Beauty and the Beast (2017)

[Spartan Girl]

ITA.  And I'm sorry, I love cartoon Belle, but I was always annoyed by the scene where she dramatically flung herself onto the bed and started crying after she was escorted to her room instead of trying to figure out how to escape.  I get that Disney Princesses always feel obligated to keep their promises and all, but still.

[GHScorpiosRule]

44 minutes ago, Spartan Girl said:

ITA.  And I'm sorry, I love cartoon Belle, but I was always annoyed by the scene where she dramatically flung herself onto the bed and started crying after she was escorted to her room instead of trying to figure out how to escape.  I get that Disney Princesses always feel obligated to keep their promises and all, but still.

? tapping foot, arms crossed, looking askance

[starri]

No shade on Emma Thompson, but it was clear "Beauty and the Beast" was cobbled together line by line.

If you're going to hire Audra McDonald, they should have either had her do Mrs. Potts or found a way for Madame de Garderobe to sing it instead.

I do really respect Bill Condon insisting to the studio that they do it as a full musical, his thought process being "You don't have all these wonderful songs and then not use them."

[Spartan Girl]

2 hours ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

? tapping foot, arms crossed, looking askance

OK, I didn't mean to imply that Belle was weak for breaking down like that. What I meant was that I just appreciated the new version in which Belle makes it clearer that she's no one's prisoner, and does make an effort to escape before later leaving after the Beast has his little tantrum.

I also liked the change that she basically tricks the Beast into imprisoning her by shoving Maurice out of the cell and locking her in. The original "you have to promise to stay here forever" bit didn't bother me that much...but its that kind of stuff that gives the Stockholm Syndrome whiners ammunition.

Again, I love the original movie and always will. There were just some parts I liked a little better in the new movie, just like there were some parts that I (and others, I'm sure) liked better in the cartoon.

[BetterButter]

[Spartan Girl]

I would just like to point out that Honest Trailers didn't seem that charitable toward the original either.

[NUguy514]

12 hours ago, BetterButter said:

That summed up my feelings on the movie kind of perfectly!

[shang yiet]

Casting - Emma Watson's voice and acting were fine but that's just it, the actress chosen to play such an iconic character should be way more than fine. I'm sure there are a dozen actresses/singers out there who could have been more than fine.
As for Mcgregor, Mckellen, Kevin Kline and Emma Thompson, they are well-acclaimed actors for sure but those household trinket characters might as well be played by unknowns for all the difference it makes.

Belle - I think she had two sisters in the version I read a long time ago. The sisters were greedy and asked for material goods when their father went on his trip but Belle asked for a mere rose. This was to show that she had inner beauty as well and was the right woman to break the spell. This version had Belle the reader and the rebel but the shining inner goodness didn't really come through for me. And I know her looks shouldn't matter but I can't buy that a girl looking like Emma Watson  is some kind of raving beauty the whole village sings about - 'Her looks have no parallel'.

Gaston - As played by the charming and good-looking Luke Evans, it was hard to see why Belle was so set against him. We know he is destined to be a villain but Belle wouldn't know that. So he's vain but Belle in the beginning acted like he was totally repulsive.

The Enchantress - I just wanted someone to slap her. No good excuse for what she did. She was not needed beyond the first scene anyway. Belle's love should have automatically broken the curse.

Transformation scene - A tad underplayed for me. You finally get Dan Stevens looking like his handsome self, just let the camera focus on his face longer than one second.

Back stories - totally unnecessary. I never wondered why Belle and her father were living in a small village or why Gaston is the way he is.

The movie was a visual treat, however, and the merchandise must be flying off the shelves.

Edited June 28, 2017 by shang yiet

[Spartan Girl]

On 6/28/2017 at 10:16 AM, shang yiet said:

Gaston - As played by the charming and good-looking Luke Evans, it was hard to see why Belle was so set against him. We know he is destined to be a villain but Belle wouldn't know that. So he's vain but Belle in the beginning acted like he was totally repulsive.

Gee, maybe it could have been the fact that he was basically stalking her, invading her personal space (i.e. the skirt grabbing), stomping all over her vegetables, and insinuating that if she didn't choose him she'd wind up as a beggar once her father died.  Luke Evans may be charming and good-looking, but Gaston was still a jerk long before he went full-on villain.

[Browncoat]

Also he was willfully ignorant with zero intellectual curiosity and saw nothing of value in Belle except for her appearance.  If nothing else, she would be bored to tears in minutes.

[shang yiet]

I'm not saying Belle should accept pre-villain Gaston but more tone it down a little until Gaston reveals his true colours towards the end so her reaction to him won't be one-note from beginning to end.

Edited June 30, 2017 by shang yiet

[Browncoat]

I suspect she knew enough about him by the time we meet them and the village to wholeheartedly and vigorously reject him. 

[paramitch]

I finally saw this a few weeks back and wanted to post. I've also enjoyed all the discussions and debates here, as well. 

First off, I just don't think the animated feature is sacrosanct. Yes, it's lovely. But I was perfectly willing to see if it could be improved upon. I think this came pretty darned close to doing so. For me it was lovely overall -- gorgeously designed and brought to life (and I loved the Cocteau references and the more decadent Sun King-era setting).

As far as the performers, I thought Luke Evans (who's a pretty serious West End musical veteran) stole the show as a vocally superb, genuinely creepy Gaston. The update removed many of the more troublesome "Stockholm Syndrome" story aspects, and this Belle was certainly more empowered, clever and courageous.

When comparing this with the animated version, I still think I prefer David Ogden Stiers' gorgeous and elegant voiceover in the original to the new intro by Emma Thompson, but her rendition of the title song was lovely and understated. The supporting cast was overqualified but visibly having so much fun -- aside from the splendid Evans, I loved Ewan McGregor's delightful turn as Lumiere, thought Emma Watson was serviceable (albeit with palpable help from autotune), and that Dan Stevens was probably the MVP in a seriously difficult and semi-thankless role. I also thought Thompson and Josh Gad were absolutely terrific. I would agree that poor Audra MacDonald and Stanley Tucci were ridiculously underused for their parts (I hope they got a good paycheck out of it).

Meanwhile, "I use antlers in all of my decorating!" remains one of my favorite musical theatre lyrics of all time."

Last but not least? My one quibble is my disappointment that Belle doesn't kiss the Beast (still in his beastly form) in the end.

Obviously, my work as a fantasy writer and RPG gamer have permanently corrupted me (as well as my favorite reading experiences by the more creative takes on the tale by Robin McKinley, among others). But as a gamer whose characters have romanced an elven demigod, a horned warrior, a frog-man, a purple lizard-man, and a tentacle-headed blue female, among others, I was yelling "KISS HIM!" at the screen when Belle professes her love. And in all seriousness, I really think it's the heart of the story, and that Disney wimped out in a pretty big way there.

Because if she doesn't kiss him -- the love story is incomplete. I just don't get why she doesn't kiss him. I'm not asking for tongue, I'm just saying -- it's the heart of the story. Belle now sees and loves the Beast for the man he is -- unbeautiful or no -- and I think it would have been more moving for her to kiss him even as she thinks he's dying and it's her final moment to do so.

@voiceover: I'm with @pezgirl7 & had no problem with Emma's VF photo. She's an intelligent and empowered woman nearer to 30 than 20. What she wears or doesn't won't affect my opinion of her.

On 3/18/2017 at 7:45 PM, SnoGirl said:

Belle's reaction to being given the library was everything. Her reaction as the Beast left her standing by herself in thr library was just absolutely perfect. I didn't mind the inventor aspect, but I did wish they had shown her building something for the Beast or getting her and her father out of the asylum cart. 

I loved her reaction to the library (I saw one reviewer call it a "bibiliogasm," which made me laugh). Meanwhile, Belle does figure out how to lockpick the asylum carriage faster than her father and already has the spike from her hair accessory ready for him when he turns to ask for it.

@nodorothyparker, I agree on Evans nailing his role here. I heard he'd been a West End veteran and it shows -- I thought he KILLED it as Gaston. He's by far the best vocal performer of the cast (aside from Audra MacDonald), and I felt he really took risks and committed to the creepy, date-rapey aspects of Gaston. When he grabs Belle's skirt and then attempts to actually pursue her into her home (and she is physically shoving him back from her door) it's actually genuinely offputting. I also felt Evans had the charisma necessary for the character. For me, he was the biggest revelation.

On 3/19/2017 at 3:44 PM, Mockingbird said:

Five-year-old me was also disappointed that there was a Mr. Potts in the picture, because I had always just imagined that Maurice and Mrs. Potts totally got together at some point. 

Me too! I found the Mr. Potts addition kind of unnecessary and sad -- as others have commented, it makes the enchantress's action that much crueler. And when Mrs. Potts walks through the dance at the end and looks at Maurice, I was shipping them both instantly. I also agree on what a lovely job Stevens did with "Evermore."

On 3/20/2017 at 11:24 AM, dkb said:

I was bawling at the servants saying goodbye. Especially Cogsworth and Lumiere and Chip and Mrs. Potts. 

The servants in their final moments of life had me crying as well, especially poor Mrs. Potts' terror for Chip (which made it so moving when the hat-stand's last gesture is to gently save Chip). And Lumiere and Cogsworth's goodbyes, the poor little dog-bench... it was so sad to see them all go still.

On 3/21/2017 at 7:32 PM, Frost said:

I thought Belle, after she and the Beast were more comfortable, could have cautiously asked about the painting she saw with a boy and his parents.  The Beast could have sadly said, "His name was Adam.  He lived here once, long long ago."  And then changed the subject.  Belle would figure it out, of course, but never use it until at the end when she's calling out to him during the fight with Gaston.

I absolutely love this idea and it would have been an elegant way of handling it (and reinforcing her feelings for him in the end). (Also, re: "The Goose Girl," I'm a fantasy writer IRL and many of my works are inspired by fairy tales. I published an alternative take on the story in my novel "Falada," over at Amazon. If you like fairy tales, you might like it--the princess is far more empowered. But no pressure!)

On 3/24/2017 at 8:03 PM, GHScorpiosRule said:

Other things: Beast should have been much more massive. He's a huge....well...Beast. When he went to save Belle from the wolves, the wolves and Beast were almost the same size!

I thought they did as good a job as they possibly could with making the Beast huge -- poor Dan Stevens wore STILTS when filming. To me he looked believably huge but still approachably humanoid. I loved the Beast's character design -- he's musclebound and scary, but soft, and he has a beautifully expressive face that can turn just as terrifying when his fangs show. It reminded me a little of Robin McKinley's "Rose Daughter," in which the Beast becomes genuinely, oddly attractive to Beauty. (And @GHScorpiosRule I'm so glad you're feeling better here, and hope you have continued to recover.)

On 4/16/2017 at 7:15 AM, Wiendish Fitch said:

Belle and the Beast have no chemistry. None, nada, zip-a-roony. They seem to make good study buddies, but a couple? I just didn’t see it at all. Even in the iconic ballroom sequence, they dance nicely, but there’s no arc, no emotion, they don’t even smile.

The freakish, nightmarish wardrobe apparently suffers from narcolepsy. Why? Who knows. Is this mentioned again? Nope. Did I care? Take a guess.

The scene where Belle calms her horse so the Beast can pet him is really sweet. It's a direct ripoff of a scene from Robin McKinley's Beauty, but I needed to be reminded of something good at that point, so I'll let it slide.

I disagree. I felt that in the iconic ballroom scene, they actually do have palpable chemistry -- they're gazing pretty intensely at each other the entire time, and when Beast lifts her up and spins her, with the room full of those glowing gold stars around them? I was pretty verklempt. For me that was probably the big moment of the film and I thought it was incredibly beautiful and effective.

Meanwhile, the wardrobe is sleepy because the enchantment is nearing its end and she is the first to feel its effects. Lumiere and Cogsworth talk directly about it to her husband, referencing that the same fate is approaching for all of them.

And while I'm a huge fan of Robin McKinley's work, I can't call a 10-second moment when Belle shows the Beast how to touch a frightened horse an actual ripoff.

On 6/12/2017 at 0:13 PM, starri said:

No shade on Emma Thompson, but it was clear "Beauty and the Beast" was cobbled together line by line.

I have the version with the extras, and there are several scenes of Thompson singing the song all the way through just as in the film -- both on the first day of rehearsal and later in the studio. She actually has pretty serious musical chops going way back.

On 6/30/2017 at 0:46 AM, shang yiet said:

I'm not saying Belle should accept pre-villain Gaston but more tone it down a little until Gaston reveals his true colours towards the end so her reaction to him won't be one-note from beginning to end.

Why should Belle be nice to Gaston when she has told him repeatedly his attentions are unwelcome? She attempts to be kind in her rejection at first but she's also firm when he continues to pester her (I love the fact that when he asks, "Do you have a boyfriend?" she says, "No" -- it's a necessary and teaching moment for young girls).

[voiceover]

"She's an intelligent and empowered woman nearer to 30 than 20."

@paramitch: She doesn't need to do centerfold material to prove how intelligent & empowered she is.  Not to mention, that's the same tired defense that's trotted out at such moments.  Everyone knew Hermione had a rack under that robe.  I didn't notice the Playboy photos after the last sequel -- when, frankly, it might've made more sense.

Instead, it was on the heels of a Disney release where she was the heroine who didn't need her tits to get the man.  And wasn't that part of the point?

Because it sure wasn't the point of that VF spread.  Maybe she coulda hit the pause button on her woke feminist charms until the Valerian chick hit the circuit.  That's all I'm saying.  I wasn't asking her to don that Handmaid robe.

[Spartan Girl]

@paramitch So kissing him on the forehead doesn't count? Guess not.

Quote

I disagree. I felt that in the iconic ballroom scene, they actually do have palpable chemistry -- they're gazing pretty intensely at each other the entire time, and when Beast lifts her up and spins her, with the room full of those glowing gold stars around them? I was pretty verklempt. For me that was probably the big moment of the film and I thought it was incredibly beautiful and effective.

That was my favorite part of the film too.  So visually lovely.

Edited July 24, 2017 by Spartan Girl

[paramitch]

On 7/24/2017 at 3:39 AM, Spartan Girl said:

@paramitch So kissing him on the forehead doesn't count? Guess not.

Hells to the nope!

At that point, it's established that they are in love. That they love the same things (a world of books and language), that they do not fit into society. That they move together physically and with grace, chemistry and a palpable yearning. They love each other.

So. When she does NOT kiss him, it feels like a cheat to me, like, "Yay! "Beauty and the Beast! But only as long as he turns out really hot in the end!"

Just sayin'. But it's probably just me. I'm weird.

[Cherry Bomb]

To be honest going into this live version of Beauty and the Beast I didn't have high hopes. Coming out though I was pleasantly surprised. Emma Watson as Belle with both her acting portrayal and singing voice was good enough to hold the iconic role together and there were moments like the ballroom dance scene where she was spectacular. Dan Stevens as the The Beast was absolutely amazing. He had both qualities of the menacing Beast as well as the gentleness that shown through as he fell in love. His song "Evermore" was a showstopper. Luke Evans as Gaston portrayed him differently than the animated version as with more emphasis on his past as a hero in the war and his love for that. He also did a great job. As for Lumiere, Cogworth, Mrs. Potts, and Chip they also put forth very good performances. The most outstanding performance in my opinion was from Josh Gad as LeFou, he was fantastic in every way. His performance in the song "Gaston" alongside Luke Evans was outstanding.

[Bruinsfan]

paramich, I thought that line about him growing a beard was a laughing hint that Belle might have been a little torn about Adam no longer looking the way he did when they were falling for each other.

[Cherry Bomb]

16 minutes ago, Bruinsfan said:

paramich, I thought that line about him growing a beard was a laughing hint that Belle might have been a little torn about Adam no longer looking the way he did when they were falling for each other.

I personally loved that line at the end of the movie.

[Bill1978]

The line was fine, the growl no so much.

[pezgirl7]

On 7/23/2017 at 2:48 PM, paramitch said:

Why should Belle be nice to Gaston when she has told him repeatedly his attentions are unwelcome? She attempts to be kind in her rejection at first but she's also firm when he continues to pester her (I love the fact that when he asks, "Do you have a boyfriend?" she says, "No" -- it's a necessary and teaching moment for young girls).

Gaston never asks Belle if she has a boyfriend. He probably already knows that she doesn't, since it's such a small town. Maybe you're thinking of their exchange in the beginning when he asks if he should join her for dinner? She says "Not tonight." he asks "Busy?" and she replies "No..." and walks away. I know Luke's goal was to make Gaston a bit charming in the beginning. A ridiculous, laughable but lovable rogue, so as to not make him a one note villain throughout the entire film.

I'm also not a huge fan of the growl at the end, although I know a lot of fans loved it. For me, it just sounded too animalistic. If it was more of a human sound, maybe I wouldn't have minded it.

[Cherry Bomb]

The one thing I was not a huge fan of in the new version was that Gaston used a revolver to shoot The Beast instead using a dagger. 

[ClareWalks]

I may be the only person who really disliked this movie. Emma has a lousy singing voice (autotuned to hell, with no expression whatsoever), and there were several parts that just dragged on and on and on. The bright spots for me were Josh Gad (who didn't phone it in like most of the other actors), and...hmm, that might be it. I'm sure my opinion is not a popular one :)

[Cherry Bomb]

1 hour ago, ClareWalks said:

I may be the only person who really disliked this movie. Emma has a lousy singing voice (autotuned to hell, with no expression whatsoever), and there were several parts that just dragged on and on and on. The bright spots for me were Josh Gad (who didn't phone it in like most of the other actors), and...hmm, that might be it. I'm sure my opinion is not a popular one :)

I will say that everyone is entitled to their own opinions and I do agree with you that Josh Gad as Lefou was the best performer in the movie, but there were other outstanding efforts as well. Emma Watson's voice definitely does not compare to Paige O'Hara, but I wouldn't say it was lousy. I think in any movie they autotune the actors singing voices. They probably did it even to Audra McDonald who you'd think wouldn't need any autotune whatsoever. I also would disagree that the other actors did not put in a lack luster performance. For example, Dan Stevens and his performance of "Evermore had so much energy in it and it was probably the best song of the entire movie. Also Emma Watson and Dan Stevens performing the Ballroom Waltz was amazing and to think that Dan Stevens performed that while on stilts is even more amazing. Also let's look at the energy put forth by both Josh Gad and Luke Evans in the "Gaston" number. They and the supporting cast took that number to another level.  

There are certainly differences between the original animated version which is certainly a classic, but this one in my opinion did it justice and certainly had the energy from the actors performances.

Edited August 21, 2017 by Cherry Bomb

[NUguy514]

4 hours ago, ClareWalks said:

I may be the only person who really disliked this movie. Emma has a lousy singing voice (autotuned to hell, with no expression whatsoever), and there were several parts that just dragged on and on and on. The bright spots for me were Josh Gad (who didn't phone it in like most of the other actors), and...hmm, that might be it. I'm sure my opinion is not a popular one :)

You are not the only one.  The only bright spot for me was Dan Stevens.  I actually thought Gad was terrible (the only time I've liked him was as Olaf, and that's because I didn't have to see him; he's a mugger in front of the camera).  Otherwise, I thought it was listless and redundant and had nothing interesting to say that wasn't already said (much better) in the cartoon version.  Emma Watson was expressionless, and I just don't think she's a good actor; compared to the rest of the cast, she's also a bad singer.

[paramitch]

On 8/15/2017 at 1:27 PM, Bruinsfan said:

paramich, I thought that line about him growing a beard was a laughing hint that Belle might have been a little torn about Adam no longer looking the way he did when they were falling for each other.

That's a great point. I did like that, and thought it was really sweet and charming. I still wished for a longer beat before they kiss at the end though. It was so fast. Belle paused for longer, I felt, in the original, really looking to find the person she loved there.

On 8/19/2017 at 9:39 PM, pezgirl7 said:

Gaston never asks Belle if she has a boyfriend. He probably already knows that she doesn't, since it's such a small town. Maybe you're thinking of their exchange in the beginning when he asks if he should join her for dinner? She says "Not tonight." he asks "Busy?" and she replies "No..." and walks away.

I'm also not a huge fan of the growl at the end, although I know a lot of fans loved it. For me, it just sounded too animalistic. If it was more of a human sound, maybe I wouldn't have minded it.

You're right, he asks if she's busy (why she's refusing him) and she just says "No" and walks away. I totally misremembered that!
 

However, I loved the growl at the end. It let me know the Beast was still in there, and I thought it was really adorable.

On 8/21/2017 at 2:46 PM, ClareWalks said:

I may be the only person who really disliked this movie. Emma has a lousy singing voice (autotuned to hell, with no expression whatsoever), and there were several parts that just dragged on and on and on. The bright spots for me were Josh Gad (who didn't phone it in like most of the other actors), and...hmm, that might be it. I'm sure my opinion is not a popular one :)

I would absolutely agree that Emma Watson is by far the weakest link in the cast. I thought she was... not good... in the opening number, but I did think she got better as it went along, and she had some sweet, sensitive moments by the end. She's visibly, horribly autotuned however, throughout the entire film, so it's a shame they couldn't have simply cast an actress who could actually sing.  But Emma did move very gracefully, and I thought she was just lovely in the ballroom scene.

Otherwise, I thought everyone else was pretty terrific, especially Luke Evans, Josh Gad, and Emma Thompson. And that Dan Stevens was a very quiet MVP -- he managed to emote despite all the incredible difficulty he went through in filming, and he surprised me by having a lovely singing voice. I thought he was a beautiful Beast.

[Bruinsfan]

On 8/21/2017 at 9:08 PM, NUguy514 said:

I actually thought Gad was terrible (the only time I've liked him was as Olaf, and that's because I didn't have to see him; he's a mugger in front of the camera).

Normally Gad makes my skin crawl, but I thought his performance was fine (though I did get a bit mad about Condon making such a big deal about gay representation in the film in light of how little the tiny hints of it actually mattered).

Even though I'm a fan of Dan Stevens and pointed not of Luke Evans, I must grudgingly admit that I thought the latter had the standout performance in this movie.

[NumberCruncher]

On 8/21/2017 at 3:46 PM, ClareWalks said:

I may be the only person who really disliked this movie. Emma has a lousy singing voice (autotuned to hell, with no expression whatsoever), and there were several parts that just dragged on and on and on. The bright spots for me were Josh Gad (who didn't phone it in like most of the other actors), and...hmm, that might be it. I'm sure my opinion is not a popular one :)

I wouldn't say I really disliked it, but I was underwhelmed.  Emma was passable (she's not a very good actress in general, IMO) but it's not like Belle is a role requiring a huge amount of depth.  Dan Stevens clearly had the most difficult role and did an admirable job with it.  I just found the whole production a bit...unnecessary.  I'm not a die-hard fan of the animated version either.  In fact, it's actually one of my take-it-or-leave-it Disney productions, but I can recognize that a lot of people hold it as the pinnacle of Disney animated features.  Too bad it felt to me like the live version didn't even come close to living up to that legacy.

[Amethyst]

On 8/21/2017 at 4:46 PM, ClareWalks said:

I may be the only person who really disliked this movie. Emma has a lousy singing voice (autotuned to hell, with no expression whatsoever), and there were several parts that just dragged on and on and on. The bright spots for me were Josh Gad (who didn't phone it in like most of the other actors), and...hmm, that might be it. I'm sure my opinion is not a popular one :)

Not just you.  Wiendish Fitch basically summed up my feelings, hehe.  This wasn't bad, but it wasn't great, either.  It was just...there.  There were some mild improvements (like the explanation why no one remembered the castle of the servants) but otherwise, it was a paint by numbers remake.

Watson was disappointing.  It doesn't help that she and Stevens were mismatched and Emma still looks like she's in high school.  But her acting is just so weak.  The most egregious had to be the Be Our Guest scene, which she had this placed bland smile on her face the whole time.  Girl, the silverware is putting on a show.  The freaking dusters are dancing and the candlelabra is personally serenading you.  Not to mention being served a five star meal.  Would it have killed her to clap or cheer, or something?  No enthusiasm whatsoever.  And don't even start on her "singing."  So lackluster.  They should have switched her and Gugu Mbatha Raw's roles.  At least Gugu can act, and looks closer in age to Dan Stevens.

I was initially creeped out by the servants (in non-human form) when I saw the movie stills, but they actually worked a lot better in motion.  Wasn't crazy about McGregor's accent (I get why people were hearing Mexican) and McKellan was basically sleepwalking.  Emma Thompson was OK, but none of them were that great.  

I did like Dan Stevens as the Beast, although he wasn't too menacing.  But he did bring heart to the role and did a good job.  

Also liked Luke Evans and Josh Gad.  I can see how some found LeFou to be too modern, but I found his little arc enjoyable, and Evans to be appropriately awful.  Although Gaston's death scene was more blink-and-you'll-miss-it.

[Crs97]

5 hours ago, Amethyst said:

Not to mention being served a five star meal. 

If I recall correctly, Emma never actually gets to take a bite of anything.  I thought that was a nice touch; their skills really did rust, as they kept whisking the food away before she could taste it.

[SimoneS]

I finally saw this on DVD. I loved it. Great movie. I thought it was superior storytelling than the animated version for many of the reasons others gave before such as a longer and more in depth falling in love scenes for Belle and the Beast. Of course, I loved the ballroom dancing with Belle and the Beast.  Overall, the CGI was well done. 

Yeah, Emma's voice was clearly manipulated in the studio, but I thought that she was the perfect modern determined Belle. Her reaction to the library was wonderful. I have no problem with little girls looking up to her.

I enjoyed the songs although I got annoyed with the dancing in the Gaston scene went on too long for my taste. Honestly, I didn't like Luke Evans or Josh Gad. 

Edited November 25, 2017 by SimoneS

[kokapetl]

I thought this was god awful. The people who created Disney’s renaissance era animated movies knew what they were doing. The 1991 version was nominated for the best picture academy award, the music won best original musical score and best original song. This 2017 version is like the original had been needlessly and badly resurrected with Frankenstein monster parts. Gone is the expressive animation, replaced with Emma Watson’s “dull surprise” face, and the tiny unexpressive faces of Lumiere and Cogsworth. The songs felt twice as long. The movie itself is 45 minutes longer than the 1991 version’s 85 minute runtime. It was all very bloated.

[Athena]

I put off watching this movie for a long time given how much I loved the original Disney version and reading the mixed reviews for the new one. After liking Disney's new Cinderella and watching Lindsay Ellis's video Is Beauty and the Beast about Stockholm Syndrome (TL;DR it's not) It made me wonder if Disney could improve its original or at least add on to it in small and better ways.

There are some good things about this movie mainly the casting mostly worked. Luke Evans was good and was an even better Gaston than the original in some ways. He actually defined it in his own creepy way, and it helped immensely that he had the most powerful singing voice. I liked the whole castle cast and I think Dan Stevens definitely had some good moments. I liked the visuals, set designs, and most of the wardrobe though Cinderella beat it in some ways. 

Overall, I found the movie dragged and I didn't enjoy any of the new songs. Most of the new added backstory or scenes didn't really add to the experience for me. I have seen the original way too many times so it affects how I view this one. Comparing it to other B&B adaptations (Cocteau, the 2013 French one mentioned above,etc), it was still feeble. Emma Watson was a weak link; I've never found her to be a particularly strongly actress. Passable and her singing voice did not help the situation. The movie was too long in general.  I will continue to watch these new Disney live action films, but this one didn't work for me. 

[Jeebus Cripes]

I finally got around to watching this and it was just... okay. To be honest, I'm not feeling the fact that it was a near carbon copy of the cartoon. The only scenes that peaked my interest at all were the ones that differed from the original. The opening with the prince was interesting. I guess I'll never understand the appeal of watching a live action film tracing over the animated version.  It's boring and constantly comparing it to the classic does it no favors. These constant remakes Hollywood keeps churning out are the epitome of lazy, unimaginative writing, and it irks the hell out me. I much prefer something like Ever After or Snow White: A Tale of Terror. 

Also, Dan Stevens was doing a great job but that horrid CGI did him wrong. Ugh. I would have preferred old school makeup over that any day. Tim curry as Darkness in Legend is proof that makeup can do wonders, and that was in the '80s! If you insist on having one of your key roles in CGI, at least make some effort to make it not look like late '90s CGI. 

[BetterButter]

[HunterHunted]

36 minutes ago, BetterButter said:

 

I just watched that. I liked it. My only slight disagreement is that Gaston was kind of a mess, but Luke Evans made it work.

[pezgirl7]

Ugh I could only watch about 1 minute of that. I can't believe people get paid to just complain and nitpick about things. I guess I'm not a fan of critics! LOL I pretty much disagreed with everything she mentioned, but like I said, I only could watch a minute of it.

[NUguy514]

I watched the whole thing and agreed with pretty much everything; even when I disagreed with her, I was very impressed with how well-reasoned her opinions were.

[starri]

I have a really complicated opinion of Lindsay Ellis, and the notion of the YouTube "star" who spends a half hour telling us how to feel about stuff really rubs me the wrong way, but she's very erudite and I like her way of speaking.  She had a series of videos about the Hobbit movies that were great, and a really smart one about comparing why Pocahontas failed and Moana succeeded despite telling the same basic story.

That said, I don't feel her opinion has more value than mine just because she has 400K YouTube subscribers.  Maybe I'm just jelly...

[NUguy514]

Yeah, I watched a number of her videos after being so impressed with the Beauty and the Beast one, and the ones about The Hobbit pieces of shit and Pocahontas were excellent.

[Ravenya003]

14 hours ago, pezgirl7 said:

Ugh I could only watch about 1 minute of that. I can't believe people get paid to just complain and nitpick about things. I guess I'm not a fan of critics! LOL I pretty much disagreed with everything she mentioned, but like I said, I only could watch a minute of it.

I would usually agree with you (especially regarding The Last Jedi - I didn't like it either, but jeez, that some people have YouTube vids longer than the actual movie to complain about it just blows my mind) but I knew Lindsay is a huge fan of the original animated version and I was interested in her take on the remake. 

And I feel the same way she did on just about everything, especially on two points:

1) the completely unnecessary "plot-hole filling", which only managed to raise MORE questions. Like, apparently the servants were cursed along with the Beast because they didn't do anything to prevent the Beast from growing spoiled and selfish after his parents died. 

Wait... so Chip, an actual child, is being held responsible for the behaviour of a prince he probably never interacted with in his life? The DOG is being held responsible for that? Ugh. It's so dumb. Seriously, I don't NEED to know the motivations of the Enchantress. Maybe she was evil. Maybe she was a fey and just didn't care about the servants. Maybe the servants were considered the property of their master. Maybe the spell had a built-in clause that included the entirety of the castle whether she meant it to or not. 

Heck, in the animated movie, we don't even get told the Beast's NAME. The whole thing is a masterclass of telling the audience ONLY what they need to know and letting them fill in the blanks with their own imaginations. But god forbid anyone do that these days. Now every tiny itsy-bitsy insignificant thing has to be explained or else it's a "plot-hole". 

2) and the unfortunate changes to the Beast's personality that made him a jerk.

The animated Beast was a spoiled brat who becomes a genuinely frightening Beast - that's where the transformation arc gets it's power (and why this version is so much more memorable than older versions in which the Beast is actually quite genteel and charming). But there are moments in the animated version that are SO IMPORTANT to the audience's perception of him, starting from his astonished: "you would take his place?" to Belle after she offers herself in place of her father (he's never encountered this level of selflessness before), to his ashamed reaction to her sobbing about how she didn't get to say goodbye (so he CAN feel remorse), to his devastated body language when he realises just how badly he Fucked Up after scaring Belle in the West Wing.

As Lindsay points out, the live action cut all this out. It just completely skipped over all the extremely important nuance that clued the audience into the Beast's inner thoughts and feelings. Instead we get to see him negging her about her favourite book. 

TL;DR: I'm with Lindsay: "Thanks, I hate it." 

[VCRTracking]

17 hours ago, starri said:

I have a really complicated opinion of Lindsay Ellis, and the notion of the YouTube "star" who spends a half hour telling us how to feel about stuff really rubs me the wrong way, but she's very erudite and I like her way of speaking.  She had a series of videos about the Hobbit movies that were great, and a really smart one about comparing why Pocahontas failed and Moana succeeded despite telling the same basic story.

That said, I don't feel her opinion has more value than mine just because she has 400K YouTube subscribers.  Maybe I'm just jelly...

 

17 hours ago, NUguy514 said:

Yeah, I watched a number of her videos after being so impressed with the Beauty and the Beast one, and the ones about The Hobbit pieces of shit and Pocahontas were excellent.

She made some good points. I mean, having the servants deserve punishment because they didn't stop the king from being an abusive dad? That teleporting book? Jenny Nicholson, another video essayer I like was critical but still went easier on the movie. Seeing this recent pic of both of them at Disneyland I was surprised Jenny is taller!

Edited August 9, 2018 by VCRTracking

[Spartan Girl]

7 hours ago, Ravenya003 said:

 

The animated Beast was a spoiled brat who becomes a genuinely frightening Beast - that's where the transformation arc gets it's power (and why this version is so much more memorable than older versions in which the Beast is actually quite genteel and charming). But there are moments in the animated version that are SO IMPORTANT to the audience's perception of him, starting from his astonished: "you would take his place?" to Belle after she offers herself in place of her father (he's never encountered this level of selflessness before), to his ashamed reaction to her sobbing about how she didn't get to say goodbye (so he CAN feel remorse), to his devastated body language when he realises just how badly he Fucked Up after scaring Belle in the West Wing.

As Lindsay points out, the live action cut all this out. 

I'll give you that one because I do love that part in the cartoon, and I do wish they had something similar.

Look, I know there are some people that loved the original more and some people that liked the new one better. Me, I like both equally. I hope no one thinks any less of me for that; there's no rule saying we all have to like the same things.

[Ravenya003]

5 hours ago, Spartan Girl said:

I'll give you that one because I do love that part in the cartoon, and I do wish they had something similar.

Look, I know there are some people that loved the original more and some people that liked the new one better. Me, I like both equally. I hope no one thinks any less of me for that; there's no rule saying we all have to like the same things.

No, of course not! If people like the remake, then I'm happy for them. At the end of the day, it's just a movie. 

[Scarlett45]

On 7/31/2018 at 1:17 PM, BetterButter said:

Her channel really interests me- thank you for sharing. 

[voiceover]

Thanks for the Lindsay tip-off.  A lot to co-sign there; in fact, at times I thought she didn't expound far enough.  I wondered while watching if some of her talking points were from the Disney War book, so I had to laugh when she credited it at the end.

Finally sat through most of its basic cable debut.  And I thought it was dreadful.  I'm not predisposed to be a fan of any of the remakes/sequels, but I thought I'd find *something to enjoy.

And I'm not even meanly glad I didn't like it.  I'm pissed off.