Hocus Pocus is one of his new "clipless reviews", where he looks at a movie without using copyrighted footage. He started doing it with Jurassic World, which was a major miss but got TONS of views. He's done it with Pixels (a better video), Mad Max Fury Road, and recently Star Wars: The Force Awakens.
I haven't seen the others you mentioned, but I just rewatched the Jurassic World one, and I really enjoyed it at the time (probably because it was a breath of fresh air) but I still do enjoy it. And, I think the primary reason is that it is written like an old episode. All of the skits are basically done in cutaway with narration over them, so they are only pantomimed, and they either heighten the absurdity of the scenes or add color to the writing itself. You could edit out the skits and replace them with clips of the movie with the narration over it (like older reviews) and not lose anything, but by having the stupid skits, it actually just enhances the over-the-top nature of those scenes in the movie. I'll give the Pixels one a shot.
The Hocus Pocus one was just like a terribly unfunny short film that is seemingly referencing the movie (I say seemingly because I checked out so early and because I don't have intimate knowledge of the movie... I've seen it, but it's been almost two decades, and I really wonder if anyone got anything out of it or understood the review unless they've recently seen the movie or know it in detail). It's strange. I can watch a review of Casper, or Blank Check, or Godzilla, or whatever and understand the review and find it humorous without having recently seen the movie or knowing it in detail. But, with something like Lady in the Water, and maybe that's a bad example since that movie seems made up on the fly, it's hard to follow and demands a greater familiarity with the source material than seemingly older reviews required. I mean, I know I saw the Dungeons and Dragons movie in the theater when that was released, but that was only once in my life, and while I can't tell you anything about the plot, that review makes some sense.
I dunno. Maybe I'm just falling into the trap of being "nostalgic" for the older nostalgic movies, but there seemed to be passion and interest in those old reviews (and, again, I think that's why the Jurassic World one worked for him), and there's a greater narrowing of the audience and an assumption that they know the material.
I wonder if he tried to do The Sandlot or Rookie of the Year or Little Giants today if it would work and be like his older stuff or just sloppy. And, I don't know why all of those examples are early 90s sports movies... that's just what I first came up with on the spot. Hell, I've been wanting it for years, again for no real reason except that it has stuck with me since I saw it in theaters in 1995 and I've only seen it once, but I want a review of Tall Tale.
