The Witches (1990/2020) side-by-side comparison
Вставка
- Опубліковано 29 жов 2020
- A side-by-side, shot-for-shot comparison between The Witches (1990) and The Witches (2020), both adapted from the book by Roald Dahl. This side-by-side comparison in intended to show the variety of choices made by two different groups of filmmakers when adapting the same written work.
edited by Matt Skuta
mattskuta.com - Розваги
Hello! I'd like to announce my new Patreon page: www.patreon.com/MattSkuta
For the first time ever, I'm letting viewers in on the process. This includes voting for, suggesting, or even demanding the subject for the next Side-by-Side video.
The first poll for January 2024 is already set, if you'd like to vote, become a $3 member today!
Peter Pan (1953/2003)/Peter Pan & Wendy (2023)
Lolita (1962/1967)
Oldboy (2003/2013)
Forrest Gump (1994)/Laal Singh Chaddha (2022)
The BFG (1989/2016)
1990: Creepy disfigured looking monster
2020: Bald Shark Woman
She looks like a female joker ...
@@gravelock no....
@@gravelock for me she looks like Kuchisake-Onna (a Japanese legend about a woman whose mouth is slit from ear to ear causing her mouth to have a large scratch on her face)
Mileena (After saw Anne mouth): Are you f*cking kiding me?
Still creepy looking 😨
Perfect example of how technological advancements doesn’t guarantee a better product.
The lion king is also a perfect example of this. The lion in the Narnia movies looks way better and actually expresses emotion, unlike the ones is the Lion King remake.
@@user-xu1wi3sh5g but the lion of Narnia is CGI too, and he wasn’t very communicative in the facial expressions exactly because he was meant to be a photorealistic lion. Same thing in the Lion King 2020.
@@federicodelia512 What I mean is that even if it is photorealistic, it stills has some degree of emotion, you can tell it feels something. The Lion King remake looks like NatGeo, emotionless. I made the comparisson because it's TLK is supposed to have more advanced tech, but it just made it looked bland
@@user-xu1wi3sh5g natgeo 💀
So true, as good as Robert Zemeckis is with special effects, to me this was his worst.
Reasons why the original is better:
1. No CGI
2. Scarier
3. Mr Bean was in it
And Angelica Houston
And with less pandering to blacks
I agree, I saw 1 maybe 2 scenes the remake did better, but for the most part the Original was way better and probably cheaper to make.
Exactly. The remake was good, but too much CGI always is a turn off for me.
@@orepurifierI love how the movie makers think that adding a bunch of black characters as lead will magically make the movie better because its "diverse"
The girl trapped in the painting was so scary! It still gives me goosebumps
:(
Are you saved? Where will you go when you die? Heaven or hell?
The Gospel, which means the Good News is the news that God Almighty, the Creator came in the flesh as Jesus Christ to take away the sin of the world. The one God is a trinity of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. The Son came and laid down his own life to save ours. His sacrifice on the cross paid the price for our redemption with his own blood. On the third day he rose from dead and offers the gift of salvation and forgiveness to those that repent and trust in him. Although God's creation was created perfect, having no death, sickness and disease, the creation became corrupted through Adam and Eve in them disobeying God. In this rebellion the creation became fallen through the curse of sin and mankind became separated from God. This world is fallen, but God offers reconciliation to him through his provision at the cross. Ultimately God will restore his creation to perfection when he returns but those that reject his offer of redemption will remain condemned by their sins and go to hell.
John 1:1,14 KJV
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and THE WORD WAS GOD. [14] And THE WORD WAS MADE FLESH, and dwelt among us,
1 John 3:8 KJV
He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.
Isaiah 9:6 KJV
For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty GOD, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
John 1:10 KJV
He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and THE WORLD KNEW HIM NOT.
Exactly, you don't need to be explicit to cause fear, the suspense will do the work.
Eita bora comer aquela galinha que nem imaginamos que possa ser nossa filha
scared the shit out of me as a kid
my great aunt had old pictures like that everywhere and i was always thinking of that scene when i visited her
The eerieness of the original is unbeatable. That painting story is so scary. In the new one the girl turning into a chicken was just an excuse to use CGI lol
The girl turning into chicken is in the book. Its not an excuse to cgi its just more faithfull to the book
That fuckin painting. Didn't sleep for years
@@elo3382 Okay, so being faithful to the book is not always a good decision. The painting was so much darker.
@@KarlSnarks lol the painting is also in the book. Read a book you ignorant
@@elo3382 Ah okay, so the first movie took a better part from the book then. I'll definitely read it though 👍 (I did as a child, but it's too long ago).
This is why I love old movies. Practical effects are waay better and more convincing than cgi. Looks more realistic.
CGI does have awesome potential imo, it's just not being used right.
@Curious • 274 years ago I guess cgi just isn't for horror.
The issue wasn't the effects, it was the way they designed the CGI
@@mystery4561 very true i feel like movies are too focused on the flash of cgi rather then really using it to the narrative benefit
John Wick movies have a lot of CGI and they're still perfect
The original is way better because I was actually scared! Anjelica Huston played Morticia Addams too! She’s incredible!
You can't beat how gnarly and unsettling the mouse transformation was in the original... Holy Molly
Also I hate that they removed the witch that becomes good, and instead finished the movie with a weird cult of children trained to gen*cide all witches. Like I know witches are awful but there's something really uncomfortable about encouraging kids to actively seek and kill a group of people.
Roald Dahl never liked heel face turns that happen for no good reason. I happen to agree with him.
I don’t like that the remake kept the book ending, with the kids remaining mice forever.
The reason the witches from the other version were so scary is because when they take of their disguise they didn't have smooth skin and poorly made CGI, they had weird contact lenses, crooked and broken teeth, ugly scars, big hairs coming out of places they shouldn't, etc. All made practically, making it look super real. The way they do close ups of the witches give you this claustrophobic feeling, making you uncomfortable too. Also, the witches don't have this over the top voice, they sound creepy but realistic
Exactly! No matter how good the cgi is, you still know its cgi. Prosthetics, animatronics look realistic
The prosthetics were obviously better than the poor CGI, but people often forget the important role the distorted close ups played
that and even with the cgi they could have made the witches a whole lot scarier than they ended up. They just looked…too pretty. You could’ve made them reptilian with their entire bodies being distorted and inhuman, stretched out or elongated, covered in boils, insect-like…but no. Bad bald caps and *gasp! A ‘scary’ slit mouth! It just screams minimal effort.
I like the new Witch design better, it makes the film more suitable for a younger audience therefor more people can be introduced to it quicker, I’ve heard some other people say the CGI looks fake but honestly I don’t think it does, just my opinion obviously but I get what you mean, (I respect your opinion, I just wanted to state mines)
@@lavality4221 i must disagree new design sucks !! ...ive seen the first as a child and its was the best experience ever...the new one is not as good ...the witch design is not even original if you compare it at all the work they put on the witches in the first movie .. they look lame and just 'human' ..its make me angry how everything must be baby friendly and sooooo restricted ...im happy to not be born in yrs where parent put a cover over your head so you don't see all the creepy creepy evil thingy ..
I love Anne Hathaway, but no one can beat this role of Anjelica Huston.
No one can beat Angelica Huston's any role.
It's True Anjelica Houston is more scary and more different then other.
nope, you can’t beat anjelica she is a goddess
It can be beat or on par, it's just the script of the remake was bad.
@@Talsedoom .
1990 The Witches, can't be beat, a classic and the visual effects are timeless
The original was one of my favourites as a kid, the book too. It absolutely terrified me but I still loved it because of the adorable child characters. It’s nice to see it remade for a new generation but I think parents should show the older one too because it still holds up and the effects are so cool.
Here's the thing: the original exists. There's literally no reason to remake something for the "new generation," because they can watch the original, as they should. I cannot think of any remake I enjoyed more than the original. I do much prefer the two original Addams Family movies to the original show, but I don't see that as being a remake.
@@englishatheart Yeah I totally agree. The reason they remake these things but with Black protagonists is because the people who run Hollywood hate White people.
The original witches looked so scary, I don't know why they didn't make an effort on them in this remake.
They didn't care
Because Hollywood has an obsession with making women look beautiful. Even when they’re supposed to be physical manifestations of the most revolting, horrifying monsters in society, they still HAVE to look pretty when doing it.
@@jhfholliexxh2882 Plus Hollywood and Disney are obsessed with remakes and they only care about money. 💴
@@Abs0912 i do not like you very much right now.
@@Abs0912 I prefer the 2020 top
Something interesting is that the 1990s version offered much more realism. Like the mouse dragging the bottle with his tail instead of standing up and holding it in his hands like a human would. In an insane story with witches and kids turning into animals, those moments grounded in reality are so important. It's the difference between being afraid of a scene or laughing at it.
Exactly, I agree!!
I will agree with the idea of realism and that practical effects are way better, but it's important to note that mice don't have prehensile tails, so a mouse dragging a bottle with its tail is actually not realistic at all.
@Ashley Nieto you obviously don't know shit about human children that are turned into mice from witch magic, or you would know that they DO have prehensile tails and it's totally realistic.
1990s Witches made you feel there may be magic things going on right now, on your neighbours home. It had a totally palpable veil of eeriness, both scary and exciting for a 9 years old me but also for adults! Real witchy energy, coming from an impecable cinematography, perfect Anjelica Houston, spectacular production design and the special effect and puppetry of Jim Henson. Even attempting a remake was pretentious and doomed from the beginning, and the results speak for themselves.
Más deacuerdo no puedo estar bro, igual me pasaba lo mismo de como mencionas se sentía esa sensación de imaginación inquietante pero a la vez mágica de imaginarte que tu estabas viviendo la historia en carne propia, algo inexplicable la verdad.
Pdta: Los pelos se me cruzaban al ver a la bruja reina
1990: looking like a real horror film complete with practical effects and crafted prosthetics
2020: looking like a creepypasta
Let’s think about the core message of the film for a second, and that is that children should *never* trust strangers, since not everyone is as nice as they seem. The witches represent child predators, since they appear to be beautiful at first glance but when they’re alone, their true horrific, ugly nature is revealed through the removal of their wigs, shoes etc. All things that are designed to make them blend in with non-predators/witches.
Now that we’ve established this, when handling such a dark subject matter and spreading it to children, it makes sense for the movie to realistically be disturbing and creepy, so children will remember the core message of it and be extra wary around strangers.
The 1990 version does an obvious better job at doing this. The story about the girl trapped in the painting, the grand high witch looking like a disfigured, horrifying monster, the beginning scene of the witch trying to lure Luke down from his treehouse etc. All terrified me when I was little. The movie was still watchable however from a few comedic aspects, but it still left me thinking about it for days after I’d seen it.
As for the reboot? The use of CGI which looks quite frankly goofy takes away from the creepy factor of the original, the grand high witch looks more like a real person who has disfigured hands than a revolting monster, and the focus being more on the comedy and a CGI mice chase for the climax take away from the actual message that’s supposed to be told here. In the original, Luke had the help of his grandma - an adult - to defeat the grand high witch and used his brains to defeat her. This is more realistic to what would happen in real life compared to the reboot, since the the reboot, he gets into an “epic” chase with the grand high witch which results in her getting killed by a cat.
No child is able to physically have an advantage over an adult in real life, so it made more sense for Luke’s grandma to have more of a role in the grand high witch’s downfall, since it was previously shown how helpless he was without her. Luke isn’t a hero, he’s just supposed to represent a normal kid, which the reboot doesn’t understand. The point is: if you want someone to get the true message of this movie. Watch the original.
nice 200 word essay amigo A+
Bro I give u an A++
The only thing better about the remake is the background music.
Excelent argument!!!
Exactly! Also, the movie is based on the book by Roald Dahl and the original movie is way closer to its storyline, for example the witches there look exactly the way the author describes them. Also, many people with disfigured hands have spoken up about the second movie using their disability as a form of horror. Picturing the witches in the remake this way really wasn't necessary as it isn't even close to the book and harming to people. Children who will only know this movie and are obviously scared by the witches will think that people with disfigured hands are some kind of monsters, which ist honestly heartbreaking to me...
My eyes: ⬆️⬇️⬆️⬇️⬆️⬇️
Same
True Xd
This kid thinks hes the only one, i hate comments that says “nobody”
What I do not get you mean you said my eyes
@@pgallbladder noo thats not what toxic meant
You can't beat the charm of practical effects
Angelica Houston played that part so well. The costumes and sfx were way better and scarier that. The new version. When it was first mentioned for a reboot I knew it wasn’t gonna be better
the witches in 1990 is a horror film and the 2020 version is a comedy film
__________________________________
CHANGE MY MIND
The Witches in 1990 is a comedy film and the 2020 version is a horror/comedy
Everything these days that are recreated are comedy now... Example : Teen Titans new version, thunder cats roar and many more...
Indeed!
@@thibomeurkens2296
Gmalmomb Pmombon
Fmalmomb Hamombo
Flamombnlm Gmom
Pamomombo Dmalmombom
Pemomh Mombomb Falmom
They are both listed as comedy films
The old version was scarier than a scary movie. The actress really had that old wise grandma feel who did everything she could to bring her grandson revenge. It was edge of the seat... New one is just effects.
That made me more comfortable watching
I have a real problem with the mice in the 2020 movie moving like anthropomorphic mice. They look like cartoon characters. The moment they ran like real mice, for a brilliant moment, I believed I was watching vulnerable, frightened children trapped inside the bodies of tiny, far more vulnerable animals. Then, the mice broke frame and moved like people again, and the illusion was ruined.
It’s amazing that the compilations are so different
I don't know why I loved the 1990 movie. Guess the prosthetics scared me more than the 2020 CGI
Or maybe it’s because you were a kid for that one and an adult for this one, a stupid adult who doesn’t understand that they will naturally prefer the films of their youth over the remakes which kids today will remember fondly. Idiot.
@@dtaylor4552 premios oscars a la mejor actriz o los efectos especiales
practical effects are scarier
me too ,Ann is toooo prettty to be Great F*ck witch.
Same here
The old one looks scary and convincing ,the new one looks like something a make-up artist did to put on her Instagram.
Hahahaha yeah 👏🏻
Feels like the devil-Will-Smith movie (Will Smith as Lucifer in Winter's Tale) as well. Not convincing at all.
The old one has a fairytale ending the new one stayed true to the book.
Right? Total downgrade from the OG
@@olymolly3637 More like Mileena from Mortal Kombat
dude i always taught the remake was the only movie until i found this video and i was quite surprise that that both the boys in both movies have diffrent skin color
Thank you for this video , was amazing!!🎉
Angelica Huston is still the more frightening and effective Grand High Witch.
You guys honestly hate everything new at this point
I agree about Angelica Huston! She played The Grand High Witch very well: Anne did great as well BUT to me she did try to mimick Huston’s iconic role. Yes sometimes changes in movies MIGHT BE good but when it comes to classics like The Witches? No don’t ruin it with this “CGI” technoligy. That’s like saying in the near future it will be ok to reboot E.T. with “CGI”.
Yeah she played her very well. But I found Anne Hathaway’s performance quite intimidating and creepy.
Anne Hathaway’s acting is on point she’s such a legendary actress
@@tonyjackylramirez9213 oh no. Don't tempt them!
Angelica Houston was unforgettable!!! 👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼
For the longest time, i though the original film was just a fever dream i had. But then i rediscovered it and was hit with the biggest wave of nostalgia
The old one is horrifying and it makes feel sick
I love it.
I'd like to understand how someone comes up with the idea to remake 30 year-old movie with worse effects and an entire crew of hundreds of people think it's a great idea... And how oscar winning actors agree to participate, even if they're getting a good paycheck.
I think the problem with remakes when compared to the originals is not the idea itself. Remaking a movie that is that old should be something that people should be looking forwad to and something that spreads dread and fear to everyone that saw and loved the original. The problem lies with what I have gathered from interviews of Stars who play parts in those movies. Most of them had no idea what they were doing until they see the final product in the theater and this is a problem with the effects that are used most today. Using physical effects is not the same with using amazing Computer Generated graphics. The later has of ccourse the pottential to look stunning and realistic if done right, but there is a big possibility that is ends up looking "too real to be real".
Now, another major problem, regarding what you said about the paycheck. This problem only gets bigger as "our" stars keep getting older. We see fewer and fewer older stars doing passion projects and that's understandable as it comes with age. They do not have the same passion about the work as they did when they were starting out, they just look for a paycheck to ensure a better retirement. And the problem passes on to the newer generation of Hollywood stars who seem to have a bigger passion for money than acting and offering to the general public something that justifies that paycheck.
I really hope Studios and producers really take these past "mistakes" into account and make the remakes that would really make them millions.
Sorry for the long comment, you just sparked something that I talk passionately about in most videos like this one.
But "The Witches" is a not remake of the 1990 film, it is a direct adaptacion of Roald Dahl's book
You said the word 'paycheck'. Its their job and everything revolves around money.
You think the effects from the 90s movie were better? What you smoking? I want some.
The fun part is that most of the 1990s was made without effects but instead with real utilities using brilliant movie techniques to make them appear as effects. That's the magic of 90s movies with brilliant filmmakers and it's such a shame that this magic went lost.
The Witches of 1990 looks and feels more genuine than 2020's!
For me the first one is a perfect example of 'don't touch in a classic'!
the old one has a lot more heart, the effects seem better in a direct comparison between the effort of CG and Practical, and I just like how much more creepier it seems
im sorry but the original movie holds a special, nostalgic place in my heart, this movie will never top that.
Even without nostalgia, I'm pretty sure the original looks better than the remake
Practical effects > CGI
90's didnt have cgi 2000's had cgi
Almost every damn time. I prefer the Planet of the Apes’ motion capture to the original’s’ prosthetics, but that’s just me, and that’s more the exception that proves the rule.
Naw. I love CGI! Practical effects can work, but I would rather have a render than a puppet in most situations!
I don’t hate CG completely, but the CG in the remake sticks out like a sore thumb.
@@dreampiper but they age just too fast.
Claramente la nuevs version, jamas superara a la anterior, misma que acabo de ver y no ha envejecido tan mal. Que buena comparación...😈👉🏻🎉
Both scared me, loved them
Amazing how a movie made 30 years ago can look better than anything made today!!!
So what
@@fredvoid5976 You must really love this reboot with how much you're commenting to defend it...
Edit: On year old comments no less.
@@fredvoid5976 old movies are better instead of those Marcel shit movies and more
@@StitchXDHD People who love reboots like this just hate White people. They don't really care much for the movie/story itself, but they love seeing White being wiped out from culture in general, as well as in real life. Art is a form of propaganda, as well as culture, so removing Whites from art goes hand in hand with removing them from everything.
@@fredvoid5976 You know so what. People don't like this garbage and other garbage like this.
the trained mouses in the OV are incredibly impressive, and the switches between them and and puppets are fabulous. Also, Angelica will always be one of my all time favourite actresses. She genuinely scared me when I watched the OV as a kid.
"MICE"
Wow, I just started recalling that 1990 film watching this.
I remember being creeped out as a kid with that main witch scene at 03:09 and that rat transformation scene near the end 07:40 😱😱
mouse*
I darn love BOTH movies~
They clearly don't want to traumatise children now... shame 😂
They don’t want to get sued, I guess
but that's the fun part.. :(
All the karens would complain lolol
@Maria Samhoun I know ☺ still strange how censorship changes
It's 2020, the children are already traumatized plenty. Besides, uncanny big mouths are scary. Kind of depends what a kid is scared of. I like snakes, so the grossness of the 1990 version is more upsetting to me, plenty of folk are scared of this stuff tho.
PS: This isn't censorship. You can still watch the 1990 Adaptation. Same goes for the Charlie And The Chocolate Factory from 1973, in my opinion FAR superior to the Tim Burton version.
The original in no way needed a remake as the 2020 version proved with ease.
No, people needed to be reminded of witches and anything pagan. Here's your reason.
I prefer the old version !
proved*
@@livviedarling4643 My fault, thanks. :)
@@Hwaigon pagans aren't out to hurt anyone, we just want to get naked in front of the moon.
I swear back then I feel like the the remake was a lot more scarier than the original as a kid
Anne Hathaway acts like she is doing a comic character instead of an evil and cold woman.
I thought the entire 2020 version was more of an adventure comedy then scary. They have more emphasis on the other children being present and the effect are more flashy then creepy.
Or killer jane 😀
Lamely, that's her acting on other movies too. Is not a "one time" mistake. Xd
I don't think they intended for the tone to be scary unlike the original.
but i did see alot of evil in her tho , even tho ur kinda right
Prosthetics is always better Nothing will ever change my mind...
the hobbit can learn from this 🙄
Prosthetics when done RIGHT look better.
There's unfortunately quite a few examples of it going wrong, a more recent comparison would be Clay's head wound in 13 reasons why. Skin tone was completely off and the wound unfortunately was just a horrible makeup job.
@Ariana Tse that’s not true, I am a prosthetic makeup artist, those reactions aren’t common. Prosthetics will always photograph better then CGI.
@@Johnny.5.Is.Alive. Not always. Look at the awful Yoda puppet from Phantom Menace compared to the CGI version from the special edition.
Nah fuck that essentialist bs. It's about caring for your product, knowing what works and what doesn't, not overworking your CGI staff (which happens a lot nowadays), and knowing when to use practical effects and when to use CGI. In this case though, the 1990 version was obviously superior in every way, because of the craftsmanship and because the practical effects and prosthetics fit the movie so well.
In the old one the grand high witch was scarier without her wig etc BUT the new one has these growing longer and longer arms that grow in a breaking motion. That was very scary. Of course as an adult I couldn't tell if the new one or old one was scarier in it's totallity. I do say, the child turning into a chicken was scary. Those sudden bulges growing on her chin and neck bleh! The transformation cgi was fenomenal! Such a fluid transition. What makes the old transformations scary is that litteral prosthetics look more real and disgusting.
After seeing this, this brings back so much nostalgia and I’m gonna go watch the film right now like NOW NOW
Not convinced. After all, the Henson version is a classic for one reason: Brilliant acting instead of CGI. Not to mention the sad tale of
the haunted picture ....
Yeah the haunted picture tale is my favourite part of the book/older movie
I am in the slow process of painting that picture with oil paints on a 30 by 40 canvas, the version with young Erica looking out the window. It's one of my winter projects. I always thought her dad painted that picture but it it never says or implies that, he just got it the day Erica vanished.
@@bradleymayse I think that he just bought the painting the day Erica disappeared.
@@bradleymayse Cool!. Please post a link to the final result, when you are finished.
@@bradleymayse that sounds interesting, but I would be too scared to hang that painting in my bedroom lol....love that movie and especially that scene with Erica trapped but it also traumatized me as a kid...it's about the horror of the unseen...how the hell did that witch put her exactly in that painting and when she vanished....did Erica die? Or did she enter another realm of horror because of the witches spell. It the same with the movie Blair With project....it's more scary if you don't know what the witch does exactly to the victims and how they die....
Hands down for Angelica Houston, she's everything. The 1990 witches are more convincing. So, 1990 is better.
@@dtaylor4552 That's not true. Annie was bad in this one. Face it
Angelica Houston should have played the lead in the 2020 version. Besides, I have never seen a remake with similar scenes
@@dtaylor4552
What do you mean by primitive?
@@wandaalejandro2707 she was probably too old to reprise the role of The Grand High Witch.
@@dtaylor4552 And all you mean by "primitive" is that the 1990 one doesn't have soulless CGI..
What closed minded pansies people are today.
Also there is no way in hell that those amazing prosthetic effects on the original witch is worse than that shitty open mouth thing the new one has.
So I see a lot of people in the comments saying that the full practical element of the original was so much more realistic than the new one that uses cgi. I disagree, the original one had a lot of great aspects, the practical makeup on the witches was insane, how ugly and gruesome they looked, the new one is a lot more tame and that’s where it falls short. A lot of the mouse scenes in the original were insanely good to the point where I questioned if they were real mice, yet some shots where they were obviously puppets ruined it. Yet the new mice are way too smooth and cgi like. Although the new one does benefit from some things, the shots where the mice are grabbing stuff and talking with people are a lot more realistic in the new one than in the old one. Also, the scene where the high witch zaps another witch is 10 times better in the new one. The turning into mice effect could benefit from both a cgi and practical approach. So my main message here is that a mix of both CGI and practical effects would have worked really well, and please, stop saying the old one looks much better, because there is a mix. In terms of the actual quality of the film though, original is better
I loved the original “Witches” film when I was growing up. My mother , whom I love very much, I was suspicious was a witch, because she used to wear purple contact lenses when she went out. It was such a change, I remember worrying she was and looked at her feet to see. The active imagination of a child 😅 in the original, even the mice were good for the time. I think the way they portrayed the head witch was amazing and scary. The part with the child in the painting scared me as a kid very much. Then they did a remake and I thought it was terrible. Who wouldn’t notice the scar like joker slits on the cheeks of these women? It was so odd the way they made the witches look in the remake. 😢
i just think the whole vibe of the first one is so much better and more interesting
I agree, more realistic aswell, this new one is too computerised.
@@zednes2065 the new one feels like I'm watching Willy Wonka
@@zednes2065 oh yes, you call it realistic with all the make up and Prosthetics? It was all meant to show her as a creepy witch with a disgusting rotting face, but there is no realism at all in that costume.
1990 really worked with what they had for effects and that need of practical elements served toward a lot of reality when I was younger that I appreciated. 2020 has the digital effects, but it relies on them in an unflattering way. I wish the grandmother was played as much in the 2020 as she was in '90, the ventilation scenes cut her down a bit and they're not needed. Granny was done beautifully by both actors, but '90 leans on her age as a factor in her behavior that '20 doesn't run into as much like her appearance in the kitchen or her inability to throw herself to the floor to speak to the child. The witches in '90 were forced to be costumed in layers so the few effects they could do would sit on them, 2020 seems to be all in post and it shows. The Head witch's profile in '90 is terrifying, she's a beast and vilely inhuman; '20 shows us a beautiful bald woman with a jaw that opens too far and arms that are unentertainingly strange. '20's jaw is hinted by her disguise, I was put off by her makeup when I first saw her, '90's face is a mask that maintains the needed effect until she chooses to reveal herself. I appreciate the toe removal of '20, but it's at the loss of mice that feel more real, less like Ratatouille. The violence of the transformations for the kids and the witches is lost in the cartoony explosion and lack of practical aspects. I loved the opening scenes, the use of race is an interesting choice that Dahl probably wasn't considering at the time, but the effects use there was able to tell a similarly entertaining tale. Overall, I appreciate that they modernized this piece, but it feels only somewhat needed, the involvement of non-White cast is wonderful, but it is at the loss of beautiful practical effects that deserve our focus more. I would want people to see both, but I wish '20 could have been more impressive on its own.
I liked reading your thoughtful analysis.
I agree, this was a good remake. The visual effects just didn't cut it for me. but I really like the way they told the story through another race and setting.
Nice review, agree with the points regarding the effects (lack there of) the remake took the magic out of something that relies on BEING ominously magical. I will always prefer the original and Angelica Houston was beautiful as the Grand High Witch.
Funny you should mention the toe removal, because they wouldn't be able to wear those "pretty, pointed shoes..." and the original movie adresses that
Looking back, Roald Dahl was warning children about real life predators.
The fact that they actually used real mice in somebody's scenes trained mice. If you never owned a mouse or any rodent variant you know how hard it is to train them and the skill it takes. It was beautiful to see a living creature able to do a roll that's awesome even though you probably use different mice to do different scenes but still. With the CG it just feels so like maybe this should have just been animated since they wanted to do special effects everywhere. Maybe they should have just done this animated since practically the whole movie is nothing but CGI.
The 1990's one for sure, Anjelica Huston's grand high witch makeup is monstrous looking and it fits the character. Anne looks like Amy from Fright Night.
No offense to the actors and actress's in this 2020 version they gave it there best shot but the 1990 version was still way better hands down.
as well when it comes to the shots and how diverse the perspectives they gave for the movie.
*actresses
*their
@@shanellrollon2161 At least they had a blast
Juan Jose 🪖 nunca me va a volver a este país y los amigos se quedan solos pobrecito yo los extraño mucho muchísimo te extraño los amo
Honestly in both movies they did an excellent job and I love them both equally I can watch both time and time again
The cinematography of the original is just superb
When the grandma's friend turned into a Chicken.....I knew something wasn't right.......so I liked the 1990 Witches
arr you born in 1900s year
I recently watched the original witches, and while I haven't watched the remake I can still see a huge gap in quality. The chicken scene has less of an impact, compared to a little girl trapped in her father's painting, forced to watch her loved one grow old while she ages and Eventually fades from both memory and existence
@I love shawarma more than my life even if it's closer to the book, i still think the painting scene has a stronger impact
@@michaelwalsh9616 i think the chicken turning curse is more consistent with the conflict of the film. Not only that, but even more fucked up because it implies that the parents will kill and eat their own child. Just like how the witches plan is to transform children in rats so that their own parents kill them.
One of the kids gets turned into a porpoise in the book
The tone of her voice and the look on the witch’s face when she tries to gift Luke the snake in the original after saying “She can’t hear you” has and always will terrify me
Anne Hathaway was a great casting for the High Witch, but her true form is more terrifying in the first film; she seriously looks like a Skeksis.
Hollywood will never learn, will they?
Both movies are from Hollywood...
I've seen the new one and I still think the original movie was better
@@freezasama5802 Definitely...but this comment doesn’t make sense
Luis Mercantes ye cuz they're both from Hollywood
@@luisgab707 i think it’s because Hollywood makes unnecessary remakes just for penny
The CGI of the new film looks like it was made 15 years ago
Surreeee
Fr the cat looked soooo fake I love the movie tho
i was thinking the same thing
what kind of eyes do you even have..
? no its doesnt lol it looks fine the other movie was whack just because its “nostalgic” doesnt mean its better than rats were sooooooo fake
Nothing beats a classic
the 1990 one chilled my bones the first time i watched it. the 2020 one wasn’t so scary in a since it was more comedic.
1990 original is way better, just the whole movie by itself is a masterpiece, new one was just not asked for and just not as good as the original, I mean come on, a child turning into a chicken? A child stuck in a painting, moving by itself, and aging is far better and darker and brings the dark witch vibes, plus the main witch in the 2020 version just looks like a bootleg MoMo.
I mean, both are accurate to the book. Because a girl did turn into a chicken in the book. The CGI just makes the whole idea silly.
Modern versions of Dahl's books just aren't as good as the old versions.
have you read the book? The girl ACTUALLY gets stuck in a painting and a child ACTUALLY turns into a chicken
Ikr I agree original is wayyy better
But I thought the 2020 version was better
As freaky as Anne Hathaway looks. The OG just screams "Ancient witch" instead of "humanoid monster."
looks, the
Exactly!
I remember watching them both.
The orginal was good because it also showed that there are good witches too from that other woman there. The new one didn't do that and I know rats don't live for a long time. So having the kids not turn back to kids is kinda sad. Never got a happy ending.
Children need to be exposed to unhappy endings. Perpetuating the stereotypical happy go lucky fairy tale is actually quite harmful.
@@TheNotverysocial Yes, things can be unhappy, but giving kids the idea that there is some happiness at the end gives both the idea of good and bad endings. Because life can also show that. Showing only one will only give the idea to children that is what happened in life but showing both can show them that yes there are bad and good things that happens
I love how the visual effects of the mice in the original look much more realistic than the remake... And of course, so do the practical effects on both them and the witches. It's one of the reasons the original was creepier and more unsettling.
1990 version looks scarier.
Both of them is so scarier why they reboot that movie ?
This is why like old tv show they just have decorations in 2020 three things done effects,lines, and characters that’s all and the is just so good
Old is gold 🌟
The Grand High Witch's true form in the remake looks more like a cross between a vampire and an alien than like a fantasy witch.
@@dtaylor4552 in the book I think they were hinted as some sort of demons
Not a remake .
The original mice have and will always be the cutest mice I've ever witnessed from 1990 to now
Because they were real:)
@@theambiguoustroll2166 sorrry to shatter you certainties, but there were fake puppets!
@@federicodelia512 actually they used a combination of real rodents and puppets.
One point to the remake of The Witches for its amazing CGI special effects. And a further point for the wonderful Octavia Spencer. But all other points go to the original version of The Witches. Especially for the great performance of Anjelica Huston!
That "WHO DAREES TO ARGUE WITH MEE" was smooth
Did anyone notice how in the original one, once The Grand High Witch takes of her mask the lights behind her start flickering?
Love that, never noticed it before.
I didnt. I will try notice it now
Edit: I noticed it! Tysm
They should’ve just made a sequel about the boy from the original being a witch hunter in honor of his grandma, that would’ve been better then a remake.
The book never had a sequel.
@@MikeJ2023 not everything needs a source material
NOPE
*than
@@Ducktaro yeah but they could mess up characters in the squeal then make a new movie and it would be different than the first movie and the book would support it.
People born nowadays will never understand how scary the 1990s which was
How I miss the old days
The mixture of animatronic and real mouse was really well done. A lot cuter too imo. Also I enjoyed watching the original with my Grandma even if the witches freaked me out a little.
The 2020 movie doesn't have a secretary of grand high witch who would help mice transform back into kids as at the end of the 1990 movie.
this is because the secretary turning them back to human didn't actually happen in the book. in the story they stayed mice
The reason that the 1990 movie ended with the Grand High Witch's secretary turning Luke and Bruno back into children was because that Jim Henson wanted the ending to be happier than in the book. He then filmed two endings for test audiences and they wanted the happy ending. So that's what went into the final film. Roald Dahl hated the alternative ending because he felt it took away the point that he made in his novel.
@@melissacooper4282 What was the point made in the novel? Cause in reality the kid's life span was diminished as a mouse, they live mostly a year or two. It may have been that the secretary was not from the source material, but I believe that it showed a better message that a person that is evil CAN change their ways and start rectifying so many wrongs. Also, the protagonist had too much loss in his life with losing his parents it was also unfair for his grandma to having to deal with the only grandchild possibly dying being more vulnerable as a mouse. The grandmas in both versions were awesome, but sometimes parts of a source material are not necessarily good and they can be fixed in other interpretations. The og film was better in its ending for both the non source material good witch and the grandma and child. Granted we know it is a fantasy story for children, but still, if you think about it, the og film had a happy ending better suited for kids too as well as for the rest of the families.
bc it didn't happen in the novel itself apparently
@@EternalRoman In the book, he's happy to be a mouse because he doesnt want to outlive his Grandmother.
Music:Alan Silvestri and Stanley Meyers(1990-2020)
Directed by:Robert Zemeckis and Nicolas Roeg
The picture FREAK ME OUT so much as a kid. Reading it and watching it the idea was so spooky and sad
1990 version has more of a terrifying witch the 2020 version looks like a vampire zombie bald james charles crossover
I really hate the 1990 version the worst!
The trailer already made me feel like this remake wouldn't be able to hold a candle to the original, this compilation confirmed it. A prime example of how practical effects just work better than CGI in some (most?) cases.
Like I get the angel, they wanted to be as creepy focusing on exaggerated expressions rather than creations..the problem with this is sadly that the faces can be used for any horror, while the creative witch faces will always be associated with this movie (1990) also, cgi can only age with time, while hand affects can always be commendable.
Practical effects of original, camera filming style, so much more realistic emersion. Angelica, perfect.
Simply better
I am having a hard time sticking to the lower part.
Yes I found that, good indicator really!
The eye is naturally drawn to the original!
0:49 the older version is adorable
I saw the original as a kid and the new one isn’t bad. I liked Anne as the main witch and the subtle changes were welcomed. I think some of changes were cool, in fact it wasn’t as cheesy as the original. But the original did have more of a horror feel , for kids that is.
I can tell Anne is giving a good performance. My problem is the not so great cg effects
Even though it doesn't look realistic, the puppets and prosthetic makeup look way better than the "realistic" CGI. It also just gives it this eerie feel to it all.