Don't listen to the Hype. It's awful

Absolutely Fantastic

This is a gorgeous movie made by a gorgeous spirit.

It’s sentimental, ridiculously long and only occasionally funny

Jack Clayton's adaptation of Ray Bradbury's novel provides at least three interesting things to talk about.First one, the movie is beautiful to look at. The increasingly somber (very) slow burn atmosphere is great, so are the awesome back-to-back parade and library scenes (a 20 minute long masterpiece). And special mention to Jason Robards and Jonathan Pryce wonderful performances.Second. The filmmaker's low-key visual and dramatic style it's almost the opposite to the novel (and Bradbury's) unrestrained style. I love old fashioned fantasy so I don't have any problems with the movie concerning this subject, but if Bradbury wanted a faithful version of his book I don't understand why he chose Clayton (disappointing the novel's fans) as his main option to direct it.Third. The expected off-screen conflicts of vision ended with a no Bradbury but John Mortimer's final script (Mortimer was a friend of Clayton, a "The Innocents" –the subtly sexual ghost movie- screenwriter and a guy known for his subtly cutting vision present on his artistic work). I attribute to Mortimer the sneaky scathing humour and turning the movie darker than the novel. On the "humour" thing, the satirical view on the supporting characters (e.g. turning the "I want beautiful women" barber, into the "bearded fat woman"). On the "darkening the book", the turning of Jim into a boy with sexual desire towards his mother (brutally heavy stuff for a Disney flick), because is evident the "lost husband" Jim's Mother is going to meet at the Carnival Gates is Jim himself, aged on the carousel (it's conveniently said Jim and his father were near identical). So for Clayton and Mortimer (uncertain about Bradbury), Jim's psyche hides the wish of supplant his father (filling the painful hollow let by Dad) and hook up with his mother.A near masterpiece damaged by a few minor flaws due to Disney hands on "after first cut" adds: the a bit wacky (in concept and editing) "stormy" climax, the spider scene (ok-ish on itself but feels out-of-place with the global tone) and the unnecessary (nostalgic and explanatory) voice-over narration on the first and last scenes, present on the first scripts, erased by Mortimer on him's and recovered for the movie's final cut.

There are always things we will need in life, whether it's obtaining a certain object, going someplace, or achieving something we haven't yet achieved yet. But it's always a matter of which price your willing to pay to get it.This is another forgotten gem that is personally I feel one of Disney's best live action film but also one of my favorite fantasy film's based on a book by an author I really like the late great Ray Bradbury. This was another movie that took place when Disney was still taking chances and this film was another big chance due to how dark it is. Personally I love it if Disney tries again in chance taking, because it's a prime example that shows they can appeal to a wider audience.I really like the story it's a suttle fantasy, almost the kind from "The Brother's Grimm" where most of the stories are about the extraordinary circumstances would happen to the ordinary. I also feel in a way it's almost kinda a Christian story, since Mr. Dark's scheme is similar to The Devil's. Let alone a theme on Redemption.The production value is good I really like the locale they shot it in, not just capturing a small town but of a time of innocence long gone. I really like Mr. Dark's carnival, it has a aura of mystery as if their could be anything in it or anything could happen. The effects are solid though there aren't that many. My favorite is in the mirror maze sequence, which is kinda similar to the one in "Enter the Dragon" but I like how made to be a maze of the psyche. Music is also very good a few music tracks are memorable. I even like the suspense in the film, you really do care for the protagonists lives and are in their shoes trying to figure out what's going on before it's too late.I really like the characters and the dynamics they have. The two kids that play Will Holloway and Jim Nightshade are solid and capable actors, it's a shame they didn't do more. But both had a good back and forth, both felt like real kids not some stereotypical annoying ones. Will is a little more wiser and reserved and Jim is little more aggressive but not all the smarter.Even like the villain Mr. Dark played well by Johanthan Pryce whom does well at playing villains, to me this is my favorite one. He's is menacing, he seems at times kinda friendly but he can easily turn that around which is part of what makes him a little scary; kinda like anyone that has a violent mood swing. But I like how he's a devil like figure, like the devil he preys on the weak and wounded, tempts them with treasures to entice them only to make them his own.As the narrator Will says, this story is really about his father Charles Holloway (played well by Jason Robards)and in some ways it is. The story on him sort of similar with the movie "Bubba Ho Tep" just like the character Elvis, Charlies is a man that is in the twilight of his existence. Both him and his son are aware they may not have much time together left and worst of all isn't sure if he's lived life the way he wanted. I really like one movement which was suspenseful but I always feel a spiritual test, when Mr. Dark constantly tempts Charles to give him youth again and rips away pages of a book (which I thought was a good visual effect) as Charles doesn't comply. It was kinda a sad moment as well because it was like Mr. Dark was ripping away pages of Charlies life.There are multiple themes, for the kids it's sort of a coming of age tale, it's not so much about the journey to being an adult but journeying at the right pace. In a way there is sort of contrast parallel between some of the adult characters and the kids. Jim and even Will have a desire for things in his future to happen right now while the adults desire things lost from their past. In a way those adults didn't really grow up, people that pine too much for the past aren't really living in the present or for the future. Both the kids in a way from what they say and how they behave seem more mature, it shows that both of them are the ones that are growing up because despite their desires their not ready for them yet; as an old saying goes all good things come to those who wait.For the adults it's issues on the problem with old age and our constant struggle and desire for more time despite time running out. But also a positive theme on redemption, sure everyone of us might have a regret or two but it's not permanent it's not something we have to live with forever, do whatever it takes for as much time as you have in your life to destroy it. By trying and succeeding at atonement is what makes us truly grow but most importantly live.There truly is a time and place for everything, good and even evil.Rating: 4 stars

The devil-comes-to-town premise is one that Stephen King has practically built half his smelly career on. He has used it – or shall we say "ripped it off" – from Bradbury (and others) and turned it into countless formulaic stories and novels. Satan comes to a small town to wreck havoc, and it's always the same shticks, over and over, at least when it comes to his drivel. There are, however, worlds between how an intelligent, skillful writer such as Bradbury treated this idea and how a commercial, fluff-for-the-masses mediocrity such as King does. SWTWC is a moody, subtle, enjoyable take on the subject. King treats this type of story (his favourite story) with much more pomp, clichés, and very exaggerated and annoying small-town stereotypes – most of which reveal this left-winger's barely hidden resentment towards small-town folk (and people in general; perhaps he's just frustrated that nearly all of us are much prettier than him). King wrote these kinds of stories with the primary intention of dragging small-town America through the mud, because - as every good Marxist - he detests the success of democracy and Capitalism, and nothing annoys him more than religious folk. (I am an atheist myself, and yet I do not hate believers the way King does.) No such pathetic, sociopathic, misanthropic tendencies are to be found in SWTWC.The movie has an excellent visual quality; the photography, the look of the movie is reason enough to watch it. Most of the special effects stand up very well to today's CGI; there is very little of that miserable cheesy quality or hoakeyness that some 80s fantasy movies have. It's a Disney flick, but it strikes a fairly decent balance between a kid's movie and adult horror, although obviously leaning more toward the former. Nowadays, the Disney conglomerate would be hard-pressed to squeeze anything of quality out of its ravaged/fruitless Mickey Mouse butt, let alone make a movie that either kids (with taste) or adults (with brains) can like. (I do not count Pixar's movies as Disney produce.)The only "beef" I have with SWTWC centers around Jason Robards. No, not the actor himself; he is excellent, as always (one of the very few top-notch nepotists in Hollywood). I am referring first-and-foremost to the age difference between him and his wife, played by a useless nepotist that goes by the name of Ellen Geer; she was 42 at the time of filming, he was 61, which is simply ludicrous. Far from make-up reducing the difference between them, they actually look as if there's 30 years between them - though this is by no means intended as a compliment to the homely Geer. Robards looks like the kid's grandpa, not his father. The other thing that I found silly was Mr. Halloway's unlikely/exaggerated obsession with his failure to save his son from drowning a few years earlier. It would make perfect sense had his son drowned - but he didn't. Halloway (Robards) even states that he harbors ill-feelings toward the man who saved his son – which I find highly far-fetched and a bit of a leap; it would imply that the life of his son takes a backseat to his own Ego, i.e. the issue of whether he is a "real man" and brave father. Still, I guess the story needed some kind of "inner conflict" in order to make the all pieces fall together in the movie's evil-snuffs-it finale.For other film versions of Bradbury's material, I highly recommend "Fahrenheit 451", and especially the lesser-known, fairly ignored gem "The Illustrated Man".

by 1983 a collaboration between Disney and author Ray Bradbury was long overdue. Bradbury had admired Disney for decades and even had a few personal meetings with Disney. since both were highly respected you would think they would have been paired earlier cinematically but it was probably felt that Bradbury wouldn't make for a family film or good Disney. Disney seldom did horror or sci fi, so exploring author Bradbury would make for a whole new venture.1983 was probably when the Disney studios was mature and ready but ironically they were cutting back on Disney live action releases and were in the process of shutting down the Disney back lot in Burbank. 'Something Wicked' was one of the last live action films to be filmed on the Burbank backlot and Disney ranch using the same techniques for production as the old school live action films produced by Walt himself. it was lucky that they got to film a Bradbury movie on the original lot and the way Walt did and under the Disney production banner.not only was it a good thing that the Bradbury film got to be conceived by the Disney old school but it also turned out wonderfully and was a excellent adaptation of the book, and yes, i have read the book.knowing the book i'm sure it wasn't a easy task to bring off. the book is not only too dark for a Disney film, but it is also very descriptive with over half of it being description and literary prose. what works well in descriptive form doesn't always easily translate to quick, precise visuals that move a film along as cinema. the finished result here is so good because it manages to convey the literary importance of the book without compromising itself as quick moving cinema. the literary aspect is well preserved but the film also moves fast enough as not to be too long for cinema audiences and not too long for children and the family viewers which should be Disney's target audience. the film is beautifully atmospheric which gives homage to the literary element as well as elegantly photographed and directed. it is a class act all the way.is it scary? well yes, i think so. it's not too scary for kids or Disney, but scary enough to justify itself as horror. things also move quicker and are less subtle than the book so the Dark circus itself comes off as more homicidal and aggressive in snatching away it's woeful victims than even the book described.excellent adaptation of a difficult source as well as classic Disney and very good cinema. a must for anyone interested in the final films from the original Burbank studio and the old school staff.