3,057 posts
|
Post by ali973 on Mar 26, 2017 3:59:36 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2017 5:45:49 GMT
Well, I tried to fix that link, but the forum software isn't having any of it. Copy it and replace the asterisks with the obvious.
|
|
114 posts
|
Post by rosscoe on Mar 26, 2017 5:51:58 GMT
I had no issue with any of the cast Emma was fine , not the best singer but was fine. The huge issue for me was that it lacked magic, romance and was so bloated, overlong and really no point for it to exist.
|
|
1,481 posts
|
Post by steve10086 on Mar 26, 2017 7:48:08 GMT
I was kinda hoping that would be about Luke Evans 😳 |
|
1,046 posts
|
Post by jgblunners on Mar 26, 2017 8:52:55 GMT
Well that was quite a journey 😜 Although I might've done the same myself if it were Luke Evans... |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2017 16:41:58 GMT
OMGosh. I LOVED this. It doesn't matter that Emma Watson isn't that good a singer or that she can't act because she's a lovely Belle. And to be honest it's all about the supporting players anyway. Film looks scrumptious, they didn't bugger up Be Our Guest and I teared up at a few moments. Win win all round.
|
|
98 posts
|
Post by haz23 on Mar 26, 2017 20:22:32 GMT
I've seen the film twice and loved it both times - I had my reservations about Emma Watson before seeing it but I thought she was the perfect Belle. Audra and Luke Evans are stars and I enjoyed Ewan MacGregor's 'Be Our Guest' (thought his voice sounded very strained in Moulin Rouge and this was a better sing for him). Loved the new songs too, the soundtrack is amazing! Fingers crossed this might give Disney a push to revive the stage version soon...
|
|
103 posts
|
Post by bren on Mar 27, 2017 0:23:41 GMT
Have to agree with the above. I thought Emma Watson was charming and engaging throughout. I find her likeable. She doesn't have a great voice- that's for sure- but she still made the role her own.
Watching the animated movie back, the characterisation of Belle is quite bland so as an actress I think Emma did well, given the limitations of the role. I'm not sure what people expected...
Maybe my expectations were too low after reading the scathing reviews here, but she far exceeded them.
Really enjoyed Audra McDonald as Madame Garderobe. Pity she wasn't onscreen more. The 'exclusive gay moment' was a total anticlimax but I felt it was clear from the rest of the film that Le Fou was gay.
Visually it was great- so much colour and fabulous costumes.
'Be our guest' was wonderful.
I do think the movie is too long and one or two of the new songs didn't add much, but overall I feel it did justice to the original.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2017 1:38:37 GMT
Watching the animated movie back, the characterisation of Belle is quite bland so as an actress I think Emma did well, given the limitations of the role. I'm not sure what people expected... Someone that isn't a bad actress and singer. |
|
1,995 posts
|
Post by distantcousin on Mar 28, 2017 11:32:28 GMT
Just my scattergun thoughts here:
For me Disney has always equalled saccharine and cutesy. (totally not my thing) so a few of those elements I found quite cloying.
For the most part I really enjoyed the film, in the moment. The story is pretty much bulletproof. Though there are a few nonsensical parts of the screenplay and character motivations that jump around or make no sense when you look back on it.
Thought Emma Watson was rotten. Terribly autotuned, bland, need I go on. How on earth does she get cast? I’ve never seen her in anything before so I’m mystified what the fuss was about.
Such a shame musical films have reverted back the old school miming technique. It looks SO artificial now. I thought the technologies pioneered on the set of Les Mis were going to be the way forward now, but with this and Into The Woods we appear to have regressed.
I didn’t like the CGI Beast. GCI rarely works for me, certainly not on vaguely humanoid creatures. (a talking beast sort of humanises it more than a standard animal). The character needed to convey complex and subtle human emotions and I’m afraid that just doesn’t come across in a CG character.
He left me a bit cold. It would have been far more visceral and real if they had used an actor with extensive make up design.
A shame so many of the stage numbers were binned. I’ve always found the film songs serviceable at best, and not particularly memorable. My opinion hasn’t been revised by this film. Then again I’ve always found Alan Menken hideously overrated (aside from Little Shop of Horrors) and the lyrics to the title song could have been written by a 12 year old.
But all in all, I was moved by it. I loved the supporting characters and cast. I loved the imagination of it all, I loved the production design.
|
|
1,995 posts
|
Post by distantcousin on Mar 28, 2017 11:38:26 GMT
I think I must be odd. Beauty and the Beast has passed me by on all levels and I can't summon up any interest in the film whatsoever. In fact, the first I knew of it was when Emma Watson kept turning up on everything on TV and in the papers the other week, and I wondered why. The cartoon... sorry 'animation' passed me by too. I only saw it for the first time last year. I thought it was nice. That's all. I have zero emotional investment in it which is, I suspect, why I liked the new version. You're the perfect punter for this.
I agree. It's a totally difference experience if you don't have the emotional investment in it - I think you need to be of a certain "cohort".
I am 41, and watched the film in 1992 with my young nieces. I enjoyed it at the time, but I was not into cartoons as a 16 year old lad - dreadfully babyish! Especially back then before what passes for adult-age entertainment started regressing.
However my companion was 27 and completely enthralled by it, and was "totes emosh".
I definitely watched the film more on face value, and for the most part enjoyed it. (in spite of it being Disney)
|
|
1,995 posts
|
Post by distantcousin on Mar 28, 2017 11:46:10 GMT
^ Well, I've learned something from that. Thanks couldileaveyou.
Haha. Likewise. I think those of us from Generation X are completely mystified by the fuss.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 28, 2017 11:59:07 GMT
I feel we should shout out that, in just 12 days of release, this movie has taken $693.5 million, blowing all other movie musicals out of the water and is on track to become one of the highest-grossing movies of all time!
|
|
345 posts
|
Post by johartuk on Mar 28, 2017 12:17:19 GMT
Have to agree with the above. I thought Emma Watson was charming and engaging throughout. I find her likeable. She doesn't have a great voice- that's for sure- but she still made the role her own. Watching the animated movie back, the characterisation of Belle is quite bland so as an actress I think Emma did well, given the limitations of the role. I'm not sure what people expected... Someone who could sing and had depth to their voice. If you listen to Belle's singing voice in the animated film, it's strong, has depth and you feel the emotion coming through when she's singing. Emma's voice is thin and emotionless by comparison. |
|
|
|
Post by Mira on Mar 28, 2017 19:33:41 GMT
Have to agree with the above. I thought Emma Watson was charming and engaging throughout. I find her likeable. She doesn't have a great voice- that's for sure- but she still made the role her own. Watching the animated movie back, the characterisation of Belle is quite bland so as an actress I think Emma did well, given the limitations of the role. I'm not sure what people expected... Someone who could sing and had depth to their voice. If you listen to Belle's singing voice in the animated film, it's strong, has depth and you feel the emotion coming through when she's singing. Emma's voice is thin and emotionless by comparison. Well, the key here is that is some people's opinion. NOT a fact. I thought her voice was emotional, not with a sledgehammer and totally OTT but rather subtle and that's why her casting worked for me. |
|
781 posts
|
Post by rumbledoll on Mar 28, 2017 19:53:53 GMT
Was I the last one to learn that Luke Evans is such a smashing singer? I'm so much in love right now!  Appreciate that they gave Gaston a bit of an arch too - not that pure evil two-dimensional charater like he was before. The film lacks magic in certain important places (they RIUNED the library scene) - true, but it suceeds in humour and that heart-breaking scene when objects "die".. Jeez, who cares about The Beast in that moment anyway? The Beast could lose CGI (to be partly replaced by hardcode makeup) and agree on Emma Watson singing. That was distracting and yes, lifeless. But she is likable as Belle but not the Belle we all know - more fiestly, independent, boyish if you let me put it this way. Be Our Guest surprisingly underwhelming. The song is about hospitality of French and their amazing cousine - why not let the poor girl taste the actual food while they are dancing away? McGregor's accent is laughable (has Mexican flavour.. why?) but he carries the song alright. My hands down fave was LeFou. This is what happens when you give a character context to work with (same as Gaston). I too wish 'props" looked less like props and have more of facial expressions - wouldn't children love it? Lenght is a bit of a stretch for younger generation and extra songs add little. I enjoyed Evermore though - Dan Stevens pulled that one off quite impressively! Mixed feelings.. I thought it's better to be seen without thinking back on the original (which I personally adore). In many ways it's a new and slightly different version of the story. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 28, 2017 21:53:12 GMT
Someone who could sing and had depth to their voice. If you listen to Belle's singing voice in the animated film, it's strong, has depth and you feel the emotion coming through when she's singing. Emma's voice is thin and emotionless by comparison. Well, the key here is that is some people's opinion. NOT a fact. I thought her voice was emotional, not with a sledgehammer and totally OTT but rather subtle and that's why her casting worked for me. Of course but that's the case for every single piece of commentary or criticism ever given on any piece of art in history. It's all just opinion. But when a negative opinion is one that is shared between many people then there may be a problem. |
|
193 posts
|
Post by groupbooker on Mar 28, 2017 22:22:02 GMT
What difference does it make what we think of the film - Disney are doing what Disney likes to do - MAKE MONEY!!
Next thing will be ALL Disney's cartoons will be remade as live action films - more money!!
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 28, 2017 23:25:45 GMT
What difference does it make what we think of the film - Disney are doing what Disney likes to do - MAKE MONEY!! Next thing will be ALL Disney's cartoons will be remade as live action films - more money!! Whilst Disney undoubtedly made this movie as a way to make money, they clearly put effort into it being creatively successful too ie. through casting Luke Evans as Gaston due to him being great for the part even though he is not necessarily very famous. I'm sure Disney are happy with the performance of this movie but I think they'd be even happier if Emma's performance had been received more positively. If audiences voicing their opinions means that they take more care in their casting next time, then that can only be a good thing. |
|
7,053 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by Jon on Mar 29, 2017 1:32:13 GMT
Whilst Disney undoubtedly made this movie as a way to make money, they clearly put effort into it being creatively successful too ie. through casting Luke Evans as Gaston due to him being great for the part even though he is not necessarily very famous. I'm sure Disney are happy with the performance of this movie but I think they'd be even happier if Emma's performance had been received more positively. If audiences voicing their opinions means that they take more care in their casting next time, then that can only be a good thing. To be fair to Disney, Beauty and the Beast as a live action film was in development before the success of Alice in Wonderland, Maleficent, Cinderella, Jungle Book etc and actually the quality of the live action adaptations has really picked up from Cinderella onwards. Even Pete's Dragon which wasn't that successful was critically acclaimed. I don't see every animated film being made into live action as some weren't successful first time around or wouldn't translate well as live action. The Jungle Book did talking animals well but I couldn't see it working as well with The Fox and the Hound or The Great Mouse Detective. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2017 4:51:06 GMT
What difference does it make what we think of the film - Disney are doing what Disney likes to do - MAKE MONEY!! Gosh! A company doing something in order to make money. What fiends! How could they? |
|
1,995 posts
|
Post by distantcousin on Mar 29, 2017 14:13:52 GMT
What difference does it make what we think of the film - Disney are doing what Disney likes to do - MAKE MONEY!! Gosh! A company doing something in order to make money. What fiends! How could they?
makes me sick x
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Mar 30, 2017 13:50:54 GMT
I just saw the film and thought it was lovely overall. Mainly because the director embraced the artform and understood the importance of this language. A non-literal language, sung thoughts, so he went all the way at times with wonderful cinematography, editing and pre-recorded tracks, which is essential for a musical film.
"Spoiler alert"
There were several scenes that had me in awe of sheer beauty and emotion. I loved the opening sequence with the wonderful singing of Audra and the ensemble scene. That really set the tone and mood. The impressive appearance of the enchantress (reminded me of Esmeralda coming out of the mirror during Hellfire in THOND), I loved the camera work and sets. Indoors and outdoors, just beautiful and theatrical. Original and playful camera work and editing in "Belle". I loved the new songs. Days in the sun was wonderfully melancholy and emotional. I loved the Beast's Evermore. I loved everything the wardrobe sang. These moments were spot on. Loved Lumiere, loved Mrs Potts, I loved Gaston and le Fou. It's really delightful and emotional when characters sing so well on screen. It takes the film/scenes to a higher level. Especially with pre-recorded tracks, which creates a "better than life reality" with heightened emotions. It is not about being literal, speaking the words in musical on film. The power lies in the opposite. Also, the singing of all the characters mentioned felt natural. Except for Emma Watson, the singing of the others was much more legit than anyone in the Les miserables film, yet it felt much more natural. That's why I think this film is 100 times better than the les Miserables film. Which failed at all of these things and had nothing in it that felt natural. Which should be an eye opener for producers and directors. What works better in musical on film, a non-literal approach, going all the way, or a literal approach, creating a style clash and constant switching. Definitely the first.
Now, there were also a few things that i did not like, of which I think should have been better. Emma Watson's singing really felt out of place. Especially compared to the rest of the cast. When she sang the bridge in "Something there" I really thought: what a shame. Especially because it's not even necessary to see her mouthing the lyrics there. It's a sung thought. The whole film embraces this language, so why not just have a good singer as a voice over there? Or dubbing her singing in general. This was really too lifeless and lame, which did not fit the film at all.
I also felt that the parts they sung "live" on set were especially bad and autotuned. The songs recorded in a studio sounded much more alive and better. "Belle" sounds weird and "Evermore" only sounds good after the first verse, which is weird.
When Belle visits the West Wing and sees the rose there was this really generic music, the moment fell completely flat, I can't believe they did not include the lush score from the animated film there. Why was that?
I did not like the librarian giving Belle the book in "Belle". That is supposed to be an older man, the only villager who understand her love for books, now it was some young, sassy gay guy who looked like he was taking the piss, but then why did he give her a book? I did not understand tis scene at all. It was not genuine. I did not understand her reaction when she said "thank you' either. It was weird and forced.
What I did love was the "grandmother remark" Mrs Potts made near the end, which she took as an insult (referring to the complaints that mrs Potts has always looked more like Chip's grandma) and I loved the fact that in "Something there" when Belle threw a snowball at the beast, he actually threw one back in her face. This always bothered me in the original, because even in films today like `La La land, the male character is portrayed as a beast/A-hole in the beginning, but then later the male character always has to be goofy and charming and submissive. While in real life, of course he would throw a snowball back! And it only gives the female character more charm if she can laugh about it.
So, overall I loved it, they got many things right, but it could have been better.
Ps. A special-shout to the fishing lady singing in the intro of The Mob song. She really went for it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2017 14:20:38 GMT
I quite liked the change from the bookseller giving Belle a book from his shop to the village priest lending Belle a book from his personal collection. It always seemed a bit weird in the animated film how this man has a bookshop if literally everyone in the village thinks Belle is peculiar for reading!
I'm not touching "young, sassy gay guy"...
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Mar 30, 2017 18:10:57 GMT
I quite liked the change from the bookseller giving Belle a book from his shop to the village priest lending Belle a book from his personal collection. It always seemed a bit weird in the animated film how this man has a bookshop if literally everyone in the village thinks Belle is peculiar for reading! I'm not touching "young, sassy gay guy"... Oh was it the Village priest? I really did not get that scene. It was always a beautiful heartwarming moment of 2 people understanding eachother, probably because people think he is silly too and he was older and probably wiser. I have no idea what they were trying to convey there. Was he genuine? Because he gives her a book. But he does it with a very weird attitude. Or is it just very poor acting? I was confused. It was definitely not a heartwarming moment anymore. |
|
Appreciate that they gave Gaston a bit of an arch too - not that pure evil two-dimensional charater like he was before.
