Reviews

So what happens when Hollywood's creative well of ideas for good films runs dry? Well the simple answer is...THIS HAPPENS. It seems that over the past few years the standard Hollywood formula has been to go back to every single classic or at least halfway decent movie and T.V. show from yesteryear and update it for a new generation. Of course in the process of doing this they almost always inherently lose all the originality that the first presentation of the material had, and usually the situations and character stereotypes that worked so well 40 and 50 years ago never translate well into a modern setting. Another obvious thing to point out is that the style of comedy has changed so drastically over the last few decades that any attempt to transpose the comedic style from back then to a more modern style just ends up falling short and seeming out of place. On the other hand, when they try to do a straight up remake without updating things, especially in the comedy genre, it just ends up feeling too hokey and never anywhere near as good as the original. Thus, it would seem like remaking these old movies and T.V. shows would be a no-win situation, but obviously somebody's winning because these remakes always seem to find an audience, occasionally even topping at the box-office. Even the ones that don't fare too well in their theatrical runs usually more than make up for it in DVD sales, thus fueling the Hollywood machine to crank out more of these re-hashed leftovers. So why haven't the majority of movie-goers caught on that these remakes are all hype and no substance that usually do little more than tarnish the memories of the originals rather than pay homage to them? I suppose just because of the nostalgia and the hope that somehow, with all our advancements in the film industry, the powers that be can potentially make the same old story even better. Unfortunately, just attaching a couple of current big-name stars to a film doesn't make it better by any means, no matter how much talent they may have.

So how does Bewitched measure up?...as you can probably guess, not too well. To the writers' credit though, they did try one semi-original concept for the story. Instead of making this movie a straight remake of the original show's storyline, they made the story about a mediocre actor (Will Ferrell) who decides to make a remake of the show "Bewitched" and, just by coincidence, a real witch (Nicole Kidman) happens to be cast as his co-star. The main problem with this movie is the same problem with most remakes; that is the writing and the storyline are sub-standard at best. Funny man Will Ferrell simply isn't very funny in this movie. Instead of playing the funny guy, he rather plays the straight man who happens to be slightly humorous just because he's thrown into an odd situation in which he's completely clueless as to what's going on around him. Nicole Kidman, an Academy Award-Winner and good actress in her own right, simply has no room to work with her poorly-written character. The Samantha in the original series always seemed very intelligent and innovative, but Kidman's character, however, seems to be little more than a stereotypical dumb blonde that happens to come off as being somewhat cute in certain instances. However, cuteness can't save this picture. Just based on how the characters are written alone, I'd say both Ferrell and Kidman were horribly mis-cast in the title roles. As for the secondary characters, most of them, including some big names like Michael Caine and Shirley MacLaine, were just so poorly written into the story that most of the time they seem to have no clear purpose except to come in now and again just to break the monotony or advance the shaky plot.

The story, itself, is laughable because the whole plot of the movie seems to hinge upon an ever-growing series of unbelievable coincidences that had to happen apparently for there to even be any action in the movie at all. The film tries to be two completely different things at once and doesn't succeed at being either. The whole idea about making a show about a witch with a woman who turns out to be a real witch could have potentially worked and been rather interesting if the story was completely original and had no ties to "Bewitched". Unfortunately, in this movie you know from the get-go that Nicole Kidman's character is a witch even before Will Ferrell's character does, and thus, that whole sub-plot which comprises half the movie quickly loses its interest. Even if they didn't give away the fact that she's a witch in the story, just the connection with the show "Bewitched" would be enough of a giveaway to make this whole story pointless and uninteresting.

So what's the verdict? Ultimately, if you're not terribly familiar with the characters and the storyline of the original T.V. series, you will probably be completely lost and uninterested in this film because it was obviously made just for fans of the show. This is where some of the poor writing plays a big part because, while fans of the old show may be familiar with all the characters and everything, people who have never seen the show will probably feel a bit lost kind of like they're watching a sequel to a movie they've never seen before or more-so like they're the only ones who are left out of one big inside joke. The writers relied too heavily on people already being familiar to a certain extent with the show, so that the movie itself doesn't stand alone very well, even though it isn't a direct adaptation.

O.K. I'll be the first to admit that the movie could have been better, and in the process of cutting corners to "Americanize" it, many things were left a little too much to the imagination and interpretation. However, there is one very important thing you have to realize when first going into this film that most people don't seem to get. This is a foreign horror movie with foreign sensibilities, and more than anything it tries to be an "Artsy" horror film...which is a very rare breed indeed. The entire film, and especially the ending, is meant to be a bit ambiguous. That is all part of the "Art House" nature of this horror film. Granted the blend between the horror/suspense and artistic mystique is not the most perfect of any film, but this movie actually does give you just enough insight to let you know all the key elements of the main plot points to be able to realize what is going on, despite the fact that a few small points are barely touched upon and just thrown out without any in-depth explanation. But if you really want to nit-pick about every little detail of a horror movie...then you can find little pieces like this in most every horror movie, even some of the classics. You've got to give this movie a little credit though for trying to be something more, even after being re-tailored for American audiences. I really don't even know why studios bother re-packaging foreign horror films or any foreign films anymore though, especially with the latest Japanese and Korean Horror film crazes. Now horror fans are hailing the praises of the foreign horror films' original visions. When I first finished this movie, I was getting ready to say it was mediocre and not worth my time...that was until I saw the very ending which was totally a "NON-HOLLYWOOD" ending that leaves the viewer with some sense of "INTENTIONAL" uncertainty. After I saw that, I soon realized that I had just watched more than a standard horror flick...and the differences were so subtle and underscored all throughout the film that I didn't even realize it. This makes this film, in my opinion, lie somewhere between "ingenious" and "not fully realized". Despite my final revelation by the end of the film though, the effect of the whole storyline was hurt quite a bit still by unsteady plot pacing. Also, ultimately the whole thing with the children always standing around in the shadows seemed to bare resemblance to a lot of other recent horror films, though it may not have seemed so much that way a couple of years ago when this movie was first released. Lately most horror flicks have a bunch of freaky ghost children and the like...and quite frankly it's getting old...though it was good the first half a dozen times or so.

In the end, your overall outlook of this film will be greatly determined by two things...1) How you initially approach the movie upon first watching it (either as more of an artsy movie or standard horror) & 2) How the ending strikes you and whether it makes things fall into place better for you or just leaves you with more questions (unfortunately the ambiguous nature of it that some will love will also be the very reason that just as many will hate it...which is probably why this film will never get much more than an average review on this site) In closing, I'd like to say that I did like the overall concept of trying to have the film be more about classical concepts such as Light and Dark...the pure essence of Good & Evil...in this case mostly Evil. The title "Darkness" fits perfectly. I feel that this movie tried to be some kind of metaphor in itself, but once again, due to the underscoring of many of these basic ideas...the viewer tends to lose this idea somewhere in the basic plot that the film sets up to convey this idea. The film unfortunately tries to be very general in its presentation of Good vs. Evil while also presenting a rather convoluted and intricate plot that is supposed to set up this very idea but rather loses it in the mix for the most part.

You've got to give the filmmakers credit for this Ultra Bleak and Hopeless Ending as well. Hollywood won't put out a movie that ends like this, so you've got to at least acknowledge the fact that this film has the balls to end on the lowest note possible.

Given that Jamie Fox's former leading credentials not that long ago were limited to the Fox comedy series In Living Color and the atrocity of film, Booty Call, this is a truly pleasant surprise break-out performance. Jamie Fox is Ray Charles in this movie. You never question it or even think of him as Jamie Fox. It truly is uncanny. He physically looks like him, especially with the glasses, but the true magic of the performance is that he acts just like him. He walks around and performs like him, smiles like him, and just does everything like him. This is the best rendering of a real-life character in film since Jim Carrey's depiction of Andy Kaufman in Man On The Moon. However, I'd venture to say that Fox's rendering of Ray is even better. The film itself is good too, though it fails to make a smooth transition in several parts of it and lulls in some parts, while not lingering long enough in others. Of course all films of this nature that are essentially biographies to some extent tend to suffer somewhat from things of this nature. It's hard to pack 70 years into 2 1/2 hrs. Thus, the script mainly traces his early days starting out in music up into the late 60's, with a few flashbacks into his childhood and a brief jump to a single event in 1979. This is the only film I have ever seen in which the entire audience, myself included, stood up and gave a standing ovation after the last scene. It's a celebration of the life of Ray Charles that must be seen by all of his fans. The film doesn't pull any punches though. Two of the main dramatic focuses of the picture are Ray's infidelity on the road and his heroine addiction. All-in-all, a good movie, a great Oscar-worthy performance, and a good way to spend 2 1/2 hrs. This movie held my attention so well throughout its entirety that I really couldn't believe it was nearly as long as a lengthy epic like Titanic. A few quick notes: Jamie Fox spent a lot of time with Ray Charles in preparing for this role. Jamie wore prosthetics during the entire filming of the movie that made him unable to see, so if you wonder why he acts like he's blind so well, it's because he was for the movie. Also, he did all the piano playing himself, as he is practically a professionally trained pianist himself. However, for the singing, Jamie lip syncs perfectly to Charles' vocals. Overall, 8/10 movie...10/10 Jamie Fox performance.