As an unabashed fan of the 1991 film, I came to this version ready for a fight -- more than one! Who dares tamper with a classic? But bit by bit, and moment by moment, I was enchanted all over again: the human performances "fleshed out" the old animated ones; the coggier Cogsworth and more limited Lumiere charmed me afresh with their differences from memory. The new songs, though surprising, fit remarkably well, and I never felt that the score missed a beat. And when all was added up, the sum was far more than any of the new and varied parts: this is a fresh masterpiece, beginning as a riff but ending with something much much more than a "cover" -- if Disney can do this as well with its other planned live-action/CGI versions, then count me in. This is a brilliantly-crafted film that honors and yet moves beyond its beloved original.
Add a Review
-
drrap8 June 2017
-
"Beauty and the Beast" retells the Disney's version of the French fairy-tale written by Gabrielle-Suzanne Barbot de Villeneuve and published in 1740. The story is very similar to the magnificent 1991 animation and highly attractive. However this 2017 version is uneven, with the most boring songs that anyone could imagine and reasonable acting despite the great names in the cast. But the top-notch Computer Graphic Imagery (CGI) and the cinematography are worthwhile watching. Keep awake along the musical scenes and you may like and be surprised by this version. My vote is seven.
Title (Brazil): "A Bela e a Fera" ("The Beauty and the Beast") -
gavin694215 October 2017An adaptation of the fairy tale about a monstrous-looking prince and a young woman who fall in love.
If you have one of the all-time greatest cartoons, there are things you can do with it. Turn it into a musical is one. But turn it into a live-action version with practically nothing changed (though a few scenes added) may not be your best idea. Especially if such a version relies on CGI and you have neither the time nor the ability to pull it off.
But if you are going to do it anyway, I suppose you could do much worse. Emma Watson was the ideal casting choice and no one else would have worked. No one. Josh Gad is spot on as LeFou. The Beast could be better, perhaps. My biggest casting complaint is Maurice. I suppose in this version he is less eccentric, but why is this the case? And why so tall? Kevin Kline is fantastic, but is he really Maurice? -
davidm-143 October 2017First and foremost, this is a movie for children. The original was a movie for children. I'm surprised at so many scathing and very negative reviews I've read here.
The sets and costumes are beautiful. The music is classic and treated with respect. It takes a very classic Disney animated film and fleshes it out with additional character development and enhanced songs. Many little Disney princesses will watch it over and over again, just like the original animated version.
No movie is perfect, but I found it charming and produced with a great deal of love. -
paulinaskmx30 July 2020Hadn't seen Emma Watson in a movie before (not a Harry Potter fan), but for some reason, social media had me with the idea she was a good actress. At least here, she wasn´t. I read here on the Trivia section that while shooting Be Our Guest the crew had to make her smile and all: that's a bad actress right there, it's not like they were working with 6 year olds. (My daughter likes to watch the Cinderella live action almost every day, I highly doubt Lily James was actually witnessing a pumpkin turning into a charriot). She had the same face seeing spoons dancing, someone being shot, and when a handsome prince appeared before her.
The whole Belle being an inventor was so irrelevant to the story, and during the dance with the Beast, she was so stiff and it was so badly choreographed, it ruined one of the most beloved Disney scenes.
No chemistry between Beauty and Beast at all, the only moment that made me feel something was when the enchanted objects were becoming just objects. Too bad the main character was not great, the movie itself is enjoyable and the special effects are really good, wish horror movies had this kind of CGI. -
A fabulous movie, I enjoyed every moment. So beautifully done that I would watch it again. It's a true musical as they used to be. I cried and laughed, it brought out many emotions. It's a great family film. The artistry and special effects make a great Disney style fantasy come to life. The music and songs were very pleasant in typical Disney fashion.
-
Adapting Gabrielle-Suzanne Barbot de Villeneuve's original French story about a beauty and her beast is no easy task. In the wrong hands, this romance between a girl and her captor could easily come across as creepy – Stockholm Syndrome parading as a fairy tale. Disney managed to pull it off in 1991: its sublime animated version, with its tender heart and gorgeous music, has rightly become a classic. 25 years later, has the studio managed to capture lightning in a bottle again, this time in live-action format?
Well not quite. To be fair, this brand-new incarnation of Beauty And The Beast, directed by Bill Condon, has a great deal going for it. It makes a good case for updating the tale with more modern sensibilities. The film is beautifully performed and designed, and there's plenty of fun (and nostalgia) awaiting fans of its animated predecessor. But it never feels quite as effortless or natural in telling its story. While there is magic here, it's tough to shake the feeling that it's engineered, not organic – that it grazes rather than grabs the heart.
The film centres on Belle (Emma Watson), a bookish, resourceful young lady who's never really fit into her little French village. She hankers for adventure – but gets more than she bargained for when her father (Kevin Kline) stumbles into a forgotten castle and becomes a prisoner there. After trading places with her dad, Belle gets to know the inhabitants of the castle: a surly, fearsome Beast (Dan Stevens) and a host of living household appliances and furniture, all of them living in fear that they will never be free of the curse that has robbed them of their humanity.
On its own merits, Beauty And The Beast is a decent effort. Condon's film is the Hollywood blockbuster at its most efficient, from its photo-real fantasy castles to splashy musical numbers teeming with life and colour. The screenplay, by Stephen Chbosky and Evan Spiliotopoulos, is a canny adaptation of familiar material, particularly when it comes to adding layers to its characters. Belle has more agency in ways big and small – she's the one in control even when she (voluntarily) becomes the Beast's prisoner and, in a small but important scene, she shares the gift of independent thinking by teaching a village girl how to read.
Similarly, the many relationships in the film are given welcome depth. Belle and the Beast find common ground in books and feeling out-of-place, even in the places they call home. We're furnished with hints as to why the household servants – including suave candlestick Lumiere (Ewan McGregor), jittery clock Cogsworth (Ian McKellen) and motherly kettle Mrs. Potts (Emma Thompson) – are more invested in breaking the curse that befell them. LeFou's (Josh Gad) devotion to the pompous Gaston (Luke Evans) goes, quite logically, from subtext to text, though in a way that hardly warrants the firestorm of controversy that has erupted in conservative circles over Disney's 'gay agenda'.
That said, other aspects of this remake yield more mixed results. The Beast's very real, very human eyes provide emotional connection and depth in a way that animation can't fully approximate. But burying Stevens beneath layers of CGI and prosthetics also means that the Beast can occasionally come across as a stiff, oversized teddy bear, lacking the fluidity of expression of his animated counterpart. The same goes for the household servants: ironically, efforts to make them more 'realistic' end up bleeding them of life and personality.
It's the same story with the film's music. Some of Alan Menken and Howard Ashman's iconic original numbers are thoughtfully re- imagined: 'Be Our Guest' is a joyous explosion of camp colour, featuring welcome nods to movies like Cabaret and Singin' In The Rain; and 'Gaston' morphs into a lively bar-storming number that practically demands applause at the end.
But the new songs, penned by Menken and Tim Rice, are more nice than necessary. 'How Does A Moment Last Forever' is lovely but lacks impact. 'Evermore' – a new anthem for the Beast – will no doubt become a cabaret standard but is badly served in the context of the film: it feels overwrought and a bit silly, lessening rather than heightening the dramatic tension at that particular moment.
Performances across the board are good, as you would expect from a cast of this calibre – though it's hard not to wish for accomplished performers like Thompson, McKellen and Broadway legend Audra McDonald (playing the part of an operatic, narcoleptic wardrobe) to be better served by both script and special effects. Watson, who has proved a better advocate than actor in recent years, is a perfectly credible (though hardly riveting) Belle. Stevens does a decent job with a challenging part, while Evans convincingly conjures up both swagger and menace.
It's evident in every frame that everyone involved in Beauty And The Beast worked mightily hard to prove that transforming one of Disney's most iconic movies into a live-action extravaganza is worth the effort. They don't always pull it off: the film gets about as many things wrong as it does right, and it most certainly doesn't surpass the animated classic in quality. But it tells a familiar tale well enough – enough, one suspects, to win over fans old and new. -
paigemorganb16 August 2017I wanted to see the old classic brought to life again and that's exactly what I got! It was enchanting, the character choices were perfect (Especially Gaston!) The songs are just a perfect throwback which has few new tunes thrown in that were amazing! It is a stunning film with beautiful costume designs with a few new parts added in to the tale as old as time. It is fun, entertaining (perhaps a little long to keep a young child's attention) but overall it is a new classic that I personally prefer to the 90's Disney animation.
-
and-charalambous20 April 2017I am not a fan of musicals but I went to watch this one out of nostalgia. I like the fact that they kept the original songs. Unlike a LOT of people in here, I did not mind the autotune because I didn't want to hear the voices of the actors if they were bad. Now people will complain about choosing a different cast then. The cast was final, end of story, get over it. Also unlike a lot of people in here I am really glad they did not change the story from the original. Since it is a remake I don't expect a whole new story that would totally ruin the original. Besides, with the money Disney has made, a 2nd one is definitely coming, you'll get your different story. The visuals were OK but could have been better especially Belle's village.
-
amandawillett013 August 2017My first thought of a real life film Beauty and the Beast I thought disaster was gonna brew. I have been disappointed before with remakes especially to Disney classics. And hearing that Emma Watson was gonna play the lead I was like "No, no! Please no" She's Hermione Granger from Harry Potter and nothing more. So it was pretty intense to see the social media talk about it and hear their own opinions. But when the first photo came out for Emma as "Belle" I was blown away and my thoughts changed to hopefulness. As time came to see the trailers I braced myself yet again. "Would they stay true to the Disney classic or totally take it on a opposite roller coaster?" When it came out I was totally moved and in tears of joy. They did everything as they possibly could to make it real, and true to the Disney version. Little changes happened yes, like one or two songs, but they were all beautifully done and made for great reasons. All casting was beautifully done, music was perfect and it left me feeling like a child again.
I think that is what is so important. When we love something we grow up with all we want is to relive those days and moments, to feel inspired and hopeful. To me that is what Beauty and The Beast did for me and I wouldn't change anything. Animated or not it still brought that magic in me once again. All I can say now is please bring more like this onto the screen! -
sundevilemily30 July 2017I first saw the live-action adaption of Beauty and the Beast on opening night at a cinema-capri at one of the Harkins Theaters near me.And when I first saw the first seen with the prince becoming the Beast and seeing Belle sing for the first song of the movie,I instantly felt amazed by the movie.And this is one of the only live action remakes of a movie that is a very beautiful movie.And I love how the movie has a song for the beast and how it reminds me of let it go of how it shows how the beast feels about belle leaving but knows that she will always stay with him in his heart.And also the scene where the beast dies from his injury and all of the castle staff turn into lifeless objects,I felt tears coming from my eyes by how much the characters mean too me.But the part when the enchantress saw how much Belle loves the Beast and it was already too late,she used her magic turn the beast and everybody else back into humans and how the prince/beast and belle are reunited and share true love's kiss and the castle goes back to normal,the scene was so beautiful and amazing.It's my favorite movie of the year and it's a great adaption of one of my favorite Disney animated movies of all time.10/10
-
I'm not a fan of remakes and to me, a Disney "classic" is extremely hard to recreate. Maleficent doesn't count as a "remake" ... which was still entertaining! However, I was dissuaded to watch this version in theaters because of all the bad reviews. So the only caveat I leave here is that I had lower expectations than normal when I watched.
Beauty and the Beast has been retold several times (since 1740!) and the Disney cartoon is not the one and only version to compare this movie to. I heard the songs prior to the movie and I wasn't in love. BUT -- once in context ... it all made sense. The acting seemed "flat" only because the people were showing true human (non- cartoon) emotion. Singing of a poor, provincial town would not be a HAPPY song for Belle ... but Emma Watson executed the mood perfectly. The chatter about the openly gay character was a terrible shadow on the movie and was #1) not the focus and #2) NATURAL in again, human life.
***SPOILERS AHEAD***
The adaptations, side stories and little facts were placed for very good reason. The audience sees a deeper story behind The Beast. In fact, the very reason why Maurice is imprisoned was taken from the original story written in 1740. The story comes full circle when the Beast takes Belle to Paris and sees where she came from and WHY taking a rose was so important. I really liked the relationships shown and how this movie stayed as true to the cartoon "classic" as possible with an added flair appropriate for 2017 and humanized the characters even more.
Give the movie a chance -- and remember, it's a FAIRY TALE. Not a platform that should reflect any position on anything social, economic or political. The added songs are not bad and I actually really like the Beast's solo. Remember, it's a movie meant to entertain audiences ... not prove abilities to critics. -
wilhelm-schneider10013 March 2017Up front: I'm probably not the right audience for this film. I only went because I was invited, and I wouldn't have gone to check this one out otherwise.
Firstly, some of the production values are really beautiful and reminded me of the animated classic in a good way. Also, the voice cast for the clock and the kitchen devices are great.
Secondly, the actors, well... this may sound kind of harsh, but I've never seen Emma Watson act so stiff in a movie. Her performance is wooden, which is pretty bad considering she's supposed to be the heart of the film. Also, she probably won't start a singing career anytime soon.
Thirdly (and most importantly), Beast. That's where they really dropped the ball. Giving him a lifeless CGI face was an unforgivable mistake, and it's such a constant distraction that I could never really get into the movie.
Overall, I'm afraid I wouldn't recommend this movie, at least not to adults. I'm sure most kids would enjoy it though, and it's not really a bad film: just a very mediocre one. 6 stars out of 10. -
I am a huge fan of the original and I was thrilled when the cast was announced. I'm a big fan of Emma Watson and most of the other supporting actors so I went in with high hopes for this. It was awful! The CGI and auto-tuning were distracting and poorly done. On the subject of auto-tune- why did they insist Emma Watson do her own vocals when she clearly wasn't up to the task? Several other numbers, notably "Gaston" and "Be our Guest" fell flat. None of the charm or warmth of the original.
The performances were another issue for me which blows my mind considering the talent propping this horrid remake up. I can't fathom who approved the accents of Ewen Mcgregor and Emma Thompson. They were BAD. Emma Watson's performance was not what I expected from her. It was like she was trying but missing the mark time and again. Her Belle is condescending at times, bland in others, and overall forgettable. **spoiler** When Gaston and the beast have their fight,in this version instead of stabbing beast in the back, Gaston shoots him unexpectedly like twice. Emma Watson's "reaction" to this is a prime example of my above complaints. She doesn't seem shocked, sad, NOTHING. She waits until he's been shot a few times and has been down awhile before changing emotion at all and even then her "sorrow" at his death is horribly unbelievable. I could not believe this was Emma Watson preforming in this way. The beast was eh, Lafou wasn't funny (the theater was at no point filled with laughter. My 10 year old laughed twice the whole time), and the servants weren't charming or at all like their cartoon versions. I also hate that the funny back and forth between Lumiere and Cogsworth wasn't there. The only one I enjoyed was Luke Evans as Gaston. He was far from perfect but I think he did best out of everyone.
As I scroll through the IMDb reviews with the occasional 8 or 9, and pages of 2's and 4's, I can't understand how the rating is a 7.8. I give it a 2 for effort and can say with 100% certainty that I won't ever sit through it again. Another pointless remake. Disappointing. -
chiendh25 March 2017SPOILERS!! ---------- ----------
I saw the original classics of the era - Beauty and the Beast, The Little Mermaid, etc - so I was interested in seeing what this live-action could do with the story. Here, Disney attempts to remake their own animated version of Beauty and the Beast (BnB), but for various reasons, it falls far short of the classic animated version much like Rogue One fell far short of being a great Star Wars movie.
1) The songs suck.
One of the most glaring examples is when the Beast pines for Belle, and sings his song while climbing up the tower stairs. Something along the lines of 'I'm climbing these stairs, then looking out the open window.' This is repeated over and over as if we're to sing along to the line or be excited by it. Nope, complete fail.
The songs lack the vocal power of the original ones, failing mostly to inspire or make one tap one's feet. No humming along to this movie - it's dead on arrival.
2) The actors do not shine in their roles, sometimes, because the aura around them is too strong from past movies, sometimes, they simply are too generic for the role.
For example, Belle's dad is far too generic. One of those characters you look at and forget right away, even after the whole movie was seen.
The mysterious enchantress that enters in the beginning is nowhere near a Maleficent or Snow White Witch - she looks like some generic female that walked in, cursed the Beast, and you promptly forget.
Others like Gaston (still think he's from Fast and Furious), Watson (her performance here is dead, unlike her more moving Potter performances), etc. have the problem of being mismatched for the roles.
3) Really bad scriptwriting.
You've got lines with characters suddenly mentioning things out of the blue, unmotivated. eg. Dad parks his horse, says 'oh, there's water and hay.' Huh? Why? What does that add? Nothing. It would have been far better for him to park the horse and cut to next scene.
4) Movies should be something one can understand with the sound off, but there are many examples of things that don't make sense, and characters breaking out of their roles.
eg. If Gaston is really the battle hero he is, then why is he afraid of a few wolves in the forest? He's got a gun, guts, and strength, so why not just charge in and save the day? Okay, so he's played as a guy who is all show and no real guts in this movie in this scene, but later, he's crazy enough to shoot the Beast several times, jump across big gaps, etc.
eg. The Beast is supposed to be a BEAST, but he takes a few bites from attacking wolves and collapses, out of energy after the attack, wiped out. Yet, in the end, he takes multiple gun shots from Gaston before finally collapsing.
eg. Belle falls in Love with the Beast after a few scenes of them reading books, and he lets her go to save her dad. Huh?? Are girls really that Easy?? There's no motivation at all for a real girl to fall in love with the Beast after a few days in captivity, so it's unbelievable based on how it is shown.
4) A lot of the fun, the connection, the relationship between Belle and the household items are lost.
The animation had the interplay between them which you could see and feel, eventually building up a very strong connection between Belle and each of the items, like the teacup, the candle holder, etc. In this movie, it was more of a show and tell - Belle sits back, things are shown to her, and..that's it. Moving on, much like a Disney Fantasy ride - you see interesting displays, but no connection. Same for the horse and Belle. In the animation, you can see the horse reacting to the scary forest, setting up an undertone of fear and worry as they enter the dark forest. But in this movie, none of that - it's simply a 'machine' that she hops on, and it takes her to and from the Beast's home.
5) The lighting is uneven. There are places where it's really good and you can see the characters well-defined, then other places where it's just tough to see Belle and the surroundings (like the prison her dad was kept in and just outside that). This is a far cry from Potter where you can see inside the dimly lit school, but there's definition and more clarity to the details. Here, it simply goes black to dark gray and there's nothing there to add to the scene.
6) Too many competing messages and periods.
You've got Belle implying she doesn't need/want to get married in the beginning, then wanting to stay forever with the Beast in a few days. Yet, they look like they're living in the old ages, before the 20th century.
You've got Gaston with a gun, yet when the town attacks the Beast, most don't have a gun?! Are we in the swords and stone age, or gun age?
You've got lots of white characters, then, the mandatory politically correct insertion of a black female here and there.
You've got Belle saying 'I'm not normal' (ie. I'm not the usual cute girl that gets married young, has kids, etc), ie. smart and educated. Yet, that scene has her bending forward towards the camera many times to show her cleavage in an attempt to sexualize her despite her small breasts.
In the end, not worth a full-price movie ticket to see it in the theater. A DVD rental at most, fast-forwarded through the dull, slow scenes for sure. -
deepakyadavhp1 March 2017When you take on a classic like Beauty and the Beast for a live action movie which was also nominated for the Best Picture by the Academy you HAVE to make sure that the spirit of the original remains intact even if you can't make it as good. I know that one has to tweak a few little things to make it appropriate not just for the new generation but also as a live action movie though without making it look cheesy or over the top... which quite sadly was not the case with this one... it was directed by an Oscar winning director (who also directed a twilight movie which sucks) and a studio that has recently produced better than the original adaptation of the jungle book which I really love... so one wonders what must have gone wrong... that I think we will find out later but for now if I have to say something positive about this movie it would be its visual effects which were quite gorgeous if not entirely believable, the design of the CGI characters which were a reminiscence of the original ones, Belle played by Emma Watson though not as great as I wanted her to be, seems to have done her job. And even if the songs didn't flow as greatly with the story as it did before, you could still enjoy them. The choreography, set design and the costumes also stole the show along with the Humour because of its talented cast even if it seemed a little cheesy at places, it managed to make me laugh (especially Gaston) hence making it a better movie than it really was... I will give it a 7/10...
P.S.- You may enjoy it because of the nostalgia factor. -
luzm885 June 2017I have re-watched this in theaters this weekend, so I come fresh with this movie in mind.
Having said that, my perception of this movie has not changed. I will also add that this story was my favorite Disney story growing up. Having watched it twice now, my experience has remained the same. I still got lost in the story, the imagery, the music, and the singing.
The plot was almost completely the same as that of the cartoon version, with a few additions. I very much loved these new additions as they added depth to the story and closed some plot holes. It also helped to better establish the relationship between Belle and the Beast.
P.S. Loved the gay millisecond! I don't know what all the fuss was about. -
AlsExGal5 April 2017As much as it pains me to see movies being remade, I find that I am able to give Disney a pass for this. I thoroughly enjoyed Beauty and the Beast . I have been a fan of Emma Watson's, since first watching the "Harry Potter" series several years ago. It is evident she is not a strong singer, but her singing was pleasant enough. I think I doubted Disney's decision to cast her as Belle, but after seeing the movie, I feel as if those doubts have been put to rest.
I also thought the rest of the casting was well done. Dan Stevens of Downton Abbey fame was great as The Beast (in this version, he even gets to sing a song) and Kevin Kline was great as Maurice, Belle's father. Emma Thompson never fails to impress me. She was one of the people I was extremely glad was cast in this film. She did Angela Lansbury proud. Josh Gad (Lefou) is perhaps most famous for portraying the lovable snowman, Olaf, in Disney's 2013 animated film, "Frozen" (although I knew him mainly from the raunchy Broadway show, "Book of Mormon," but that's a story for another time). Luke Evans (Gaston): I am not as familiar with him; the only film of his I've seen is "Dracula: Untold." He was pretty good as well. Ian McKellen and Ewan McGregor were wonderful as usual. The one I was impressed with the most, was 6-time Tony winner Audra McDonald. I have been a fan of hers since the year 2000 when I first watched Disney's "Annie", and she never fails to amaze me with her consistency and overall talent. Her voice was, by far, the best in the movie.
The cinematography and special effects were obviously all there. When you get a huge company like Disney behind a product, they naturally have all the money and the resources available to make the best quality motion picture in the technical aspects that they want.
Give this movie a try, it was truly beautiful. -
mmarkoul10 August 2017A beautiful film crucially inspired with artistic perspective and multifarious virtuosity of solid directorial pulse by Bill Condon in his cinematic canvass, also including sequences of tribute to the great tradition of classic musicals, with the potentiality of establishing the film as a future classic itself. Emma Watson is wonderful, Dan Stevens is superb, Ewan McGregor is amazing, Emma Thompson is excellent, the great gentleman of acting Sir Ian McKellen is euphorically enjoyable as always delivering his touch of gem, while exquisite performances are also offered at any rate by a brilliant cast in every role of actors such as Luke Evans, Josh Gad, Kevin Kline, Audra McDonald, Gugu Mbatha-Raw, Stanley Tucci, Haydn Gwynne, Hattie Morahan, Ray Fearon, etc. Delight of a fine cinematic tale.
-
auuwws10 January 2021A very good movie. Emma Watson embodied the character of Bell excellently, CGI in the film was good but in the faces it was not good, the servants are still enjoying in the film even though their songs are not as good as the original film, I felt that the film had lost the charm of the original film, they deleted the scene of Belle And The Best in the Snow pissed me off, the new scenes that were put in the film did not need to be prepared in one scene, their focus on the witch was not interesting, the film was too long And bored, I felt that it was a copy of the original movie with extended scenes and some new scenes. If you see beauty and the beast, I advise you to watch the anime version. All the nice things in the movie were in the original version, most of the new things were bad
-
croydonbod3 September 2017As a fan of the original cartoon, I also really enjoyed this remake. The songs are as wonderful as ever and the cgi effects really add to the film. The acting seemed very strong to me and the casting is pretty good. I'd definitely recommend seeing this. Will be a classic for future generations.
-
Jared_Andrews4 June 2017Before entering theater, I knew Emma Watson looked the part. Belle means beauty, and she certainly is that. With a movie that's highly concerned with pageantry, her looks are especially important. More so than simply supplying the necessary beauty to play Belle, she has the right look. She conveys intelligence, genuine concern, and a longing for more. It comes from her eyes. They tell her story. She expresses her thoughts and feelings clearly in every moment without saying a word.
For the most part, I could take or leave the live action Disney revivals. This one felt like it had more promise to me, and a large part of that came from the apropos casting of Watson.
As it turns out, she delivered. She does far more than look that part, she acts and sings it too. For anyone wondering, it really is her singing. Unfortunately, she and the other actors pre-recorded their vocal performances, which were subsequently dubbed over the visual scenes. That makes for the song and dance displays ring just a bit false, compared to the sincerity of those in La La Land. Granted, I understand that complaining that a movie doesn't live up to the standard of another movie that won six Oscars, is beyond finicky.
If you were worried that the new voices wouldn't do justice to the originals, rest easy. Every singer delivers, especially Watson. What a voice she has. Who knew Hermione had golden pipes?
The film doesn't wait long to unveil the real-life Belle's talents. She flexes her performing muscles as she glides her way through the quaint village brought to life.
Everything seems great, just a little long. And that's the movie's glaring problem—it's too long. The filmmakers took the original's tight 1 hour 24-minute runtime and ballooned it to 2 hours and 9 minutes. Even Emma Watson's charm can only last for so long. I'm not saying the movie needs to trim some fat, but there's no way it would fit in Belle's dress. Thank you, thank you. I'll be here all article.
As much as I've raved about Watson—and I strongly believe she deserves all the praise—the rest of the movie doesn't quite make it. At times, the spectacle wore off and I just felt bored. There were a few too many songs, and a few too many verses in some. I don't remember how long the original songs were, but I know that I never felt bored listening to them.
For all the glamour and loveliness, something was conspicuously absent. The movie lacks magic. None of the songs bombed, but they didn't exactly floor me either.
Another issue arose from the added scenes. I understand the desire to show us Belle's mother and the Beast's parents. Many children's movies omit parents, with the implication that they died, and that's it. An illumination of why the Beast (a prince at the time) so rudely turned away the stranger worked fine. But was it really necessary? Personally, I never had any trouble believing the spoiled prince angle. The dastardly daddy reveal didn't add much.
Perhaps it was intended to give viewers more sympathy for the Beast. Meh. He earned my sympathy when he showed his kindness to Belle. I always thought that was the point. The enchantress cursed him for treating people poorly. That was his issue, not his dad's. The insertion of the dad story makes it seem like the Beast's reprehensible behavior wasn't his fault. I didn't like that implication.
I was disappointed to see a few missed opportunities with the minority characters. A word of advice: don't bother including a black person as the bookkeeper if he doesn't have a chance to do anything. He's used as a showpiece. Nothing more. That's not progressive casting; it's condescending.
Sadly, the movie's usage of gay characters felt even more insulting. Including a gay character is fine, even better than fine, if the character is represented appropriately. In this case, appropriate simply means not in an overtly theatrical and effeminate manner. The whole stereotypical portrayal was annoying.
I'll end on a high note. Credit must be given to the unimpeachable Emma Thompson, Stanley Tucci, Kevin Kline, Ian McKellen, and Ewan McGregor. They performed admirably.
Future live action Disney films, should learn from Beauty. Casting is vital and so is keeping the runtime reasonable. Forever can spare a minute, but I don't have that much time. -
Hollywood_Yoda14 June 2017Amazed!!
Probably the best word I can use to describe my feeling upon watching the film in theaters. It truly was an excellent film. It certainly had some originality, even though it was a remake of the 1991 animated classic. The characters were well driven, and came to life, more realized than I could have imagined.
I still feel the animated version is far more superior, but this is definitely a close second. The acting wasn't terrible, however, Emma Watson is the most memorable as Belle. She was great. A great step for her, from the days of Hermione in the Harry Potter series. The part of Maurice was better than the animated film, Kevin Kline was nearly unnoticeable, as I didn't recognize him. -
The question is exactly what do we expect from these Disney live action remakes of classic animated films? Only you as a viewer or original fan can fully answer that question.
I will however at least from my point of view attempt to gain a perspective given that we've been presented with three straight remakes, Cinderella, The Jungle Book and in this instance Beauty and the Beast.
With each of these instances there's arguments to be had in relation to whether the original is an absolute classic, whether the film has enough material to flesh out an extended live action feature or even whether just on principal remaking Beauty and the Beast, a film that's universally adored by critics and audiences alike whether this's even a project that should be attempted.
Lets focus on a couple of these aspects, I'll admit that I had intermittingly seen parts of the 1991 animated feature and was very familiar with the songs but had never watched the film from beginning to end until literally two weeks before seeing this years live action adaptation so on one hand I don't have the baggage of twenty years or more of preconceptions for what the film should do in its live action guise, however seeing both the film versions within the space of two weeks does come with the advantage (or maybe baggage) of being able to see things in a more mirrored perspective which with this film in particular was a fascinating thing to behold.
On the point I've just made I'm going to go down the road of them recreating those scene moments with an accuracy which to many a fan I'm sure was pure delight to simply see an exact mirrored scene only with a live action cast, the opening Belle musical sequence is the quintessential example of this with every aspect pretty much identically replicated to a precision that I've not quite seen on this large scale, yes we saw similar things like it in their Cinderella adaptation a couple years ago but that film was so short with plenty of potential to improve and to mould into something that isn't exactly a clone of it's animated counterpart, however I would say that it didn't completely work for Cinderella and also in respect to The Jungle Book Jon Favreau it would appear did want to go beyond what the Disney animated feature did and made it certainly a more cinematic experience type of film that although yes had nods to said animated film but did have ambitions beyond those Disney constraints.
To carry on that point I will simply go onto what I deem to be the films greatest strength and unsurprisingly it is the musical sequences of which the film lives and breaths off of, the question then becomes what exactly are we enjoying about these sequences because haven't we already seen and heard them? Yes and no is my unsurprising conclusion to this question, to focus on two songs in particular 'Gaston' and 'Be Our Guest' these are impeccably entertaining songs in their own right so why did these work even better in this format? I suppose it's down to the physical theatrical performance involved in recreating them, specifically Gaston as so much of the song is for a comedic effect that is only amplified with the performance song and dance piece that it is, in respect to Be Our Guest the visual treat that the animated film created again here is amplified to a splendiferous visual treat that only a creative more physical form can lend to the sequence.
What also must be said is that when talking about this more theatrical performance and the positives it brings it's also hugely reliant upon the individual actors involved and with Gaston in particular Josh Gad, Luke Evans and that whole ensemble are what gives that sequence the strength it has, also the vocal performances of the Be Our Guest voice cast is impeccable, equally when we're talking about the opening Belle sequence the same rule is applied, yes the song is adequately performed by Emma Watson, but it's hard when clearly we've heard this song performed by a more than superior singer and given that the opening is most certainly a scene for scene recreation of the animated feature the startling contrast of such qualities are much more keenly and therefore negatively noted by the viewer.
I'm clearly going into many specifics that a normal reviewer would not do but I'm trying to find out exactly what it is about these remakes that we clearly flock to see as an audience, as this is part of a more broader film debate given in other areas of the film world we've experienced films like Jurassic World and Star Wars: The Force Awakens, films that overly rely on the audiences nostalgia for the past film products in order to positively survive, yes that's an extremely harsh statement to make but given that Beauty and the Beast regularly just recreates exact scenes from the past film the point I'm trying to explore is exactly at what point does a remake or nostalgia kill or make a film that is in front of you.
In respect to this years Beauty and the Beast adaptation, my overall reaction was one of differing feelings, there were the joys of those particular musical moments being recreated, but equally I was unsure what exactly the film generally was bringing to the table as a project, the film does add some scenes to the fray for further context for main characters and there was two extra songs, however I particularly thought that although they did the film no harm I didn't think 'oh isn't it really good they've included that' So overall an inconclusive reaction from me and I'm going to continue to have this debate with myself but I do believe that a more capable group of film reviewers/writers might be able to more articulate an argument. -
bignose-6735218 March 2017MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS
I don't usually do reviews but this film was such a huge disappointment I couldn't fight it anymore. The original movie was so good and, considering this is the exact same movie, there was really not much that could go wrong. In theory of course, because in reality the final result is just soulless. Everything feels fake. From Emma Watson's acting to the cgi and the props. I love Emma Watson but in this film she is just playing herself trying to play Belle. To be fair though, no one in the film actually manages to instill the characters with the same emotion and personality as the original except maybe Josh Gad. Luke Evans is very good but his character is written as a villain from the start, while in the original he evolves from slightly annoying to "evil". Which brings me to my next point: the awful writing. The film treats the audience like we're stupid and needs to explain everything verbally instead of just letting things show through the action. The characters are one dimensional and don't change as the story unfolds. Gaston is the villain. The Beast is just a misunderstood soul from the beginning despite the prologue telling us otherwise. Even his bad temper is watered down. The writers had already the script written for them, all they had to do was add a few more lines here and there and create two or three scenes that would blend in seamlessly with the original (since, I repeat, they chose to use almost word for word the 1991 script with minor changes). Well, the new dialogue feels very wooden and unnatural. The new scenes add nothing to the story and, even though the creators try to answer some questions we have from the original, in the end they create new plot holes that go unanswered. I miss the subtlety of the 1991 film in which every expression, every line and every pause added something either to the progression of the story or the characterization of the heroes without anything feeling forced. I keep mentioning the original a lot but that is because this movie has nothing new to offer really, so I can't fully separate it from the 1991 one. In the end, what annoys me the most is that the 2017 remake had great potential to become a new classic and stand on its own had it been handled a little differently and not with a rushed "let's make some good money" mentality. There are very few good things about this movie, one of which is the music which is simply magical and manages to convey all the emotions the actors can't. Then there is the ending (after the transformation) where there is a more realistic touch as the villagers remember their friends-relatives that work at the castle and are finally reunited. Overall, despite the enormous hype, the movie just makes the original stand out even more as a timeless film that won't be surpassed by another adaptation any time soon.