Beauty and the Beast (2017)

Remakes of original films always make me cringe - you can never beat an original, even if it is a bad one.I'm not fully against this remake but I feel with Disney and their budget they could have done and made it a lot better.My main gripe were the accents - fairly dodgey especially in the songs. Some can pull it off but Ewan Mcgregor isn't remotely French in this film, Emma Watsons singing has been extremely enhanced and takes away from her natural voice.As a story, it's tried and tested through the original - even if there is a plot flaw (not saying there is one) it is a Disney classic and the charm of that is there overpowering the flaws.Could have done better though Disney...

Not bad, not great. Emma Watson really drags it down. She's really phoning it in on the acting and can't sing well either. The movie is visually stunning, and I enjoyed the enchanted objects for the most part. The story wasn't off putting but it wasn't terribly compelling. I drifted in and out. It was mostly worth it for Dan Stevens, who I always find mesmerizing.I don't say any of this out of loyalty for the 1991 animated film. I don't worship that movie or even like it that much. So they had a chance for a win with me, but it doesn't stand out.

I'm sorry to say this was not nearly as entertaining or captivating as 2015's 'Cinderella'. Despite the great cinematography and incredible visuals, I found it over the top and ultimately predictable. CGI certainly has come a long way and blends very realistically with the real world, so credit to the director where credit is due. Unfortunately, though, I think the film would have done perfectly well without all that CGI. In fact, at times it becomes cartoonish and silly. Furthermore, there's not an inch of credibility to the film. The characters are incredibly bland and boring, probably because they were acting in front of blue/green screens and in studios for most of the film. The characters just didn't feel like part of their surroundings.When Belle sees the Beast for the first time - looking like the Devil himself - she's not even a teensy weensy bit scared of him. Without any hesitation or questions she simply accepts him for being a beast and even when she's held against her will, she still remains cocky and demanding. Uhm, now that's believable for you. Not! I also found the reason behind the curse pathetic. Such an extreme curse just because he wouldn't accept a rose? Fair enough, the reason probably runs much deeper, but its not as if he was responsible for the death of the witch's loved ones or something like that. And to curse EVERYONE in the castle??? That witch has some SERIOUS issues!!The love story was also very unconvincing and predictable and seemed forced more often than not. There was no chemistry between Belle and Beast - or any of the characters for that matter! (The best chemistry was between Gaston and LeFou). The attack scene on the castle was just stupid! It was done so silly and without feeling that it was simply not entertaining. In fact, I found the scene overbearing and painful to watch. And why was Beast not part of this scene? Why was he upstairs staring into oblivion instead of defending his castle or his people? So he was still being selfish. Gosh, he so deserve to be cursed! The confrontation between Gaston and Beast was also not effective, as they've never interacted before. It was just pure Hollywood sensation without any depth. It was bland. Stupid. Horrible. And I'm not even going to elaborate on how utterly silly the transformation scene was once the curse was broken...I also found the Beast's appearance to be very inconsistent. At times it looked really awesome and even scary. Other times it looked like a mask rented from a party supply store. Yes, I know it was all CGI - and maybe that's where the problem lies. Although this is a classic tale, I doubt the film will go down as a classic.

Small town girl Belle gives up her liberty to free her father from a Beast. She does not know that the captor is a selfish, loveless Prince. He was enchanted to remain a Beast until he discovers how to love. If he fails he will remain a Beast forever, together with his enchanted servants (tough on them, but there you go). Will Belle be the one to unlock the love within him before the last petal falls from the enchanted rose, and free them all? Or will vain Gaston, determined to marry an unwilling Belle, mess things up?You already know the answer if you saw the hand-drawn animated version from 26 years ago. That was the first animated film to be nominated for the Best Film Oscar. So how does the remake compare, and does it stand on its own?It is a handsome film. That's because the basic design - sets, locations, characters - is strongly based on the original. There is much more texture, of course. And Beast's castle is far more extensive. I liked the way that every time a petal falls, part of the castle crumbles: this explains why much of it is in ruins. And the characters, whether human or castle objects are very obviously based on their drawn counterparts.I thought there were times when a location could have been used rather than a set, particularly in the woods, but this is a minor point.The casting is very good. Each cast member fits their part. Most sing well, too - Emma Watson is good, but maybe lacks a little in technique and vocal strength. There has been comment on Josh Gad's gay-leaning LeFou. Well, OK, but it's very understated. There is also a crossdressing gag which is funny, but it's over before you realise it. Incidentally, Luke Evans' Gaston is NOT the size of a barge.The film is inevitably loaded with CGI. As far as the household objects are concerned, this is superb. Lumiere, Cogsworth and co. are all animated superbly, look completely convincing, and integrate perfectly with sets and actors. The fight at the end is stunning.I had no problems with the Beast, but I know there are some who find his CGI face unconvincing. I think young viewers will have no problem.The story is familiar. Essentially unchanged from the animated version, it has some additional backstory. One of the reasons for seeing a remake is to discover the changes, so I will say no more about that. I thought the additions were worthwhile.This is, first and foremost, a musical film. I am delighted to report that the wonderful songs and expected production numbers are all present. Alan Menken's glorious melodies include several new songs and also the soundtrack score. Tim Rice adds words for the new songs. The wonderful original lyrics by the late, and much-missed, Howard Ashman are augmented by some which were cut from the original film. My only criticism is that some of the lyrics of "Gaston" got lost in the mix of a rather raucous production.There are some good 3D moments, but I wouldn't bother making an effort to see it in 3D.There is much to enjoy here. Maybe it doesn't come up to the standard of its animated predecessor, but taken on its own I think it should find great success.