Inspiré du classique de 1983 de Roald Dahl, "Les sorcières" raconte l'histoire effrayante, drôle et imaginative d'un jeune garçon de sept ans qui a rencontré de vraies sorcières.Inspiré du classique de 1983 de Roald Dahl, "Les sorcières" raconte l'histoire effrayante, drôle et imaginative d'un jeune garçon de sept ans qui a rencontré de vraies sorcières.Inspiré du classique de 1983 de Roald Dahl, "Les sorcières" raconte l'histoire effrayante, drôle et imaginative d'un jeune garçon de sept ans qui a rencontré de vraies sorcières.
- Réalisation
- Scénario
- Casting principal
- Récompenses
- 10 nominations au total
Avis à la une
I was surprised to the reaction to this film... It's completely inoffensive and does everything it needs to with the charm of grandma, the malice of the Grand High Witch, etc. I'm getting the feeling that these are reactionary responses to yet another 'bland and unoriginal Hollywood' trend even though this is an adaptation of Roald Dahl's book, just like the 1990 version is.
It's alright if people don't like this movie I suppose but acting like it's the worst thing to come to screens is an exaggeration to say the least. Kids are most definitely going to enjoy it, it is for them after all, not the adults comparing it to the 1990 adaptation, so I'd say this film was a success in what if wanted to do.
It's alright if people don't like this movie I suppose but acting like it's the worst thing to come to screens is an exaggeration to say the least. Kids are most definitely going to enjoy it, it is for them after all, not the adults comparing it to the 1990 adaptation, so I'd say this film was a success in what if wanted to do.
The remake was okay but much lighter in tone than its predecessor and the cheesy humor was kinda cringeworthy. I would've preferred a much darker spin and more sinister vibe over this comical TV movie offering but oh well. Octavia was really good as always but the cheap CGI did let the movie down. It's also been very clear for a number of years now that Anne's forte are not accents. I mean she sounded comical and even Scottish in certain parts...like girl come on now. It goes without saying that Anjelica Huston's performance was much stronger and scarier in the 1990 version, but overall the cast, sets and writing were okay.
Oh Dear,
This should have been good, it needed to be good, sadly it just isn't. It's one of those films where a remake didn't seem to be necessary, but as someone that loved Roald Dahl as a child my interest was peaked.
It's inconsistent throughout, did they perhaps rush it because of Covid? The special effects look decent in parts, and woeful in others, Anne Hathaway displays personality it's fair to say, but her accent..... If anyone remembers Rentaghost, think Miss Popov, she spans countries from Ireland to Russia, it had me chuckling.
Once again, please, please try and give us something new and original, stop taking things that have already been made, and making them ten times worse. An extra point for casting the wonderful Josette Simon.
It made me want to watch Anjelica Huston.
I paid to download it, that money could have gone on something less awful, like a Donny Osmond cd.
Naff, 3/10.
This should have been good, it needed to be good, sadly it just isn't. It's one of those films where a remake didn't seem to be necessary, but as someone that loved Roald Dahl as a child my interest was peaked.
It's inconsistent throughout, did they perhaps rush it because of Covid? The special effects look decent in parts, and woeful in others, Anne Hathaway displays personality it's fair to say, but her accent..... If anyone remembers Rentaghost, think Miss Popov, she spans countries from Ireland to Russia, it had me chuckling.
Once again, please, please try and give us something new and original, stop taking things that have already been made, and making them ten times worse. An extra point for casting the wonderful Josette Simon.
It made me want to watch Anjelica Huston.
I paid to download it, that money could have gone on something less awful, like a Donny Osmond cd.
Naff, 3/10.
Roald Dahl was my favorite author throughout my childhood and adolescence, and even now I still tremendously enjoy re-reading his novels, or - even better - reading them to my 8-year-old daughter. Of all the writers in the world and in history, Dahl created the most insanely imaginative fantasy worlds and the most colorfully eccentric characters. In every decade since the 1960s there has been at least one famous film adaptation of Dahl's work, and often they were helmed by some of the world's most acclaimed directors (like Nicholas Roeg, Steven Spielberg, Tim Burton, and now Robert Zemeckis)
"The Witches", Dahl's awesomely grim and eerie novel from 1983, already received a film version once in 1990, and - in my humble opinion - that version stood the test of time very well. Still, the skeptical author got to see it shortly before his death and didn't like it, so producer Guillermo Del Toro and director Robert Zemeckis considered it was time for a re-interpretation. The result is an overall enjoyable movie (or at least more enjoyable than what the harsh reviews around here claim), but nevertheless one with many shortcomings and tiny disappointments.
The narration of Chris Rock feels awkward and misfit from the very first minute. Although he never appears in the film, Rock's voice is supposedly the young and orphaned boy whom, together with his loving grandma, courageously confronts a whole coven of witches, and the diabolical Grand High Witch in particular, in a picturesque seaside hotel. While Octavia Spencer and the young Jahzir Bruno gave away likable performances, the frequent interruptions by Rock's irritating voice formed a nuisance to me. Furthermore, I read a lot of negative comments regarding Anna Hathaway's depiction of the Grand High Witch, but I honestly can say she's quite alright. Sure, she can't hold a candle to Anjelica Huston, who was born for the role, but I dug Hathaway's exaggeratedly nasty accent and her overacting.
The biggest default of the 2020 version, according to me, is how Dahl's vivid imaginary setting and lead characters were turned into uninspired and soulless CGI effects. Anjelica Huston's transformation into the Grand High Witch gave 9-year-old me nightmares for weeks, while there's nothing even remotely scary about her digital transformation here. Same goes for the kids turning into mice, and the legendary moment when all witches take their wigs off. These sequences are a lot less impactful and astonishing as in the 1990s version. I read somewhere that producer Guillermo Del Toro initially wanted the effects to be stop-motion. Why didn't he persist? He's the producer after all, and a classic Dahl story needs old-fashioned handicraft effects!
"The Witches", Dahl's awesomely grim and eerie novel from 1983, already received a film version once in 1990, and - in my humble opinion - that version stood the test of time very well. Still, the skeptical author got to see it shortly before his death and didn't like it, so producer Guillermo Del Toro and director Robert Zemeckis considered it was time for a re-interpretation. The result is an overall enjoyable movie (or at least more enjoyable than what the harsh reviews around here claim), but nevertheless one with many shortcomings and tiny disappointments.
The narration of Chris Rock feels awkward and misfit from the very first minute. Although he never appears in the film, Rock's voice is supposedly the young and orphaned boy whom, together with his loving grandma, courageously confronts a whole coven of witches, and the diabolical Grand High Witch in particular, in a picturesque seaside hotel. While Octavia Spencer and the young Jahzir Bruno gave away likable performances, the frequent interruptions by Rock's irritating voice formed a nuisance to me. Furthermore, I read a lot of negative comments regarding Anna Hathaway's depiction of the Grand High Witch, but I honestly can say she's quite alright. Sure, she can't hold a candle to Anjelica Huston, who was born for the role, but I dug Hathaway's exaggeratedly nasty accent and her overacting.
The biggest default of the 2020 version, according to me, is how Dahl's vivid imaginary setting and lead characters were turned into uninspired and soulless CGI effects. Anjelica Huston's transformation into the Grand High Witch gave 9-year-old me nightmares for weeks, while there's nothing even remotely scary about her digital transformation here. Same goes for the kids turning into mice, and the legendary moment when all witches take their wigs off. These sequences are a lot less impactful and astonishing as in the 1990s version. I read somewhere that producer Guillermo Del Toro initially wanted the effects to be stop-motion. Why didn't he persist? He's the producer after all, and a classic Dahl story needs old-fashioned handicraft effects!
I enjoyed this movie. Won't win awards, but still a good remake . If you read all the negative reviews they are mostly from those who think one race or color can do abetter job and question the cast. Who cares!! Watch it, smile, enjoy and go on with your lives! Don't rate a movie lower because a character is not of the race in the original or what YOU wanted. The rest reviewers who are asking why the movie was even made? Here's the truth about those nonsense reviews, MOST of them did NOT watch the movie so their reviews are biased and inappropriate. Nothing wrong with remakes and this is a great story to remake. It's a kid's movie, but we see old angry folks sitting behind a keyboard and trashing a good story.
Is the movie, the best ever 10/10 Well, not really... Is it good? Yes it is! Is the movie better than the original( I watched the original 3 times)? No it is not,but it has a great flare and spins. It a nice refresh and a story you want to experience again. Not to mention the fact, millenials often don't want to see 30-year old movies and they would connect better. So if you are 50, and angry, it is YOU who is a problem. Young teens really enjoyed this one and the actors they like. It's as simple as that so take it easy!! It's a great story and I was delighted to see another angle of it. That is all. It was cool to see how the creators of the 2020 changed it.
PS. Anne did a great job in the movie. She is a shining star anything she does. Chris was ok in his narration, but I am not sure he was even needed.
Is the movie, the best ever 10/10 Well, not really... Is it good? Yes it is! Is the movie better than the original( I watched the original 3 times)? No it is not,but it has a great flare and spins. It a nice refresh and a story you want to experience again. Not to mention the fact, millenials often don't want to see 30-year old movies and they would connect better. So if you are 50, and angry, it is YOU who is a problem. Young teens really enjoyed this one and the actors they like. It's as simple as that so take it easy!! It's a great story and I was delighted to see another angle of it. That is all. It was cool to see how the creators of the 2020 changed it.
PS. Anne did a great job in the movie. She is a shining star anything she does. Chris was ok in his narration, but I am not sure he was even needed.
Le saviez-vous
- AnecdotesThe original 1983 novel was largely set in the United Kingdom (with a few scenes in Norway). This movie adaptation is set in the US state of Alabama, but, ironically, was mostly filmed in the United Kingdom (though some exteriors were shot in Alabama and Georgia). Octavia Spencer is originally from Alabama.
- GaffesNear the end at 1 hour 34 min Hero mouse references to Mary as Daisy although he learned earlier in the movie her real name and commented on it that it's pretty.
- Citations
[being cornered by her own cat]
Grand High Witch: Remember who it was who feeds you... No, don't think about food!
- Crédits fousRoald Dahl's credit is composed of items/people from his stories:
- R is a jar of dreams from "The BFG"
- O is a swollen Violet Beauregarde from "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory"
- A is a stack of levitating books from "Matilda"
- L is a fox tail from "Fantastic Mr Fox"
- D is a giant peach hoisted by seagulls, from "James and the Giant Peach"
- Dahl is a Wonka chocolate candy bar containing a golden ticket from "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory"
- ConnexionsFeatured in The Nostalgia Critic: The Witches (2020)
- Bandes originalesLittle Drummer Boy
Written by Katherine K. Davis, Henry Onorati, Harry Simeone
Meilleurs choix
Connectez-vous pour évaluer et suivre la liste de favoris afin de recevoir des recommandations personnalisées
Détails
- Date de sortie
- Pays d’origine
- Site officiel
- Langue
- Aussi connu sous le nom de
- Las brujas
- Lieux de tournage
- Sociétés de production
- Voir plus de crédits d'entreprise sur IMDbPro
Box-office
- Montant brut aux États-Unis et au Canada
- 203 571 $US
- Montant brut mondial
- 29 303 571 $US
Contribuer à cette page
Suggérer une modification ou ajouter du contenu manquant