Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Circle (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Social Media involvement in political manipulation? Don’t be ridiculous!
Set in the near future “The Circle” tells a horror story of the social media age involving an omnipotent American corporate, pitched somewhere between being Facebook-like and Google-like (note, lawyers, I just said “like”!) Emma Watson (“Beauty and the Beast“) plays young intern Mae who, partly through the aid of family friend Annie (Karen Gillan, “Guardians of the Galaxy“, “Doctor Who”) but mostly through her own aptitude, lands a foothold job in customer services for the company. With the lush corporate campus fast becoming home, Mae is quickly singled out as having “executive potential” by the charismatic CEO Bailey (Tom Hanks, “Bridge of Spies“) and his more taciturn sidekick Stenton (US comedian Patton Oswalt).
Progressively brainwashed into believing the company’s intrusive snooping (a favourite motto is “Secrets are Lies”) is all for ‘the greater good’, Mae champions the cause until a tragedy rocks her world and her company beliefs to the core.
Whenever I watch a film I tend to form my own opinion first before checking out what the ‘general public’ on IMDB think. In this case, I must confess to being a bit surprised at our divergence of views: a lot of people clearly hated this movie whereas I confess that I found it very entertaining. Certainly with the alleged role of Russia in influencing elections around the world via social media, the film is most certainly topical! Many reviewers seemed quite upset that Watson’s character is such a ‘doormat’, in that her views are so easily manipulated by the corporate machine. But not every woman – as indeed every man – can or should be a Joan of Arc style role model in every film: why should they be?
I actually found her indoctrination into “the Circle way” as quite convincing, especially a creepy scene where two corporate lackies (Cho Smith and Amir Talai) say that they’re not checking up on Mae’s social life, but…. Watson enjoys extending her post-Potter repertoire well, but the talented John Boyega (“Star Wars: The Force Awakens“) is completely wasted in his role as Ty; the Wozniak-like genious behind The Circle’s technology. The script gives him very little to do other than stand around and look grumpy.
A wasted John Boyega with Emma Watson.
The film is sad in being the last movie appearance of the great Bill Paxton (“Apollo 13”) who plays Mae’s sick father and who died of complications following heart surgery two months before the film’s release (the film is dedicated “For Bill”). Tragically, Mae’s mother in the film, actress Glenn Headly (“Dirty Rotten Scoundrels”) also died suddenly at the age of 62, also due to heart problems, a couple of months after the film’s release. It’s surprising the film doesn’t have a “curse of The Circle” tag on it.
The film was directed by James Ponsoldt, who also wrote the screenplay with novel-writer Dave Eggers (“Away We Go”). I particularly liked the on-screen use of captioning (posts) which was reminiscent to me of last year’s “Nerve“, a B-movie film I rated highly that also had a string social media theme.
While the ending of the film is a bit twee – a movie definition of “being hoisted by your own petard” – it’s overall a thought provoking piece sufficiently close to the truth as to where society is going to raise the hairs on your neck.
Progressively brainwashed into believing the company’s intrusive snooping (a favourite motto is “Secrets are Lies”) is all for ‘the greater good’, Mae champions the cause until a tragedy rocks her world and her company beliefs to the core.
Whenever I watch a film I tend to form my own opinion first before checking out what the ‘general public’ on IMDB think. In this case, I must confess to being a bit surprised at our divergence of views: a lot of people clearly hated this movie whereas I confess that I found it very entertaining. Certainly with the alleged role of Russia in influencing elections around the world via social media, the film is most certainly topical! Many reviewers seemed quite upset that Watson’s character is such a ‘doormat’, in that her views are so easily manipulated by the corporate machine. But not every woman – as indeed every man – can or should be a Joan of Arc style role model in every film: why should they be?
I actually found her indoctrination into “the Circle way” as quite convincing, especially a creepy scene where two corporate lackies (Cho Smith and Amir Talai) say that they’re not checking up on Mae’s social life, but…. Watson enjoys extending her post-Potter repertoire well, but the talented John Boyega (“Star Wars: The Force Awakens“) is completely wasted in his role as Ty; the Wozniak-like genious behind The Circle’s technology. The script gives him very little to do other than stand around and look grumpy.
A wasted John Boyega with Emma Watson.
The film is sad in being the last movie appearance of the great Bill Paxton (“Apollo 13”) who plays Mae’s sick father and who died of complications following heart surgery two months before the film’s release (the film is dedicated “For Bill”). Tragically, Mae’s mother in the film, actress Glenn Headly (“Dirty Rotten Scoundrels”) also died suddenly at the age of 62, also due to heart problems, a couple of months after the film’s release. It’s surprising the film doesn’t have a “curse of The Circle” tag on it.
The film was directed by James Ponsoldt, who also wrote the screenplay with novel-writer Dave Eggers (“Away We Go”). I particularly liked the on-screen use of captioning (posts) which was reminiscent to me of last year’s “Nerve“, a B-movie film I rated highly that also had a string social media theme.
While the ending of the film is a bit twee – a movie definition of “being hoisted by your own petard” – it’s overall a thought provoking piece sufficiently close to the truth as to where society is going to raise the hairs on your neck.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated The Perks of Being a Wallflower (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
The Perks of Being a Wallflower is based upon the best selling novel written by Stephen Chbosky and published in 1999. The film is directed by the author himself who makes the entire film follow the epistolary style novel very well. The film brings to light the struggles of an awkward adolescent boy named Charlie (Logan Lerman, Percy Jackson & the Olympians) and his struggles with trying to cope with the recent death of his best friend who has committed suicide and the not so recent death of his beloved aunt. While coping with both deaths Charlie also has to try his hardest to get through his first day of high school.
Charlie has a tough time making friends being shy and introverted. This definitely doesn’t help on his first day when the only friend he makes is his English teacher Mr. Anderson (Paul Rudd, I Love You Man). Though in his shop class he notices one very outgoing yet somewhat flamboyant senior Patrick (Ezra Miller) who ends up taking Charlie under his wing and inducts him into “the island of misfit toys”. Charlie becomes enamored with a pixie haired beauty named Sam (Emma Watson, Harry Potter) who is Patrick’s step-sister. She is involved with a college boy but soon finds that the path she is on will soon lead down a different direction, possibly with Charlie. Though Charlie is a freshman and has never been able to feel close to anybody, his new group of friends become somewhat of a family and together they are able to overcome the struggles that adolescents are faced with today.
This film is full of great actors with appearances by Joan Cusack, Tom Savini and Nina Dobrev (The Vampire Diaries) and many others. The film hit kind of close to home as I, and many others, I’m sure, can relate to some of the same issues that had to be faced. That is why this is such a great film. I suppose that is why the story was so moving to me. I almost had a small case of anxiety remembering my high school days as a “wallflower” or a “misfit”. While the story is a roller coaster of emotions it is very well paced and has an amazing soundtrack that follows the story. The film will bring a lot of different emotions to the surface and will tug at the heartstrings which all great films must do. I usually take notes during a film that I am reviewing and at certain times I noticed myself not writing anything as I was entirely enthralled with the film. The acting is great and portrays all the characters of the story very well. This was a great film for Emma Watson to grow as more of a dramatic actress as apposed to her role as Hermione Granger though at times you could hear her British accent come through. This film is a must see! PG-13,103mins long.
Charlie has a tough time making friends being shy and introverted. This definitely doesn’t help on his first day when the only friend he makes is his English teacher Mr. Anderson (Paul Rudd, I Love You Man). Though in his shop class he notices one very outgoing yet somewhat flamboyant senior Patrick (Ezra Miller) who ends up taking Charlie under his wing and inducts him into “the island of misfit toys”. Charlie becomes enamored with a pixie haired beauty named Sam (Emma Watson, Harry Potter) who is Patrick’s step-sister. She is involved with a college boy but soon finds that the path she is on will soon lead down a different direction, possibly with Charlie. Though Charlie is a freshman and has never been able to feel close to anybody, his new group of friends become somewhat of a family and together they are able to overcome the struggles that adolescents are faced with today.
This film is full of great actors with appearances by Joan Cusack, Tom Savini and Nina Dobrev (The Vampire Diaries) and many others. The film hit kind of close to home as I, and many others, I’m sure, can relate to some of the same issues that had to be faced. That is why this is such a great film. I suppose that is why the story was so moving to me. I almost had a small case of anxiety remembering my high school days as a “wallflower” or a “misfit”. While the story is a roller coaster of emotions it is very well paced and has an amazing soundtrack that follows the story. The film will bring a lot of different emotions to the surface and will tug at the heartstrings which all great films must do. I usually take notes during a film that I am reviewing and at certain times I noticed myself not writing anything as I was entirely enthralled with the film. The acting is great and portrays all the characters of the story very well. This was a great film for Emma Watson to grow as more of a dramatic actress as apposed to her role as Hermione Granger though at times you could hear her British accent come through. This film is a must see! PG-13,103mins long.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Beauty and the Beast (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019 (Updated Jun 10, 2019)
A tale as old as time
Whichever big wig down at Disney decided it would be a good idea to remake all of their animated classics using live-action is surely due a massive promotion. The studio’s reputation is soaring after the acquisition of Marvel and Lucasfilm and this new way of thinking is paying off at the box office.
Last year’s The Jungle Book earned just shy of $1billion worldwide, their Marvel Cinematic Universe has taken upwards of $5billion and don’t get me started on Star Wars. Continuing the studio’s trend of remaking their animated features is Beauty & the Beast, but does this modern day reimagining of a fairly modern classic conjure up memories of 1991?
Belle (Emma Watson), a bright, beautiful and independent young woman, is taken prisoner by a beast (Dan Stevens) in its castle. Despite her fears, she befriends the castle’s enchanted staff including Cogsworth (Ian McKellen) and Lumiere (Ewan McGregor) and tries her best to learn to look beyond the beast’s hideous exterior, allowing her to recognise the kind heart and soul of the true prince that hides on the inside.
There were gasps of shock when Harry Potter actress Emma Watson was cast as Belle, but thankfully after sitting through 129 minutes of her singing and dancing, there is no reason to be concerned. She slots into the role of a Disney princess with ease, though it’s still incredibly difficult to see her as anything but the talented witch from Hogwarts.
The rest of the cast is very good with the exception of Ewan McGregor’s dreadful French accent. It can be forgiven however because the sense of nostalgia that the castle’s staff bring to the table is wonderful. Ian McKellen, Emma Thompson, Stanley Tucci all lend their voices with Thompson taking over from Angela Lansbury beautifully. Her rendition of the iconic titular song brings goose bumps.
Elsewhere, Luke Evans is an excellent choice to play villainous Gaston. It’s hard to imagine anyone better to play the gluttonous womaniser and Josh Gad is sublime as his sidekick.
Dan Stevens’ transformation into Beast is one that’s a little bit harder to judge. There is no doubt he is up to the task of playing this iconic character, but the limits of current motion capture technology can sometimes render him a little playdoh like. There are fleeting moments when the illusion is shattered because of something as trivial as the way his fur moves.
Nevertheless, the rest of the special effects are absolutely top notch. The costumes and the set design all integrate perfectly with the naturally heavy use of CGI to create a film that harks back to its predecessor in every way.
Whilst not as dark as last year’s The Jungle Book, Beauty & the Beast is still a deeply disturbing film at times, made all the more so by its recreation in live-action. Young children may find it a troubling watch, a reason why the BBFC has awarded it a PG rating rather than the typical U that most other Disney features receive.
Overall, Beauty & the Beast is a faithful recreation of its 1991 predecessor and that comes with its own set of challenges. The animated version is widely regarded as one of Disney’s best films, so director Bill Condon (Dreamgirls, Twilight) had massive shoes to fill. For the most part, he’s succeeded in crafting a visually stunning and poignant movie that’s only drawbacks are its length and poor motion capture. Much better than Cinderella, but not quite as ground-breaking as The Jungle Book, it’s a lovely watch for all the family.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/03/17/a-tale-as-old-as-time-beauty-the-beast-review/
Last year’s The Jungle Book earned just shy of $1billion worldwide, their Marvel Cinematic Universe has taken upwards of $5billion and don’t get me started on Star Wars. Continuing the studio’s trend of remaking their animated features is Beauty & the Beast, but does this modern day reimagining of a fairly modern classic conjure up memories of 1991?
Belle (Emma Watson), a bright, beautiful and independent young woman, is taken prisoner by a beast (Dan Stevens) in its castle. Despite her fears, she befriends the castle’s enchanted staff including Cogsworth (Ian McKellen) and Lumiere (Ewan McGregor) and tries her best to learn to look beyond the beast’s hideous exterior, allowing her to recognise the kind heart and soul of the true prince that hides on the inside.
There were gasps of shock when Harry Potter actress Emma Watson was cast as Belle, but thankfully after sitting through 129 minutes of her singing and dancing, there is no reason to be concerned. She slots into the role of a Disney princess with ease, though it’s still incredibly difficult to see her as anything but the talented witch from Hogwarts.
The rest of the cast is very good with the exception of Ewan McGregor’s dreadful French accent. It can be forgiven however because the sense of nostalgia that the castle’s staff bring to the table is wonderful. Ian McKellen, Emma Thompson, Stanley Tucci all lend their voices with Thompson taking over from Angela Lansbury beautifully. Her rendition of the iconic titular song brings goose bumps.
Elsewhere, Luke Evans is an excellent choice to play villainous Gaston. It’s hard to imagine anyone better to play the gluttonous womaniser and Josh Gad is sublime as his sidekick.
Dan Stevens’ transformation into Beast is one that’s a little bit harder to judge. There is no doubt he is up to the task of playing this iconic character, but the limits of current motion capture technology can sometimes render him a little playdoh like. There are fleeting moments when the illusion is shattered because of something as trivial as the way his fur moves.
Nevertheless, the rest of the special effects are absolutely top notch. The costumes and the set design all integrate perfectly with the naturally heavy use of CGI to create a film that harks back to its predecessor in every way.
Whilst not as dark as last year’s The Jungle Book, Beauty & the Beast is still a deeply disturbing film at times, made all the more so by its recreation in live-action. Young children may find it a troubling watch, a reason why the BBFC has awarded it a PG rating rather than the typical U that most other Disney features receive.
Overall, Beauty & the Beast is a faithful recreation of its 1991 predecessor and that comes with its own set of challenges. The animated version is widely regarded as one of Disney’s best films, so director Bill Condon (Dreamgirls, Twilight) had massive shoes to fill. For the most part, he’s succeeded in crafting a visually stunning and poignant movie that’s only drawbacks are its length and poor motion capture. Much better than Cinderella, but not quite as ground-breaking as The Jungle Book, it’s a lovely watch for all the family.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/03/17/a-tale-as-old-as-time-beauty-the-beast-review/
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Little Women (2019) in Movies
Dec 27, 2019
The top billing cast on IMDb read like my top list of reasons not to see a film. Saoirse Ronan, Emma Watson, Florence Pugh and Timothée Chalamet... all are raved about by various people but all have their own quirks that I can't stand to watch on screen. Chalamet did redeem himself with The King earlier this year for Netflix but none of the others have done anything recently to sway me.
Of course here's where I have to eat my words... Saoirse Ronan as Jo gave a very solid performance in Little Women and I enjoyed her throughout the whole thing. Her scenes with Laurie (Chalamet) we particularly entertaining, if a little rollercoastery, but overall she had the right balance of forthright and funny that really helped the story progress.
We all know my feelings about Emma Watson (#notmyDisneyPrincess) and the trailer wasn't helping her case, her accent seemed to be on the dubious side in the few moments we saw. Thankfully in the full film it rounded out quite well. I still can't say I'm a fan though, while moments of her performance amused me when they should and help some power in them I couldn't help but think she still hasn't found a genre of film that suits her.
Florence Pugh's overly dramatic and divaish Amy was by far my favourite of all the sisters. While bratty and a little spoilt every piece fit together perfectly and Pugh managed to add just the right amount of childish behaviour when it was needed.
Marmee was a wonderful character to watch and Laura Dern was an excellent choice. I feel like she's having a mainstream resurgence recently and it's well deserved.
The only other cast member I want to mention is Meryl Streep, we can't ignore her in a cast list! I love Meryl (who doesn't!?) and the light humour in Aunt March's sternness is delightful, but I don't think I like seeing her play old characters. I know she's 70 but she isn't 70 in my head and that's the way she must stay.
The palette of this whole film feels very much like a vintage filter, the colours and hues all sit well with the historical setting and in the March house give a wonderful sense of homeliness. Locations, sets and costumes all back this up and it comes together for an excellent visual retelling of the classic novel.
Emotion throughout the film was always very well matched to the scenes and when that thing happens that we won't talk about... because spoilers... I found myself wanting to do a Joey and put the film in the freezer while I cried my eyes out, the scene was set up incredibly well and the symmetry was beautiful as well as heartbreaking.
With all this great stuff going on in Little Women it bugs me that I had something to quibble about. A few times during the film we get a character doing a voiceover that then transitions to them speaking at the camera... eh, no. It was so out of place with the rest of the perfectly balanced film that I looked on with a furrowed brow and wrote a grumbly comment in my notes.
Given that last issue I'm forced to make a deduction. It was difficult trying to work out what to score this, there were so many wonderful pieces and I will be seeing it again soon, but, period dramas don't tend to make it into my home rewatch list so it should have got a 4... but it really deserved the extra half.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/12/little-women-movie-review.html
Of course here's where I have to eat my words... Saoirse Ronan as Jo gave a very solid performance in Little Women and I enjoyed her throughout the whole thing. Her scenes with Laurie (Chalamet) we particularly entertaining, if a little rollercoastery, but overall she had the right balance of forthright and funny that really helped the story progress.
We all know my feelings about Emma Watson (#notmyDisneyPrincess) and the trailer wasn't helping her case, her accent seemed to be on the dubious side in the few moments we saw. Thankfully in the full film it rounded out quite well. I still can't say I'm a fan though, while moments of her performance amused me when they should and help some power in them I couldn't help but think she still hasn't found a genre of film that suits her.
Florence Pugh's overly dramatic and divaish Amy was by far my favourite of all the sisters. While bratty and a little spoilt every piece fit together perfectly and Pugh managed to add just the right amount of childish behaviour when it was needed.
Marmee was a wonderful character to watch and Laura Dern was an excellent choice. I feel like she's having a mainstream resurgence recently and it's well deserved.
The only other cast member I want to mention is Meryl Streep, we can't ignore her in a cast list! I love Meryl (who doesn't!?) and the light humour in Aunt March's sternness is delightful, but I don't think I like seeing her play old characters. I know she's 70 but she isn't 70 in my head and that's the way she must stay.
The palette of this whole film feels very much like a vintage filter, the colours and hues all sit well with the historical setting and in the March house give a wonderful sense of homeliness. Locations, sets and costumes all back this up and it comes together for an excellent visual retelling of the classic novel.
Emotion throughout the film was always very well matched to the scenes and when that thing happens that we won't talk about... because spoilers... I found myself wanting to do a Joey and put the film in the freezer while I cried my eyes out, the scene was set up incredibly well and the symmetry was beautiful as well as heartbreaking.
With all this great stuff going on in Little Women it bugs me that I had something to quibble about. A few times during the film we get a character doing a voiceover that then transitions to them speaking at the camera... eh, no. It was so out of place with the rest of the perfectly balanced film that I looked on with a furrowed brow and wrote a grumbly comment in my notes.
Given that last issue I'm forced to make a deduction. It was difficult trying to work out what to score this, there were so many wonderful pieces and I will be seeing it again soon, but, period dramas don't tend to make it into my home rewatch list so it should have got a 4... but it really deserved the extra half.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/12/little-women-movie-review.html
Veronica Pena (690 KP) rated The Perks of Being a Wallflower (2012) in Movies
Feb 10, 2020
I firmly believe that this is one of the best movies on the face of the planet. Anyone who knows me and knows my reviews knows how much it bothers me when film adaptations are so bad or so off or they just lose everything the book had. The exact opposite happens here. I think what makes this movie so good and so well put together is that it's still Stephen's story. He wrote the book, then the screenplay, then he directed it so it was his entire vision coming to life on screen and it worked. I think if anyone else would've directed or wrote the script, it wouldn't have translated so well.
Additionally, this cast is phenomenal. Logan Lerman, Emma Watson, Ezra Miller, Nina Dobrev, Mae Whitman, Kate Walsh, Paul Rudd, it just works. There are some parts from the book that didn't make it to the screen and that definitely bummed me out - I wish we could've seen Bill and Charlie's relationship more because it was really important in the book and it provided a lot for Charlie in terms of safety and comfort. I also wish some of the lines were verbatim. When Sam gets mad at Charlie after truth or dare, in the book she says, "what the fuck is wrong with you?" while in the movie she says, "what the hell is wrong with you?" I know that it's not a huge difference but I think that would've landed so much better. Also when Charlie defends Patrick. In the book, he says, "If you ever do this again, I'll tell everyone and I'll tell everyone for real. If you come after him again, I'll blind you." or something along those lines and I think that would've been great, especially with how low and solid Logan gave the line in the film. Just small things like that, I wish would've made it to screen.
Regardless, this film and this story are incredible and worth watching at least once for everyone. The same goes for the book. A must-read.
Additionally, this cast is phenomenal. Logan Lerman, Emma Watson, Ezra Miller, Nina Dobrev, Mae Whitman, Kate Walsh, Paul Rudd, it just works. There are some parts from the book that didn't make it to the screen and that definitely bummed me out - I wish we could've seen Bill and Charlie's relationship more because it was really important in the book and it provided a lot for Charlie in terms of safety and comfort. I also wish some of the lines were verbatim. When Sam gets mad at Charlie after truth or dare, in the book she says, "what the fuck is wrong with you?" while in the movie she says, "what the hell is wrong with you?" I know that it's not a huge difference but I think that would've landed so much better. Also when Charlie defends Patrick. In the book, he says, "If you ever do this again, I'll tell everyone and I'll tell everyone for real. If you come after him again, I'll blind you." or something along those lines and I think that would've been great, especially with how low and solid Logan gave the line in the film. Just small things like that, I wish would've made it to screen.
Regardless, this film and this story are incredible and worth watching at least once for everyone. The same goes for the book. A must-read.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Little Women (2019) in Movies
Jan 3, 2020 (Updated Jan 3, 2020)
Saoirse Ronan - just mesmeric. What screen presence! (2 more)
Great supporting cast.
Alexandre Desplat soundtrack.
"God hasn't met my will yet"
Greta Gerwig's follow up to her Oscar-praised "Lady Bird" from 2017 looks set to repeat the job this year. For it's nothing short of a masterpiece of cinema.
Louisa M. Alcott's semi-autobiographical novel has been filmed before (in 1949 and 1994, together with a number of other TV versions). I've not seen any of these previous versions and (as a literary philistine) I've never read the book either. So the story was new to me and drew me in perfectly.
The March sisters - Jo (Saoirse Ronan), Meg (Emma Watson), Amy (Florence Pugh) and the youngest Beth (Eliza Scanlen) - are being brought up by their mother (Laura Dern) and Aunt (Meryl Streep) while their father (Bob Odenkirk) is away fighting in the Civil War. Also providing a helping hand is the rich neighbour Mr Lawrence (Chris Cooper), whose good-looking but indolent son 'Laurie' (Timothée Chalamet) has had the hots for tom-boy Jo for many years.
Each of the girls has a talent: for Jo it's writing, with her struggling to get her work past the grumpy publisher Mr Dashwood (Tracy Letts, from "Le Mans '66"); for Meg it's acting; for Amy it's painting; and for Beth it's music.
The film follows the lives, loves, successes and misfortunes of the sisters over two periods, split 7 years apart. It's a bumpy ride for some.
It struck me, as the big green BBFC certificate flashed onto the screen, how rare it is to find a "U - Suitable for all" (UK) certificate on a film these days. This is a film that the whole family *could* go and see. My only reservation here would be the way the film zips in and out of the two time periods at will. This might confuse the hell out of younger children. The subject matter of one part of the story may also disturb sensitive kids.
It's a really old-fashioned film - full of melodrama, love, unrequited love, death, charity, ambition and kindness - that builds to a feel-good ending that was totally corny but felt perfect in every way. We need more of this in our lives.
Wow. Just wow. The Oscar Best Actress categories are going to be a bloodied battlefield this year! There have been some GREAT roles for women on screen in the last year, and the Academy will have a job on their hands to narrow the long-list to the short-list this year. I would have tentatively forecast that Renée Zellweger might have had the Best Actor Oscar wrapped up for "Judy". But then here comes Saoirse Ronan. With phenomenal screen presence, she lights up every single scene she's in. Emma Watson and Florence Pugh are great actresses (and both here stand a stab at the Supporting Actress category), but your gaze always falls straight back to Ronan's reaction.
It's also a wonderful performance for newcomer Eliza Scanlen as the youngster Beth: I heard director Greta Gerwig comment (on Edith Bowman's excellent Soundtracking podcast) that Eliza needed less lighting than anyone else on set as she was "naturally luminous"!
Again lodging a cracking performance is the versatile Timothée Chalomet.... does the young chap make a bad film?
When you get to the end of the "cast bit", and you haven't mentioned Meryl Streep and Laura Dern yet, that says a lot!
What comes across more than anything else is just how apt this story is today to the 'girl power' times that we are currently living through. Jo in particular is the rebel of her day, fighting against the conformity of what it was in the time to be an independent woman, and specifically an independent working woman. Some of Alcott's words from the book could even today act as a rallying cry to those looking for greater change.
My reviewing year has certainly got off to a bang with this one. It's a glorious movie, utterly absorbing with ravishing cinematography by Yorick Le Saux and a brilliant soundtrack by Alexandre Desplat: both I suspect likely to feature in Oscar nominations. It's also likely to be nominated in other technical categories including Production Design, Costume and Hair & Makeup.
And I predict that this is inevitably going to be a Christmas favourite to match "The Sound of Music" and "It's a Wonderful Life" in future years.
Comes with a highly recommended tag from me.
(For the full graphical review, please visit the One Mann's Movies site here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/01/03/one-manns-movies-film-review-little-women-2019/. Thanks.)
Louisa M. Alcott's semi-autobiographical novel has been filmed before (in 1949 and 1994, together with a number of other TV versions). I've not seen any of these previous versions and (as a literary philistine) I've never read the book either. So the story was new to me and drew me in perfectly.
The March sisters - Jo (Saoirse Ronan), Meg (Emma Watson), Amy (Florence Pugh) and the youngest Beth (Eliza Scanlen) - are being brought up by their mother (Laura Dern) and Aunt (Meryl Streep) while their father (Bob Odenkirk) is away fighting in the Civil War. Also providing a helping hand is the rich neighbour Mr Lawrence (Chris Cooper), whose good-looking but indolent son 'Laurie' (Timothée Chalamet) has had the hots for tom-boy Jo for many years.
Each of the girls has a talent: for Jo it's writing, with her struggling to get her work past the grumpy publisher Mr Dashwood (Tracy Letts, from "Le Mans '66"); for Meg it's acting; for Amy it's painting; and for Beth it's music.
The film follows the lives, loves, successes and misfortunes of the sisters over two periods, split 7 years apart. It's a bumpy ride for some.
It struck me, as the big green BBFC certificate flashed onto the screen, how rare it is to find a "U - Suitable for all" (UK) certificate on a film these days. This is a film that the whole family *could* go and see. My only reservation here would be the way the film zips in and out of the two time periods at will. This might confuse the hell out of younger children. The subject matter of one part of the story may also disturb sensitive kids.
It's a really old-fashioned film - full of melodrama, love, unrequited love, death, charity, ambition and kindness - that builds to a feel-good ending that was totally corny but felt perfect in every way. We need more of this in our lives.
Wow. Just wow. The Oscar Best Actress categories are going to be a bloodied battlefield this year! There have been some GREAT roles for women on screen in the last year, and the Academy will have a job on their hands to narrow the long-list to the short-list this year. I would have tentatively forecast that Renée Zellweger might have had the Best Actor Oscar wrapped up for "Judy". But then here comes Saoirse Ronan. With phenomenal screen presence, she lights up every single scene she's in. Emma Watson and Florence Pugh are great actresses (and both here stand a stab at the Supporting Actress category), but your gaze always falls straight back to Ronan's reaction.
It's also a wonderful performance for newcomer Eliza Scanlen as the youngster Beth: I heard director Greta Gerwig comment (on Edith Bowman's excellent Soundtracking podcast) that Eliza needed less lighting than anyone else on set as she was "naturally luminous"!
Again lodging a cracking performance is the versatile Timothée Chalomet.... does the young chap make a bad film?
When you get to the end of the "cast bit", and you haven't mentioned Meryl Streep and Laura Dern yet, that says a lot!
What comes across more than anything else is just how apt this story is today to the 'girl power' times that we are currently living through. Jo in particular is the rebel of her day, fighting against the conformity of what it was in the time to be an independent woman, and specifically an independent working woman. Some of Alcott's words from the book could even today act as a rallying cry to those looking for greater change.
My reviewing year has certainly got off to a bang with this one. It's a glorious movie, utterly absorbing with ravishing cinematography by Yorick Le Saux and a brilliant soundtrack by Alexandre Desplat: both I suspect likely to feature in Oscar nominations. It's also likely to be nominated in other technical categories including Production Design, Costume and Hair & Makeup.
And I predict that this is inevitably going to be a Christmas favourite to match "The Sound of Music" and "It's a Wonderful Life" in future years.
Comes with a highly recommended tag from me.
(For the full graphical review, please visit the One Mann's Movies site here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/01/03/one-manns-movies-film-review-little-women-2019/. Thanks.)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Little Women (2019) in Movies
Feb 5, 2020
A Worthy Adaptation
There have been many adaptations of Louisa May Alcott's 19th Century Classic novel LITTLE WOMEN following the adventures, loves and losses of the 4 March sisters - Jo, Meg, Amy and Beth.. My favorite is the Orono High School's production of the musical version of LITTLE WOMEN (starring my daughter as Jo), but coming in a close second is the 1933 version with Katherine Hepburn starring as Jo (the quintessential Jo, in my book). So was there really a need for ANOTHER version of this?
Well...yes...and...no.
As adapted and directed by Greta Gerwig, this version of LITTLE WOMEN stars Saoirse Ronan as Jo, Emma Watson as Meg, Florence Pugh as Amy and Eliza Scanlen as Beth and has a strong "2019" female empowerment vibe to it (this is intended to be a compliment). I've seen this called a "Little Women for the #metoo era" and I think this is misguided branding - for it does disservice to the #metoo movement - and to this film.
Ronan - as expected - was Oscar nominated for her strong, independent turn as the strong and independent Jo. This is a perfect marriage of performer and material (almost as good as the Hepburn turn) and Ronan lands this character strongly (and correctly) at every turn. Timothee Chalamet matches her beat for beat as her erstwhile love, Laurie. This is the 2nd time that these two have played opposite each other (LADYBIRD was the other time) and there is a strong chemistry between these two - I look forward to many, many more pairings of Ronan and Chalamet in the future.
Famously (or maybe, it's infamously) Greta Gerwig did NOT receive and Oscar nomination for her Direction - and I think that is a shame (there are at least 2 nominated Directors that I would take off the list in favor of her). Because she adapted the screen play (a piece of work that she WAS Oscar nominated for - and will win in an effort to make up for the Directing snub), her Direction is sure-handed and strong throughout. She has a very good feel for the material and knows what she wants to do throughout, to interesting results.
This is because Gerwig chooses to focus much of this version on the relationship between Jo and Amy - a relationship that gets short shrift in most of the other adaptations. By casting Florence Pugh (also Oscar nominated) in the Amy role, Gerwig has a strong antagonist to Ronan's protagonist - with shades of both being grey. Neither character (or performance) is black and white they are both interacting with each other as realistic sisters would, both taking turns being "in the right"....and "the wrong".
Because of the focus on the Jo and Amy characters, the other 2 sisters - Meg and (especially) Beth - get short changed and even though both Watson and Scanlen are "game", they have precious little to do. The same goes with Meryl Streep (Aunt March), Laura Dern (Marmie), Tracy Letts (who seems to be in EVERYTHING right now) and Bob Odenkirk (of all people). They are all strong - and earnest - in their limited time on screen, but NONE of them have that much to do. Only Chris Cooper shines brightly in his small, supporting role.
I have to admit that because I've seen this story many, many times, I found my mind wandering a bit - especially at the beginning. But by the time Ronan/Chalamet/Pugh started working off of each other, the film - and my interest - rose.
So...is another version of LITTLE WOMEN necessary? I'd say no. But...if this version of LITTLE WOMEN is the one that the Little Women of today see - and can identify with - then I say "bring it on."
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
Well...yes...and...no.
As adapted and directed by Greta Gerwig, this version of LITTLE WOMEN stars Saoirse Ronan as Jo, Emma Watson as Meg, Florence Pugh as Amy and Eliza Scanlen as Beth and has a strong "2019" female empowerment vibe to it (this is intended to be a compliment). I've seen this called a "Little Women for the #metoo era" and I think this is misguided branding - for it does disservice to the #metoo movement - and to this film.
Ronan - as expected - was Oscar nominated for her strong, independent turn as the strong and independent Jo. This is a perfect marriage of performer and material (almost as good as the Hepburn turn) and Ronan lands this character strongly (and correctly) at every turn. Timothee Chalamet matches her beat for beat as her erstwhile love, Laurie. This is the 2nd time that these two have played opposite each other (LADYBIRD was the other time) and there is a strong chemistry between these two - I look forward to many, many more pairings of Ronan and Chalamet in the future.
Famously (or maybe, it's infamously) Greta Gerwig did NOT receive and Oscar nomination for her Direction - and I think that is a shame (there are at least 2 nominated Directors that I would take off the list in favor of her). Because she adapted the screen play (a piece of work that she WAS Oscar nominated for - and will win in an effort to make up for the Directing snub), her Direction is sure-handed and strong throughout. She has a very good feel for the material and knows what she wants to do throughout, to interesting results.
This is because Gerwig chooses to focus much of this version on the relationship between Jo and Amy - a relationship that gets short shrift in most of the other adaptations. By casting Florence Pugh (also Oscar nominated) in the Amy role, Gerwig has a strong antagonist to Ronan's protagonist - with shades of both being grey. Neither character (or performance) is black and white they are both interacting with each other as realistic sisters would, both taking turns being "in the right"....and "the wrong".
Because of the focus on the Jo and Amy characters, the other 2 sisters - Meg and (especially) Beth - get short changed and even though both Watson and Scanlen are "game", they have precious little to do. The same goes with Meryl Streep (Aunt March), Laura Dern (Marmie), Tracy Letts (who seems to be in EVERYTHING right now) and Bob Odenkirk (of all people). They are all strong - and earnest - in their limited time on screen, but NONE of them have that much to do. Only Chris Cooper shines brightly in his small, supporting role.
I have to admit that because I've seen this story many, many times, I found my mind wandering a bit - especially at the beginning. But by the time Ronan/Chalamet/Pugh started working off of each other, the film - and my interest - rose.
So...is another version of LITTLE WOMEN necessary? I'd say no. But...if this version of LITTLE WOMEN is the one that the Little Women of today see - and can identify with - then I say "bring it on."
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
Ashley Valencia (5 KP) rated Beauty and the Beast (2017) in Movies
Apr 13, 2019
I Wanted to Like It
The animated Beauty and the Beast is one of my favorite movies to this day so i really wanted to like this film and tried to go in with no expectations.
I knew we were in trouble when Emma Watson started her first song of the film HEAVILY autotuned. The practice used to be that if an actor couldnt sing, they would lip sync and have someone else do the singing voice. This was also common practice for the animated films, one actor for singing and another for spoken lines. I wish they would've gone this route. The autotuning is just so heavy I found it cringey.
The film is gorgeous, a lot of pleasing visuals and effects but the Beast just looks, strange. Not really animalistic. Honestly more like if his face was carved out of a tree.
Despite the singing issue I do think the cast was well chosen. They all do a good job with what they have. Especially the actor playing Gaston. It seemed clear that they weren't 100% sure what to do with the character. At a few points it seemed like they were going to try to make him sympathetic but then they'd fall back on him just being awful. Still the actor did an amazing job and really sold it.
For the most part the plot sticks close to the original film though there are a few new elements, some background on Belle's mom, and new songs.
A few weeks before the film's release the director announced that there was definitely a gay character in the film. There are a few implications that there might be but that's it. I think honestly it would've come across better, he would've been given more credit, if he'd just let it be instead of making a big announcement and patting himself on the back. It would've seemed like a subtle nod to the lgbtq community instead of the false disappointing promise it turned out to be. He wanted the credit without actually putting in the work and it shows.
Overall I just didn't care for it. It's fine. Nothing spectacular. The animated film was definitely better. So I'd say stick with the classic however it is worth watching just to see the different interpretation of the story.
If you want a live action version I would recommend La Belle et la Bete, the 2014 French-Germanic version instead. It's a more interesting and visually stunning version of the story.
I knew we were in trouble when Emma Watson started her first song of the film HEAVILY autotuned. The practice used to be that if an actor couldnt sing, they would lip sync and have someone else do the singing voice. This was also common practice for the animated films, one actor for singing and another for spoken lines. I wish they would've gone this route. The autotuning is just so heavy I found it cringey.
The film is gorgeous, a lot of pleasing visuals and effects but the Beast just looks, strange. Not really animalistic. Honestly more like if his face was carved out of a tree.
Despite the singing issue I do think the cast was well chosen. They all do a good job with what they have. Especially the actor playing Gaston. It seemed clear that they weren't 100% sure what to do with the character. At a few points it seemed like they were going to try to make him sympathetic but then they'd fall back on him just being awful. Still the actor did an amazing job and really sold it.
For the most part the plot sticks close to the original film though there are a few new elements, some background on Belle's mom, and new songs.
A few weeks before the film's release the director announced that there was definitely a gay character in the film. There are a few implications that there might be but that's it. I think honestly it would've come across better, he would've been given more credit, if he'd just let it be instead of making a big announcement and patting himself on the back. It would've seemed like a subtle nod to the lgbtq community instead of the false disappointing promise it turned out to be. He wanted the credit without actually putting in the work and it shows.
Overall I just didn't care for it. It's fine. Nothing spectacular. The animated film was definitely better. So I'd say stick with the classic however it is worth watching just to see the different interpretation of the story.
If you want a live action version I would recommend La Belle et la Bete, the 2014 French-Germanic version instead. It's a more interesting and visually stunning version of the story.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 2 (2011) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
My anticipation for the second part of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, much like my anticipation of Part 1, was accompanied by great reluctance to witness the culmination of 10 years of storytelling.
Opening exactly where Part 1 left off, we find Harry, Hermione and Ron continuing on their quest to locate the remaining Horcruxes, objects in which Harry’s nemesis, Lord Voldemort (Ralph Fiennes) has implanted a part of his soul. Destruction of these Horcruxes help weaken Voldemort. Polyjuice, goblins and a dragon ride provide some humor and thrills and eventually leads to the trios’ return to Hogwarts, where Alan Rickman’s Severus Snape is now the hated headmaster. Voldemort has attained the powerful Elder Wand and has turned his evil sights on the school in hopes of drawing Harry out. Along with his questionably loyal Deatheaters, they surround Hogwarts and prepare to attack.
At times the storytelling is a bit slow, at times too abrupt. While the special Harry Potter 3D glasses were amusing, I didn’t notice any spectacular effects that would warrant the extra charge to watch this movie in 3D. As is the case for converted 3D movies, the effects are more of a distracting afterthought than a real enhancement. For those not familiar with the books, the storylines may be a bit convoluted but your patience will be rewarded. Daniel Radcliffe’s matured Harry Potter is grim and resolute, his best friends Hermione and Ron (Emma Watson and Rupert Grinch) are aptly desperate but determined. Taking a stand with them, wile making their cinematic curtain call, are many of their Hogwarts professors, their classmates in Dumbldore’s Army and their mentors in the Order of the Phoenix. There are more heartwrenching moments than heartwarming parts as Harry learns more about the events surrounding his existence and what he must do to defeat Voldemort.
Few books, and far fewer movie adaptations, have captured the hearts of such a loyal and enthusiastic fanbase. The valiant attempts by directors Chris Columbus, Alfonso Cuaron, Mike Newell and, lastly, David Yates, to recreate the vast, enchanting wizarding world imagined by J.K. Rowling, have deservedly garnered the franchise a loyal and enthusiastic fanbase. Yet, as lush and vivid as the movies have been, they only touched on some of the best parts of the books. Needless to say, I wasn’t expecting perfection. But what I saw in Part 2 was pretty darn close. While movie adaptations of beloved stories will always leave serious fans wanting more, Deathly Hallows Part 2 is a fitting finale to this epic tale.
Opening exactly where Part 1 left off, we find Harry, Hermione and Ron continuing on their quest to locate the remaining Horcruxes, objects in which Harry’s nemesis, Lord Voldemort (Ralph Fiennes) has implanted a part of his soul. Destruction of these Horcruxes help weaken Voldemort. Polyjuice, goblins and a dragon ride provide some humor and thrills and eventually leads to the trios’ return to Hogwarts, where Alan Rickman’s Severus Snape is now the hated headmaster. Voldemort has attained the powerful Elder Wand and has turned his evil sights on the school in hopes of drawing Harry out. Along with his questionably loyal Deatheaters, they surround Hogwarts and prepare to attack.
At times the storytelling is a bit slow, at times too abrupt. While the special Harry Potter 3D glasses were amusing, I didn’t notice any spectacular effects that would warrant the extra charge to watch this movie in 3D. As is the case for converted 3D movies, the effects are more of a distracting afterthought than a real enhancement. For those not familiar with the books, the storylines may be a bit convoluted but your patience will be rewarded. Daniel Radcliffe’s matured Harry Potter is grim and resolute, his best friends Hermione and Ron (Emma Watson and Rupert Grinch) are aptly desperate but determined. Taking a stand with them, wile making their cinematic curtain call, are many of their Hogwarts professors, their classmates in Dumbldore’s Army and their mentors in the Order of the Phoenix. There are more heartwrenching moments than heartwarming parts as Harry learns more about the events surrounding his existence and what he must do to defeat Voldemort.
Few books, and far fewer movie adaptations, have captured the hearts of such a loyal and enthusiastic fanbase. The valiant attempts by directors Chris Columbus, Alfonso Cuaron, Mike Newell and, lastly, David Yates, to recreate the vast, enchanting wizarding world imagined by J.K. Rowling, have deservedly garnered the franchise a loyal and enthusiastic fanbase. Yet, as lush and vivid as the movies have been, they only touched on some of the best parts of the books. Needless to say, I wasn’t expecting perfection. But what I saw in Part 2 was pretty darn close. While movie adaptations of beloved stories will always leave serious fans wanting more, Deathly Hallows Part 2 is a fitting finale to this epic tale.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Beauty and the Beast (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Tail as old as Kline.
With the Disney marketing machine in full swing, its hard to separate the hype from the movie reality in this latest live-action remake of one of their classic animated features from 1991. If you are lucky enough to have children you will know that each child tends to have “their” Disney feature: for my second daughter (then 4) that film would be “Beauty and the Beast”. With a VHS video tape worn down to the substrate, this is a film I know every line of dialogue to (“I’m especially good at expectorating”). So seeing this movie was always going to be a wander down Nostalgia Avenue and a left turn into Emotion Crescent, regardless of how good a film it was. And so it proved.
Taking no chances with a beloved formula, most of the film is an almost exact frame-for-frame recreation of the original, with the odd diversion which, in the main, is to slot in new songs by original composer Alan Menken with Tim Rice lyrics. For, unlike “La La Land” this is a proper musical lover’s musical with songs dropping in regularly throughout the running time.
Which brings us to Emma Watson’s Belle. I’ve seen review comments that she ‘dials it in’ with a humourless and souless portrayal of the iconic bookworm. I can’t fathom what film those people were watching! I found Watson to be utterly mesmerising, confident and delightful with a fine (though possibly auto-tuned) singing voice. Her ‘Sound of Music’ moment (you’ll know the one) brought tears to my eyes. There are moments when her acting is highly reminiscent of Hermione Grainger, but this is about as crass a criticism as saying that Harrison Ford has done his “Knock it Off” snarl again.
I even felt that the somewhat dodgy bestiality/Stockholm-syndrome thing, inherent in the plot, was deftly handled by her. Curiously (and I feel guilty for even thinking this) the only part I felt slightly icky about was the age difference evident in the final kiss between Watson (now 27) and the transformed beast (sorry if this is a TERRIBLE spoiler for you!) played by Dan Stevens (“Downton Abbey”): even though with Stevens being only 35 this is only 8 years! I think the problem here is that it is still difficult for me to decouple the modern feminist woman that is Watson from the picture of the young Hermione as a schoolgirl in her first term at Hogwarts. (I know this is terrible typecasting, and definitely my bad, but that’s the way it is).
Stevens himself is fine as the cursed prince, albeit that most of his scenes are behind the CGI-created wet-rug that is the beast. Similarly, most of the supporting stars (Ewan McGregor as Lumière, Ian McKellen as Cogsworth, Emma Thompson as Mrs Potts and an almost unrecognisable Stanley Tucci as the maestro Cadenza) are similarly confined to voice parts for the majority of the film. Kevin Kline is great as the supremely huggable Maurice. But the performances that really shine though are those of Luke Evans (“The Girl on the Train“) as the odiously boorish Gaston and Josh Gad (Olaf in “Frozen”) as his hilariously adoring sidekick LeFou. Much has been made of the gay Disney angle to this element of the story, most of which is arrant homophobic nonsense since the scenes are pretty innocuous. In fact the most adventurous ‘non-heterosexual’ aspect of the film, and a scene that raises by far the biggest laugh, relates to a completely different character.
Most of the songs delivered in the film are OK without, in my view, surpassing the versions in the original. Only Dan Steven’s dramatic new song “Evermore”- as one of the few really new ‘full-length’ songs in the film – has ‘Oscar nomination’ written all over it. However, the film eschews the ‘live-filming’ approach to song production featured in recent musicals like “La La Land” and “Les Miserables”, with some degree of lip-sync evident. Whilst I understand that ‘imperfection’ is not a “Disney thing”, I found that lack of risk-taking a bit of a disappointment.
The makers of the original “Beauty and the Beast” would I’m sure have been bowled over by the quality of the special effects on show here. However, that was in 1991 and it is now 2017, when “The Jungle Book” has set the bar for CGI effects. By today’s standards, the special effects here are mediocre at best. I wondered at first if some of the dodgy green-screen work was delivered that way to make it seem more “cartoony”, but I doubt that – – why bother? More irritatingly, the animated chattels in the castle, especially the candlestick Lumière, are seriously unconvincing. Mrs Potts, the teapot, and her son Chip, the cup, are rendered as flat and two-dimensional. There should have been no shortage of money to thrown at the effects with a reported budget of $160 million. Where has the Disney magic gone?
The film also seems to be rendered primarily for a 3D showing (I saw it in 2D). I say this because some of the panning shots (notably one around the library) to me just ended up as an unimpressive blur of mediocrity. Most odd.
The director is Bill Condon responsible for the modestly well-respected but low-key “Dreamgirls” and “Mr Holmes” but also the much derided “Breaking Dawn” end to the “Twilight” series. As such this seems to have been quite a risk that Disney took with such a high profile property, and I would have been intrigued to see what a more innovative director like Chazelle or Iñárritu would have done with it.
However, despite my reservations it is bound to be a MONSTER hit in every sense of the word, and kids aged 5 to 10 will, I predict, absolutely adore it (be warned that kids under 5 may be seriously scared by some of the darker scenes, especially the two wolf-attacks). For a younger age group, I would rate it as an easy FFFFF. As an adult viewer, given that I have viewed it through the rosy tint of my nostalgia-glasses (unfortunately you cannot hire these at the cinema if you haven’t brought your own!), this was an enjoyable watch. Despite my (more than expected!) slew of criticisms above my rating is still….
Taking no chances with a beloved formula, most of the film is an almost exact frame-for-frame recreation of the original, with the odd diversion which, in the main, is to slot in new songs by original composer Alan Menken with Tim Rice lyrics. For, unlike “La La Land” this is a proper musical lover’s musical with songs dropping in regularly throughout the running time.
Which brings us to Emma Watson’s Belle. I’ve seen review comments that she ‘dials it in’ with a humourless and souless portrayal of the iconic bookworm. I can’t fathom what film those people were watching! I found Watson to be utterly mesmerising, confident and delightful with a fine (though possibly auto-tuned) singing voice. Her ‘Sound of Music’ moment (you’ll know the one) brought tears to my eyes. There are moments when her acting is highly reminiscent of Hermione Grainger, but this is about as crass a criticism as saying that Harrison Ford has done his “Knock it Off” snarl again.
I even felt that the somewhat dodgy bestiality/Stockholm-syndrome thing, inherent in the plot, was deftly handled by her. Curiously (and I feel guilty for even thinking this) the only part I felt slightly icky about was the age difference evident in the final kiss between Watson (now 27) and the transformed beast (sorry if this is a TERRIBLE spoiler for you!) played by Dan Stevens (“Downton Abbey”): even though with Stevens being only 35 this is only 8 years! I think the problem here is that it is still difficult for me to decouple the modern feminist woman that is Watson from the picture of the young Hermione as a schoolgirl in her first term at Hogwarts. (I know this is terrible typecasting, and definitely my bad, but that’s the way it is).
Stevens himself is fine as the cursed prince, albeit that most of his scenes are behind the CGI-created wet-rug that is the beast. Similarly, most of the supporting stars (Ewan McGregor as Lumière, Ian McKellen as Cogsworth, Emma Thompson as Mrs Potts and an almost unrecognisable Stanley Tucci as the maestro Cadenza) are similarly confined to voice parts for the majority of the film. Kevin Kline is great as the supremely huggable Maurice. But the performances that really shine though are those of Luke Evans (“The Girl on the Train“) as the odiously boorish Gaston and Josh Gad (Olaf in “Frozen”) as his hilariously adoring sidekick LeFou. Much has been made of the gay Disney angle to this element of the story, most of which is arrant homophobic nonsense since the scenes are pretty innocuous. In fact the most adventurous ‘non-heterosexual’ aspect of the film, and a scene that raises by far the biggest laugh, relates to a completely different character.
Most of the songs delivered in the film are OK without, in my view, surpassing the versions in the original. Only Dan Steven’s dramatic new song “Evermore”- as one of the few really new ‘full-length’ songs in the film – has ‘Oscar nomination’ written all over it. However, the film eschews the ‘live-filming’ approach to song production featured in recent musicals like “La La Land” and “Les Miserables”, with some degree of lip-sync evident. Whilst I understand that ‘imperfection’ is not a “Disney thing”, I found that lack of risk-taking a bit of a disappointment.
The makers of the original “Beauty and the Beast” would I’m sure have been bowled over by the quality of the special effects on show here. However, that was in 1991 and it is now 2017, when “The Jungle Book” has set the bar for CGI effects. By today’s standards, the special effects here are mediocre at best. I wondered at first if some of the dodgy green-screen work was delivered that way to make it seem more “cartoony”, but I doubt that – – why bother? More irritatingly, the animated chattels in the castle, especially the candlestick Lumière, are seriously unconvincing. Mrs Potts, the teapot, and her son Chip, the cup, are rendered as flat and two-dimensional. There should have been no shortage of money to thrown at the effects with a reported budget of $160 million. Where has the Disney magic gone?
The film also seems to be rendered primarily for a 3D showing (I saw it in 2D). I say this because some of the panning shots (notably one around the library) to me just ended up as an unimpressive blur of mediocrity. Most odd.
The director is Bill Condon responsible for the modestly well-respected but low-key “Dreamgirls” and “Mr Holmes” but also the much derided “Breaking Dawn” end to the “Twilight” series. As such this seems to have been quite a risk that Disney took with such a high profile property, and I would have been intrigued to see what a more innovative director like Chazelle or Iñárritu would have done with it.
However, despite my reservations it is bound to be a MONSTER hit in every sense of the word, and kids aged 5 to 10 will, I predict, absolutely adore it (be warned that kids under 5 may be seriously scared by some of the darker scenes, especially the two wolf-attacks). For a younger age group, I would rate it as an easy FFFFF. As an adult viewer, given that I have viewed it through the rosy tint of my nostalgia-glasses (unfortunately you cannot hire these at the cinema if you haven’t brought your own!), this was an enjoyable watch. Despite my (more than expected!) slew of criticisms above my rating is still….