And this was a movie for children?
I agree with your review.
I saw it a week ago, and had exactly the same impression.
It was not propaganda.
So there’s a somewhat gay character. So what? He’s just among all the other characters, a realistic and non-ideal guy just like the rest.
It was a good movie, in my view.
Though Kong was my favorite. Very like that film.
:D
And why would anyone wish to contribute a dime to Disney?
Even in medieval/renaissance times, outside ethnics weren’t entirely unknown there. There’s a few portraits of North and sub-Saharan africans in European settings from that period.
As Dr. Bruno Bettleheim wrote, fairy tales are GREAT for children, because it helps them work things out, in their minds, especially the loss of a parent, a cruel parent, etc.!
Beauty and the Beast is a cojoining of the ancient Greek & Roman myth: CUPID & PSYCHE and Cinderella; themes that can be found, world wide, in tales and myths.
Personally, I'd rather parents read fairy tales to their children, since Disney has ALWAYS bolloxed them up. For instance...there's NO character like Gaston, let alone Gaston, in the original tale.
Maybe it is worth a view.
Beauty and the Beast is my favorite Disney film... although I like Fantasia a lot, too.
Where does the original fit into the canon of film these days? Classic? Good for its time?
The studio released the full pencil test edit (if I recall) on laserdisc (workprint or somesuch name). Don’t know if that was included with the DVD.
Wasn’t there computer assist at least on backgrounds or shadows?
I guess the remake may hold favor for those looking for musicals or pageantry.
When I saw the digital transmission of the final Monty Python reunion performance, they aired some trailers indicating you could see live hi-def stage performances from London and New York in movie theaters too. So that is one way to translate the “stage” experience.
But on the pageantry is there anything to rival this film (which I have not seen, only saw the trailer theatrically screened before it opened). Period musical all filmed on one single continuous take with a cast of 2000, 3 live orchestras, and elaborate staging:
Russian Ark
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZV1kphEEXn8
It doesn’t tell the same tale as Beauty and the Beast or have those songs or anything but the scenery appears to be the sort the palace was modeled after, the costuming is close, etc. With the novelty of one continuous take and such involved participation, I don’t even care if it is any good. I watched Richard Linkletter’s 3 hour “Boyhood” tale and was unimpressed but aware of the novelty of watching the cast grow up over 10 years. David Carradine was making a film with his daughter as Mata Hari that was filmed over 30 years I think but who knows if it will ever be completed.
How is this even acceptable in a movie?
Forget the faggotry, change up the sexes and make LeFou's object of affection be some unattainable/disinterested woman.
They'd say it is offensive and presumptive that he should even impose himself on "her", let alone persist in such flirting after repeated rejection of advances.
And no complaining about being in the friendzone, just be happy that you are a friend and quit imposing your sexual desires on the relationship.
Am I right?
I thought the film was for teens and adults, those who like musicals, those who saw the original in their younger days, and those who are in performing arts classes. Do primary aged kids watch musicals with live actors?
I’ve tried watching some recent Disney movies, but find I don’t care for all the singing anymore. It was okay when I was younger. I can remember begging my mother to take me to see Sleeping Beauty during a heavy snowfall. We didn’t have a car, and had to take two buses. I loved that movie then, but at 69, animated films with singing and dancing just don’t cut it for me anymore. I end up fast-forwarding through all that crap, just to get on with the story. The only animated films I saw recently that I liked was the latest Ice Age film, and The BFG, and I only watched that because I like Mark Rylance.
The whole gay thing was a PR stunt by Disney to generate interest.
ping
It was good. I liked how they filled in some plot holes from the animated version: why the villagers didn’t know about the nearby castle, winter at the castle, how the scratched painting of an adult male could be The Beast when he was a youth when he was turned to a beast, etc.
I wasn’t fond of the singing. I could hear auto tuning in “Belle” and “Beauty and the Beast,” and “Be Our Guest” wasn’t as good. Paige O’Hara, Angela Lansbury, and Jerry Orbach did much better. “Gaston” was good, but Josh Gad has Broadway experience (as well as training from a fantastic university).
I haven’t seen the movie. . .but my question, “Does God like it?”
I had the same impression
The gayness was way overhyped
You had to look for it to notice it
It was an enjoyable movie
it was a bit contrived to see the magical furniture transform into white men and black women servants
In medieval France
That was the most envelope pushing diversity in the movie
Sheesh already
Interesting how NOBODY is mentioning the overly pro-christian content.
i gave it a B, B-. the gay thing would have gone right by me if it hadn’t been hyped - and after all effeminate characters are nothing new to the screen. i thought the diversity angle was a bit overdone and anachronistic. Beast did not really appeal to me so i didn’t feel chemistry - although i did cry at the end. that was the major flaw. i would have been just as happy seeing all the effects, etc. on tv or DVD.
Think of Paul Lynde as Uncle Arthur in Betwiched. No kid can/could conceptualize of a man having sex with another man...they just thought Uncle Arthur was kind of funny. But the left MUST drive their agenda no matter if it means spoiling the innocence of children.