impossible.
The heroine of Cher - Alex - charming, attractive, mysterious. Susan Sarandon - Jane is extremely sexy, which is called a red beast. And finally, the heroine of Michelle Pfeiffer - Sookie - playful, light, charming. But that was all later, and at first they were quiet, lonely and unhappy women. And as the great Daryl van Horn said, they were afraid of themselves. Yeah, yeah, mesmerizing, sexy, playful. But it is true that next to the real Man, the Woman opens up like a flower and begins to bloom with the most beautiful color that is embedded in her.
Again, this film is an ode to a woman. He elevates her to the top of recognition with amazing monologues that sound from the lips of the one our heroines have been waiting for for so long - not too beautiful, but charming, rich, intelligent Dream Men. Not just men, but the devil himself. It seems to me that Jack Nicholson could not have been a better candidate for this role, as if he was born for it. All his facial expressions, gestures, smile are so devilish that they fascinated not only the Eastwick trinity, but also women on the other side of the screen - it is impossible to resist.
Alex, Jane and Sookie rejoice in such a gift, although not a gift at all, because they themselves conjured the Dream Man over a glass of martini late in the evening, flying literally in the seventh sky with happiness. However, saintly and devout at first glance, but rotten to the bones and immoral, remember at least a schoolteacher, Eastwick is not enthusiastic about the new neighbor. The whole city can not suffer much, but with one of its inhabitants, naturally the holiest, there is some devilishness. Veronica Cartwright, who played Felicia, simply amazingly demonstrated the reaction to the presence of the Devil in the city - it was a real obsession and agony!
"Yet why an ode to a woman?" you ask. This film shows all the power of the Woman, her passion and charms, which could not resist even those who seemed omnipotent, who so frighten sinners. This is the magic of a woman, so by and large all women are witches. The main thing is not to be afraid to reveal this magic for yourself, not to be afraid of yourself, but to live, enjoying every second of your beautiful being!
10 out of 10
Absolutely, absolutely charming film, characterized in that in the manner of fairy tales we are presented with everyday truths about the relationship between men and women. Here, with a meaningful view, you will find answers to many questions. The picture tells us, "Do you want to conquer a woman?" Respond to her wishes.” The most inimitable man in the world - Jack Nicholson plays a seductive devil, the perfect man. 3 heroines are responsible for the feminine principle at once, each of them with a very bright individuality, with hidden potential and special desires, a lesson from which they will learn.
Such a film makes us remember that every woman is a part of her soul-witch, that ideal people do not exist, and in pursuit of them you can waste your life, that your desires need to “feed” and then life will bring pleasure.
The only thing that got lost to me in the movie was the soundtrack. But in general, the picture is easy to lift, pleasant, memorable and, as they say, instructive.
I can’t take this film either well or badly. Despite the fact that the cast is perfectly selected. Jack Nicholson is like Van Horn. As in the book – a little “bear” face, excessive talkativeness, intemperance in behavior and expression. Cher, Susan Sarandon and Michelle Pfeiffer coped with the roles just 100%.
Perhaps the drawback of the picture is that it does not have much in common with Updike's book. In itself, the novel “Eastwick Witches” is more profound, describing the problems and consequences of female emancipation, telling that only the devil can be ideal – and he is inside each of us. The film contains only fragments of the original work - but again, it can not be said that it spoils the film. It's shot close to the text - based on, shall we say. Not word for word, but for motives.
I think there are some deep thoughts in the film. Like the image of Alex. According to the book, Alexandra suffered from depression, looked at the world rather gloomyly - in part Cher managed to make her character just like that - to remember at least her look and facial expression. And Alex’s thoughts that she is imperfect, that she and her friends have locked themselves in a petty world that is woven out of everyday worries slip into the film. That's good.
The very thread that connects the very step of the heroines from hatred to love and back, also slowly goes through the whole picture.
Again, minus is a black comedy. The novel itself is not a black comedy, but rather a melodramatic story with self-irony and sarcasm. There was not enough picture of deep thinking, although, who knows, maybe if it was pure melodrama, then this film would not be so popular. It's not bad. Very much. The film is kept in its manner, it is pleasant to watch - you also admire the acting of actors - especially Jack Nicholson, since he embodied on the screen exactly Updike Van Horne - lustful, intellectually savvy, with an awkward appearance, clumsy, fat, but insanely charming. In this, the picture undoubtedly wins. It's a good movie, but it's not brilliant.
Double, double toil and trouble; Fire, burn; and, cauldron, bubble
In the small town of Rhode Island, the embodiment of hell and paradise of American Nowhere, live three middle-aged friends, but beautiful physiques. Each of them is lonely in their own way, and with outward complacency feminism every Thursday, a jokey coven with martini and vodka inevitably ends up talking about men. Once dreamy chatter sounds frighteningly like a spell and is accompanied by weather effects, and the next morning everyone is talking about an eccentric millionaire who bought a local house with history. True, the name only turns on the language, and it is impossible to remember it. He is disgusting with every move and every word, but that is why, in the spirit of Hugo, the trio Marguerite is so drawn to him. Being single and living in a small town is like playing Monopoly, sometimes you have to encroach on someone’s property. That is why the stranger looks like a ray of light, has a reckless grin, bribes with devilish spontaneity and neurolinguistic programming designed for housewives.
Updike’s novel under Miller’s lens seriously resembles the conditional Maine, and exists according to King’s laws, but not with the inherent depth of the latter. Occultism shrank to metaphors, orgasmic music and cherry voodoo, images were mixed, leaving owners only names, and the diversity of characters was reduced to hairstyle tricolor. The world was ruled by female solidarity, even though the main satirical sight was focused on it, and now he completely surrendered to the will of the devil as a collective peasant. By the way, the devil: all the poor semantic potential of free film adaptation is based on the image of the hero Nicholson and his interpretation. Unromantic and elegant approach, oh no - Van Horn here is quite obvious scum, petty, capricious, but possessing obvious and therefore even more incredible animal magnetism. He personifies chauvinism and personifies all possible sins, and also charmingly advertises Coca-Cola. For Manhattan, a favorite sin is vanity, for the outback, straightforward lust will do. Let the madams believe that they are masters of their own destiny, feminist messages are broken about the dominance of the vagina, and the happy Swedish family confirms this. And weapons, and means, and pride, and honor. What about Satan? He is tired, but unfortunately, does not hermaphrodite, and very manly throws tantrums about the world, where he is powerless against the conspiracy of the fair sex.
Macbeth's parallels add some depth, but semantic hallucinations are limited to the trivial "every desperate housewife is a witch, and every man, if not the devil, at least deserves suspicion." Magic in gossip, magic in empty talk, and the driving force of the world is public opinion. And it would be possible to dig, but there is no reason, a movie only about how three aunts lacked a strong male, say, shoulder, and it turned out to be lousy to formulate wishes. They are beautiful, but Kutsa images, and nostalgic memories do not atone for helplessness. By and large, the way Nicholson, in a dirty robe and madness in his eyes, asks the Lord why the hell he created these women, you could forgive a lot. But I don't want to, I don't want to. A small lustful demon with monkey charm against the background of aunts with porridge in his head let boringly give an attractive confusion characteristic of fifty-year-old cuckolds who took supermodels as wives, but not enough for happiness, and the conclusions end in half a word.
George Miller's Eastwick Witches is one of my favorite films of the late '80s that I still try to watch at least once a year. The film is amazing and even by today’s standards looks not at all outdated for a number of very important reasons.
1. The cast. This is probably one of the few times in a movie where all actors are in their place. Magnificently played roles by Jack Nicholson, Cher, Michelle Pfeiffer and Susan Sarandon became the decoration of the picture, and even small roles of Veronica Cartwright and Richard Jenkins are remembered for a long time.
2. Screenplay. Given that the film is an adaptation of the novel of the same name by John Updike, this is also the case when both the book and the film are equivalent to each other. Michael Christopher has so impressively adapted the book, taking even colorful dialogue from it, that you can not read the book.
3. Music. The soundtrack of John Williams became no less cult than the film, and it is simply impossible not to learn the music from the first notes. The music in the picture creates a truly magical atmosphere.
4. Cinematography. The film “Eastwick Witches” is stunningly beautifully shot and this is the merit of the cameraman Wilmosh Zigmond. Each, even a minor frame is beautiful, like painted canvases in oil.
So, if you are a fan of a good, cult movie, then I recommend watching this magnificent picture. In the genre of “Iswtik witches” is an eccentric feminist fantasy comedy with elements of a thriller, claiming one thing for all men: do not joke with women, otherwise there will be serious consequences. Daryl Van Horn found out all about it.
10 out of 10