Movies: Beauty and the Beast (2017)

[Kamal007]

Has she even done any really note-worthy/solid work in the past few years? Seems to me like she's in the news more for her personal life/activism then her actual movies. She's not a particarly talented actress.

Disagree, she is talented, she just hasn't done a lot of work. She was good in The Colony and Perks of being a Wall Flower recently.

 

[aleshemsky83]

emma watson is alright but I think emma stone is definitely a better actress. Nothing wrong with being an okay actress and making millions and millions of clams, but you're just not goign to get those oscar roles

 

[hotcabbagesoup]

emma watson is alright but I think emma stone is definitely a better actress. Nothing wrong with being an okay actress and making millions and millions of clams, but you're just not goign to get those oscar roles

Had trouble reading this the first time through, but eventually I got your point.

I never knew Emma Watson was a clam farmer. Great fun fact!
That definitely makes her more of a babe in my eyes.

 

[aleshemsky83]

Clams is a pretty common expression. Maybe you're a brit so you haven't heard it, just a guess though.

 

[WTFetus]

Damn I'm a fan of both of them but this is really really bad.

I don't mind it, though I hate John Legend (would've been gold with someone like Buble). This could just be the studio version too, it sounds pretty similar to the Celine Dion/Peabo Bryson version.

 

[HanSolo]

Emma Watson is serviceable and decently charming.

But she hasn't delivered, nor has she been asked to deliver (imo) the kind of substance that sets good actresses apart from serviceable ones.

She's a perfectly fine choice for this role. La La Land was better off with Emma Stone.

 

[Soliloquy of a Dogge]

Hmmm, looking like this is a little polarizing. Currently at 74% on RT. Doesn't seem to be as much of a home run as Jungle Book, which almost everybody agreed succeeded in improving upon the original.



The New ‘Beauty And The Beast’ Should Satisfy Most Fans (Uproxx)

There’s certainly nothing that new about this version of Beauty and the Beast (well, except it isn’t a cartoon anymore), but it’s a good recreation of a classic animated film that should leave most die-hards satisfied. In other words: When you imagine what a live action Beauty and the Beast movie would be like, the final product is probably a lot like what you think it would be like.

Too Much of a Good Thing (Collider)

That being said, this isn’t a matter of not living up to a classic original as much as there’s a lack of consideration for making sure that everything works. There’s no reason Beast’s CGI makeup should look so awful when you’ve got Disney footing the bill. There’s no reason the new songs shouldn’t be outstanding when you’ve got Alan Menken back to do the music. There’s no reason to add new things if those things don’t make the movie better overall. Condon didn’t have to stay slavishly devoted to the 1991 film, but most of alterations and changes don’t make his version feel fresh. They feel like they’re grasping for relevancy.

Rousing new 'Beauty and the Beast' is even better than the original (USA Today)

Embracing its musical theater nature and adding depth to a familiar narrative, the live-action remake (*** out of four; rated PG; in theaters March 17) is a real Beauty.

Unlike last year’s The Jungle Book, Beauty and the Beast marries visual spectacle and sumptuous design work with a better story than its original, casting a spell on old fans and newcomers alike.

The New Beauty and the Beast Is a Lifeless Re-creation of the Original (Vulture)

Unfortunately, it’s over two hours long, and is padded out by a hugely unnecessary number of non–Ashman-Rice musical numbers and a pointless detour where Belle finds out what happened to her missing mother. At every turn, the film seems to ask itself if what the original film did was enough, and answers with a definitive “no.” But hey, at least that clock looked real.

 

[Soliloquy of a Dogge]

Avatar also arrived shortly into the 3D craze and, I believe, was the first film actually shot in 3D (with a separate camera capturing what each eye sees), rather than a 2D film adapted to 3D. 3D hadn't yet taken off and Avatar was the "killer app." People went to see the 3D version, and that was $3 more for every ticket that went to the total gross. They then told their friends and family that they had to see it in 3D and it was just a snowball effect. I doubt that many people actually went to see it in the theaters more than once because they liked the film so much, but because they wanted the 3D experience again (and to share it with their friends and families). Coming out right as 3D was about to explode and being the catalyst for that explosion contributed a lot to the perfect storm that you mentioned, IMO.



I kind of doubt that Avatar 2 touches the record, since, for one, it's not going to have the same fresh 3D experience of the original. Also, few people actually love the original's story, so I doubt that it'll be like how audiences flocked to The Empires Strikes Back because Star Wars was universally adored. Finally, since there are going to be four sequels, some people may just sit the first one out, since they'll have three more chances to see something similar in the theater and may even want to watch them all back-to-back. I'm sure that it's going to be a blockbuster smash that likely breaks the $1B barrier, regardless. I'm just skeptical of it breaking the record, though I could be wrong.

Don't disagree with you here. Good points.

 

[Takeo]

Keep in mind it's also getting a 5-10% bump just for having a gay character.

 

[Soliloquy of a Dogge]

Keep in mind it's also getting a 5-10% bump just for having a gay character.

I'm not sure why everything seems to bother you (other than straight, white and male characters) but the homoerotic song strongly implied that the character was gay in the original as well.

 

[hotcabbagesoup]

I'm not sure why everything seems to bother you (other than straight, white and male characters) but the homoerotic song strongly implied that the character was gay in the original as well.

I think it's best to realize that everyone is the sum of their circumstances and everyone can be evil if pushed to become so.
That's why I don't speak with contempt about Takeo but I embrace him, and treat him as an HF brother from another mother. I try to find the beauty in the beast so to speak.

Also, Takeo from the Japanese, pronounced Take-yo, like take yo lunchbox when you were kid. Hope that helps.

 

[BonMorrison]

Keep in mind it's also getting a 5-10% bump just for having a gay character.

Jesus.

 

[HanSolo]

Keep in mind it's also getting a 5-10% bump just for having a gay character.

 

[Spring in Fialta]

I find Takeo hilarious, personally. And I don't mean that in an insulting way at all. He's great at what he does.

 

[BonMorrison]

Yes, he is great at being a piece of ****.

 

[Spring in Fialta]

Aw Christ, it's a goddamn message board. I don't agree with anything he says (besides Streep being pranced around like a piglet on a leash at awards show. Underrated post.) but I don't give a damn if he wants to drop hot takes in threads as long as it doesn't stop others from discussing what they want to discuss.

 

[BonMorrison]

"hot takes"

 

[Spring in Fialta]

"hot takes"

You can just come out say what you really want to say and drop the quotation marks.

 

[BonMorrison]

Okay, I find it a bit unsettling that you're defending someone's right to drop low-key hate speech on the regular in HFBoards.

 

[Spring in Fialta]

Yeah, because I don't let it bother me at all. It's words on a screen and it has zero effect on my life or my well-being. It's the internet. I can go on the politics board and read way worse **** about my ethnic group pretty much daily. What's the point of getting mad about someone who I'll never meet or interact with in my actual life? He's a troll. I can just click X if it bothers me that much. Besides, calling his posts hate-speech is hyperbolic to a ridiculous degree.

 

[BonMorrison]

Wait so we should let homophobes and racists post freely on here without being called out because we're never gonna meet them in real life and the onus should be on us to ignore it and not be bothered? Like it's fine it doesn't bother you - that's cool but calling this behavior out is how we stop other posters from doing the same thing in the future, no?

 

[Spring in Fialta]

You can be bothered all you want. I was speaking from my perspective. I don't care if you call him out either. It's not like he's going to stop because you call him out every time. Has it before? I just said I found his schtick funny and you came in dropping an innuendo. But to answer your question, when it comes to a message board, yeah, I'd say the onus os on us to ignore it and not be bothered. If you really want him to stop - which I think you do - don't you think not bothering replying to him should be considered at this point since your previous approach has obviously failed?

 

[BonMorrison]

An innuendo is a supposed to be hinted, me calling him a piece of **** isn't really innuendo - pretty crystal clear what I was going for.

And not really, I've been posting here awhile and the amount of people who call him on his terrible posts has been getting higher and higher the past few years. I'm hoping at some point the mods take notice and do something about it so I'm just gonna resume what I'm doing.

FYI I'm not trying to have a go at you so apologies for being condescending in the initial posts.

 

[Spring in Fialta]

An innuendo is a supposed to be hinted, me calling him a piece of **** isn't really innuendo - pretty crystal clear what I was going for.

And not really, I've been posting here awhile and the amount of people who call him on his terrible posts has been getting higher and higher the past few years. I'm hoping at some point the mods take notice and do something about it so I'm just gonna resume what I'm doing.

FYI I'm not trying to have a go at you so apologies for being condescending in the initial posts.

I was talking about " hot takes " but apologies accepted. I apologize too if I came off that way. But yeah, he might cross the line eventually and get himself banned but he actually seems to be good at walking that fine line.

 

[Supermassive]

Jesus.

Speaking of him, some absolutely atrocious Christian films get a boost because Christian sites/blogs/reviewers consistently five-star them. Not a stretch to think that more progressive sites/blogs/reviewers five-star movies that align with their interests and attitudes. Hell, so many of the action movies I enjoy tend to get voted down because of the reviewers' dislike for the genre, and I'm fine with it.