Starring Bette Midler, Sarah Jessica Parker, and Kathy Najimy
Produced by Lynn Harris
Distributed by the Walt Disney Company
Rated PG for action, macabre/suggestive humor, and some language

Hocus Pocus (1993) was a delightful Halloween film that poked fun at superstitions and old legends while delivering a gripping story in which the protagonists risk their lives to save their town and themselves from the frightful Sanderson sisters, 17th-century witches brought back from the dead.

Having loved the original since childhood, I was excited to hear that the filmmakers had made a sequel. Unfortunately, Hocus Pocus 2 (2022) features only the trappings of the original—the Sanderson sisters have the same mannerisms, and much of the humor revolves around them dealing with modern technology—but with watered-down characters, a weak plot, and no moral message.

The Sanderson sisters of the original were scary; they drained the lives of children to keep themselves young and beautiful, transformed a teenager into a cat, and bewitched Salem’s adults to dance until they drop. The film was funny, with much of the humor coming from the sisters’ over-the-top antics, especially when encountering modern-day luxuries such as paved roads and buses. The Sanderson sisters of the new movie, although played by the same actresses, are decidedly less scary. They cast mere temporary spells, cause only minor physical harm, and refrain from luring children and sucking their youth. Further, the younger two sisters, Sarah (Sarah Jessica Parker) and Mary (Kathy Najimy), are essentially interchangeable sounding boards for the eldest, Winifred (Bette Midler). As Parker put it, “We’re the Greek chorus to Winnie . . . there’s a sense of [Winnie] dictating paths the sisters take.”1 They are a far cry from the happy-go-lucky, promiscuous, sing-songy Sarah and bumbling, cringing, child-sniffing Mary of the original, both of whom were essential to the plot. The writers of the sequel seem to have forgotten that it takes more than a good cackle and spell book to make a convincing witch.

As diluted as the villains are, the teenage protagonists are even more bland. The witches in both films are battled by teenagers, but in the original, Max (Omri Katz) has clear motivations—impress the girl and save his sister—and his attempts to achieve these are daring and clever. By contrast, Becca (Whitney Peak) has no distinguishing characteristics besides an interest in witchcraft, and triumphs only by a combination of luck, Winifred’s mistake in breaking an unexplained rule, and newfound magic that Becca is somehow able to control without training or explanation. As writer Jen D’Angelo put it, “it’s pure wish fulfillment.”2

The film’s treatment of both the villains and the protagonists is part of a wider trend of making villains sympathetic and heroes “relatable,” often to the point of not being heroic any longer. The extreme form of the first is making films centered on villains, such as Cruella, Joker, and Maleficient. The latter began with the “antiheroes” of 20th-century literature and continues in many films today. A hero doesn’t need to be someone who is so perfect that he’s not believable, but he doesn’t inspire us to achieve more or take risks if he’s indistinguishable from any random person you might encounter.

In the climax, out of supposed love for her sisters, Winifred gives up the main motivation she’s had throughout both films: immortality. Her “love” is presented as a redeeming quality, and viewers apparently are supposed to suddenly feel sympathy for the once-heartless woman when she whines and grovels for help to save Sarah and Mary.3 Completely reversing a character’s major motivation after nearly two films, without explanation, makes for bafflingly bad art.

The final nail in the coffin is how many useless, distracting elements the film contains. There is a black cat that resembles one from the first film but isn’t. There is a hapless mayor whose primary goal is to acquire a candy apple. The witches inexplicably break into song upon being recalled from the dead, and a multicolored raven reappears at various points for no clear reason. Such clutter distracts the viewer from what should have been the main action.

Although Hocus Pocus 2 has a few funny moments, they aren’t enough to make up for the confusing plot or total absence of characterization. The film fails in large part because both heroes and villains are poorly presented, especially when compared to the original movie. By making the villains less evil and the protagonists less heroic, the filmmakers delivered a mushy grayness that lacks the character, color, and clear moral message of the original.

#HocusPocus2 has a few funny moments, but they aren’t enough to make up for the confusing plot or lack of characterization. The film fails in large part because both heroes and villains are poorly presented, especially compared to the original.
Click To Tweet

1. Joey Nolfi, “Hocus Pocus 2 Stars Reflect on Reuniting to Resurrect the Sanderson Sisters: ‘It’s Quite Satisfying,’” Entertainment Weekly, September 13, 2022, https://ew.com/movies/hocus-pocus-2-cast-interview-resurrecting-sanderson-sisters/.

2. Hilary Lewis, “‘Hocus Pocus 2’ Team on ‘Wish Fulfillment’ behind ‘Exciting’ Reveal, Meta Callback to First Film,” Hollywood Reporter, October 9, 2022, https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-features/hocus-pocus-2-actors-writer-director-interview-easter-eggs-witch-1235236624/.

3. Although the original film had celebrated love between siblings, it had been on the part of the protagonists rather than the villains, and not as their primary virtue but as one among competing motivations.

Return to Top
You have loader more free article(s) this month   |   Already a subscriber? Log in

Thank you for reading
The Objective Standard

Enjoy unlimited access to The Objective Standard for less than $5 per month
See Options
  Already a subscriber? Log in

Pin It on Pinterest