Barry Johnson

Fortunately, Winkler has a good cast.

The novel's exuberance, happy sensuality, goes AWOL in Van Sant's sadder, darker vision. [20 May 1994]

Could have had charm if the characters had been more recognizable as human beings.

There's only one direction for the movie to follow, and it heads there on a beeline. We could use some more information about Ivy, if we are going to take her seriously as a human. Instead, she's demonic and without history. That makes the enterprise resemble a comic book: a tale from the crypt, perhaps. [09 May 1992, p.C10]

A good comedy contains at least one of two vital ingredients: sharp, swift writing or terrific comic shtick by the actors. Unfortunately, Hocus Pocus -- like most Hollywood comedies these days -- has neither. That doesn't mean it's a terrible movie. It's not, though it loses focus and momentum two-thirds of the way through and limps home with unsurprising special effects. It's just not all that funny. [16 July 1993, p.17]

It's not that Bogdanovich's movie doesn't have its laughs. It does. Frayn has a comic genius that is expansive -- he can pile one-liners, character humor and physical schtick on top of one another quickly and deftly. And the cast Bogdanovich has assembled, led by Michael Caine as the embattled director, is up to the demands. But a film version of a play about making a play? That's a step removed. It's a blanket that muffles the crispness of the play. A bridge too far. The mediation of the screen between us and the play about a play is unnecessary at best and a real bother at worst. [23 March 1992, p.C08]

At its best during the anachronistic nightclub scenes and anytime prolonged dancing is on screen. It's mostly music video stuff, but the young actors are likable enough, and the film works up just enough momentum to give it some significance.

No crime against the moviemaker's art, but it is flawed in a way we wouldn't expect from the director of "Shakespeare in Love."