My Movie Review on Beauty and the Beast (2017) · 6:37pm Dec 15th, 2018
What’s up, peoples! AMU in the house!
Today, I will be reviewing Disney's 2017 live-action "Beauty and the Beast".
In this story, an arrogant prince (played by Dan Stevens) is cursed to live as a terrifying beast until he finds true love. Strangely, his chance comes when he captures an unwary clockmaker (played by Kevin Kline), whose place is then taken by his bold and beautiful daughter Belle (played by Emma Watson). Helped by the Beast's similarly enchanted servants - including a clock (played by Ian Mckellen), a teapot (played by Emma Thompson), and a candelabra (played by Ewan McGregor) - Belle begins to see the sensitive soul behind the fearsome facade. But, as time runs out, it soon becomes obvious that Belle's cocky suitor Gaston (played by Luke Evans) is the real beast of the piece.
The movie was definitely a mix of both good and bad every step of the way. An interesting movie, but, it’s nothing compared to the 1991 animated version.
The score and musical numbers orchestrated by returning composer Alan Menken I thought were a definite mix of 50/50. The brand new songs Menken orchestrated, such as “Evermore” & “Days in the Sun”, are the ones that I thought have been pretty well thought out and had a lot of life stored in them, but, the remakes of the old songs such as “Be Our Guest” & “Belle” felt much on the cringing side and time consumingly slow, especially with the pacing of the music and the way the performers sang them.
Another thing I couldn’t help but note was that the way the background sets were made, particularly the castle & village, looked like they were props for a high school play, although, I definitely commend the cinematography for helping everything seem and feel natural.
With the direction, I think Bill Condon did fine, though, unlike another film he directed (which I have also reviewed and haven’t posted here on this site yet), I don’t think it’s one of his best works. Like I already said, the cinematography he gave the film was perfect. However, I felt that the action moments, particularly with the scenes of the wolf attacks, and the villagers vs the castle residents, were too sluggish and less lively, especially compared to the original.
The story and screenplay done by Stephen Chbosky & Evan Spiliotopoulos did also seem too excessively similar to the original, and I didn’t think it was as ground-breakingly emotional as the animated version. But, most of all, I didn’t think the story did a good job at making itself it’s own instead of seeming like some sort of carbon copy. I did think that the most interesting moment came with the book where you could travel anywhere in the world, as well as the backstory about Belle’s mother and what happened to her.
When it comes to the cast and their performances, I definitely have mixed opinions on which ones were great and which ones weren’t great.
The casting and performances of Emma Watson & Luke Evans as Belle and Gaston were the ones that I felt seemed completely out of place. They definitely looked their parts, but the way they both moved and sounded didn’t seem natural, and it looked like that because their characters are so highly renowned, they just weren’t able to perform without looking like the pressure of being & living up to those characters was too great.
Also, with the exception of Ewan McGregor as Lumiere, none of the cast made their roles French enough for the town and time period the story takes place in.
The incorporation of African-American cast members and characters also didn’t feel right. I’m not being racist or anything, it’s just...when you look in your own history books, you’ll find that the time people of certain ethnicity, like African-Americans, Spanish, and Asians, did not become prevalently widespread until much later than the time period the movie takes place in. I found that to be an example of being too unnecessarily politically correct, and when used at the wrong time, it gives inaccuracy to the setting and culture of a story.
However, when it comes to casting and performances, not everyone was terrible. As I likely said, Ewan McGregor portrayed Lumiere perfectly, and Kevin Kline...he gave his portrayal and character of Maurice a sense of innocence, tenderness, and warmth, and he took his role on like a pro compared to Watson & Evans.
Josh Gad, who portrays Lefou, was also quite the eye-catcher. Admittedly, his character did have a slight guy crush on Gaston, but really, he’s not inherently gay. Even though Gad obviously kept his American accent, he was actually really fun to watch. He had the best comedic-timing out of everyone, and the singing chops he gave for every song he was in were extremely well-done. So, if you’re a fan of Josh Gad, I think you should totally see this film.
But the real star of the movie comes from the guy who played the Beast himself: Dan Stevens. The performance & voice he gave the character, as well as the makeup and motion capture used on him, made the Beast so lifelike and alive. Every moment with him on the screen also makes things worthwhile, because he gives off such strength & emotion into the role.
Overall, the film isn’t bad, but, it pales to the original.
So, I rate “Beauty and the Beast (2017)” three stars out of five.
Before I conclude this post, I’d like to apologize to you all for not making a post to review the animated version yet. And I know that you guys would want me to very soon, especially because of how many comparisons I’ve been making with this film to the animated version. I promise you all though that it will be coming first thing tomorrow since it’s all ready. I would like to first see what you all think of this review before posting the next one. Also, after the next review, I will be posting my review of “Beauty and the Beast: The Enchanted Christmas”, the midquel to the original.
In the meantime though, I hope you all enjoyed this one, because this movie was definitely much easier to take notes on than the original.
So, with all that said, see ya later.
I haven’t seen this one yet, but I intend to eventually. It sounds good, but I agree that it’s probably not as good as the original. That being said, I was already aware of the cast for this one, and that’s the thing that interests me the most, as I’m familiar with pretty much all of them, which is very unusual for me, as I don’t often recognize actors/actresses in movies, so it’s kind of surprising how many I already like in this one. All in all, a movie worth checking out someday.
I ended up venting my disappointment to my sister for 3 days.
In my opinion, the live-action versions are very good, but the originals will always remain the best.
4981605
Of course they do, Disney does not and so will not intend to outdo its already established stories, they just wanna remake the lot of them so they could feel young again in the olden days, to feel the tanginess of nostalgia flow in their veins and their mouseketeers, or grab substantial profits, depends on the circumstances, not for the sake of that competition trope and all that "which is the best?" type of crap that everyone began yammering nowadays.
I've never seen that movie, but at least this live-action version isn't a bad movie according to the rotten tomatoes website. In fact, not all live-action Disney movies are bad. The reason how they get bad is very simple; bad writing, plot holes, uninterested dialogue, too much drama, and unfunny comedy. The Jungle Book 2016 had great effects, great characters, great storyline, great writing, and great soundtrack. I love Disney's Dinosaur even when I was a kid; it has some flaws and scientific inaccuracies, but at least the tone fits in a dinosaur movie and the characters are great.
4981635
All two of those movies are ones that I plan on reviewing, actually. Along with the 1967 “Jungle Book” film, of course.
4981625
Honestly, I don't see Lafou as having any so called 'Gay Undertones'; and I watched the movie expecting to spot them because of all the fuss over it from both sides of the fence.
His behavior is more consistant with the way a younger sibling idolozes a full adult sibling.
It's more like he looks at Gaston thinking "That is how a man acts. That is who I want to be. God I wish I could be more like him"
The efforts taken to be relevant to Gaston is about winning his approval and respect. He wants to learn from him.
Gaston is literally just the 'strong male role model' that Lafou never had while growing up.
My honest opinion:
Calling him gay for the sake of LGBTQ visibility is reaching at straws.
Calling him gay for the sake of complaining about too much LGBTQ visibility is equally ridiculous.
4981674
No need to be sorry.
Everyone experiences and sees life differently.
Why did they need to remake something that's already perfect? For money.
4981817
I agree.
The book was better
4981848
Don't say you like the anime if you haven't read the manga.
4981849
4981817
Well, it’s that, and the fact that someone simply came up with the idea of making a live-action adaption, and wanted one to be done. Especially with all of the technological advances being made in the film industry.
4981916
Well, then, why not make a live-action adaptation of Atlantis: The Lost Empire? Or Treasure Planet? They're action-packed, adventurous, underrated Disney movies that could use the live-action/CGI treatment.
4981918
Good question.
4981918
I would totally watch those! Atlantis: The Lost Empire, in particular, is an underrated gem.