That's a big problem I have with many many actors in Hollywood,even the very best ones of today. A lot of them while they're doing wonderful delivering their lines and such,I want to see every single one of them make crap tons of facial expressions like I can and make so many more poses,hand gestures body movements and loads more,like a beautifully & lively animated cartoon. (which I can do so well) They can even try in something that's full of action or drama or anything.
I found the Beast to be an unlikable jerk in this one. He felt like a bigger jerk in this one compared to the original animated one. He even made Geston in the animated one feel more likable! Also the romance in the animated movie felt much more real. To me in this version the romance didn't feel like it started until they had that conversation why Romeo and Juliet was an overrated piece of crap, and then the Beast shows his private library. It was like Belle only started to like him because he reads and she reads. In the animated one at least the romance starts to bloom before he gives her access to more books she'll ever be able to read in her lifetime.
Completely agree AniMat What's the purpose of an remake if it adds nothing new and relevant but takes away the strongest characteristics of the original? What i liked about the Jungle Book is the fact it respected the original but also tried something new
danyalillo What's the point of arguing about a reboot when most of you are asking for a faithful reboot of a old good movie, which is what Beauty and the Beast is.
Nothing new? Were you paying any attention? The live-action remakes always add something new, maybe even do certain stuff better than the original did.
It was made to fill in some plot holes the original film had made originally. Like why the servants are cursed, why they are so gung-ho for getting the prince to fall in love in a short time frame (the threat of death is a good motivator), why it was winter or so long, where the Enchantress went, etc.
Not to mention Fate: The Winx Saga, a live action remake of Winx Club, is actually something that Iginio Straffi, the creator of the original cartoon, “wanted”. It has been reported to whitewash a couple characters, be as dark and brooding to pander to viewers of dramas of a similar tone, and it was highly hated by fans of the original show. Iginio Straffi stated that they can’t have much sexuality in a cartoon, but they can in live action. Doesn’t that sound to make less sense than animation itself?
Anne Hathway is a bit old, Plus Emma's not the best singer in the world but she's not bad either, plus when you think about it Belle is a normally person it really doesn't make sense for her to sound absolutely professional like Paige O'Hara.
Emma Watson was definitely auto-tuned, no question about it. It is especially noticeable when you compare her singing to the original renditions of the songs, or even dubbers in other languages. The Swedish dub had professional singers do the voices for the characters and the difference is like night and day.
You definitely laid into it harder than I did in my blog review. I was glad to see I wasn't the only one not 'charmed' by the objects and how they looked. Watching the film, I just kept thinking, "Nik Ranieri made this work," or "Glen Keane did it better." I will admit there was one moment that I really did get a deep tinge of emotion, when the last petal falls, and the objects begin to fully transform. We see Mrs Potts calling for Chip, and it works in such an emotional way, because it's a Mother realizing the end is near, and she wants her child to be with her when it all ends. Lumiere just felt like a 'cheat,' as he's basically just a miniature man holding candles, a less grisly fate than what befell Cogsworth, or the Maestro (who I still have no idea how we were meant to read his expressions, or figure out where his eyes were!). Whenever the musical numbers hit, I was surprised at how fast they go by, like Bill Condon just wants to get them over and done with. "Be Our Guest" was like him channeling Baz Luhrmann vis "Moulin Rouge," and it was a bit too dark to focus on things. I was thinking it must be even murkier in 3D, and just trying to get Lumiere's expressions in that scene, was impossible to read! I've tried as well to listen to the soundtrack, but I just can't get behind any songs that Watson sings.
I remember that rumor that was speculated by Doctor Who fans saying she was going to be playing the role of the doctor if the doctor was regenerated as a female. Makes me wonder if she would be the right choice for that role if it actually happened.
Considering the live-action Belle is more than just a book reader, doesn't easily lose hope and has much less of the "Stockholm Syndrome" displayed by the animated Belle, I say Emma Watson was a great choice to play a character with those aspects.
brittany yates actually they would fix the black cauldron the horn king would look more scary and we might see the princess's castle it would explain why she's a princess
Sorry to burst anyones bubble but if you look at the remakes disney is planning to make its really only the popular films. So I doubt films like the black cauldon will get a remake
Animat KILLED this review, he hit all the nails on the head!! First off, its not necessarily a bad movie, but I definitely felt empty after watching it. Emma Watson is by no means a bad actress, but definitely did not feel like Belle at anytime in the movie. Also, I *knew* I wasn't the only one who thought that Beast was very weak! From his look, to his acting on some scenes. Very watered down.... BUT I digress, the music scenes were phenomenal!! My personal favorite being "Gaston" as it really gave me the warm feeling the original did! But anyway, if you want my recommendation? Watch the reboot of Jungle Book, that was AMAZING.
When you pointed out the Beast in the live action and the difference with the animated one, I screamed "Thank you!', cause I also though the live action didn't look right. I told my friend about it once the Live action Beast was relieved and she didn't see much difference. The animated film had more human emotions then the live action one, and it also shows like you said, "can be shown as a monster, but also kind and gentle". I'm a fan of Glen Keane's work and I loved the animation to it. The live action just didn't fully do it right.
I remember when Lumiere says "there she is" and the Beast raises his ears and opens his eyes widely as he thinks Belle is finally coming, but when Cosworth appears, he changes his face gestures. That is GENIUS!
THANK YOU sometimes I feel totally alone in my hatred for this remake. I tried to like it at first, I loved Emma as Hermione so I wanted to at least try,but the closer it got to coming out the angrier I got. This movie doesn't need to exist ,and also having the enchantress take pity on Beast and Belle to revive Beast instead of her saying"I love you" being the reason Beast lived took away from Belle as a character. I did not go see this movie or any of these dumb remakes and I probably never will.
Hi Animatt and everyone who is reading this! I want to give my thoughts on the movie. When I first saw the trailer, I wasn't very impressed because everything looked very off to me (Belle wasn't very beautiful, the Beast looked too human, Gaston didn't look strong, and I didn't like how some of the castle objects looked). The only thing I thought was perfect was seeing that Josh Gad was going to play Lefou. However, my mind changed when I saw this movie. Here's what I think: The story It's the same as the original but with a few new things. While you might say that those things were pointless, I think some of them tied some loose ends that the original had and fixed a few other things.For instance, we got to know the reason why the Beast had an attitude problem, we learned more about Belle's mother, the enchantress gave more to the story, and I thought that the whole thing about the villagers forgetting about the prince and their loved ones at the castle was pretty interesting. But even so, those details are very small, so it's still just the same story. But I still thought it was solid. The visuals I think they weren't as great as the ones in the original movie, but they were still really great. The CGI castle items don't look as bad as when I first saw them in the trailer (except maybe Cogsworth, and I agree with you when you say that the wardrobe could eat Belle with her curtains 😣). My favorite part in terms of the visuals was Be Our Guest. The segment was really beautiful and colorful, and I loved the way Lumiere and the other objects were dancing. However, my thoughts on the Beast looking too human still remain. He definitely looks better in the original. As for everything else like the locations, the clothing, etc., it was all really great and breathtaking. I don't think Belle's dress looks really wow, though, because it's too simple. But overall, the visuals were just amazing, imo. The Characters and Casting Belle- I like that she is still the intelligent woman we all know and love. Plus, making her an inventor was an excellent idea, imo. Though it didn't really add much to the story. And I like that they took her problem with the village to a whole new level not just her 'weird' because of her love of reading but because she wanted to spread the idea of people being more intellectual and advanced. Emma Watson did an good job of portraying her (much better than I thought), though I agree she wasn't really the best choice for playing Belle. The Beast- looks aside, I liked the Beast in this movie. I like that they added a lot to his character like how he became cold hearted, his love of literature, and most importantly, his own song, which he was really lacking in the original. Dan Stevens did an amazing job of portraying the Beast, and I love how sarcastic he was sometimes. The Castle Objects- I really liked them in this movie. The fact that we got to see them turn less human every second and miss their loved ones in the village was just really heartbreaking to me. They all still have their charm just like in the original, and I loved how their relationships with each other were handled. Lumiere and Plumette are actually a genuine couple instead of just being love birds, Mrs. Potts and Chip feel more like a family, and I really laughed when they turned human and Cogsworth found his wife, and he was all "Please turn me back into a clock". The people who played them did a perfect job of giving them the charm they had in the original. Gaston- tbh, I didn't really like Gaston in the original. He was just too misogynistic for my taste, and he didn't feel like a very extraordinary villain, imo (except for the fact that he is the real monster). But I like that they made him less like that and made him more in love with himself instead (I laughed a the scene where he was looking at himself in the mirror) and they took his evilness to a whole new level by making him tie up Maurice in the forest so the wolves would eat him and giving him a gun to fight the Beast and making him less merciful in that fight. Luke Evans did a great job of playing him, but I really think he should have gotten more ripped for the role. Lefou- I'm not going to talk about the whole gay controversy here because I already gave my opinions on it in a reply to another comment down bellow. Anyway, I loved the way he was handled in this movie. The fact that he started to see Gaston for the monster he was was really interesting to me, and it made him more well rounded. For some reason, I didn't really see him as a true villain in the original, just a friend who is there to cheer you up when you are down and make you feel better about yourself. I knew from the start that Josh Gad was going to do a great job playing Lefou. Heck, I can't get his rendition of Gaston's song out of my head. Imo, Josh Gad as Lefou is the best casting choice made for this movie, and it was really interesting seeing him play bad guy turned good (as much as I was curious to see how he was going to play a bad guy, I don't really see Josh Gad as the kind of actor who would play such a character). Maurice- I don't really have a lot to say about him because there wasn't really much added to his character. In fact, taking away his role of being the inventor really affected him, imo. But for what it's worth, Kevin Kline did a good job of portraying him. The Songs I think they were all beautifully written, choreographed, and sung by the actors. The old ones retained their charm and catchiness, while the new ones added depth and emotion to the characters. The segments for the songs don't really live up to the ones in the original, but I still really enjoyed watching them and singing to them (especially Gaston and Be Our Guest). Overall, I love the music in this movie. While I don't think this movie lives up to the original, I still really enjoyed it. The story, visuals, characters, cast, and music were all really solid and amazing. If I gave this movie a score, it would be an 8.5 or a 9, but of course, that's just my opinion, and I respect anyone else's opinion😊. Sorry this comment was so long, btw 😅. I really love expressing my thoughts. Anyway, I hope you all enjoyed the movie as much as I did😉!
I agree with everything you've said!! I'm so happy I'm not the only one that hated Emma as Belle, I was literally groaning in the theatre at some parts. Also I hated how carbon copy it was in terms of the script, i could literally quote more than half the film just because I knew the first one.
Honestly seeing it as an adaptation is the best way to look at it. Since it's basically the samet hing. It ain't like JungleBook or Maleficient, where it IS An actual reboot. This is just an live action adaptation f an animated movie. That's about it :P It's still enjoyable if you take it as something CREATED Because of the original movie. It's basically like the play through and through.
I saw this movie this Sunday it was good not as good as the original animated film but still better than Paper Towns. Overall I do agree with AniMat is that we don't need a remake or reboot of Beauty and the Beast and it is really unnecessary.
People could say the exact same thing with this: "We didn't need a Broadway production of Beauty and the Beast". :P Basically that's kinda the same thing. Heck, we don't need a broadway production of Lion King, Mary Poppins, Aladdin...see where I'm going here?
I disagree on the objects, I think they were brought to life very well, but I DEFINITELY agree with you on the Beast. He's FLUFFY and HUGE, dammit! And wolf-like! The live-action one doesn't have either quality! Heck, even BELLE'S YELLOW DRESS was atrocious! And not because it doesn't look exactly like the animated version, but because it looks like you could find it at Kohls or JCPenneys! It looks so out of place and doesn't belong in whatever-century France! It felt like a marketing ploy to sell more merchandise for the movie! And in a movie that tries to be authentic with its time period, the dress sticks out like a sore thumb. I don't know how accurate the animated dress is, but it looks more authentic than the live action one at least! And I couldn't agree more with the mistake of casting Emma Watson as Belle. Emma herself is a decent actress, but NOT for a role like Belle! She played it so cynical and cold, which is NOT Belle's character! Belle is optimistic and kind even in the face of discrimination for her love of reading and her intelligence. She grins and bears the challenges life throws at her and keeps moving forward with a bright attitude. Emma just kinda played it as a "fuck you" attitude for the majority of the movie. Her performance never really felt genuine.
I actually liked many of the changes. Like the romance between Lumière and Plumette, that in the original was on Papyton levels of uncomfortable, here it felt more genuine and sweet with them dancing together. Just the sheer fact that Plumette actually had stuff to do Cadenza. He may not be Tim Curry, but... The fact that in the mob song we see both men and women running towards the castle. The little bits of housework Belle does when her father isn't around. The costumes, with those little flowery patterns that make it feel more realistic, like the small mountain villages I visited Agatha Maurice being more serious and poetic Belle planning to escape the castle The explanation they give in why the servants were transformed too The role played by Monsieur Jacques The fact that Belle borrows her books from the priest and not from the bookshop The fact that Beast already knows how to read and can discuss literature with Belle The fact that Gaston is a soldier and not a hunter The plague The magic book Belle smashing Lumière with a stool Le Fou being more complex and grounded The snarky humor, especially not being a fan of slapstick ("You'll have to drink cold tea for the rest of your life") Chip being the only teacup, which makes his relationship with his mother feel tighter The final song in which the Beast accepts his responsibilities and prepares for his destiny And my favorite scene of all: SPOILER ALERT. . . . . . . . The scene at the end, where the servants turn into inanimate objects. The final goodbye between Garderobe and Cadenza. The dog scratching at them. Chip and Mrs Potts laying side by side. And Lumière's last stand, with him spinning around and dying like an entertainer, with a smile and a thank you. I bawled my eyes out during that scene. That alone justifies the movie's existence.
I couldn't agree more. This movie was spectacular! The problem is that people like to put on their nostalgic goggles and start comparing the animated one with this new one. I love both movies and I'm very glad this new adaptation exists.
The gay thing was hyped up so much, but when it came to the actual movie it was barely there, leaving people who were angry at it to look like they were yelling at nothing, and people that came to support it look like they were all hyped up for nothing. Nobody wins!
I saw this movie this Sunday it was good not as good as the original animated film but still better than Paper Towns. Overall I do agree with AniMat is that we don't need a remake or reboot of Beauty and the Beast and it is really unnecessary.
To everyone asking why a live-action Beauty and the Beast needed to be made ... I honestly felt like it was because of all the plotholes in the film, especially in the opening, that people love to point out. Why were all the servants cursed along with the Prince? Because they all laughed at the enchantress with him! Why was the Prince answering the door? He didn't, she just barged straight in! Did Mrs Potts give birth to Chip as china? No, he was a human boy when they were cursed and they're all frozen in time. Did the enchantress curse the Prince as an 11-year-old, if they'd been rusting for 10 years up to that point and the rose would bloom until his 21st birthday? No, he was cursed as a young adult and Lumiere just sings "Too long we've been rusting" instead of "Ten years we've been rusting". How do none of the villagers care about or are even aware of the Prince and his castle? Because the enchantress erased their memories! What work does Belle actually do and how does she afford books? She's a washerwoman, and the bookshop is changed to a library. I also loved how they included more interaction between Belle and Maurice, and he seemed a bit more composed and smart than he did in the animated version, not making mistakes at every turn. It made him more realistic and relatable. Not only that, but the added detail of having the cursed servants be turned completely into inanimate objects was a really nice touch and added stakes to the story and made for a pretty sad scene. And of course, making LeFou gay was genius IMO, it makes so much sense. Why he stays with Gaston despite being a punching bag, and it allowed him to get a happy ending in the end.
Plus the fact that Philippe actually goes with Maurice to the castle. And the wolves just... stopping at the gates. I assume they didn't go in there because they know there's something powerful in there (they maybe smell the Beast) and don't want to intrude in his territory. And the fact that Maurice stops to bring Belle a rose. It's clearly taken from the original fable and I think it was quite clever. And that final scene with the servants was what justifies the movie's existence to me. The "death" of Lumière still bring tears to my eyes. It's "die to entertain" brought to the maximum levels. He lost his friends and the love of his life, he's about to die as well, but he dies with a smile and a thank you. Curtain call. I cried my eyes out in the theatre, and you bet the guy on my left was crying too.
AdoreSinging394% I agree cause the amount of plot holes that was in the 1991 version was so noticeably changed in the 2017 version. Yeah Screw the Emma Watson haters and those who thinks the live action one sucks.
Those ideas looked good on paper, but the problem is that they weren't executed properly in the film. The pacing and editing was sloppy, taking away the viewer's interest in the newly added details.
Also it's not a good excuse for a remake if that same movie is not only worse in most aspects but also creates new plot holes/ bigger once.. like creating a 'travel book' she could've saved her father in - 5 min.
You brought up the #1 problem I had with this movie: Why try to remake a film that's already perfect in every way? All this remake did was make me appreciate the original even more.
To think, I spent my 21st birthday watching this. The only scenes I got any joy out were the Gaston and LaFou scenes and that was because those moments looked like a big budget Broadway show. (Gaston was a fantastic musical number and I can see why they used it for all the commercials.) But I still could have just rewatched Enchanted if I wanted that.
I have mixed feelings about the remake it felt like a different film and could not catcher the magic of the original but I like how it fixed some things that were not explained in the first like why everyone forgot about the castle being there.
Don't worry everyone, Disney is gonna give us another unnecessary live action/CGI remake of another one of their ground breaking animated movies. The Lion King. I can't wait to see what they don't change in this one either. Maybe if we're lucky they'll add a scene that explains why Scar didn't kill Simba as a cub.
How can any of you watch Emma and think she remotely respected the original belle? I like Emma Watson as a person; I find her charming and good intentioned, but her belle was reserved and wooden compared to the animation. She was not whimsical and excitable. I had a hard time believing how her and jerkified beast were more than bros at best. P.s. belle didn't have Stockholm in the animation either. People need to stop throwing the term around bc they think they sound smart or they're being funny. Stockholm requires a brainwashing to the point where any act can be mistaken as kindness. Belle RUNS AWAY from beast the minute she feels threatened and frequently tells him off and disobeyed his orders about the west wing. A more appropriate example of Stockholm is quasimodo and frollo or rapunzel and gothel
Looking at the bright side, in the Latin American Spanish version of Beauty and Beast, Belle's singing voice sounds more energetic and sweet than Emma's singing.
This made me more worried if they try to reboot The Little Mermaid or Aladdin, 2 of my all time favorites......I seriously wanted they left those 2 alone.
dominicanoUSA “‘Come on step closer and I will illuminate you with my soft glow.’ 🕯 ‘And I’ll clean your clock!’ 🕰 Oh, hello. I just wanna let you know that on March 30th, my new movie, Dreamworks’ _The Boss Baby,_ will be hitting theaters. We won’t throw in any talking candlesticks, but we might throw one in for good luck.”
I always felt that the CGI in these live action reboots were WAYYY too detailed. They just don't blend in with everything else that actually exists. It's as the saying goes, "Sometimes simple is best." As for what I've heard of Belle's voice, there's just no emotion. It's too smooth and deadpan. In the original Belle had desire and could stand her ground, but could also be fearful. I felt that more than anything, people wanted Emma Watson cause she looked the part. I get she had practice, but it doesn't change the fact that it doesn't come out in the final cut. Also I agree, out of the other films so far, Beauty and the Beast did NOT need a remake! As such, it was destined for this.
One problem I had with the new Beauty and the Beast is the non human characters didn't translate well. The beast was not as intimidating here compared to the cartoon, and the furniture chatacters translated better in animation than here.
The problem with using such well known actors is that when we see them we constantly think of the actor or other roles they play and it distracts us from the performance we are seeing currently.
It seems as if a lot of the opinions of internet critics really differ from my opinions. I agree that Emma Watson wasn't the best choice for Belle and a lot of the newer songs weren't astounding. However, I still really enjoyed this movie. The visuals were amazing and the story was pretty much the same with a few interesting additions. I personally kind of liked the look for the Beast. To me, it's a great combination of beastly and gentle and the whole point is to show the audience that he really isn't cruel or malicious. While others may complain, I don't really mind the idea of re-booting animated classics into live-action movies. The way I see it, this allows for a new generation to be exposed to a classic that their parents grew up on while talking to them at their level. Perhaps I'm being too optimistic, but those are just my thoughts.
Your Review was Great, Animat! congratulations as this was the most fair review of the movie (kinda exaggerated with Emma Watson tho). as for the movie itself, i liked. not as good as the original but it was alright as an Adaptation! but yeah, it didn't really need to Exist
I'm don't see any point. I already have the timeless classic on dvd/bluray, why should I even bother acknowledging this film? If you like it, fine, just leave me out of it.
I litreally thought Anne Hathaway was going to be Belle. But when Emma Watson was cast I was kinda disappointed but when I seen her in this movie,she won me over. Huh 6/10.
Now I'm not the type of person to correct you or say "NO! You're wrong!" But I can agree that Emma Watson in this was kinda weird. But I just want to say that I saw this today and that that it was probably better than seeing the new power rangers movie. At least it stuck to the original, and at least it got me singing to the old songs with random people next to me. I just want to say if they're gonna do another live action film, they need to do it right. Don't pull a maleficent or a Pete's Dragon, take notes from the jungle book and they might make a successful live action Disney movie. HOWEVER, this doesn't mean I support the idea of another live action Disney movie to be created, if they were to though, it has to be hunchback of Notre dame. Some may disagree with me, but if they do what they did with the beauty and the beast remake, then I'm sold. I don't know how they would replace Tony Jay, but I'm sure they'd find a way, he was the staple of the entire movie, hell the staple of the entire Disney Villain roster. Hopefully this kind of stuff won't happen again with the Disney reboots, hopefully the next director to make one of these (god forbid) takes notes and fully watches the jungle book, if not, then the rest of the studio who makes these movies is screwed and won't get as much praise as the jungle book did.
Wow, AniMat! Sounds like you took this remake harder than I thought you would. But I perfectly understand. I agree that Emma Watson wasn't the best casting choice for Belle. I mean, her acting was decent but they should have hired someone who could actually sing, not just make a choice that would make Potterheads geek out.(No offense of any kind meant to you Potterheads.) I also agree that as a remake this is at least better than Tim Burton's Alice films and even Maleficent and Pete's Dragon though I actually kinda liked those two. I couldn't help laughing over your comments on the wardrobe eating Belle and the guy playing the Beast looking like he's ready for Halloween. TBH, I didn't find the CGI that awful though. I've seen MUCH worse. Plus, I really liked Ewan McGreggor as Lumiere and also Kevin Kline as Maurice. I even enjoyed watching Josh Gad play as LeFou. So, above all, this could never surpass the original but it's still a great movie to me. I would at least give it 7 or 8 out of 10.
By God! I know why they rebooted this film! If the animated version was nominated for best picture at the Academy Awards then they figured the live-action film would be the one to WIN it.
I'm sure this is gonna be a box office hit just beacuse people will se the live action movie and the animated one as the same so they will prefer this one just beacuse this is live action and the majority of the people have that primitive think thay animation is a joke and is just for kids
I have two questions for you: 1. Who would you cast as Belle instead of Emma Watson? 2. Did you know that they were going to put Dan Stevens (Beast) in makeup? Do you think he would have looked better if they did that?
Seeing this on Sunday, can't wait! Honestly though, people need to stop comparing this movie to the original. Yes, it's probably not as good as the original, but that doesn't mean it's bad. It's good as it's own thing and it should be judged as it's own thing rather than a remake in my opinion.
Honestly with the look of the enchanted objects (like Lumiere, Cogsworth and Mrs Potts) granted at first I didn't like how they looked; but they did grow on me after awhile. Plus I also never felt that uncanny valley with them. Although the Wardrobe and Cadenza still look pretty bad.
This beast doesn’t feel like a beast, in the way he talks and shouts or in the way he looks. He looks more like a man wearing fur. They could’ve just modified his face to look close to that of a lion like they did in the original.
Also...here's the thing with the objects; I THINK THEM BEING SCARY IS THE POINT! THEY'RE CURSED, TRAPPED IN PRISONS OF WOOD, METAL AND PORCELAIN! Of course it'd look unnerving, how the hell would they look like the cartoony versions that are also meant to look cute?! Plus they are turning INTO the objects! The designs gave to reflect more real objects! Plus the Uncanny Valley thing works better since again it's a curse. Also...why are people knocking the beast. Question; how would YOU bring to life a seven foot tall animal man in live action? Honestly I think this is taking more ques from the original fairy tales with the design, by making him more animalistic but still retaining a little bit of humanity. Ya know, with the more human level intellect and more regal appearance. Since he's more lion/wolf with large ram horns than a chimera.
..NOT a good argument actually. -_- That's a rather weak thing when it comes to this argument. Here's the thing what is being said "How would one translate a 7 foot tall animal man into live action". A better answer would be to actually give asuggestion, not just shoot it down. Just saying 'don't' doesn't answer the question, t's avoiding it thus showing you do not have an actual answer Look, the original movie IS better, but can't just denounce it for trying to remain loyal to it.
...But does it HAVE to look 'nice'? Seriously, they are people trapped in prisons made in the forms of everyday antiques. In the original, aside from brining the BEast back to humanity, was there any real problems for the servants? There was no real mention that they would become objects permentanty and thus lose their lives. They are saying that they want to be human again JUST to be human again. In the play, they at least have the same reason as in this movie; if they don't break the spell, they are stuck forever and basically die. They will DIE if the curse isn't broken. There isn't that urgency in the original film if you really think about it. But in this movie and the play? Yeah, there is a real sense of urgency since it's not just one guy who is gonna be turned into a mindless animal permentanly, but they all turn into objects. It explains WHY they want to get back to human so quickly without it look like they are somewhat selfish.
Ryan Gosling was offered the role of the Beast, but turned it down to appear in La La Land (2016) instead. Emma Watson was offered the lead role in that movie, but turned down that movie to star in this one.
I’m actually kind of glad Emma Watson turned down the role of Mia Dolan so Emma Stone could win her first Academy Award for Best Actress in a Leading Role. Emma Stone is one my favorite actresses and her Oscar was overdue by that point.
I respectfully disagree about the song Days In The Sun. Right when that song started I lost it. I find that song very beautiful and get a little emotional every time I hear it. I also really liked Emma Watson personally
I personally liked the film but I knew it could never be better than the original animated film. I say it's a 7/10. If you can put away your nostalgia goggles then you can enjoy it but if you can't then don't even think about watching it. I do think Animat was a bit harsh with this film and Emma Watson but at the same time I get why since he has such a huge love for the original film.
I think it's a great CONCEPT that Disney is remaking their animated films, as they are based on other sources (in this case, Hans-Christian Andersen's work), and it could be a good way to be more accurate to the source in a way that financially doesn't bode well in animation. Unfortunately, The Jungle Book seems to be the only one willing to go back to the source and simultaneously pay tribute to the original film. And by God, do NOT remake movies that are original or basically original - looking at you, Lion King.
I honestly liked it for bringing back Alan Menkin to do the music BUT I don't massively love it due to making questionable changes in the story, like the magic book scene. Once we see it in one scene, we never hear from it again.
Emma Watson and Dan Stevens said that their favorite scene to film was the iconic ballroom scene To prepare for the role of Belle, Emma Watson re-watched Beauty and the Beast (1991), and began taking singing classes. Chappeau never speaks, even after reverting back to human form. LeFou is Disney's first canonical gay character in a feature-length movie. Emma Watson (Belle), Dame Emma Thompson (Mrs. Potts), and Ray Fearon (Pere Robert the librarian) appeared in the Harry Potter film franchise. Emma Watson (Belle), Dame Emma Thompson (Mrs. Potts), Luke Evans (Gaston), and Nathan Mack (Chip) all share the same birthday, April 15, which was also the date of the first cast read through.
Loved the intro to this review! I'm also sick of seeing all of these remakes to Disney's animated films. Sure, some of them like Cinderella and Jungle Book were decent, and Pete's Dragon was harmless. But still, this trend needs to end NOW! Like you said, let animation stay as animation! Same goes for the live-action films based on cartoon shows.
I rarely disagree with Matt. But this time i do.The film was okay, and the effects were okay as well. The actors were good and the songs too. However, it felt a bit TOO much like the 1991 film. And yeah, Watson did feel a bit off.
I loved this movie. 9.5/10. It was a real memory down merry lane for me. Yes we know what is gonna happen...ahem Cinderella. But overall I loved the new one.
Why do people get pissed off with animated movies turned into live action. When I was little I DREAMED for this but didn't think it would haven and now it IS! What's so wrong seeing your favorite movie come to LIFE Guess what. You don't HAVE TO WATCH IT! There are movie franchises that I HATE but I don't wish for them to go away Bc I know a lot of people love them. So why can't people let people have fun with a movie they love?
Because it adds literally nothing and serves to cash in on the original film instead of branching out to newer pastures. And people buy into it because it's Disney, which leads to more live-action mediocrity.
The live-action remakes take the animated films (which feel like they were made more with kids in mind than adults) and rewrite them with the maturity and sophistication as a story for adults. The animated BatB had stuff that has been bothering people for over 25 years, but the live-action remake fixed all of that.
Okay, you are saying one of the most mature animated films is for kids, and they 'adultified" it in the remake. This remake does try to be like the Beauty and the Beast, and with this being, in your eyes, for adults, then how is the other is made for kids. At least with the other one, it was made with passion. There is no denying that this movie is a cash grab. Oh, and, tell me what bothers you now?
For kids only?, Many critics in the past compared the 1991 version with classics like Snow White and Pinocchio, why?, because Disney didn't make movies for kids, he made them for the kids inside of us , he wanted to do fantasy movies for us to dream and do for a magical trip. There's a reason why the 1991 was THE FIRST ANIMATED FILM to be nominated for the Oscars, it was the first animated movie to be taken seriously by the industry, and you say it's for kids?. Yeah the live action film was so "adult" that LeFou was played as the typical stereotyped gay , so "adult" that the plot holes were so bad added , even a kid would notice them , the Beast in the classic has more depth that many "adult" characters ....
Oh they could have. Samantha Barks from Les Miserable fits the bill to a tee, and even is a Broadway singer. Let's be honest, they didn't think very much into who get's to be the lead.
It was okay for a remake. Not forgettable like Pete's Dragon, but it had its moments (the new plot changes and new character developments like the Beast SINGING and Lefou's homosexuality were a surprising yet interesting touch). Even still, if they played the original movie when I was expecting to watch the new adaptation at the movie theatre, I wouldn't even be mad tbh.
I think one pof the reasons why Emmas acting was so bad, WAS because of the Director. She is a pretty ok actress, but her acting is way too much like Kristen Stewarts acting from the Twilight movies to just just be a case of an actor being a bad actor.
Emma Watson was choosed Belle's role because she is a popular and well-known active feminist. It was considered that she is an independented, strong and intelligent woman who is well suited as a role model for young growing girls. I have nothing against Watson or feminism, but she is not so miraculous actor.
Aren't reboots supposed to be about THEIR vision of how everything goes in the story and characters? I don't see what's wrong with it not following every part of it. I mean, at least they tried. I don't know, in my opinion, you kinda bashed on it a little much just flat out saying that just because it brought the wrong elements. It should be about how they envision it, not how they didn't remake it right. Like I said, that's just how I see this as, nothing more than just reimagining the entire film in their image.
But it adds NOTHING new to the story , they did exactly the same songs , the same structure , maybe they could have made this remake more closer to the original tale (like the 2014 French version did) or making the Beast with a more deeper backstory , or even taking that Belle's mother backstory and make it more dramatic, like revealing Belle that Maurice wasn't her real father but he took care of her ....but , nah! let's make a exact copy of the old one and we'll get extra money
In the original Belle had great facial expressions, I love how animated she was during be our guest. Here she gives half assed smiles
That's a big problem I have with many many actors in Hollywood,even the very best ones of today.
A lot of them while they're doing wonderful delivering their lines and such,I want to see every single one of them make crap tons of facial expressions like I can and make so many more poses,hand gestures body movements and loads more,like a beautifully & lively animated cartoon. (which I can do so well)
They can even try in something that's full of action or drama or anything.
I found the Beast to be an unlikable jerk in this one. He felt like a bigger jerk in this one compared to the original animated one. He even made Geston in the animated one feel more likable!
Also the romance in the animated movie felt much more real. To me in this version the romance didn't feel like it started until they had that conversation why Romeo and Juliet was an overrated piece of crap, and then the Beast shows his private library. It was like Belle only started to like him because he reads and she reads. In the animated one at least the romance starts to bloom before he gives her access to more books she'll ever be able to read in her lifetime.
Completely agree AniMat
What's the purpose of an remake if it adds nothing new and relevant but takes away the strongest characteristics of the original?
What i liked about the Jungle Book is the fact it respected the original but also tried something new
danyalillo What's the point of arguing about a reboot when most of you are asking for a faithful reboot of a old good movie, which is what Beauty and the Beast is.
Nothing new? Were you paying any attention? The live-action remakes always add something new, maybe even do certain stuff better than the original did.
It was made to fill in some plot holes the original film had made originally. Like why the servants are cursed, why they are so gung-ho for getting the prince to fall in love in a short time frame (the threat of death is a good motivator), why it was winter or so long, where the Enchantress went, etc.
ShadowDJ94 i
Not to mention Fate: The Winx Saga, a live action remake of Winx Club, is actually something that Iginio Straffi, the creator of the original cartoon, “wanted”. It has been reported to whitewash a couple characters, be as dark and brooding to pander to viewers of dramas of a similar tone, and it was highly hated by fans of the original show. Iginio Straffi stated that they can’t have much sexuality in a cartoon, but they can in live action. Doesn’t that sound to make less sense than animation itself?
They should've gone with Anne Hathaway as Belle. she can actually sing.
Anne Hathway is a bit old, Plus Emma's not the best singer in the world but she's not bad either, plus when you think about it Belle is a normally person it really doesn't make sense for her to sound absolutely professional like Paige O'Hara.
Brendan Milburn Well excuse me for trying to be positive.
Sir Isaac Not to mention the fact that that got her an Oscar.
@@charlieandthechocfactrules9186 She's not bad but she needed singing lessons
If only
For those held back by Le Fou being gay, don't mind. Timon and Pumba share more "gay" moments that this guy.
Emma Watson was definitely auto-tuned, no question about it. It is especially noticeable when you compare her singing to the original renditions of the songs, or even dubbers in other languages. The Swedish dub had professional singers do the voices for the characters and the difference is like night and day.
You definitely laid into it harder than I did in my blog review.
I was glad to see I wasn't the only one not 'charmed' by the objects and how they looked. Watching the film, I just kept thinking, "Nik Ranieri made this work," or "Glen Keane did it better."
I will admit there was one moment that I really did get a deep tinge of emotion, when the last petal falls, and the objects begin to fully transform. We see Mrs Potts calling for Chip, and it works in such an emotional way, because it's a Mother realizing the end is near, and she wants her child to be with her when it all ends.
Lumiere just felt like a 'cheat,' as he's basically just a miniature man holding candles, a less grisly fate than what befell Cogsworth, or the Maestro (who I still have no idea how we were meant to read his expressions, or figure out where his eyes were!).
Whenever the musical numbers hit, I was surprised at how fast they go by, like Bill Condon just wants to get them over and done with. "Be Our Guest" was like him channeling Baz Luhrmann vis "Moulin Rouge," and it was a bit too dark to focus on things. I was thinking it must be even murkier in 3D, and just trying to get Lumiere's expressions in that scene, was impossible to read!
I've tried as well to listen to the soundtrack, but I just can't get behind any songs that Watson sings.
Even Angela Lansbury said she doesn't understand why this had to be remade.
I absolutely love and admire Emma Watson, but I agree she wasn't the best choice for Belle.
Master Builder Dragon sAME. It's Levio-saaa
I remember that rumor that was speculated by Doctor Who fans saying she was going to be playing the role of the doctor if the doctor was regenerated as a female. Makes me wonder if she would be the right choice for that role if it actually happened.
I'm glad it never happened. I always thought a male time Lord regenerating as a woman was just a little too weird, even by doctor who standards.
Master Builder Dragon Me too. I agree. I do love Emma Watson but she was a terrible choice to play Belle.
Considering the live-action Belle is more than just a book reader, doesn't easily lose hope and has much less of the "Stockholm Syndrome" displayed by the animated Belle, I say Emma Watson was a great choice to play a character with those aspects.
Love knowing that I'm not the only one who felt that Emma Watson wasn't a great Belle.
At least Emma Watson has 8 PHENOMENAL Harry Potter movies under her belt.
It's sad that CG objects can act better than Emma Watson.
Crazy Horse 9000 true. 😔
*CGI*
Yeah, the actors for those objects were pretty ok, they’re nothing compared to the old actors, but they were good, they got General Kenobi for Lumiere
Yeah but I like remake chip because I think he cute in my opinion
She has 8 PHENOMENAL Harry Potter movies under her belt.
11:13 "Less emotion than her freaking horse." Thank you! I was starting to think I was the only one who noticed.
I kinda want a live action reboot of the brave little toaster, treasure planet, and the black cauldron
I am weird
brittany yates actually they would fix the black cauldron the horn king would look more scary and we might see the princess's castle it would explain why she's a princess
Disney can improve on the mistakes of the original. It has potential to be better than the animated one.
Sorry to burst anyones bubble but if you look at the remakes disney is planning to make its really only the popular films. So I doubt films like the black cauldon will get a remake
The best thing in this remake to me was Kevin Kline as Maurice.
Animat KILLED this review, he hit all the nails on the head!! First off, its not necessarily a bad movie, but I definitely felt empty after watching it. Emma Watson is by no means a bad actress, but definitely did not feel like Belle at anytime in the movie. Also, I *knew* I wasn't the only one who thought that Beast was very weak! From his look, to his acting on some scenes. Very watered down.... BUT I digress, the music scenes were phenomenal!! My personal favorite being "Gaston" as it really gave me the warm feeling the original did! But anyway, if you want my recommendation? Watch the reboot of Jungle Book, that was AMAZING.
When you pointed out the Beast in the live action and the difference with the animated one, I screamed "Thank you!', cause I also though the live action didn't look right. I told my friend about it once the Live action Beast was relieved and she didn't see much difference. The animated film had more human emotions then the live action one, and it also shows like you said, "can be shown as a monster, but also kind and gentle". I'm a fan of Glen Keane's work and I loved the animation to it. The live action just didn't fully do it right.
I remember when Lumiere says "there she is" and the Beast raises his ears and opens his eyes widely as he thinks Belle is finally coming, but when Cosworth appears, he changes his face gestures. That is GENIUS!
THANK YOU sometimes I feel totally alone in my hatred for this remake. I tried to like it at first, I loved Emma as Hermione so I wanted to at least try,but the closer it got to coming out the angrier I got. This movie doesn't need to exist ,and also having the enchantress take pity on Beast and Belle to revive Beast instead of her saying"I love you" being the reason Beast lived took away from Belle as a character. I did not go see this movie or any of these dumb remakes and I probably never will.
Basically everyone in that movie sings better than Emma Watson XD
original Beauty and the Beast:
Story: 10/10
Animation: 10/10
Characters: 10/10
Songs: 10/10
Overall: 10/10
Hi Animatt and everyone who is reading this! I want to give my thoughts on the movie. When I first saw the trailer, I wasn't very impressed because everything looked very off to me (Belle wasn't very beautiful, the Beast looked too human, Gaston didn't look strong, and I didn't like how some of the castle objects looked). The only thing I thought was perfect was seeing that Josh Gad was going to play Lefou. However, my mind changed when I saw this movie. Here's what I think:
The story
It's the same as the original but with a few new things. While you might say that those things were pointless, I think some of them tied some loose ends that the original had and fixed a few other things.For instance, we got to know the reason why the Beast had an attitude problem, we learned more about Belle's mother, the enchantress gave more to the story, and I thought that the whole thing about the villagers forgetting about the prince and their loved ones at the castle was pretty interesting. But even so, those details are very small, so it's still just the same story. But I still thought it was solid.
The visuals
I think they weren't as great as the ones in the original movie, but they were still really great. The CGI castle items don't look as bad as when I first saw them in the trailer (except maybe Cogsworth, and I agree with you when you say that the wardrobe could eat Belle with her curtains 😣). My favorite part in terms of the visuals was Be Our Guest. The segment was really beautiful and colorful, and I loved the way Lumiere and the other objects were dancing. However, my thoughts on the Beast looking too human still remain. He definitely looks better in the original. As for everything else like the locations, the clothing, etc., it was all really great and breathtaking. I don't think Belle's dress looks really wow, though, because it's too simple. But overall, the visuals were just amazing, imo.
The Characters and Casting
Belle- I like that she is still the intelligent woman we all know and love. Plus, making her an inventor was an excellent idea, imo. Though it didn't really add much to the story. And I like that they took her problem with the village to a whole new level not just her 'weird' because of her love of reading but because she wanted to spread the idea of people being more intellectual and advanced. Emma Watson did an good job of portraying her (much better than I thought), though I agree she wasn't really the best choice for playing Belle.
The Beast- looks aside, I liked the Beast in this movie. I like that they added a lot to his character like how he became cold hearted, his love of literature, and most importantly, his own song, which he was really lacking in the original. Dan Stevens did an amazing job of portraying the Beast, and I love how sarcastic he was sometimes.
The Castle Objects- I really liked them in this movie. The fact that we got to see them turn less human every second and miss their loved ones in the village was just really heartbreaking to me. They all still have their charm just like in the original, and I loved how their relationships with each other were handled. Lumiere and Plumette are actually a genuine couple instead of just being love birds, Mrs. Potts and Chip feel more like a family, and I really laughed when they turned human and Cogsworth found his wife, and he was all "Please turn me back into a clock". The people who played them did a perfect job of giving them the charm they had in the original.
Gaston- tbh, I didn't really like Gaston in the original. He was just too misogynistic for my taste, and he didn't feel like a very extraordinary villain, imo (except for the fact that he is the real monster). But I like that they made him less like that and made him more in love with himself instead (I laughed a the scene where he was looking at himself in the mirror) and they took his evilness to a whole new level by making him tie up Maurice in the forest so the wolves would eat him and giving him a gun to fight the Beast and making him less merciful in that fight. Luke Evans did a great job of playing him, but I really think he should have gotten more ripped for the role.
Lefou- I'm not going to talk about the whole gay controversy here because I already gave my opinions on it in a reply to another comment down bellow. Anyway, I loved the way he was handled in this movie. The fact that he started to see Gaston for the monster he was was really interesting to me, and it made him more well rounded. For some reason, I didn't really see him as a true villain in the original, just a friend who is there to cheer you up when you are down and make you feel better about yourself. I knew from the start that Josh Gad was going to do a great job playing Lefou. Heck, I can't get his rendition of Gaston's song out of my head. Imo, Josh Gad as Lefou is the best casting choice made for this movie, and it was really interesting seeing him play bad guy turned good (as much as I was curious to see how he was going to play a bad guy, I don't really see Josh Gad as the kind of actor who would play such a character).
Maurice- I don't really have a lot to say about him because there wasn't really much added to his character. In fact, taking away his role of being the inventor really affected him, imo. But for what it's worth, Kevin Kline did a good job of portraying him.
The Songs
I think they were all beautifully written, choreographed, and sung by the actors. The old ones retained their charm and catchiness, while the new ones added depth and emotion to the characters. The segments for the songs don't really live up to the ones in the original, but I still really enjoyed watching them and singing to them (especially Gaston and Be Our Guest). Overall, I love the music in this movie.
While I don't think this movie lives up to the original, I still really enjoyed it. The story, visuals, characters, cast, and music were all really solid and amazing. If I gave this movie a score, it would be an 8.5 or a 9, but of course, that's just my opinion, and I respect anyone else's opinion😊. Sorry this comment was so long, btw 😅. I really love expressing my thoughts. Anyway, I hope you all enjoyed the movie as much as I did😉!
I agree with everything you've said!! I'm so happy I'm not the only one that hated Emma as Belle, I was literally groaning in the theatre at some parts. Also I hated how carbon copy it was in terms of the script, i could literally quote more than half the film just because I knew the first one.
Honestly I saw this as an adaptation. Like the Broadway show but with better special effects. I honestly really enjoyed it.
Mr.Coat would actually agree with you on being more like the Broadway show.
Dejay Page I need to give you a slow clap, standing ovation and an exuberant handshake because that's exactly what I think!
Honestly seeing it as an adaptation is the best way to look at it. Since it's basically the samet hing. It ain't like JungleBook or Maleficient, where it IS An actual reboot. This is just an live action adaptation f an animated movie. That's about it :P It's still enjoyable if you take it as something CREATED Because of the original movie.
It's basically like the play through and through.
I saw this movie this Sunday it was good not as good as the original animated film but still better than Paper Towns. Overall I do agree with AniMat is that we don't need a remake or reboot of Beauty and the Beast and it is really unnecessary.
People could say the exact same thing with this: "We didn't need a Broadway production of Beauty and the Beast". :P Basically that's kinda the same thing.
Heck, we don't need a broadway production of Lion King, Mary Poppins, Aladdin...see where I'm going here?
Last time I was this early, my ex-wife didn't improve her aim yet
The Crystal Crystals *B U T H E R A I M I S G E T T I N B E T T E R*
It's a joke because marriage sucks.
Grumble Stan wus disapoint
2019 Edit: Why did I reply with this?
I disagree on the objects, I think they were brought to life very well, but I DEFINITELY agree with you on the Beast. He's FLUFFY and HUGE, dammit! And wolf-like! The live-action one doesn't have either quality!
Heck, even BELLE'S YELLOW DRESS was atrocious! And not because it doesn't look exactly like the animated version, but because it looks like you could find it at Kohls or JCPenneys! It looks so out of place and doesn't belong in whatever-century France! It felt like a marketing ploy to sell more merchandise for the movie! And in a movie that tries to be authentic with its time period, the dress sticks out like a sore thumb. I don't know how accurate the animated dress is, but it looks more authentic than the live action one at least!
And I couldn't agree more with the mistake of casting Emma Watson as Belle. Emma herself is a decent actress, but NOT for a role like Belle! She played it so cynical and cold, which is NOT Belle's character! Belle is optimistic and kind even in the face of discrimination for her love of reading and her intelligence. She grins and bears the challenges life throws at her and keeps moving forward with a bright attitude. Emma just kinda played it as a "fuck you" attitude for the majority of the movie. Her performance never really felt genuine.
Yeah I agree the objects(and chip) is nicely done!
I actually liked many of the changes.
Like the romance between Lumière and Plumette, that in the original was on Papyton levels of uncomfortable, here it felt more genuine and sweet with them dancing together.
Just the sheer fact that Plumette actually had stuff to do
Cadenza. He may not be Tim Curry, but...
The fact that in the mob song we see both men and women running towards the castle.
The little bits of housework Belle does when her father isn't around.
The costumes, with those little flowery patterns that make it feel more realistic, like the small mountain villages I visited
Agatha
Maurice being more serious and poetic
Belle planning to escape the castle
The explanation they give in why the servants were transformed too
The role played by Monsieur Jacques
The fact that Belle borrows her books from the priest and not from the bookshop
The fact that Beast already knows how to read and can discuss literature with Belle
The fact that Gaston is a soldier and not a hunter
The plague
The magic book
Belle smashing Lumière with a stool
Le Fou being more complex and grounded
The snarky humor, especially not being a fan of slapstick ("You'll have to drink cold tea for the rest of your life")
Chip being the only teacup, which makes his relationship with his mother feel tighter
The final song in which the Beast accepts his responsibilities and prepares for his destiny
And my favorite scene of all:
SPOILER ALERT.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The scene at the end, where the servants turn into inanimate objects. The final goodbye between Garderobe and Cadenza. The dog scratching at them. Chip and Mrs Potts laying side by side. And Lumière's last stand, with him spinning around and dying like an entertainer, with a smile and a thank you. I bawled my eyes out during that scene. That alone justifies the movie's existence.
I couldn't agree more. This movie was spectacular! The problem is that people like to put on their nostalgic goggles and start comparing the animated one with this new one. I love both movies and I'm very glad this new adaptation exists.
I see it like Greek mythology. There are plenty of version and interpretations of each myth. These adaptions have a similar feel.
Couldn't agree more, mate.
Literally, not of those things are nessecary change.
Most are based on stupid nitpicks people have had over the years.
The gay thing was hyped up so much, but when it came to the actual movie it was barely there, leaving people who were angry at it to look like they were yelling at nothing, and people that came to support it look like they were all hyped up for nothing. Nobody wins!
There’s was no reason at all to make live action reboots to any of Disney animated movies.
This is a question for AniMat: Who would you have casted as Belle?
I saw this movie this Sunday it was good not as good as the original animated film but still better than Paper Towns. Overall I do agree with AniMat is that we don't need a remake or reboot of Beauty and the Beast and it is really unnecessary.
alexis martinez so wat i m glad they did anyway
Da-vid Cargill Me too. And thank you.
alexis martinez just get ready for the live action lion king and Aladdin
Mediawatcher I know. I ready know. Why do we need a Lion King and Aladdain remakes? It's so unnecessary. Disney is running out of ideas.
To everyone asking why a live-action Beauty and the Beast needed to be made ... I honestly felt like it was because of all the plotholes in the film, especially in the opening, that people love to point out.
Why were all the servants cursed along with the Prince? Because they all laughed at the enchantress with him!
Why was the Prince answering the door? He didn't, she just barged straight in!
Did Mrs Potts give birth to Chip as china? No, he was a human boy when they were cursed and they're all frozen in time.
Did the enchantress curse the Prince as an 11-year-old, if they'd been rusting for 10 years up to that point and the rose would bloom until his 21st birthday? No, he was cursed as a young adult and Lumiere just sings "Too long we've been rusting" instead of "Ten years we've been rusting".
How do none of the villagers care about or are even aware of the Prince and his castle? Because the enchantress erased their memories!
What work does Belle actually do and how does she afford books? She's a washerwoman, and the bookshop is changed to a library.
I also loved how they included more interaction between Belle and Maurice, and he seemed a bit more composed and smart than he did in the animated version, not making mistakes at every turn. It made him more realistic and relatable. Not only that, but the added detail of having the cursed servants be turned completely into inanimate objects was a really nice touch and added stakes to the story and made for a pretty sad scene.
And of course, making LeFou gay was genius IMO, it makes so much sense. Why he stays with Gaston despite being a punching bag, and it allowed him to get a happy ending in the end.
Plus the fact that Philippe actually goes with Maurice to the castle.
And the wolves just... stopping at the gates. I assume they didn't go in there because they know there's something powerful in there (they maybe smell the Beast) and don't want to intrude in his territory.
And the fact that Maurice stops to bring Belle a rose. It's clearly taken from the original fable and I think it was quite clever.
And that final scene with the servants was what justifies the movie's existence to me. The "death" of Lumière still bring tears to my eyes. It's "die to entertain" brought to the maximum levels. He lost his friends and the love of his life, he's about to die as well, but he dies with a smile and a thank you. Curtain call. I cried my eyes out in the theatre, and you bet the guy on my left was crying too.
AdoreSinging394% I agree cause the amount of plot holes that was in the 1991 version was so noticeably changed in the 2017 version. Yeah Screw the Emma Watson haters and those who thinks the live action one sucks.
Those ideas looked good on paper, but the problem is that they weren't executed properly in the film.
The pacing and editing was sloppy, taking away the viewer's interest in the newly added details.
Also it's not a good excuse for a remake if that same movie is not only worse in most aspects but also creates new plot holes/ bigger once.. like creating a 'travel book' she could've saved her father in - 5 min.
So the movie just exists to fill plot holes...
You brought up the #1 problem I had with this movie: Why try to remake a film that's already perfect in every way? All this remake did was make me appreciate the original even more.
angelofmusic1992 oh my god I agree 100%. The movie has no reason to exist.
Why remake it? MONEY! Why does this simple motive of capitalist Hollywood escape internet critics so much?
Cause disney wants easy money
To think, I spent my 21st birthday watching this. The only scenes I got any joy out were the Gaston and LaFou scenes and that was because those moments looked like a big budget Broadway show. (Gaston was a fantastic musical number and I can see why they used it for all the commercials.) But I still could have just rewatched Enchanted if I wanted that.
Don't you dare disrespecting Aro's laugh! He and the Volturi were the *only* bright spot in the darkness of Twilight series my friends put me through!
I have mixed feelings about the remake it felt like a different film and could not catcher the magic of the original but I like how it fixed some things that were not explained in the first like why everyone forgot about the castle being there.
Don't worry everyone, Disney is gonna give us another unnecessary live action/CGI remake of another one of their ground breaking animated movies. The Lion King. I can't wait to see what they don't change in this one either. Maybe if we're lucky they'll add a scene that explains why Scar didn't kill Simba as a cub.
gotta disagree here. the visuals are great.
Maybe the set design
Maybe ,. But who cares about the visuals if the inner core is ugly and pointless?
How can any of you watch Emma and think she remotely respected the original belle? I like Emma Watson as a person; I find her charming and good intentioned, but her belle was reserved and wooden compared to the animation. She was not whimsical and excitable. I had a hard time believing how her and jerkified beast were more than bros at best. P.s. belle didn't have Stockholm in the animation either. People need to stop throwing the term around bc they think they sound smart or they're being funny. Stockholm requires a brainwashing to the point where any act can be mistaken as kindness. Belle RUNS AWAY from beast the minute she feels threatened and frequently tells him off and disobeyed his orders about the west wing. A more appropriate example of Stockholm is quasimodo and frollo or rapunzel and gothel
I went into the movie with high expectations but came out disappointed
MegaSoulHero same
Looking at the bright side, in the Latin American Spanish version of Beauty and Beast, Belle's singing voice sounds more energetic and sweet than Emma's singing.
This made me more worried if they try to reboot The Little Mermaid or Aladdin, 2 of my all time favorites......I seriously wanted they left those 2 alone.
Too late, already happening, Little Mermaid with Lin Manuel Miranda and Aladdin with Guy Richie.
Tyler Bioshock R NOOOOOOOOOOOO!
I got a boss baby where the baby is play with his lumiere and clock guy toy from beauty and the beast
i know boss baby is a little anoning
dominicanoUSA “‘Come on step closer and I will illuminate you with my soft glow.’ 🕯
‘And I’ll clean your clock!’ 🕰
Oh, hello. I just wanna let you know that on March 30th, my new movie, Dreamworks’ _The Boss Baby,_ will be hitting theaters. We won’t throw in any talking candlesticks, but we might throw one in for good luck.”
The emotional beats don’t land as well as they did in the original.
Nice intro. I wouldnt mind Disney live actioning their older or weaker ones like Hunchback of Notre Dom, The black cauldron and more
I always felt that the CGI in these live action reboots were WAYYY too detailed. They just don't blend in with everything else that actually exists. It's as the saying goes, "Sometimes simple is best." As for what I've heard of Belle's voice, there's just no emotion. It's too smooth and deadpan. In the original Belle had desire and could stand her ground, but could also be fearful. I felt that more than anything, people wanted Emma Watson cause she looked the part. I get she had practice, but it doesn't change the fact that it doesn't come out in the final cut.
Also I agree, out of the other films so far, Beauty and the Beast did NOT need a remake! As such, it was destined for this.
One problem I had with the new Beauty and the Beast is the non human characters didn't translate well. The beast was not as intimidating here compared to the cartoon, and the furniture chatacters translated better in animation than here.
I guess you can say Lumiere had the high ground (get it, cuz he’s voiced by Ewan McGregor)
The problem with using such well known actors is that when we see them we constantly think of the actor or other roles they play and it distracts us from the performance we are seeing currently.
It seems as if a lot of the opinions of internet critics really differ from my opinions. I agree that Emma Watson wasn't the best choice for Belle and a lot of the newer songs weren't astounding. However, I still really enjoyed this movie. The visuals were amazing and the story was pretty much the same with a few interesting additions. I personally kind of liked the look for the Beast. To me, it's a great combination of beastly and gentle and the whole point is to show the audience that he really isn't cruel or malicious. While others may complain, I don't really mind the idea of re-booting animated classics into live-action movies. The way I see it, this allows for a new generation to be exposed to a classic that their parents grew up on while talking to them at their level. Perhaps I'm being too optimistic, but those are just my thoughts.
This Movie: **is set in France**
Everyone In France: **has an English accent**
I’m fine with chips accent
Just the whole opening says it all
Your Review was Great, Animat!
congratulations as this was the most fair review of the movie (kinda exaggerated with Emma Watson tho).
as for the movie itself, i liked. not as good as the original but it was alright as an Adaptation! but yeah, it didn't really need to Exist
what?! the director of Twilight has directed this?! and I'm going to watch this on this weekend!
I'm don't see any point. I already have the timeless classic on dvd/bluray, why should I even bother acknowledging this film? If you like it, fine, just leave me out of it.
I litreally thought Anne Hathaway was going to be Belle. But when Emma Watson was cast I was kinda disappointed but when I seen her in this movie,she won me over. Huh 6/10.
Now I'm not the type of person to correct you or say "NO! You're wrong!" But I can agree that Emma Watson in this was kinda weird. But I just want to say that I saw this today and that that it was probably better than seeing the new power rangers movie. At least it stuck to the original, and at least it got me singing to the old songs with random people next to me. I just want to say if they're gonna do another live action film, they need to do it right. Don't pull a maleficent or a Pete's Dragon, take notes from the jungle book and they might make a successful live action Disney movie. HOWEVER, this doesn't mean I support the idea of another live action Disney movie to be created, if they were to though, it has to be hunchback of Notre dame. Some may disagree with me, but if they do what they did with the beauty and the beast remake, then I'm sold. I don't know how they would replace Tony Jay, but I'm sure they'd find a way, he was the staple of the entire movie, hell the staple of the entire Disney Villain roster. Hopefully this kind of stuff won't happen again with the Disney reboots, hopefully the next director to make one of these (god forbid) takes notes and fully watches the jungle book, if not, then the rest of the studio who makes these movies is screwed and won't get as much praise as the jungle book did.
This is honestly my favorite video of yours.
I REALLY disagree on the objects, I really like their designs
agreed
Jean-Pierre Moreno nah they're just creepy, like chip and mrs pots's faces are really off putting
I really want a figma of that Lumiere.
I liked most of them, but the wardrobe was a little creepy and Mrs Potts was kinda unsettling (I found Chip ok).
i also liked the film itself too.
Wow, AniMat! Sounds like you took this remake harder than I thought you would. But I perfectly understand. I agree that Emma Watson wasn't the best casting choice for Belle. I mean, her acting was decent but they should have hired someone who could actually sing, not just make a choice that would make Potterheads geek out.(No offense of any kind meant to you Potterheads.) I also agree that as a remake this is at least better than Tim Burton's Alice films and even Maleficent and Pete's Dragon though I actually kinda liked those two. I couldn't help laughing over your comments on the wardrobe eating Belle and the guy playing the Beast looking like he's ready for Halloween. TBH, I didn't find the CGI that awful though. I've seen MUCH worse. Plus, I really liked Ewan McGreggor as Lumiere and also Kevin Kline as Maurice. I even enjoyed watching Josh Gad play as LeFou. So, above all, this could never surpass the original but it's still a great movie to me. I would at least give it 7 or 8 out of 10.
Awesome intro, and pretty well explained.
By God! I know why they rebooted this film! If the animated version was nominated for best picture at the Academy Awards then they figured the live-action film would be the one to WIN it.
Thank the gods Disney is this only studio doing this whole live action thing. Could you imagine s live action spirited away? That would be ridiculous.
Nostalgia critics sibling rivalry review said it all pretty well, but still this is a fine review
Love the intro ❤️. Brilliant.
I'm sure this is gonna be a box office hit just beacuse people will se the live action movie and the animated one as the same so they will prefer this one just beacuse this is live action and the majority of the people have that primitive think thay animation is a joke and is just for kids
cheese productions I think you're 50% right.
I wonder which evil laugh is more awkward? Aro's 'Hahahahaha!' or Voldemort's "Eh-heh-heh!"?
I have two questions for you:
1. Who would you cast as Belle instead of Emma Watson?
2. Did you know that they were going to put Dan Stevens (Beast) in makeup? Do you think he would have looked better if they did that?
you: who could ever love a disney reboot
ducktales 2017: alow me to introduce myself
Seeing this on Sunday, can't wait! Honestly though, people need to stop comparing this movie to the original. Yes, it's probably not as good as the original, but that doesn't mean it's bad. It's good as it's own thing and it should be judged as it's own thing rather than a remake in my opinion.
When I saw this, the little children (from 10-3) laughed at gastons death.
Honestly with the look of the enchanted objects (like Lumiere, Cogsworth and Mrs Potts) granted at first I didn't like how they looked; but they did grow on me after awhile. Plus I also never felt that uncanny valley with them. Although the Wardrobe and Cadenza still look pretty bad.
This beast doesn’t feel like a beast, in the way he talks and shouts or in the way he looks. He looks more like a man wearing fur. They could’ve just modified his face to look close to that of a lion like they did in the original.
I agree the the CGI was bad, but I still loved how the beast himself looked!
Animat, just get ready for the lion king and aladdin live action remake
Also...here's the thing with the objects;
I THINK THEM BEING SCARY IS THE POINT! THEY'RE CURSED, TRAPPED IN PRISONS OF WOOD, METAL AND PORCELAIN! Of course it'd look unnerving, how the hell would they look like the cartoony versions that are also meant to look cute?! Plus they are turning INTO the objects! The designs gave to reflect more real objects!
Plus the Uncanny Valley thing works better since again it's a curse.
Also...why are people knocking the beast. Question; how would YOU bring to life a seven foot tall animal man in live action? Honestly I think this is taking more ques from the original fairy tales with the design, by making him more animalistic but still retaining a little bit of humanity. Ya know, with the more human level intellect and more regal appearance. Since he's more lion/wolf with large ram horns than a chimera.
Dejay Page i never thought of that :o
Dejay Page "How would you bring to life a seven foot tall animal man in live action?" Easy, you don't because it's unnecessary.
..NOT a good argument actually. -_- That's a rather weak thing when it comes to this argument. Here's the thing what is being said "How would one translate a 7 foot tall animal man into live action". A better answer would be to actually give asuggestion, not just shoot it down. Just saying 'don't' doesn't answer the question, t's avoiding it thus showing you do not have an actual answer
Look, the original movie IS better, but can't just denounce it for trying to remain loyal to it.
Dejay Page Still doesn't make it any nicer to look at
...But does it HAVE to look 'nice'? Seriously, they are people trapped in prisons made in the forms of everyday antiques. In the original, aside from brining the BEast back to humanity, was there any real problems for the servants? There was no real mention that they would become objects permentanty and thus lose their lives. They are saying that they want to be human again JUST to be human again. In the play, they at least have the same reason as in this movie; if they don't break the spell, they are stuck forever and basically die. They will DIE if the curse isn't broken. There isn't that urgency in the original film if you really think about it.
But in this movie and the play? Yeah, there is a real sense of urgency since it's not just one guy who is gonna be turned into a mindless animal permentanly, but they all turn into objects. It explains WHY they want to get back to human so quickly without it look like they are somewhat selfish.
Ryan Gosling was offered the role of the Beast, but turned it down to appear in La La Land (2016) instead. Emma Watson was offered the lead role in that movie, but turned down that movie to star in this one.
I’m actually kind of glad Emma Watson turned down the role of Mia Dolan so Emma Stone could win her first Academy Award for Best Actress in a Leading Role. Emma Stone is one my favorite actresses and her Oscar was overdue by that point.
I respectfully disagree about the song Days In The Sun. Right when that song started I lost it. I find that song very beautiful and get a little emotional every time I hear it. I also really liked Emma Watson personally
I personally liked the film but I knew it could never be better than the original animated film.
I say it's a 7/10. If you can put away your nostalgia goggles then you can enjoy it but if you can't then don't even think about watching it.
I do think Animat was a bit harsh with this film and Emma Watson but at the same time I get why since he has such a huge love for the original film.
I know everyone disliked this remake but the only character I only like is chip 🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰
hey, I'll give this movie credit for one thing. it being in the media so much got beauty and the beast on my mind and got me to rewatch it yet again!
I think it's a great CONCEPT that Disney is remaking their animated films, as they are based on other sources (in this case, Hans-Christian Andersen's work), and it could be a good way to be more accurate to the source in a way that financially doesn't bode well in animation. Unfortunately, The Jungle Book seems to be the only one willing to go back to the source and simultaneously pay tribute to the original film. And by God, do NOT remake movies that are original or basically original - looking at you, Lion King.
I honestly liked it for bringing back Alan Menkin to do the music BUT I don't massively love it due to making questionable changes in the story, like the magic book scene. Once we see it in one scene, we never hear from it again.
Yet this film was so successful that it's in the 10 of the highest grossing films of all time.
So here's a question: What's Disney gonna do after they've remade all their GOOD films?
Emma Watson and Dan Stevens said that their favorite scene to film was the iconic ballroom scene
To prepare for the role of Belle, Emma Watson re-watched Beauty and the Beast (1991), and began taking singing classes.
Chappeau never speaks, even after reverting back to human form.
LeFou is Disney's first canonical gay character in a feature-length movie.
Emma Watson (Belle), Dame Emma Thompson (Mrs. Potts), and Ray Fearon (Pere Robert the librarian) appeared in the Harry Potter film franchise.
Emma Watson (Belle), Dame Emma Thompson (Mrs. Potts), Luke Evans (Gaston), and Nathan Mack (Chip) all share the same birthday, April 15, which was also the date of the first cast read through.
Loved the intro to this review!
I'm also sick of seeing all of these remakes to Disney's animated films. Sure, some of them like Cinderella and Jungle Book were decent, and Pete's Dragon was harmless. But still, this trend needs to end NOW! Like you said, let animation stay as animation! Same goes for the live-action films based on cartoon shows.
I rarely disagree with Matt. But this time i do.The film was okay, and the effects were okay as well. The actors were good and the songs too. However, it felt a bit TOO much like the 1991 film. And yeah, Watson did feel a bit off.
When Emma Watson sings
😨😨😨😨😨😨😨😨😨😨
Awful voice.
I loved this movie. 9.5/10. It was a real memory down merry lane for me. Yes we know what is gonna happen...ahem Cinderella. But overall I loved the new one.
Why do people get pissed off with animated movies turned into live action. When I was little I DREAMED for this but didn't think it would haven and now it IS!
What's so wrong seeing your favorite movie come to LIFE
Guess what. You don't HAVE TO WATCH IT!
There are movie franchises that I HATE but I don't wish for them to go away Bc I know a lot of people love them. So why can't people let people have fun with a movie they love?
He's a critic! Lay off! You don't like his opinion? Go somewhere else then if you're gonna tell me "Don't watch it!"
Because it gives the impression that animation is worthless, plus they aren't good remakes.
Because it adds literally nothing and serves to cash in on the original film instead of branching out to newer pastures. And people buy into it because it's Disney, which leads to more live-action mediocrity.
The live-action remakes take the animated films (which feel like they were made more with kids in mind than adults) and rewrite them with the maturity and sophistication as a story for adults. The animated BatB had stuff that has been bothering people for over 25 years, but the live-action remake fixed all of that.
Okay, you are saying one of the most mature animated films is for kids, and they 'adultified" it in the remake. This remake does try to be like the Beauty and the Beast, and with this being, in your eyes, for adults, then how is the other is made for kids.
At least with the other one, it was made with passion. There is no denying that this movie is a cash grab.
Oh, and, tell me what bothers you now?
For kids only?, Many critics in the past compared the 1991 version with classics like Snow White and Pinocchio, why?, because Disney didn't make movies for kids, he made them for the kids inside of us , he wanted to do fantasy movies for us to dream and do for a magical trip. There's a reason why the 1991 was THE FIRST ANIMATED FILM to be nominated for the Oscars, it was the first animated movie to be taken seriously by the industry, and you say it's for kids?. Yeah the live action film was so "adult" that LeFou was played as the typical stereotyped gay , so "adult" that the plot holes were so bad added , even a kid would notice them , the Beast in the classic has more depth that many "adult" characters ....
Can you talk about the Zootopia Lawsuit in your next Podcast?
What was the lawsuit over?
They couldn't FIND a an attractive actress with blue eyes and brown hair who is about 'Emma Watson' age or younger and can actually SING?! : /
Oh they could have. Samantha Barks from Les Miserable fits the bill to a tee, and even is a Broadway singer. Let's be honest, they didn't think very much into who get's to be the lead.
It was okay for a remake. Not forgettable like Pete's Dragon, but it had its moments (the new plot changes and new character developments like the Beast SINGING and Lefou's homosexuality were a surprising yet interesting touch). Even still, if they played the original movie when I was expecting to watch the new adaptation at the movie theatre, I wouldn't even be mad tbh.
I completely agree on your thoughts on the visual effects of the film.
I think one pof the reasons why Emmas acting was so bad, WAS because of the Director. She is a pretty ok actress, but her acting is way too much like Kristen Stewarts acting from the Twilight movies to just just be a case of an actor being a bad actor.
i love beauty and the beast 1991 and beauty and the beast 2017 because of josh gad who played olaf in frozen. it was awesome
Emma Watson was choosed Belle's role because she is a popular and well-known active feminist. It was considered that she is an independented, strong and intelligent woman who is well suited as a role model for young growing girls. I have nothing against Watson or feminism, but she is not so miraculous actor.
Did anyone else think he was going to pull a Bratz The Movie like review at the beginning?
Sam Feldstein yes.
PLS Review the original Beauty & the Beast 1991
Aren't reboots supposed to be about THEIR vision of how everything goes in the story and characters? I don't see what's wrong with it not following every part of it. I mean, at least they tried. I don't know, in my opinion, you kinda bashed on it a little much just flat out saying that just because it brought the wrong elements. It should be about how they envision it, not how they didn't remake it right. Like I said, that's just how I see this as, nothing more than just reimagining the entire film in their image.
But it adds NOTHING new to the story , they did exactly the same songs , the same structure , maybe they could have made this remake more closer to the original tale (like the 2014 French version did) or making the Beast with a more deeper backstory , or even taking that Belle's mother backstory and make it more dramatic, like revealing Belle that Maurice wasn't her real father but he took care of her ....but , nah! let's make a exact copy of the old one and we'll get extra money
@@ingridsuperfreak Eh, I tried to be VERY open minded back then. I just don't like assuming the worst out of people, especially nowadays.