#maleficent is definitely not condoning this | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

mermaidsirennikita · 7 years

Text

I Saw Beauty and the Beast

And I have Opinions.

Firstly, I should say that I do have a huge attachment to the original movie. I think it’s a masterpiece, probably Disney’s best work second only to The Lion King. (Even then, it’s a very close second.) I was always going to see this, even if I really didn’t want to, because the original is one of my mom’s favorites and I have a ten year old sister. I’m going to see all of the live action movies; it’s becoming a tradition to go to them with my mom.

What I expect out of these movies, tbh, is Experience First, actually solid movie outside of the nostalgia second. While I think that the 2015 Cinderella was beautiful and great in its general fairy tale loveliness, I don’t feel like it really expanded on the original in any way or bettered the story. The 2016 Jungle Book, conversely, darkened and matured the Disney story and honestly made it more enjoyable for me.

Beauty and the Beast wasn’t going to be as good as the original--nor was it going to improve upon it. I think that acknowledging that you are seeing this movie as a visual spectacle and nostalgia bomb first is REALLY IMPORTANT in terms of enjoying it. I wasn’t going to pay $8 and not enjoy it, you know? I wasn’t gonna be the bitch who sat with people who don’t critique every bit of pop culture and rain on their parade. For people like my mom who are seeing this because it’s a nostalgia bomb... You’re going to love it.

And I kind of did too.

There are things I can critique to death, and they’re valid issues. First and foremost--it’s too early to remake a masterpiece of this nature. It will be too early when The Lion King is remade. Cinderella and The Jungle Book (I don’t count Maleficent as a remake tbh because... it’s a separate animal for me and I dislike it) were working with very old material that is in many ways dated. There wasn’t much story to either of the originals. The original Beauty and the Beast is dated in some aspects that this movie tries to expand on or improve, sometimes for good and sometimes for ill--but it’s still a movie made in 1991. By then, Disney had learned that it needed to expand upon its romances, it needed to add character development, it needed to make an actual story, not just a visual fairy tale. So what the earlier movies missed, Beauty and the Beast already had.

Emma Watson is fine. That’s how I’d put it. She’s not doing anything great performance-wise, we all know her singing voice isn’t there. (I didn’t go here for the singing, tho.) The thing is that she’s pretty much a placeholder. The “feminist Belle” angle is honestly kind of overplayed in the media. Belle does invent a washing machine thing, she doesn’t wear a corset, but for the most part she’s kind of a placeholder character. It’s fine. She’s not MY Belle, but she’s not offensive.

Dan Stevens, I think, made the Beast a bit more his own. He ain’t the Beast I fell in love with in the original, but I still like him a lot. He feels more like an actual prince--snotty and a bit of a literature snob, evidently (the best parts of the romance where when he and Belle sparred over books) and honestly just super Dan Stevens-y. I was like, Cousin Matthew, wtf happened? It worked for me, it worked for my mom, my little sister spent the entire movie going “the beast is BRIT-ISH” so... there was more of a departure here, and I liked it. I like the idea of these movies being more their own thing than trying to replace the original thing, you know?

The side characters were great, imo. I know a lot of people don’t like the CGI--for the Beast, we aren’t where we’re supposed to be yet. I’ll give you that. I got used to it, though. (However, the scenes in which he sang threw me off. “Something There” should have remained sung in their heads, imo.) The servants, I liked. They didn’t look like their 2D counterparts; but the movie was going more for a feeling that they were actually turning into “dead” furniture, which I appreciated. It’s another separation, and if anything, this movie could have done with more separations. That way, I wasn’t comparing it so much. Lumiere was great, Plumette was adorable, Emma Thompson is PER-FUCKING-FECTION DON’T @ ME ON EMMA.

Gaston basically stole the show. We knew this would happen. The Le Fou thing would have been so much more enjoyable if they hadn’t mentioned it? Like, Bill Condon, he’s obviously gay and Tumblr probably would have loved his clear gayness HAD YOU NOT SAID THAT HORRIFIC THING ABOUT “EXCLUSIVELY GAY MOMENT”(S). That wasn’t even the gayest moment of the movie??? Like??? Anyway, I always thought that Le Fou was gay, he just got more character development in this movie. Gaston is what mattered in that plotline anyway. We all walked out of the theater talking about how great Luke Evans was, how fantastic he sounded. My mom isn’t even into musicals and she was going on about how fab Luke Evans was; it was that obvious that he knew exactly what he was doing. I wish his career was bigger.

The Dress. Okay, so the dress Belle wears at the very end >>> the yellow dress. We know this. The yellow dress should have been so much better. But tbh, I don’t blame Emma Watson for that. I know it’s become popular to say that she RUINED THE DRESS ON HER OWN but... If she did have creative control, which I don’t think she did to the extent that people think she did, that’s the fault of Disney. This is a huge movie for them. If they allowed Emma Watson to go over the costume designer’s head, that’s because they let her do it. Anyone could have looked at that dress, said, “Sorry Emma, but that’s not what we’re going for” and told the costume designer to start over. It’s not like we’re dealing with a Movie Star here, it’s Hermione and she’s still rising. With all that being said, I think it looks a lot better in motion. The bodice leaves much to be desired and it could have been much better, but the skirt flows in a really lovely manner. Should it have been better? Yes, but I was pleasantly surprised by its movement.

The bits that really stand out in my mind are things like the opening. Firstly, because Dan Stevens was in a David Bowie getup and I think we were all Very Unsure Of Where Our Vaginas Stood On This. (I was... good with it...) But that was an aesthetic moment that was sumptuous and over the top and its Own Thing. It felt like real 18th century France on crack, and I appreciated it. I just don’t know why THAT was so cool-looking, when the Beast’s transformation was so... lowkey... compared to the original. That was where I felt they could have gone bigger.

Also, could have had Belle and the Beast make out more but that’s just me.

Was it as good as it could have been? No, but I don’t think that was ever possible. You can’t top the original, just like they aren’t going to be able to top the original Lion King. They probably won’t even be able to do Mulan justice, because even though that’s probably not on the level of BatB or TLK, it’s too soon. The film industry hasn’t progressed as much since the 90s as it has since the 50s and 60s. You can’t put a fresh spin on movies that are still, relatively speaking, still fresh. Especially since 2D animation hasn’t progressed much since; visually, there’s definitely an old style to Cinderella and The Jungle Book, but Disney hasn’t released a 2D movie since The Princess and the Frog--and that was after a long break beforehand.

So; I advise you to go in with realistic expectations, acknowledge that this is a movie you enjoy for the visuals and the nostalgia. But also--hold Disney to higher standards. Artistically, it isn’t where it was in its Renaissance of 1989-1999. And it’s never going to get back to that place, or surpass it, unless people hold it to a high standard. These remakes are fun, and I’m going to keep watching them; but I’m acknowledging that for Disney, these are cash cows, not artistic endeavors.

But that doesn’t mean there isn’t something special about seeing it onscreen.

#beauty and the beast #beauty and the beast 2017 #i will definitely rewatch this when it comes out on dvd i'll put it that way #it made me happy

18 notes · View notes

courtneysmovieblog · 7 years

Text

The “Beast” is a “Beauty”

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Which means that not everyone is going to like Disney’s live-action Beauty and the Beast. These include, and are not limited to: people that didn’t want a new version at all, people that don’t like Emma Watson, people that think the whole story is an allegory for Stockholm Syndrome, people that don’t like fairy tales, people that have a problem with LeFou (Josh Gad) being gay, and even people that don’t like musicals.

If none of that applies to you at all, then you’ll enjoy it just fine.

Don’t bother comparing it to the original cartoon, because you aren’t going to win there. It will always have a place in our hearts that no amount of remakes will ever take away. Bill Condon and the cast are well aware of this; their deep love and respect for the original is well evident in how faithful the movie remains to the spirit of its animated predecessor. Yet like last year’s live action Jungle Book, it tries to add its own unique spin by incorporating elements from the original fairy tale and giving a bit more depth to its characters.

Ever wondered why the Beast/Prince was such a jerk before he got cursed? Why the people in Belle’s village didn’t seem to have any idea that there was an enchanted castle a few miles away? Why Mrs. Potts and the others got cursed when they didn’t even do anything? Or even what happened to Belle’s mother? Well, you get the answers in this movie, and it does effectively fix some of the movie’s biggest plotholes.

Now to the performances. Emma Watson has a decent singing voice, auto-tuned or not, and more importantly, she makes Belle even more of a badass than she already was. She has a decent chemistry with Dan Steven’s Beast, which is assisted by another big change from the original story: they bond over their mutual love of books. While the cartoon Beast (and the one in the Broadway show) is illiterate until Belle teaches him to read, this Beast is very knowledgable and witty, thanks to his expensive education. He’s still very much a spoiled man child, but it’s nice to have the two of them as more intellectual equals. It makes their blossoming romance seem more natural.

Luke Evans is definitely the breakthrough in this movie. He might not be the size of a barge, but his pipes definitely are. You can tell he and Josh Gad were having a ball every second while making this movie, and it definitely shows in uproarious “Gaston” number.

On a related note: the subplot of LeFou being gay was completely blown out of proportion by the media. Not that it matters: Gad is perfect as the character, and he gets some of the best lines in the movie.

Also clearly having fun were the voice actors of the enchanted objects/servants: Cogsworth (Ian McKellan), Lumiere (Ewan McGregor), Mrs. Potts (Emma Thompson), Cadenza (Stanley Tucci), and Madame Garderobe (Audra McDonald). McGregor especially makes a wonderful Lumiere, even if the French accent isn’t genuine -- Jerry Orbach’s wasn’t and we didn’t hold it against him. As I predicted, he sold the hell out of the “Be Our Guest” number. It doesn’t matter if the objects themselves look creepier in CGI form. We have to remember than not everything that looks good in a cartoon looks good in live-action.

Other than that, the movie is visually gorgeous, especially the costumes. There are certain outfits and numbers that make you feel like it’s Disney as told by Marie Antoinette and Moulin Rogue, but not in a bad way. Actually, the color adds to the movie’s charm. And Alan Menken’s songs and scores remain mostly unchanged, save for a few new songs that are well done, if not as memorable as the original ones.

Beauty and the Beast might not be perfect, but it’s another example of Disney doing right by its own work. Unlike Once Upon A Time, Maleficent, or the Alice in Wonderland movies, it manages to modernize a classic without butchering its characters. It modernizes a classic story while remaining faithful to its original spirit.

And really, isn’t that all we ever wanted from this movie?

8 out of 10

#beauty and the beast #review #Disney #live action cartoon

7 notes · View notes

abigailreviews-blog · 7 years

Photo

Beauty And The Beast (2017) Review

Beauty And The Beast is directed by Bill Condon and is the latest in what is shaping up to be a long line of live action Disney remakes. Belle (Emma Watson) is an ahead-of-her-time outcast in a small, French, 18th century village. In return for her fathers life, Belle is taken prisoner by a Beast (Dan Stevens), who needs true love to break his monstrous curse. Meanwhile, nefarious Gaston (Luke Evans), the most popular (and arrogant) man in the village seeks Belle’s hand in marriage and will do anything to get it.

There are some minor plot changes in this version, but none of them seem unnecessary. Small changes in certain scenes and characters, don’t really affect the arc of the film in the long run, and bigger changes- such as the backstory of what happened to Belle’s mother- are welcome additions, adding more depth to some key characters; especially Belle and Maurice. The father- daughter relationship between these two, is explored far more effectively in this film due to some new dialogue that really illustrates just how close they are. And thanks to some additional scenes between Belle and the Beast, the romance in this version seems less rushed than in the original and far more plausible on the whole.

Gaston and LeFou’s relationship has a completely different dynamic in this film. Unlike his arrogant, but mainly idiotic animated counterpart, Gaston is pure evil in this version. He’s vicious, scheming and far more dangerous, losing his role as a comic villain and becoming a truly threatening character. LeFou- as I’m sure you’ve probably read- is gay in this version. Unfortunately he’s a stereotype, he’s a camp, over the top, clichéd gay best friend and his sexuality is completely played for laughs. Is it a disappointment that the sexuality of Disney’s first openly gay character is used as comic relief? Yes - but did we really expect a sensitive portrayal of an LGBT character from a big budget Hollywood movie, that’s aiming to make as much money internationally as it possibly can. He has some of the funniest lines in the film (and he was possibly my favourite character) so at least he’s memorable as a Disney milestone- but is he memorable for the right reasons?

One problem with updating animated films into live action, is that while it might be great to see beloved main characters as real people, it also means that the more cartoonish side characters such as animals in the Jungle Book, or talking furniture in this case, have to be turned into ‘realistic’ CGI. When beloved characters such as Lumiere, Cogsworth and Mrs Potts are turned into CGI, they lose all of their charm. They just can’t show any emotion like their animated counterparts can; so no matter how great the voice acting is from Ewan McGregor, Ian McKellen and Emma Thompson (amongst others), it just doesn’t work when it’s coming from a blank piece of wood or metal, that struggles to show any kind of expression.

Obviously an important part of Beauty And The Beast- and of any Disney film- is the soundtrack. For fans of Disney musicals, the live action remakes up until this point have been a bit of a disappointment- Maleficent and Cinderella weren’t musicals, and The Jungle Book only included a couple of choice songs. Beauty and The Beast however is a true musical with many songs from the original film, alongside some new ones. The new songs fit in well and feel as if they could have been part of the original film and the old songs retain their original feel, despite some line changes and differences in orchestration. Unfortunately (and I hate to say this, I really do) the weakest cast member in terms of singing was definitely Emma Watson. Her voice sounded completely auto tuned throughout the film. I still enjoyed it, because I’m personally not a fan of Paige O'Hara’s performance (not a popular opinion I know- and no offence Mrs O'Hara). But there was just this inescapable computerised sound to her voice, which at times was a bit jarring; given the 18th century setting and the strong vocal performances (or at least less obvious auto tuning) of the other cast members.

For lovers of the original animation, who hail it as their favourite Disney movie, this version will probably be an enjoyable experience that is either loved equally or just less than the original. For me- someone who enjoyed the original but didn’t love it (always more of a Mulan person)- this version is a great improvement, adding more character depth, and a better overall story as a result. This was a great movie experience full of excellent acting, beautiful set design (far less garish than Cinderella, and far more real than The Jungle Book), and great musical numbers. Personally, I think that this is the best live action Disney remake so far.

8/10

#beauty and the beast #film #movie #review

2 notes · View notes

to10nl-blog · 7 years

Text

Film Review: Beauty And The Beast

Genre: Fantasy, Musical Director: Bill Condon Cast: Emma Watson, Ian McKellen, Emma Thompson, Ewan McGregor ToTen Rating: XXXX A live-action remake of the 1991 animated Disney Classic. Years ago I came in contact with a director who was interested in making a short film about the background of the witch from Hansel & Gretel. He told me that no one was interested, and one person even laughed at him. Who would ever be interested in a fairytale character’s background? Well, my guess was that actually many people would be interested. Not long after, the tv show “Once Upon A Time” started and was a hit. So Disney decided to give it a go in film theaters with “Maleficent”, and success again. After that, they stopped telling familiar stories from another angle, and just did live-action versions of their cartoons. I find that a loss, but it’s not hurting their box office. Beauty And The Beast even goes all the way by including the songs from the original animated feature. They’re great musical compositions, so no harm there. It’s not a 100% copy, of course; there are some updated jokes in there, a few changes to some details, and a character who’s now gay – well, it’s suggested that he’s gay, which was enough for one Alabama cinema to refuse to show the film. Because, God forbid, the children should be exposed to such inuendos in a movie about bestiality. But the best part, in my opinion, was the production design. The Beast’s castle is a gorgeous dark, gothic piece of art. I’m not sure how much of it was physically there and how much was added later in post production, but it looked seamlessly to me. It’s very believable that one could be held prisoner there and not mind it that much. All in all, a very good adaptation. Now, since I have your attention, I would like to say something about the source material. This is a story about how true beauty is on the inside. And it’s told through a tale in which an attractive witch disguises herself as an old woman (which is unattractive per definition, then?) to mess with an attractive prince because he’s become an a-hole person after having been forced to grow up with an a-hole father. For some reason the sexy incognito witch is surprised to see the a-hole be an a-hole about giving her shelter in his castle. So she reveals herself for the hottie that she truly is, and then curses him to look like a beast. And his innocent staff members are dragged into it by being turned into furniture. In other words, the witch herself was being kind of a bitch, which, with the fact that she’s good looking, so far means that attractive people are douchebags. Cut to a short skip in the future, and everyone’s forgotten about the castle and the prince. Enter Belle. In this tale of “looks are not important” the main character is a pretty girl whose name even means “pretty”. But hey, she reads books and sometimes invents stuff, so almost everyone in town thinks she’s a nutter. Except the hunk, but he’s not just an a-hole, he’s an evil and dumb a-hole. The pretty girl-who-reads-books ends up being held prisoner by the beast. He quickly falls in love with her because she reads books and isn’t afraid of him (not that he’s very scary to begin with), and she likes him in return because before dragging her back after an attempt to escape he fought off wolves that were about to eat her. In other words: the guy who got turned into a beast because he was superficial is into the chick who is slightly more intellectual than others, and the hostage falls for her (supposedly) disgusting captor because for a moment he was being, like, totally heroic. And then in the end, as we all know and if not at least knew was coming, the beast is turned into his handsome princey self again. They get married and live happily ever after. The tale about inner beauty is all about how two sexy peeps fall for each other quite easily. It would have made more sense if they had cast Kristen Schaal as Belle, and if the Prince was an old man by the time he was returned to his former self and she was still into him. But I guess this tale about inner beauty reaches a bigger audience if it’s told with two lookers in the lead. Aaaaanyway. It’s a good film. It’s very pretty to watch. Beauty And The Beast is in Dutch theaters from March 2017. Rating: XXXXX – ToTen Top Triumph XXXX – Fantastic Feature XXX – Good enough to spend your money on XX – Close, but no cigar X – Make like a kangaroo and Skip It

Words: Terence Shea

#Movies #movie review #beauty and the beast #ToTen #to10

0 notes