Reviews written by registered user
|88 reviews in total|
I have been wondering while listening to the reviews of this latest
version of Disney's Beauty and the Beast how many of the critics
panning it are Millennials who were kids when this came out and have
been spoiled by the era of CGI. I was an adult when that film came out
but loved it anyway. The 1991 version was a leap forward in Animation
with its use of computer produced art and the more intimate
storytelling that was only seen before in moments of The Little
When they said Disney had turned it into Broadway Musical I wasn't surprised because that is essentially what this is. It's a Menken/Ashman (with some help from Tim Rice) musical of which the 1991 film was simply one version. Menken and Ashman both treated it that way and the film was all that better for it. If you look at it from that perspective the why of redoing it can be answered. Like any other well- loved musical doing it again with a different cast and director will always be something people will want to do. I think it's time to see this for a new generation.
This is a visually stunning film. The CGI of the Beast was only distracting in the beginning but once you got connected to the performance that Dan Stevens gives it no longer matters. Like the 1991 version the colors in this film are vivid and bold. The set decoration and costuming are lavish and beautiful. The character design of the household objects is amazingly detailed. The film hearkens back in some ways to musical extravaganzas of the 50s and the 60. The "Belle" sequence reminded me of the film version of the Oliver musical. The "Gaston" sequence had moments that reminded me of Seven Brides for Seven Brothers and when Emma Watson sings "Belle (Reprise)" reminded me of Sound of Music. The end titles even had nod to the same genre.
The musical numbers were very well done particularly the rendition of the "Gaston". Of the new musical numbers "Evermore" and "How Does a Moment Last Forever" were beautiful and fit well into the new version. Emma Watson did a very good job as Belle. While her voice is not Broadway quality is sweet and charming. I think Autotune has been imagined on it because the media has told people it was there in the trailers. Dan Stevens as the Beast is very powerful and manages to give Beast life under all the CGI. The supporting cast (especially Luke Evans, Josh Gad, Ewan McGregor, and Emma Thompson) are all very good. The cast doing the voice parts also infuse life into their characters with their vocal performances. Despite his concerns about his French accent McGregor did a brilliant job with his role. Emma Thompson gave a pleasant rendition of "Beauty and the Beast".
While the film is reverent to the 1991 film it should be taken as its own entity. I highly recommend this film for family viewing. It is a beautiful, joyful experience.
The real star of this film is the extraordinary screenplay written by
Aaron Sorkin. The characters he creates here are dark, flawed, and the
epitome of the worst of the 2000s culture that the target audience of
the film sprang from. Fincher does a fabulous job of interpreting this
and bringing it to life on the screen. His visual of the script is bold
and vibrant, exactly what was called for by the script.
The problem with this film is that the performances aren't really that spectacular. They are good enough to carry the film but that's the best I can say for them. Armie Hammer as the Winklevoss twins was probably the weakest link of the bunch. He hammed it up big time and turned them into caricatures. I still haven't figured out why Jesse Eisenberg's performance was so applauded. The performance at times was two dimensional.
All in all this is a great film. Fincher has done better with "The Curious Case of Benjamin Buttons" but this was arguably one of the better films of the years.
between wanting to laugh at and being seriously intrigued by this show.
When these guys really get into this I feel like I'm watching Bill and
Ted's Excellent Ghost Hunting Adventure. "Dude! Dude! Did you hear
that? Whoa!". I think that a lot of what goes on here is them (in
particular Zac) reacting to their environment. Also the creative
editing that is done afterward emphasizes a great deal. Despite that,
there are moments when I feel they are actually making contact with the
Since I can't be sure that anything is real here, I can only judge this on entertainment value. For that I can say it is truly entertaining. With the music, editing, and graphics used it's truly an awesome ride through the paranormal.
After having enjoyed Kevin Sullivan's foray into the works of L.M.
Montgomery, I was interested to see what Salter Street Films would do.
The Emily series is the darker, more realistic vision of life Rural
Prince Edward Island and much closer to the life Montgomery herself
lead. While the series captures that darker element, there are moments
of light and color that make the series charming and delightful. The
performance of the regular actors in the series were all very well
done. Stephen McHattie, who plays Cousin Joe, was especially a standout
for me because I'm used to seeing him play heavies and bad guys. The
actress playing the lead character is certainly well cast. She is
almost a little too intense.
It would be interesting if the producers did an update movie with the same cast based on the last book in the Emily series. It would be a great closer for a series that didn't last too long.
I heard about this film three years ago and have been waiting all this time to actually see it. It was worth the wait. I've been a Nilsson fan for years and this documentary really gave me a connection to who he was as a person and the life that he lived. It's a beautifully crafted work by someone who obviously loved Harry as much as all of his friend did. My hope is is that more people will see this documentary and realize what a talent that has been lost. His voice was amazing and the songs he wrote touch people and seems speak to the very essence of who we are as people. I remember hearing once that Ringo Starr was deeply affected by his passing. Through this film, I can see why.
Jason Bateman should be doing a lot more films. He was marvelous in
Arrested Development and he seems to have made the transition from
child star to adult actor without a problem. So lets get him in more
films so that we can really see what he can do.
This is a very clever and entertaining film very well acted by the cast which includes besides Aniston and Bateman, a return of Juliette Lewis and Jeff Goldblum. Both have very give great performances in supporting roles. I'd love to see more of both in other works.
I love watching the relationship between Wally and Sebastian unfold. The film is a joy to watch
Michael Wood does an outstanding job in this multi-part documentary of
proving that there was some historical fact to the epic poetry of
Homer. The research is meticulously done following every lead that is
presented with amazing results. Wood takes us back and forth across the
Aegean at a dizzying pace to uncover the truth and he does so with
great thought and logic. Along the way, Wood introduces us to a world
only scholars have really known with adventure, political intrigue, and
My only dismay is that it wasn't done 20 years later. How much greater the technology used to illustrate things would have been.
Joining Michael Wood as he explores myths and legends from Ancient
Greece to Ancient Britain is like going personally with a time traveler
on his journey. The discoveries that Wood makes are just as magical as
the legends themselves. As he uncovers ancient traditions and long
forgotten worlds we see his enthusiasm like a child on Christmas and
it's infectious drawing us in as we learn the true stories of the
places and people enshrined in myth.
"In Search of Myth and Legends" actually exceeded my expectation for an afternoon of entertainment, but as it carries the same charm as all of Wood's documentaries I shouldn't be surprised. I was sad to see that there was only 4 episodes.
For fans of Archeology and History, this is a must see.
For those of us who have an interest (or Scottish ancestry) and want to
know about the history this series is a great entre. While everything
may not be exactly according to fact it is enough so and presented in
such a way that you are riveted to every moment of what's going on. In
some cases there is a bit too much repetition of images but for the
most part it's colorful and dynamic. Neil Oliver, as a native Scot and
a history expert, is the perfect choice as a presenter. His delivery is
in the fine tradition of Scottish story tellers and part of the reason
Definitely worth watching.
This television film shows a lot promise despite the historical
inaccuracies. It's problem is the fast paced progression through
history that provides little opportunity for character exploration and
more in depth look at how George VI become one of the best loved and
most respected of English Kings. Otherwise, the performances are quite
good and the writing in certain scenes is first rate. It's worth a look
despite it's obvious flaws.
American Audiences might find the portrayal of the Duke and Duchess of Windsor a bit harsh after years of romantic conditioning but as Russell Baker notes in the segment that is shown after the film on the DVD it represents a more accurate picture of how those in the UK came to view Edward VIII.
|Page 1 of 9:||        |