Beauty and the Beast (Live-Action)

[bkelly25]

You know what my problem is with this film? The comments I see on FB and DVDizzy forum. No no, not about the boycott's that were called, that you can have a give or take attitude about that situation. No, what my problem is the extremely forced good reviews everyone is giving the film. I'm sorry, but everyone on all these websites are commenting with the most over the top positive reviews, it makes positivity look like a sin. Seriously?! Look, I am not claiming that this film is the worst ever, HELL no. But, the film is at a 71% on rotten tomatoes for a reason. People seem to have forgotten the grand event and spectacle of the 1991 classic and how groundbreaking it was. It was the first "perfect" fairy tale adaptation up to that point. The film was nominated for Best Picture, the first animated film to do so. Can you honestly claim that this remake will stand along the 1991 film with the same accolades? I don't think so. You want to know why people are giving positive reviews? Politics. You people are so upset with the conservative, Christian, Russian whatever people in the world because they want no gay storylines in the film and you want to rub how much you this film in their faces as if it solves the problem. Well guess what? It doesn't. DO you realize the "gay" moment is actually more of an insult to LGBT or liberal ideas rather than supportive? We are talking about a character who's name literally means "the fool" being the first gay Disney character? I thought we are suppose to treat gays as like everyone else? Who's becoming hateful now? You know, the one thing I hate about the United States, the people in it mainly, is how pitiful, closed minded, and evil they portray themselves. I would not be at all surprised if someone who loved Obama for 8 years betrays a gay person, not at all. You know why? Because USA people are fake and not real. You all claim to love and support everyone? You don't. You are EXACTLY what you claim conservatives are. Now, that doesn't I am defending Conservative groups. oh they have their stains too and they are in as much trouble you are. I am sick and tired defending the one side. Now, we ALL are to blame. So instead of rubbing your shitty positivity in people's face to make a statement, why don't you understand what Beauty and the Beast is actaully about? A story of redemption. Not about bestiality, not feminism, not religion, not LGBT etc. You may hate Alabama, Russia, and Mongolia, but pretty soon, it won't be the one group that's hated. It starts out as boycotts, verbal fights, but soon, it will be cold blooded murder. Imagine this:
"I won't see Beauty and the Beast because it has a gay character (Gun shot)"

"We have breaking news of a man who shot his neighbor for not liking Beauty and the Beast for what he claims 'homophobic' claims."

Ladies and gentleman, that might be our future. Think about it...

[Vlad]

Just got back from seeing it. I thought it was beautiful, their best remake so far. Sorry Duster, I hope this won't upset you, but I thought it was way better than Cinderella.

Emma Watson was perfect as Belle. As I watched her on the screen, I didn't see her as Hermione anymore, it was like she transformed into the character before my eyes. Dan Stevens' portrayal of the Beast was great, and I loved his performance of Evermore. Luke Evans' Gaston was awesome, and his singing was absolutely great. I loved the musical numbers, especially the Belle (Reprise), where the visuals were spectacular. I actually shed a tear at the ending during the choral reprise of Beauty and the Beast.

As a movie, it's not nearly as great as the animated masterpiece, but it was a very beautiful and magical experience. I'm going to see it again next weekend.

[Disney's Divinity]

No, what my problem is the extremely forced good reviews everyone is giving the film.

What the world...? Have you missed the past 2 months of nonstop negativity in this thread? Somehow I doubt anything nice said about the film is "forced." I'm sure the people here would be more than happy to rake it over the coals. I'm not sure how politics came into it; the LeFou discussion was barely a blip on the radar here.

"I won't see Beauty and the Beast because it has a gay character (Gun shot)"

"We have breaking news of a man who shot his neighbor for not liking Beauty and the Beast for what he claims 'homophobic' claims."

Ladies and gentleman, that might be our future. Think about it...

In Trumpland, really, you think so? I think you got it backwards. Much more likely to be shot for viewing evil, gay B&tB than criticizing it. That's if you're white. If you're not white, you'd probably get imprisoned just for entering a theater in the first place.

[Dosencola]

I watched it a couple of hours ago in the theater and although I liked it they could have made so much more of it. Since I get ready to fly to Orlando on Monday I keep my review short:

Pro:
+ The new songs "Days in the Sun" and "Evermore" fit perfectly aside with the old numbers, even though I still mourn about "If I Can't Love Her". In a way they kept the staging from the Broadway show and just put it a little more at the end. The reasons they explained why they replaced the Broadway song though felt a bit invented after seeing the movie since there are many fades into black after several numbers, the song wouldn't have hurt the pace of the scene. It clearly seems they did that to be nominated for an Oscar.

+ Both Luke Evans and Josh Gad did a good job in transition their characters into a real life environment, but still keep some of the goofy parts.

+ "Be Our Guest" was just great and more plausible to me in terms of measurements compared to the animated one that felt like a "Cirque du Soleil" stage rather than a dinner table.

+Kevin Kline did an amazing job in making it believable that he's Belle's father. Always on point. Perfect!

+ To me Ian McKellen and Ewan McGregor did a great job in not only adapting but actually creating new characters and right before the transformation in the end I even had little tears in my eyes

+ I also really liked the Paris scene, because it felt so natural compared to the many other staged scenes.

Con
- While we learn more about the witch that transforms the prince we still not know why she even tests him, since in this version she doesn't need a place to stay.

- The casting of Emma Watson. I don't know whether it was her performance or Condon's direction, but in this film Belle is annoyed of the village people, Gaston, the Beast (at the beginning) and even of some of the household servants. With that I also missed the different nuances Belle had in the animated picture making it understandable why that picture was nominated for Best Picture. Perhaps it was too good to recreate. Emma Watson didn't feel charming to me at all (and I really liked her other works).

- The staging of a couple of scenes:

1) The staging of the prologue didn't feel right but rather emotionless, opposed to the powerful opening of the animated one.

2) "Belle" is well choreographed but you also strongly see that it is choreographed. After the great staging of "Les Misérables" I hoped it would go more in that direction. In "Belle" there was at no point any kind of feeling of authenticity.

3) "Beauty and the Beast": First it takes them forever to actually enter the ballroom. And then the choreography of the dance was not half as romantic as in the animated one. Also the cinematography didn't show the same passion that James Baxter put into his sequence.

4) "Transformation" and "Finale": While the transformation was really cool it also was really short in the beast's case. Both the Broadway show and the 1991 picture was in my eyes more breathtaking. Also in the dance at the end I felt like two really good friends danced together, but not a couple that loves each other.

5) Audra McDonald's character always feels a little out of place. Her operatic voice doesn't fit at all in Alan Menken's score. Her performance in the prologue stopped the tension and I too didn't like that she was in the final shot instead of Belle and Prince.

Having said that I think the 71% on Rotten Tomatoes are pretty fair.

[Dosencola]

I watched it a couple of hours ago in the theater and although I liked it they could have made so much more of it. Since I get ready to fly to Orlando on Monday I keep my review short:

Pro:
+ The new songs "Days in the Sun" and "Evermore" fit perfectly aside with the old numbers, even though I still mourn about "If I Can't Love Her". In a way they kept the staging from the Broadway show and just put it a little more at the end. The reasons they explained why they replaced the Broadway song though felt a bit invented after seeing the movie since there are many fades into black after several numbers, the song wouldn't have hurt the pace of the scene. It clearly seems they did that to be nominated for an Oscar.

+ Both Luke Evans and Josh Gad did a good job in transition their characters into a real life environment, but still keep some of the goofy parts.

+ "Be Our Guest" was just great and more plausible to me in terms of measurements compared to the animated one that felt like a "Cirque du Soleil" stage rather than a dinner table.

+Kevin Kline did an amazing job in making it believable that he's Belle's father. Always on point. Perfect!

+ To me Ian McKellen and Ewan McGregor did a great job in not only adapting but actually creating new characters and right before the transformation in the end I even had little tears in my eyes

+ I also really liked the Paris scene, because it felt so natural compared to the many other staged scenes.

Con
- While we learn more about the witch that transforms the prince we still not know why she even tests him, since in this version she doesn't need a place to stay.

- The casting of Emma Watson. I don't know whether it was her performance or Condon's direction, but in this film Belle is annoyed of the village people, Gaston, the Beast (at the beginning) and even of some of the household servants. With that I also missed the different nuances Belle had in the animated picture making it understandable why that picture was nominated for Best Picture. Perhaps it was too good to recreate. Emma Watson didn't feel charming to me at all (and I really liked her other works).

- The staging of a couple of scenes:

1) The staging of the prologue didn't feel right but rather emotionless, opposed to the powerful opening of the animated one.

2) "Belle" is well choreographed but you also strongly see that it is choreographed. After the great staging of "Les Misérables" I hoped it would go more in that direction. In "Belle" there was at no point any kind of feeling of authenticity.

3) "Beauty and the Beast": First it takes them forever to actually enter the ballroom. And then the choreography of the dance was not half as romantic as in the animated one. Also the cinematography didn't show the same passion that James Baxter put into his sequence.

4) "Transformation" and "Finale": While the transformation was really cool it also was really short in the beast's case. Both the Broadway show and the 1991 picture was in my eyes more breathtaking. Also in the dance at the end I felt like two really good friends danced together, but not a couple that loves each other.

5) Audra McDonald's character always feels a little out of place. Her operatic voice doesn't fit at all in Alan Menken's score. Her performance in the prologue stopped the tension and I too didn't like that she was in the final shot instead of Belle and Prince.

Having said that I think the 71% on Rotten Tomatoes are pretty fair.

[Disney's Divinity]

‘Beauty And The Beast’ Dazzling With $173M+ Opening; Bound To Set Records For Pre-Summer, Bill Condon & Emma Watson

"There’s something cultural going on." That’s just one remark from an exhibition chief today who’s floored by what’s looking like a $169 million-plus opening for Disney’s live-action take of Beauty And The Beast. Some even believe it could hit $176M, but we’ll get a more definite grasp on that tomorrow.

See rest here:
http://deadline.com/2017/03/beauty-and- ... 202045224/

Also, wonderful review, Luke!

[Disney Duster]

Just got back from seeing it. I thought it was beautiful, their best remake so far. Sorry Duster, I hope this won't upset you, but I thought it was way better than Cinderella.

It's ok. I am so, so glad you enjoyed Beauty and the Beast. But now I'm curious, what is your order of your top ten favorite Disney Animated Classics? Because I'm guessing the animated Beauty and the Beast you like more than the animated Cinderella.

I loved your review. I, too, think Gaston's singing was great and loved the visuals of "Belle" reprise. I'm glad you shed a tear.

While we learn more about the witch that transforms the prince we still not know why she even tests him, since in this version she doesn't need a place to stay.

The enchantress (not a witch) tests the prince as a beggar woman pretending she didn't have a place to stay to see if the prince would finally be kind. When he wasn't, she put the spell on him in hopes he would become kind. And he did! I agree a lot with what you said, like with Emma Watson, even though I thought she acted well, but I disagree about the prologue, I really liked the change there.

I wonder just how big this film will do. There were lines outside of the theater doors each time I went!

[Musical Master]

Just got back from seeing it. I thought it was beautiful, their best remake so far. Sorry Duster, I hope this won't upset you, but I thought it was way better than Cinderella.

Emma Watson was perfect as Belle. As I watched her on the screen, I didn't see her as Hermione anymore, it was like she transformed into the character before my eyes. Dan Stevens' portrayal of the Beast was great, and I loved his performance of Evermore. Luke Evans' Gaston was awesome, and his singing was absolutely great. I loved the musical numbers, especially the Belle (Reprise), where the visuals were spectacular. I actually shed a tear at the ending during the choral reprise of Beauty and the Beast.

Just got back from seeing the movie an hour ago and I agree with this opinion and so much more. The cast was just wonderful, the musical numbers are great, the CGI is well done without going overboard, and the expanded material by writers Stephen and Evan are additions, that in my opinion, deserved to be here. The bond in this version between Belle and the Beast feels much more organic and real which is something I was shocked over seeing how the animated film did it so well in 1991. Sure the animated film is still a big favorite of mine, but I feel what the live action version did is something so wonderful that I really, REALLY adored what was in it.

Out of all of the "Disney live-action remakes", a trend that started with Alice in Wonderland, this is by far and beyond the best one. This is one of the best live action musicals we have had in quite a long time and I am so freaking happy that it's going to become a huge success. To Bill Condon and the cast and crew of Beauty and the Beast: You have moved my heart and enriched my mind, I am so proud of you all.

[Escapay]

Escapay your review was all eloquent and touching, but you didn’t seem to point out what in the film was new and how the performances were other than lots of words that mean “good” or “the best”. Your review was like “this movie is so great like the old one but in new ways” without being specific about anything.

If I may be frank, I don't understand how you can say that my review wasn't specific about anything when I dedicated a whole paragraph to how "Days in the Sun" functions within the film, gives it a different emotional theme than "Human Again" and ultimately helps better the story.

Luke's review, Aaron's review, Leonard's review... none of them go into full-on specific "what's new, give me extreme detailed specifics" comparisons. That's not what professional film critics do. Journalistic film criticism is meant to give a broad overview of the film in question and ultimately posit whether or not it is worth seeing. Go back and read the non-disc portions of pretty much any DVDizzy review. Peruse through the archives of Roger Ebert's website. Indulge in a book of Pauline Kael's writings. Bookmark all the essays posted at Criterion.com

Film criticism is not always about examining every little thing and saying why it does or doesn't work. Generally, it's about making a case for how the parts of the whole contribute to a film's success or failure. I don't have to go into ridiculous details of "In the opening number, some dialogue has been changed, as has lines in X-amount of scenes, between the following characters." That's not a review, that's a stupid listicle. Save the "Belle wears Pantone Color Yellow 12U instead of Pantone Color Yellow XGC" minutiae for the forums. If I wanted to write a 100-page scene-by-scene dissertation or a 500-word essay comparing Emma Watson's performance to Paige O'Hara's vocals, then I'd have written one. But I'm not. I'm writing a review, a general look back at my film-viewing experience and evoking a positive reaction that I hope instills readers to go see the film in question.

Next time I write a review on my blog, I'll remember not to post it here if it'll just get immediately misunderstood and wrongly criticized. Having to continually explain myself because you can't fully grasp the difference between film criticism and a scene-specific commentary is ridiculous. My review reflects my own personal thoughts on the film, and whether or not I'd want other people to see it. Nonsense about "Wait, why didn't you talk about such-and-such, it's nice and all, but not specific enough" helps remind me why I've stopped coming to this forum regularly. I'll save my storytelling for elsewhere.

Albert

[D82]

"Before the curse" clip:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8x4pcBiuXZo

Two new TV spots:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJfbW_-7GEg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPSPKNCieCI

And some new articles about the film:
Director Bill Condon on why the tale of Beauty and the Beast still has more to say
Alan Menken on revisiting the music of Beauty and the Beast
Here’s how much Beauty and the Beast’s castle and furniture would cost in real life
How Dan Stevens transformed for his Beauty and the Beast role
Behind the Scenes of Beauty and the Beast (gallery)

[tsom]

For everyone who has seen it, I have a question:

Did everything after the curse seem predestined? I felt like Agathe being a character kind of made Belle and the Beast's relationship sort of happen inorganically? Agathe just happened to live in the town where all the characters dwell in; she just happened to nurse Maurice back to health in the woods; she just happened to be at the castle during the invasion scene; she just happened to be there when Belle declares her love for the Beast. It's as if she planned for everything to happen, like she knew the Beast will eventually meet Belle, or she picked Belle to be the one who changes him. Also, she could've spoken up for Maurice in the tavern, but she didn't (even though the townspeople wouldn't have believed her, but still). Did anyone else feel this way, or is it just me? I hope I'm not sounding too crazy haha.

[Mooky]

I saw the movie two days ago and I surprisingly liked it. It's not a masterpiece by any stretch of the imagination, but it was serviceable and enjoyable, and it is quite possibly the best of Disney's live-action remakes so far, next to the last year's Jungle Book. I'll just list the things I liked and disliked about this version.

Likes:
- I was glad to see that the movie wasn't a 100% carbon copy of the original, something I was lead to believe by the production reports and stills. Sure, some of the dialogue is taken verbatim from the animated film and some of the camera angles and shots have been staged exactly like in the 1991 film, but the movie fortunately made some changes to the storyline though not all of them were for the best (more on that below).

- the cast is amazing. Out of the live-action cast I thought Kevin Kline did the best job by far, especially for something that amounted to a small supporting role. Josh Gad was good too, but I didn't appreciate the fact he played LeFou as a gay stereotype during "Gaston". Voice actors were all great, however Ian McKellen was sadly underused.

Dislikes:
- Emma Watson - there is a reason she was nicknamed Eyebrows during her Harry Potter days, and sadly she hasn't improved since nor has her intense eyebrow (over)acting. She has played a variation of Hermione in most of her subsequent roles and unfortunately Belle is no different. Watson hasn't really grown as an actress (and I loved her as Hermione) and is a mediocre singer to boot, as evidenced by the excessive use of autotune in "Belle" (her other song, "Days in the Sun (Reprise)", is alright but I'm guessing it's because it's a newly written song so it was adjusted to her range). The biggest offense however is that she -- a self-proclaimed fan -- had creative input in how the role was written but somehow made it worse, showcasing a severe lack of understanding of the movie's message and her own character. Case in point, "Something There": animated Belle is obviously uncomfortable and disturbed by her growing feelings for the Beast as seen by the way she reacts singing the line "new and a bit alarming". Watson's Belle -- other than butchering the line -- seems actually excited and intrigued by the prospects of getting cosy with the Beast. It was more than a bit alarming to me. Also, silly changes made to the character that turned Belle into a Mary Sue, all for the sake of a forced progress -- like Belle being an inventor now, Belle teaching girls to read, or Belle having no character flaws whatsoever. The only thing missing in this new version was her fighting Gaston up on the rooftops.

- CGI/motion capture Beast - just atrocious and distracting. Come on Disney, it's 2017, we've all seen Gollum in LotR and Caesar in Planet of the Apes, not to mention all those animals in Life of Pi and Disney's own Jungle Book. There's just no excuse for such a bad, sloppy visual effect that constantly takes you out of the movie, especially with the movie's huge budget. It should have been just Dan Stevens covered in prosthetics.

- Belle's mother's backstory had me shaking my head for the sheer stupidity of it all. What kind of a loving father would deny his child the truth about that child's mother's death and for what reason? Unless her death was particularly gruesome or unless Maurice killed her himself there just was no point in making it a plot point or mentioning it at all. It just increased the runtime and added NOTHING to the story.

- also, Beast's backstory. Ugh. So we get yet another of those 'misunderstood villains' tropes. Why couldn't have Beast been bad on his own and not a product of poor upbringing? Or just a good person who has turned bad and bitter after spending years trapped in a different form, something similar to the original fairytale? It was just needless and served no purpose.

- other additions like trying to combine the 1991 version with the original fairytale. It's 'either/or', Disney. Additions like Belle's interest in roses that goes nowhere and Maurice's actions that don't make sense. Like, "Oh, this living furniture freaked me out enough to run for my life, but I'm still going to stop and pick a rose from a strange winter garden". Right. Belle knowing about the curse is asinine in itself; she may not know the specifics of how to break the spell, but she knows the castle residents are actually human beings, making it easier for her (and some of the audience) to justify her falling for the Beast. I assume all this was done as a way to combat the negative criticism about the supposed Stockholm syndrome and bestiality in the original film.

- Gaston somehow ended up being more of a one-note character/villain than in the original, especially in the beginning.

- new songs and score were underwhelming and boring.

I may be too hard on this movie, but the original is one of my favorite films and I feel very protective of it. I did enjoy the pace of the movie and the visuals, and most of the performances were top-notch. I just think the new movie would have been better if it hadn't relied much on the original's storyline and some of the songs could have been excised completely. All that would have shut down most of the comparisons between the two versions, and helped make the new one its own beast (pun not intended). I give it a 6/10.

[Vlad]

Just got back from seeing it. I thought it was beautiful, their best remake so far. Sorry Duster, I hope this won't upset you, but I thought it was way better than Cinderella.

It's ok. I am so, so glad you enjoyed Beauty and the Beast. But now I'm curious, what is your order of your top ten favorite Disney Animated Classics? Because I'm guessing the animated Beauty and the Beast you like more than the animated Cinderella.

I loved your review. I, too, think Gaston's singing was great and loved the visuals of "Belle" reprise. I'm glad you shed a tear.

My top ten would be Snow White, Beauty and the Beast, The Little Mermaid, Sleeping Beauty, Cinderella, The Lion King, Fantasia, Pinocchio, Aladdin and 101 Dalmatians.

[rodrigo_ca]

For everyone who has seen it, I have a question:

Did everything after the curse seem predestined? I felt like Agathe being a character kind of made Belle and the Beast's relationship sort of happen inorganically? Agathe just happened to live in the town where all the characters dwell in; she just happened to nurse Maurice back to health in the woods; she just happened to be at the castle during the invasion scene; she just happened to be there when Belle declares her love for the Beast. It's as if she planned for everything to happen, like she knew the Beast will eventually meet Belle, or she picked Belle to be the one who changes him. Also, she could've spoken up for Maurice in the tavern, but she didn't (even though the townspeople wouldn't have believed her, but still). Did anyone else feel this way, or is it just me? I hope I'm not sounding too crazy haha.

I think she lived in the town before that and, learning about the Prince's actions, decided to test it for herself. She just kept living there afterwards. She might have been interested to see Belle standing up for the Beast, so she decided to investigate. As for the tavern, Gaston dismissed her opinion even before she started speaking. There was no point.

[Disney's Divinity]

Luke's review, Aaron's review, Leonard's review...

Albert

Thank you for posting these other reviews (as well as your own). I guess I could’ve sought them out if I’d thought of it, but having them posted puts them in my direct line of sight/thought.

I can understand Maltin's thoughts about this film (and all the re-makes), especially the shame about not being able to see Thompson, McKellan, and McGregor more, but that was something expected. I haven’t seen the film yet to put forward more about what they could've done, but perhaps they could’ve had the human versions of the characters appear as background reflections occasionally or a fantasy sequence of them as humans again during “Days in the Sun”?

All the nice reviews are making me excited. I’ll have to remind myself to walk in with no expectations at the theater, to avoid being disappointed.

[kbehm29]

I guess I had done so much research on this movie beforehand that the negativity I had walking into the theater was unfounded - I really enjoyed the movie. I loved how the plot was slightly changed to make it a movie of its own. I LOVED LOVED LOVED the new songs that were added, especially Evermore! I liked how Gaston seemed nicer than in the animated movie, and Belle's father didn't seem quite as odd. I, for one, did enjoy the backstories that were added to the movie - it made it seem more complete.

Honestly, the one and ONLY "gripe" I have is about the autotune they use for Emma Watson's first song. It is way too noticable and distracts from the scene. They should have either had someone else sing the song(s) or had her record it until she got it right. Despite that, I still think they got the casting right with her. I do not think this movie would be doing as well as it is without her in it. I do not think the movie deserves a 71% on Rotten Tomatoes - I feel it was better than that, and in fact will be seeing it at least once more while it's in theaters. We saw it in IMAX which is how all movies should be screened! It's so hard to watch a movie in IMAX and go back to watching movies in a traditional theater, the sound quality is a trillion times better alone.

I am really enjoying these live action remakes. It doesn't detract from their animated counterparts, in fact for my family we always watch the animated version quite a few times in advance of heading to the theater so it's making them fresh again.

[JeanGreyForever]

- the cast is amazing. Out of the live-action cast I thought Kevin Kline did the best job by far, especially for something that amounted to a small supporting role. Josh Gad was good too, but I didn't appreciate the fact he played LeFou as a gay stereotype during "Gaston". Voice actors were all great, however Ian McKellen was sadly underused.

I never cared much for Maurice in the original film so I was surprised that I really loved his portrayal by Kevin Kline in this version. He was still a tad bit eccentric but not overly so as he was in the animated film. I loved Josh Gad's performance as well but I can see why you would think he was stereotypical in Gaston. I noticed it too and it doesn't mesh well with the "subtle" performance he was supposed to give in regards to the character's confused sexuality. I really loved Gaston though and in fact, I thought it developed the character even more nicely than in the animated film where he seemed more of a doofus. Then again, maybe that was part of the charm of the original character, especially because from reading excerpts of the novelization, it seems as though the main reason Belle doesn't like Gaston is because she thinks he is stupid. His misognystic tendencies were really downplayed here so if Belle's main aversion to him was his stupidity that should have been played up more then.

- Emma Watson - there is a reason she was nicknamed Eyebrows during her Harry Potter days, and sadly she hasn't improved since nor has her intense eyebrow (over)acting. She has played a variation of Hermione in most of her subsequent roles and unfortunately Belle is no different. Watson hasn't really grown as an actress (and I loved her as Hermione) and is a mediocre singer to boot, as evidenced by the excessive use of autotune in "Belle" (her other song, "Days in the Sun (Reprise)", is alright but I'm guessing it's because it's a newly written song so it was adjusted to her range). The biggest offense however is that she -- a self-proclaimed fan -- had creative input in how the role was written but somehow made it worse, showcasing a severe lack of understanding of the movie's message and her own character. Case in point, "Something There": animated Belle is obviously uncomfortable and disturbed by her growing feelings for the Beast as seen by the way she reacts singing the line "new and a bit alarming". Watson's Belle -- other than butchering the line -- seems actually excited and intrigued by the prospects of getting cosy with the Beast. It was more than a bit alarming to me. Also, silly changes made to the character that turned Belle into a Mary Sue, all for the sake of a forced progress -- like Belle being an inventor now, Belle teaching girls to read, or Belle having no character flaws whatsoever. The only thing missing in this new version was her fighting Gaston up on the rooftops.

I never knew that Emma Watson was nicknamed Eyebrows, and I never noticed it in Harry Potter, but I definitely noticed it here, especially when the opening song first starts out. While I like her as an activist, I don't think she's a very good actress and that wasn't proved wrong here. A lot of the changes to Belle didn't seem very substantial imo. The inventor part literally only comes through with her doing the laundry. Otherwise, it never shows up again unless you count her creating a "rope" to climb out of the castle. Even when she and Maurice are locked up, it's Maurice who picks the lock, not Belle. So it seemed like an unnecessary change that didn't amount to anything. Same with her teaching that little girl to read. It never comes back again and wasn't developed at all. Apparently, even the dress design came from her, and I've heard many people say that basically the dress ended up being designed to showcase Emma Watson, not Belle. I ended up being ok with the dress design after the promo pics started to come through, but seeing it on the big screen in IMAX just showed how bare and uninspired the dress actually was. Overall, I thought Emma Watson's portrayal was one-dimensional and lacking of nuance. To be fair, I thought Lily James' portrayal of Cinderella removed all of the animated character's subtle personality traits, but it didn't bother me as much because she still felt like a classic fairytale heroine, if not the Disney version.

- Belle's mother's backstory had me shaking my head for the sheer stupidity of it all. What kind of a loving father would deny his child the truth about that child's mother's death and for what reason? Unless her death was particularly gruesome or unless Maurice killed her himself there just was no point in making it a plot point or mentioning it at all. It just increased the runtime and added NOTHING to the story.

- also, Beast's backstory. Ugh. So we get yet another of those 'misunderstood villains' tropes. Why couldn't have Beast been bad on his own and not a product of poor upbringing? Or just a good person who has turned bad and bitter after spending years trapped in a different form, something similar to the original fairytale? It was just needless and served no purpose.

The added backstories weren't executed properly for me either. The only addition I can think of from adding Belle's backstory was that it gave a chance for the Beast to help her uncover her past and develop their bond further. I can see the Beast being more important to Belle because she'll associate her mother's memory with him now. I just didn't care for the plague story very much nor the magical object that transports people anywhere. However, her backstory didn't bother me nearly as much as the Beast's. I didn't care at all about the abusive father part. I would have preferred the opposite, that he was showered with love from his mother like in the original story. I'm also not sure how I feel about him being a literary buff. On one hand, it helps to explain what Belle sees in him, especially because she has no other literary outlet to speak to, but on the other hand, I think I preferred how the animated Beast had forgotten how to read and required Belle's instruction, rather than the more suave and genteel version here who could quote prose and poetry.

- other additions like trying to combine the 1991 version with the original fairytale. It's 'either/or', Disney. Additions like Belle's interest in roses that goes nowhere and Maurice's actions that don't make sense. Like, "Oh, this living furniture freaked me out enough to run for my life, but I'm still going to stop and pick a rose from a strange winter garden". Right. Belle knowing about the curse is asinine in itself; she may not know the specifics of how to break the spell, but she knows the castle residents are actually human beings, making it easier for her (and some of the audience) to justify her falling for the Beast. I assume all this was done as a way to combat the negative criticism about the supposed Stockholm syndrome and bestiality in the original film.

I didn't mind the original fairy tale aspects though, and in fact, I was glad for their inclusion. I don't think Belle had a special fascination with roses as much as it was just a habit that she had aquired and it felt safe to keep doing that year after year.

After a little more time on thinking about the new songs, I think I would have preferred Human Again over Days in the Sun. I like the melody of the latter song but the lyrics are underwhelming and the song is way too short to really develop the objects. It's more annoying because this song was supposed to be the enchanted objects' song, but the latter half is all about Belle. The objects, imo, deserved their own song so either Days in the Sun should have cut out the Beast and Belle's parts and just focused on their hopes and dreams, or they should have kept Human Again especially since a whole generation of children have come to see it as part of the original film. Human Again would have been more fun to see on-screen anyway, like Be Our Guest.

[Sotiris]

Beauty and the Beast Banks $174.8M & Breaks Abundance Of B.O. Records
http://deadline.com/2017/03/beauty-and- ... 202045224/

Bow Enchants With Bigger $357M Global, $182M Offshore – International Box Office
http://deadline.com/2017/03/beauty-and- ... 202046567/

[Disney's Divinity]

Comparing domestic intake, this nearly matched Cinderella 2015's entire run in its first 3 days.

I wonder where it'll stack up with TJB and Alice. I'm sure it'll pass Maleficent, too.

[Hogi Bear]

I wonder where it'll stack up with TJB and Alice. I'm sure it'll pass Maleficent, too.

Well, financially, I reckon it will pass them both. It may sound crazy and very optimistic, but I think it could very well compete with the Force Awakens. So I'm pegging a $2+ billion final box office. Could do big business in China (opening $44M), South Korea (opening 11.8M) and Japan.

You can take my predictions with a grain of salt, but I love predictions and seeing if they come true.

This film releases in nearly two weeks in New Zealand, so I have to wait. So sad! But I'm looking forward to it, whether I walk out of the theatre disappointed or totally entertained (or whatever).