From the director who brought us Mad Max comes a modern-day fairy tale of sorts that examines the age-old battle of the sexes. Alex (Cher), Jane (Susan Sarandon) and Sukie (Michelle Pfeiffer) are three single women who live in the sleepy New England town of Eastwick. Since all of them lack a man in their lives, and are dissatisfied with the ones who are in town, they wish for a handsome stranger to visit. Miraculously, their wish is granted when Daryl Van Horne (Jack Nicholson) strolls into town and succeeds in turning their lives (and the town's) upside down. For the most part, I thought that the story was very effective in setting up its characters and giving them depth, even Daryl. The three women who are the titular "Witches of Eastwick" were all distinct personalities and had situations that made you care about them. Generally speaking, the performances were all very good, although Jack Nicholson towers above the rest of the cast as he brings his brand of insanity to what is essentially the devil in human form. Even the whole "witch" thing was dealt with rather subtly, as the women only become witches by finding the power within themselves. It is this struggle between male and female power which forms the core conflict of the film, and it is a compelling one even though it has been many times over in various forms. The townspeople are also given some development, although probably not enough to warrant the attention provided them. There are references made to the Salem witch trials, and the wife of the town's newspaper editor (Richard Jenkins...with hair!) acts as the mouthpiece for morality when the the three "witches" start their relationship with Daryl. Despite this interesting aside, I think it detracts a little bit from the main conflict. Moving on, I also thought that John Williams' score was fantastic and had this magical/mysterious quality that really meshed with the story and visuals. It's not his best score, but it was still a very good one. There were also a number of special effects by ILM which I thought were also well-done, especially considering this was made in 1987. Overall, I thought this was a very entertaining and funny movie that presented a well-worn theme in a fresh way. The only detraction, I think, is that there's a bit of a mean streak in regards to the portrayal of the male characters which might turn that half of the audience off. Still, this is a quality film that shows off director George Miller's versatility and the acting talents of its cast.

In John Updike's playful novel, 'The Witches of Eastwick', the "witches" are three ordinary divorcées considered such for two reasons: by others for their unconventional and active sex lives, and by themselves, as they start to fear that some occult games they engaged in have actually created the devilish new lover who appears in all their lives. This film starts reasonably true to the book; but soon descends into a terrible mess. The sexual element is downplayed, whereas the mystical element is taken increasingly literally. The move ends with an extended, excruciating sequence of supposedly comic horror; this is neither comic nor horrific, but moreover, stripped of the writer's subtlety, at least one scene becomes directly misogynistic. If the film's worth seeing at all, it at least gives one an exposure to its triple dosage of 19080s big hair; for a wry take on sexual politics, look elsewhere.

The Witches of Eastwick is a light comedic tale about women in a small town, their status as single parents or divorcé, and about magic.The story itself and the plot are quite interesting, well written, directed and edited. No complaints on that level. You're rapidly plunged into the thick of it, and everything moves at a rather rapid pace. Each scene is well set and linked with the others. The intrigue thickens with each one passing, and the end is nice, logical, and well rounded.Now for the bad. The three main female characters are probably the least well acted. Cher's, from the get go, is over acted or maybe simply over done, but in Hollywood, that happens often at the beginning of movies. Michel Pfeiffer's is probably the most balanced and best acted of them. Susan Sarandon over does hers in the middle of the story. Maybe that's the director's fault, maybe he pushed them a little too much.That being said, I must say that some of the monologues of Veronica Cartwright and Jack Nicholson are impressive in delivery and content.It's a movie that's easy to watch and will make you think if you stop a minute to consider the implications. I recommend it.

I honestly believe I have a sense of humour. I have been known on a few rare occasions to laugh out loud spontaneously in a public place while reading humorous literature. Do you have to be American to find this funny? I love John Updike and I am prepared to believe there is a dark enjoyable novel behind this film. But it has been turned into a humourless, grotesque film. Nicholson has made a raft of poor films offset by some of the finest performances of any actor. One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest and As Good As It Gets outweigh any number of duds. Polansky extracted a wonderful performance in Chinatown. But wide-eyed wildness does not make humour. The set pieces are just embarrassing most especially the pink balloons and the tea trolley. I have to be honest the 80s hairstyles really do not help.