At least with Cinderella and Sleeping Beauty, Disney had the excuse that those movies were decades old. The body here is still relatively warm.UmbrellaFish wrote:A lot about this film reeks of the unnecessary. Disappointingly, Dan Stevens seems to have been completely hidden under CGI and heavy voice effects. Emma Watson is a name actress, but is no patch on Paige O'Hara, or Susan Egan, for that matter. They chose not to incorporate the Broadway musical's songs, many of which are quite lovely. The costumes knock it out of the park, except for Belle's dress which somehow manages to be more lackluster than Lily James' too blue Cinderella ball gown-- I don't understand why they would go to such pains to design everything so accurate to period, down to the bizarre Mrs. Potts design, and then give Belle a gown even less appropriate than the 1991 original.
Don't get me wrong, me and every other millennial will be watching this movie in theaters, further encouraging Disney to raid through the vault to exploit our cravings for nostalgia. "Cinderella," after all was pretty well done, and the recent "The Jungle Book" is the best adaptation of Kipling's novel, period. Thus, I'll have no one but myself to blame when the first teasers for "The Lion King" have me face palming.
Also, this remake is already problematic in that the original was the first animated film to receive a Best Picture Oscar nomination, in addition to bolstering Disney's renaissance. Aside from following up with Disney's more recent string of live-action remakes, what exactly is this supposed to prove?
As for that doll, that unfortunately is another problem with making live-action remakes of animated characters. Those who grew up in the 1990's might recall the Happy Meal toys that came out with the live-action Flintstones movie.
Even the CGI scenery of that scene looks bad. 
