Beauty and the Beast (2017)

[K1stpierre]

Just saw it and although it didn't blow me like I wanted it too, it was still a great movie. I felt that the beginning for me was almost to faithful to the cartoon, and bored me a bit. However, once the film diverted and made its own path I loved it. 

 

Emma was good as Belle but to be honest she didnt wow me, I still think Anne Hathaway would of made an amazing Belle. The beast to me could of looked a bit more "beasty", if that makes sense but overall I liked him and at times loved him (sometimes the cgi wasn't the best but it was rare). They definitely made him less scary/monstrous than the cartoon. As for the others (lumiere and cogsworth and such) I loved them all, I actually tearedup at the end when it looked like they all in sense died off.

 

Overall I left feeling happy, sure it didn't wow me but then again it did surprise me at times and did touch my heart when I wasn't expecting it. I'd give this a strong B+, 8/10.

 

question though: that book thing the beast showed belle, was that like a time travel trick? I had originally thought it was merely a hologram of the place but when belle showed her father the rose, I was so confused.

[Cmasterclay]

It was fine. The cast was good and mostly did their thing singing. All the actors playing the servants did good enough jobs, though only McGregor stood out.  Be Our Guest was an excellent sequence, probably the only thing really standout in the entire film. This rendition of Gaston was good - Evans and Gad run away with the movie from their first scene. Watson and Stevens were alright, but Watson sounded like T-Pain at times and the Beast went beyond the uncanny valley and into the uncanny Mariana Trench. Outside of that CGI it was mostly good technically. The added Evermore song is boring but it had more emotional impact than most of the movie. It's fine. I was decently entertained in it because it's a fine story and good cast. But Jesus, it was boring in that way, too. It was a paint-by-numbers movie. 

[Ezen Baklattan]

Pretty much exactly what it says on the tin. The animated classic is great, and the film really does stay close to it. It's an engaging story for sure, but the animated version felt a lot more succinct and clean when needed to be. Much of the new story material, especially the magical teleporting book, ranges from decent at best to silly at worst. The scene introduces a fairly trite plot point while showing nothing we didn't already know. (Jesus, what is it with this movie and dead mothers?!)

 

Be Our Guest is a pretty great sequence, and aside from the beast, the CGI characters actually look pretty cool and inventive. Belle and (to a lesser extent) Gaston feel unexcitingly directed and fairly pedestrian. The newer songs feel super tacked on, just to add more dead weight existing simply to differentiate this from the original. Evermore is the closest to being a solid song on its own, especially with the Groban cover, however.

 

Evans, Gad, and McGregor are clear standouts, and I'm always down for Audra McDonald, but Watson didn't really blow me away here. Stevens did a decent job, however. The cast again ranges from solid to servicable.

 

In the end, it's like seeing a solid community theatre production of a show you love. The material you love is still there, but nothing they add really shines.

 

Still a decent enough B.

[Lizzy]

It was alright.  The new songs were fairly forgettable and I'm not sure the extra plot scenes added much more overall to the film but it was okay. Luke Evans and Josh Gad were very good and their version of Gaston has been a real ear worm since watching the film yesterday. Rated it B 

[JohnnyGossamer]

On 3/19/2017 at 5:56 PM, K1stpierre said:

Just saw it and although it didn't blow me like I wanted it too, it was still a great movie. I felt that the beginning for me was almost to faithful to the cartoon, and bored me a bit. However, once the film diverted and made its own path I loved it.

Hmm.

[Impact]

Better then I was expecting. Not as good as the 1991 version or as good as The Jungle Book. But still quite well done, I really hope this wins production design. The acting wasn't that bad either-but really does Emma Watson have to be a bookworm in everything she is in?

B+

[Morieris]

I was more impressed with the new songs than I expected, as I was with Gaston and LeFou. Real pity Audra didn't get a nice, full song.

 

The least interesting parts were.....Beauty and the Beast. They knew they could get that built-in HP fandom dollar and cast Emma, but they ended up doing (mostly) a disservice to Belle. Holding a book doesn't make you embody a character. 

 

On 3/19/2017 at 6:15 PM, Cmasterclay said:

Watson sounded like T-Pain at times

 

 

The all CGI Beast makes sense ... but it looks really strange. It was less believable than the talking furniture.

 

I wouldn't pay full price to watch it again, but it has its merits. C

[filmlover]

1 hour ago, Morieris said:

Real pity Audra didn't get a nice, full song.

True story: Audra McDonald makes everything better.

[The Stingray]

14 hours ago, JohnnyGossamer said:

Hmm.

[somebody85]

This reminded me of Rob Zombies Halloween remake in all the worst ways. The bulk of the film is as formulaic as a dark ride at Disney World and it rushes right through all of the originals scenes like they are checkmarks on a nostalgia list. Emma Watson wasn't as wooden as she has been in past roles but she was just sort of there. The only time she really displayed Belles sense of adventure was during the back end of the opening number - "Madame Gaston, his little wife. Ugh!"

 

The most integral element of the original was the chemistry between the two leads but director Bill Condon removed so much of the regret from The Beasts face during the opening scenes that I rarely bought it here. The Beast rescuing Belle actually felt out of character in this version and leading up to this pivotal encounter, there is only one scene where the film shows he cares for her. There is no longer any semblance of a kind being in the trade-off with Belles father and he doesn't even offer a room to her (Lumiere does). So with these changes, there is nothing in this version that suggests he would give a shit about saving her after the West Wing incidence. And Belle falling for him afterwards...yeah maybe animation can get away with more but that never felt earned either.

 

This remake may be completely unnecessary but it wasn't all bad. The writers did fill in most of the animations plot holes even if they added plenty of their own. But scenes like the iconic dance don't come close to capturing the magic of the original. The lead up to that moment was so much better in 1991 and the brilliant mix of CGI and 2D will never be replicated during the scene itself.

 

I know many enjoyed this version so I'm not going to trash it too hard. For me, some things worked and a lot didn't. The editing was perplexing at times and the run time felt 2x as long as the original even though it's only an additional 40 minutes. The music was fine even though I didn't care for any of the new numbers (including Evermore) outside of Belles verse in Days Of The Sun. Be Our Guest was predictably the most fun and it had some cool moments during the finale. I thought the autotune would be a lot worse after seeing reviews but there was only a few times it sounded robotic and all those incidences involved a high note that Emma Watson couldn't hit.

 

So yeah, this remake isn't anything I'm going to gush over but it's also far from terrible. And most importantly it didn't taint a film I hold dearly and consider close to flawless. Overall it's just a big flat meh and will probably be forgotten about by next year. - C

Edited March 23, 2017 by somebody85

[Amadeus]

Just like TFA and Jungle Book before it.

Amateurism with no identity. A microwaved pizza. 

[filmlover]

21 hours ago, Amadeus said:

Just like TFA and Jungle Book before it.

Amateurism with no identity. A microwaved pizza. 

[Amadeus]

9 hours ago, filmlover said:

 

[amelin]

Was anyone else bothered by Mrs Potts singing Beauty and the Beast? Emma Thompson's voice is lovely, but the accent was so jarring. It's such a beautiful song. It should be sung in a beautiful accent.

[Fullbuster]

I gave this an A.

 

It was what I hoped it would be : charming, wonderful, magical. Emma Watson was credible, same thing for the beast, Gaston was a great villain,, same thing for his friend aka the gay pal

[AniNate]

9 hours ago, amelin said:

Was anyone else bothered by Mrs Potts singing Beauty and the Beast? Emma Thompson's voice is lovely, but the accent was so jarring. It's such a beautiful song. It should be sung in a beautiful accent.

 

I was bothered by pretty much every song lifted from the original; save maybe Gaston.

[Noctis]

On Wednesday, March 22, 2017 at 1:19 AM, Impact said:

Better then I was expecting. Not as good as the 1991 version or as good as The Jungle Book. But still quite well done, I really hope this wins production design. The acting wasn't that bad either-but really does Emma Watson have to be a bookworm in everything she is in?

B+

 

Yes, she played the bookworm in Perks, Noah, The Bling Ring, and...oh wait...

 

She didn't play a bookworm for six years!

[Kvikk Lunsj]

I really liked it. 

4/5 

[RobinHood26]

Casting is great, Production designer and costumes are fucking next level awesome. I still love that score and lots of the songs. 

 

This movie is 45 minutes longer than the animated for no reason at all.

 

Too much green screen.

 

Beast didnt look good. 

 

Pacing is off, most scenes feel too long, it dragged on, movie didn't really have any flow to me.

 

All the added bits are focused in the wrong spots, needed to focus more on the relationship.

 

New songs were unneeded, held up the story. 

 

 

 

C+ (78)

 

Animated A- (91)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[filmlover]

6 hours ago, Jay Hollywood said:

New songs were unneeded, held up the story. 

Boo, "Evermore" is great.