Medieval Monday Movie!
Mar. 21st, 2017 01:58 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
chaosvizierA lot of big movies are cropping up here in Early Spring, for whatever reason. So much to see, and so little time, and I still need to binge on Voltron on Netflix, but we'll discuss that another day. For now, following the action packed special effects laden extravaganza called Kong, we will talk about the slightly less action packed but nonetheless heavily special effects laden extravaganza called... Beauty and the Beast.
Beauty and the Beast
The great Disney revival began a quarter of a century ago, giving us The Little Mermaid and Beauty and the Beast and really revitalizing Disney's animated output. Not to say that things didn't get a little out of hand over the years (Hercules, I will always give you the stinkeye), but by and large, "modern" Disney movies have brought wonderment to the theater. But what happens when you transform an animated classic into a live-action performance? Well... we could ask 101 Dalmations. Which somehow worked. Maybe only because of Glenn Close, though.
I'm an old fuddy duddy, and remakes sometimes make me sad, since I'm cranky and like how things were originally and you young whippersnappers always changing things, dagnabbit. But in this instance, it's not such a huge amount of change. Many of the songs are identical, much of the dialogue is identical, the plot is the same, and the few changes that are made are integrated nicely into the storyline. So... yes, you can relax if you're cranky like me and don't like changing things.
The plot: Remember that movie in 1991? Yeah, same plot. Exactly the same.
The pros: The CGI needed to animate Lumiere, Cogsworth, the Beast, and all the other castle dwellers is almost seamless, which is impressive for a movie like this where our heroine is probably interacting with a lot of green screens. Emma Watson does a good job as Belle, even if we're all sitting in the theater thinking "Hermione wouldn't have done this, come on" for half the film. There are some new songs added, and new scenes and characters, but they are integrated well, as I said, and they work. I especially liked Luke Evans as Gaston, and the Gaston Song and dance was fun to watch.
The cons: It is still a musical, and that's always my beef with Disney movies. Sometimes I just want to watch a movie and not have too much singing. Granted, I knew what I was getting into with this one, so I was ready. But come on, Disney, why can't you give us another "Emperor's New Groove" or "Mulan"? Also, people complained about *gasp* a gay character in the film. Oh come on, folks, are you serious? A thousand other things to complain about, but Gay Lefou gets your knickers in a twist? Sod off, you wankers. And, ultimately, no matter how well this one was done, the original was better.
The verdict: If you liked the original, you'll probably like this one too. Of course, if you've seen the original, you know exactly how this movie will go.
Note: This movie cleared up one thing that always bothered me in the original: timing. When did everything happen? Has the castle been there for months? Years? Centuries? Here we get indications that the castle and curse are maybe only a few decades old at best, but the place has been excised from human memory.
Note: I did not recognize Gandalf as Cogsworth. Also, I kept looking at Kevin Kline and thinking he was Robin Williams.
Beauty and the Beast
The great Disney revival began a quarter of a century ago, giving us The Little Mermaid and Beauty and the Beast and really revitalizing Disney's animated output. Not to say that things didn't get a little out of hand over the years (Hercules, I will always give you the stinkeye), but by and large, "modern" Disney movies have brought wonderment to the theater. But what happens when you transform an animated classic into a live-action performance? Well... we could ask 101 Dalmations. Which somehow worked. Maybe only because of Glenn Close, though.
I'm an old fuddy duddy, and remakes sometimes make me sad, since I'm cranky and like how things were originally and you young whippersnappers always changing things, dagnabbit. But in this instance, it's not such a huge amount of change. Many of the songs are identical, much of the dialogue is identical, the plot is the same, and the few changes that are made are integrated nicely into the storyline. So... yes, you can relax if you're cranky like me and don't like changing things.
The plot: Remember that movie in 1991? Yeah, same plot. Exactly the same.
The pros: The CGI needed to animate Lumiere, Cogsworth, the Beast, and all the other castle dwellers is almost seamless, which is impressive for a movie like this where our heroine is probably interacting with a lot of green screens. Emma Watson does a good job as Belle, even if we're all sitting in the theater thinking "Hermione wouldn't have done this, come on" for half the film. There are some new songs added, and new scenes and characters, but they are integrated well, as I said, and they work. I especially liked Luke Evans as Gaston, and the Gaston Song and dance was fun to watch.
The cons: It is still a musical, and that's always my beef with Disney movies. Sometimes I just want to watch a movie and not have too much singing. Granted, I knew what I was getting into with this one, so I was ready. But come on, Disney, why can't you give us another "Emperor's New Groove" or "Mulan"? Also, people complained about *gasp* a gay character in the film. Oh come on, folks, are you serious? A thousand other things to complain about, but Gay Lefou gets your knickers in a twist? Sod off, you wankers. And, ultimately, no matter how well this one was done, the original was better.
The verdict: If you liked the original, you'll probably like this one too. Of course, if you've seen the original, you know exactly how this movie will go.
Note: This movie cleared up one thing that always bothered me in the original: timing. When did everything happen? Has the castle been there for months? Years? Centuries? Here we get indications that the castle and curse are maybe only a few decades old at best, but the place has been excised from human memory.
Note: I did not recognize Gandalf as Cogsworth. Also, I kept looking at Kevin Kline and thinking he was Robin Williams.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2017-03-21 11:39 pm (UTC)I only make exceptions for old Marx Brothers movies, Mel Brooks & Avenue Q. And maybe the musical episodes of Scrubs & Buffy
Long-Suffering Partner, however, loves them. Fortunately she has a selection of like-minded friends she goes to see them with , so I'm off the hook
So I'm as unlikely to see Beauty & The Beast as I am to sit through La La Land. That is to say extremely unlikely. As in 'wild horses couldn't drag me kicking & screaming through the theatre doors & King Kong Bundy couldn't keep me in my seat' unlikely
However, I'm told they make a lot of people happy. Go to it... I won't be!!
no subject
Date: 2017-03-22 02:49 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2017-03-22 01:39 am (UTC)"Give me a break you are dumber than hair & there's no-one that you wouldn't.... screw!!!!"
no subject
Date: 2017-03-22 02:50 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2017-03-23 10:02 pm (UTC)That said, I saw the animated B&B (what can I say, I had to chaperone a day-before-Christmas-break movie-fest when I taught elementary school). which begged the question about the 2017 live-action version: Was it really necessary? And if so, why?
One burning question I have about the live-action, though--does Gaston still use antlers in all of his decorating?
no subject
Date: 2017-03-24 02:49 pm (UTC)Was it really necessary? No. This is pretty much a photocopy of the original, with some extra scenes and stuff (a director's cut, if you will). There is live action, but there's so much CGI that it might as well be an animated film anyway, which again was the point of the original.
Gaston does in fact use antlers in all of his decorating. However, every last inch of him is not covered in hair.