|
|
 
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Beauty and the Beast (2017)
|
|
|
Mike Blakesley
Film God
Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 03-17-2017 12:30 PM
I've never seen the animated version from beginning to end; we played it, of course, but we were so busy that I never got a chance to watch it. Thanks to digital, we were able to pre-screen this one, which wasn't always possible in the film days.
I liked the movie a lot, maybe a little bit less than the "Jungle Book" or "Cinderella" remakes, but better than "Alice in Wonderland" or "Maleficent." I think Disney has settled on a pretty good three-step game plan with these remakes:
1. Don't screw with the story too much, but add enough extra details to make it worthwhile
2. Enhance where it needs enhancing, making use of modern technology
3. Don't cheap out on anything
Emma Watson was great in the lead role but she sometimes seemed a bit overshadowed by the large supporting cast.
Josh Gad gave the movie most of its best laughs. I thought his flamboyance toward the beginning of the movie was a lot more "gay-ish" than the 1.5 second dance bit at the end, but who knows? I think most kids will be on too much of a sugar high to notice anything about this whole issue, and I'm suspicious that Disney may have thought NOBODY would notice it, and they tried to cozy up to the gay community a bit by publicizing it. We'll probably never know.
The household items brought to life were a hoot ("I don't have tastebuds"). I especially liked the bit where the piano character shot his keys at the bad guys during the big battle, and then when he became human again he had almost no teeth. Emma Thompson was my favorite of the household-object characters and she did a nice job on the signature title tune. (When is somebody going to make a movie with an all-Emma cast?)
I agree about the middle part feeling longish...but it wraps up very nicely at the end. The big battle scene is a little outlandish in spots as most of those scenes are, such as when the Beast seems to become light as a feather when he jumps around from turret to turret on his his castle.
The only part of the movie that sort of bugged me was the framing of it...I kept on feeling that the picture was sort of crammed into the frame, and then it hit me...this movie was made for Imax type squarish screens. The effect was most noticeable during a couple of the musical numbers. Dammit, Disney, the vast majority of people will see your movies on regular theater screens now, and TV-shaped screens later....why not make the movie for the format most people will see it in?
One thing I was glad of, was not to be watching this in 3-D. Since most of the movie takes place inside a dark castle and/or a dreary forest at night, the picture is pretty dark throughout, so a lot of the details would be lost in 3-D. I would, however, love to watch the "Be Our Guest" sequence in 3-D -- it's a visual feast.
I was quite surprised the movie didn't get a PG-13 rating, given the level of violence and "peril" in a few spots. Some kids will be nightmare-ized.
Everybody in our group loved it, and I think most people will feel the same except maybe a few parents of scared little kids. 4 stars out of 5 from me.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mike Blakesley
Film God
Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 04-02-2017 10:35 PM
We watched the animated version today. As noted above, I'd never seen it all the way through.
I fully expected to think the animated version would blow the new version away, but I would have to say I like the live-action version better. There is so much detail in the new version that the animated version seems over-simple by comparison.
I also liked some of the singing in the new version better, especially the male voices. They seem almost operatic in the animated film. (I realize some people may view that as a good thing.)
The big fight scene featuring the household objects was more "cartoony" in the animated version -- meaning, not as serious. It was played more for humor than it was in the new film.
I liked the ballroom scene in the old movie better than the new one, for reasons I can't nail down -- it was less elaborate but seemed grander in the old film. I like Emma Thompson's rendition of the title song the better of the two, however.
Knowing that the old movie is 47 minutes shorter than the new one, I was fully expecting it to really go by quick; but it seemed about the same length, somehow.
The new version is so rich, visually, that it bears repeated watching to pick up more details. But after watching the old version, I didn't come out of it wanting to see it again right away. So I'd still go with 4 stars out of 5 for the 2017 version, and 3 out of 5 for the 1991 version.
Maybe I was expecting too much from this beloved, revered animated classic. Or maybe after all these years of not seeing it, I just got over-hyped. We watched the animated "Jungle Book" right after that remake came out last year, and found it pretty lacking too. Maybe some of the hand-drawn features don't age all that well in this digitally-enhanced day and age.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
Printer-friendly view of this topic