[Search for users] [Overall Top Noters] [List of all Conferences] [Download this site]

Conference hydra::dejavu

Title:Psychic Phenomena
Notice:Please read note 1.0-1.* before writing
Moderator:JARETH::PAINTER
Created:Wed Jan 22 1986
Last Modified:Tue May 27 1997
Last Successful Update:Fri Jun 06 1997
Number of topics:2143
Total number of notes:41773

414.0. "W.O.E" by NEXUS::MORGAN (H.P. - Cult of the Crystal Lettuce) Fri Jul 17 1987 19:23

                The Witches Of Eastwick: A Review

    Having seen The Witches Of Eastwick I would like to review the movie.
    The movie is very well done with good scenery and special effects. The
    actors and actresses do a very good job. Cher still plays a firm if not
    hard nosed woman. Jack Nickelson, still a cult figure after all these
    years, is very lovable even as the bad guy on the scene. You could
    easily see a disturbed little boy in all his tantrums. The little pony
    tail was very cute, even for a Californian who plays a New Yorker. I
    don't remember the actresses names, except for Cher, but I fell in love
    with all of them. 

    The movie plot is about three lonely women who, for various reasons,
    are single again. There is no mention made by them of Witchcraft early
    in the movie. In fact nowhere in the movie is WitchCraft mentioned at
    all. The mundane townspeople consider Jack 'Evil' and the three lonely
    women sluts mainly because they are getting laid all the time. Jack, as
    Darral Van Horn, is called form New York by the unwitting trio and
    eagerly creates all sort of minor havoc in the trios lives to establish
    his place of power. 

    Darryl reveals himself to them while playing tennis, which is as good a
    time to do that as any in this movie. From here we move to Bacchasian
    feasts and sensual acts of pleasure, all the while the townspeople are
    beginning to talk about what goes on in the mansion on the hill. This
    is where the trouble starts so I'll let you find out what happens for
    your self. 

    Again I repeat nowhere in the _movie_ is Satan or WitchCraft mentioned.
    One would have to consider Darryl a dark and immature entity. The only
    pointer to Nature Religion is that Alex (Cher) is a sculptress who
    makes Goddess statuettes for sale in town. Although Evil was a major
    part of this movie, the evil was funny in a strange sort of way. The
    whispering of the mundanes was a very effective evil in itself and was
    what caused all the trouble in the first place. Had the mundanes
    ignored the four, or at least considered them eccentric, Darryl would
    have gotten bored and probably left town. 

    This movie could have been made with Darryl being a gang leader or
    perhaps a Elmer Gantry and the evil would have been very similar, if
    not the same. 

    It's an OK movie, I'd still wait for it to make it to the $  movies
    though. 

          Mikie?
T.RTitleUserPersonal
Name
DateLines
414.1well, I started this whole movie business ...ERASER::KALLISRaise Hallowe'en awareness.Fri Jul 17 1987 20:0555
    Re .0:
    
    Hmm.  Well, I have a slight possible disadvantage: I read the book.
    Having said that, there are a few points that need to be touched
    upon, since I also saw the film.
    
    >Darryl reveals himself to them while playing tennis, which is as good a
    >time to do that as any in this movie.
    
    How "reveals himself?"  He made a nice double-entendre when he called
    himself "Just your average horny little devil," which I presume
    most of the audience took to mean that he was a ... devil.
    
    >Again I repeat nowhere in the _movie_ is Satan or WitchCraft mentioned.
    
    Well, save for the fact that the women used a grimoire called
    _Malefica_, which in context meant "evil magic."  What was shown
    wasn't Wiccan, to be sure, but certainly fit the overall public
    perception of witchcraft (note lack of capital letters).
    
    >        .    .     .                                     The only
    >pointer to Nature Religion is that Alex (Cher) is a sculptress who
    >makes Goddess statuettes for sale in town.              
    
    Except she doesn't refer to them or give any indication in the film
    that she considers them to _be_ Goddess statues.  They are her
    "bubbies," a corruption of "babies," though they're obviously of
    mature women (yes, I know about the paleolithic statuettes they
    resemble, just to stave off a nit).
    
    >This movie could have been made with Darryl being a gang leader or
    >perhaps a Elmer Gantry and the evil would have been very similar, if
    >not the same.   
    
    Now here's the amusing part: in the book, Darryl van Horne (_love_
    the name!) had not one whit of supernatural powers.  In the book,
    the women are practicing witches of some kind (what kind is never
    clear: the author throws terms in at random, showing less knowledge
    of the subject matter than he would have you believe; but understand,
    Updike is a writer, not an occultist) who are seduced by van Horne
    and are thereby left off worse than before (as noted in my review
    in BOOKS, although he is _not_ a devil, the women treat him the
    way Satanic celebrants often treated whatever devil manifested itself
    at their revels, up to and including the "kiss of imfamy," and in
    the book van Horne had cold ejaculate).  In the movie, they showed
    _no_ conscious paranormal powers until after they started taking
    up with van Horne.  The book and film versions are so distant as
    to be almost separate works; the endings are nearly diametrically
    opposite.
    
    My wife, who has absolutely no occult leanings, thought it was a
    hilarious comedy.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    
414.2No More Cherries for me, thank-you!VENTUR::LIBRARYFri Jul 17 1987 20:367
    I have to admit, I think there was a bit too much *spewing-off-at-the
    -mouth*, shall we say??  It was pretty good, however, don't see
    it if you have a weak stomach (like me)!!!!(.....I almost lost my
    dinner twice.....)
    
    d.
    
414.3Good comedyNEXUS::MORGANH.P. - Cult of the Crystal LettuceSat Jul 18 1987 00:214
    I thought that even the messy parts were halarious. Especialy the
    semi-rape of Darryl Van Horne by one of the women was funny.
    
      Mikie?
414.5so, who wrote the screenplay anyway?USAT02::CARLSONHeavens to Mergatroid!Sat Jul 18 1987 22:0917
    I too, read the book and found them not at all alike.  I was
    looking forward to seeing the antics the ladies performed before
    D.V.H. even showed up.  The little thunderstorm during the boring
    speech was perhaps, more amusing than in the book when Jane >I think<,
    becomes bored with the people on the beach and calls up a storm
    to scatter them.  And did we get to see any of the three fly?  nope.
    
    Ah well, the movie was amusing.  Jack Nicholson was perfection for
    the part, ponytail and all.  His clothes were marvelous.  I liked
    the amazing transformation in Susan Sarandon, from meek to wild!
    Those cherry pits were pretty grose!  Whatever happened to feathers
    and pins?
    
    Anyway, the final scene of the movie had me leaving the theatre
    laughing...who could ask for more?
    
    Theresa.
414.6oopsUSAT02::CARLSONHeavens to Mergatroid!Sat Jul 18 1987 22:113
    p.s.   Don't get the levitating bit confusing with flying!
    
    t.
414.7KIRK::KOLKERConan the LibrarianMon Jul 20 1987 14:024
    re priors
    
    The chello scene with Sarandin is worth the price of admission.