Search
Search results
Bill Condon recommended The Ice Storm (1997) in Movies (curated)
Caitlin Ann Cherniak (85 KP) rated Beauty and the Beast (2017) in Movies
Oct 4, 2018 (Updated Oct 4, 2018)
Emma Thompson (3 more)
Audra McDonald
Kevin Kline
Celine Dion and Josh Groban
EVERYTHING ELSE (3 more)
ESPECIALLY JOSH GAD
ESPECIALLY EMMA WATSON
AND ESPECIALLY THE CINEMATOGRAPHY
First Impressions:
Letterboxd review: https://letterboxd.com/caitcher/film/beauty-and-the-beast-2017/
Letterboxd review: https://letterboxd.com/caitcher/film/beauty-and-the-beast-2017/
Thisclose (1 KP) rated Orange County (2002) in Movies
Oct 5, 2022
Get in the car!
One of my favorite movies. I could watch this every week for the rest my my life for some reason. Everyone and everything is so quick paced. Everyone is pretty lovable. Lots of heavy hitters in this movie that deliver subtle yet memorable scenes. Kinda nice that its about an aspiring writer.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Beauty and the Beast (2017) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
I can't remember if I had already said that I wasn't looking forward to Beauty and the Beast. I wasn't disappointed... and by that I mean I was expecting bad things, and got bad things... but not where I expected. After seeing the trailers I wasn't really feeling it, Beast looked terrible, as did all the other CGId characters. Once there though I was pleasantly surprised by the animation of Beast (not so much the others). The original is obviously a hard act to follow, I mean, those songs were perfect... but the village song near the beginning of this new version was really difficult to decipher. And the one thing everyone loves about a Disney film is that there are singable moments, but there really weren't in this one, not in the same way... don't get me started with Tale As Old As Time. Incoming unpopular opinion... I didn't enjoy Emma Watson's singing. Disney leads should have powerful and moving voices, and she just didn't. The best think about the film was definitely Kevin Kline, he was amazing.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated A Fish Called Wanda (1988) in Movies
Jul 2, 2020
A Jolly Good Time
A member of my family mentioned when discussing the 1988 John Cleese comedy A FISH CALLED WANDA that you can tell much about a person over what part of this film that you like the most. Do you like:
a). The John Cleese/Jamie Lee Curtis love story
b). The "caper"
c). The beleaguered, unsuccessful hit-man Ken
d). The old lady and her 3 dogs
e). Kevin Kline as Otto
For me, that's easy - ALL OF IT! I find that A FISH CALLED WANDA is a very funny, richly acted comedy/caper that brings forth 4 characters that are easy to spend 2 hours with. Starting with John Cleese as Barrister Archie Leach. Cleese conceived, wrote, starred-in and (at times) directed this film and his "British humor" (honed from years as a member of the MONTY PYTHON comedy troupe) is in full force here. He has a reserved appearance about him that covers a wild man underneath yearning to break free.
Jamie Lee Curtis is quite good as the center of the film, Wanda Gershwitz, a cunning conman who will stop at nothing - and step over everyone - to get what she wants. I find that Curtis is under-rated as an actress and a comedienne and this picture shows that she can hold her own against 3 comedy greats at the top of their game.
The 2nd member of the Monty Python troupe to appear in this film is the remarkable Michael Palin as hapless hit-man, Ken. He becomes increasingly frustrated and frantic -and increasingly funny - as he attempts to complete his assignment throughout the course of this film.
But...the real star of this film...and the actor/character that steals the film away from everyone else...is Kevin Kline's Oscar winning performance as Otto, Wanda's erstwhile love who has a very high opinion of himself. It is rare that a comedic performance wins an Oscar - Kline's win is the the last one to do so - but it is easy to see why the Academy decided to reward Kline for it is a committed performance that is wild, wacky and over-the-top, but not overtly so. Kline has been very good in many other pictures/performances before and after this film, but he never reached the height that he reached in this film.
The film has veteran director Charles Crichton listed as Director with Cleese listed as co-Director (though Cleese insisted that Crichton did all the work and he only put his name on it to assuage the fears of studio executives over Crichton's advanced age). Well...Crichton does a wonderful job of letting the lunacy explode on the scene while keeping a lid on it and moving the action along at a brisk pace.
Wanda is one of those films that people remember fondly, but do not revisit. I would highly recommend you do, it's a jolly good time.
Letter Grade A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
a). The John Cleese/Jamie Lee Curtis love story
b). The "caper"
c). The beleaguered, unsuccessful hit-man Ken
d). The old lady and her 3 dogs
e). Kevin Kline as Otto
For me, that's easy - ALL OF IT! I find that A FISH CALLED WANDA is a very funny, richly acted comedy/caper that brings forth 4 characters that are easy to spend 2 hours with. Starting with John Cleese as Barrister Archie Leach. Cleese conceived, wrote, starred-in and (at times) directed this film and his "British humor" (honed from years as a member of the MONTY PYTHON comedy troupe) is in full force here. He has a reserved appearance about him that covers a wild man underneath yearning to break free.
Jamie Lee Curtis is quite good as the center of the film, Wanda Gershwitz, a cunning conman who will stop at nothing - and step over everyone - to get what she wants. I find that Curtis is under-rated as an actress and a comedienne and this picture shows that she can hold her own against 3 comedy greats at the top of their game.
The 2nd member of the Monty Python troupe to appear in this film is the remarkable Michael Palin as hapless hit-man, Ken. He becomes increasingly frustrated and frantic -and increasingly funny - as he attempts to complete his assignment throughout the course of this film.
But...the real star of this film...and the actor/character that steals the film away from everyone else...is Kevin Kline's Oscar winning performance as Otto, Wanda's erstwhile love who has a very high opinion of himself. It is rare that a comedic performance wins an Oscar - Kline's win is the the last one to do so - but it is easy to see why the Academy decided to reward Kline for it is a committed performance that is wild, wacky and over-the-top, but not overtly so. Kline has been very good in many other pictures/performances before and after this film, but he never reached the height that he reached in this film.
The film has veteran director Charles Crichton listed as Director with Cleese listed as co-Director (though Cleese insisted that Crichton did all the work and he only put his name on it to assuage the fears of studio executives over Crichton's advanced age). Well...Crichton does a wonderful job of letting the lunacy explode on the scene while keeping a lid on it and moving the action along at a brisk pace.
Wanda is one of those films that people remember fondly, but do not revisit. I would highly recommend you do, it's a jolly good time.
Letter Grade A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Ricki And The Flash (2015) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
The iron lady goes all iron maiden
Meryl Streep has always been one of our most reliable actresses. The three-time Oscar winner has starred in some iconic films, from Sophie’s Choice to The Devil Wears Prada and from Kramer vs Kramer to The Iron Lady, she can turn her hand to almost anything.
However, her latest role sees the fan favourite star as an ageing rock star who must heal the voids in her family after an incident. But does Ricki & the Flash do Meryl proud?
The film sees Streep play Ricki Rendazzo, aka Linda, a musician playing in the pubs of California, estranged from her family after years of absence. Suddenly, she’s thrown back into the mix after her daughter Julie, played superbly by Meryl’s real-life offspring Mamie Gummer, faces a personal crisis.
Starring alongside the Academy Award winner is the ever-reliable Kevin Kline as Linda’s ex-wife Pete. His scenes with her show real chemistry and the relationship they share is completely believable.
Having Streep’s daughter on the screen with her was a masterstroke by director Jonathan Demme (The Silence of the Lambs) and they share more than just a familiar face. Their mannerisms are completely in sync and match up together in more ways than any acting class could have taught.
Unfortunately, the clichéd script and predictable story really let Ricki & the Flash down. There’s not an ounce of originality here, despite the great casting, and the ending is signposted not only in the film itself, but in the trailers – the cardinal sin of movie marketing.
What is a pleasant surprise however is Meryl’s cracking vocal performance. With her belting out hits like Lady GaGa’s Bad Romance and Pink’s Get the Party Started left, right and centre, the soundtrack is positively sizzling and a real highlight throughout the film.
Nevertheless, Demme’s usual visual flair, for which he won an Oscar back in 1991 with The Silence of the Lambs, is nowhere to be found here. The cinematography is inoffensive enough but lacking in any real punch, a disappointment given the film’s bursting energy.
I feel that Streep too is aware of these shackles and her characterisation, whilst capable, lacks the finesse of some of her other work. Let’s remember though, that Streep at her worst is many other actresses at their best.
Overall, Ricki & the Flash is a capable film led by a pleasant and inoffensive cast. Meryl Streep is always reason enough to give any movie a go, but this somewhat muddled comedy drama is towards the bottom end of her work.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/09/06/the-iron-lady-goes-all-iron-maiden-ricki-the-flash-review/
However, her latest role sees the fan favourite star as an ageing rock star who must heal the voids in her family after an incident. But does Ricki & the Flash do Meryl proud?
The film sees Streep play Ricki Rendazzo, aka Linda, a musician playing in the pubs of California, estranged from her family after years of absence. Suddenly, she’s thrown back into the mix after her daughter Julie, played superbly by Meryl’s real-life offspring Mamie Gummer, faces a personal crisis.
Starring alongside the Academy Award winner is the ever-reliable Kevin Kline as Linda’s ex-wife Pete. His scenes with her show real chemistry and the relationship they share is completely believable.
Having Streep’s daughter on the screen with her was a masterstroke by director Jonathan Demme (The Silence of the Lambs) and they share more than just a familiar face. Their mannerisms are completely in sync and match up together in more ways than any acting class could have taught.
Unfortunately, the clichéd script and predictable story really let Ricki & the Flash down. There’s not an ounce of originality here, despite the great casting, and the ending is signposted not only in the film itself, but in the trailers – the cardinal sin of movie marketing.
What is a pleasant surprise however is Meryl’s cracking vocal performance. With her belting out hits like Lady GaGa’s Bad Romance and Pink’s Get the Party Started left, right and centre, the soundtrack is positively sizzling and a real highlight throughout the film.
Nevertheless, Demme’s usual visual flair, for which he won an Oscar back in 1991 with The Silence of the Lambs, is nowhere to be found here. The cinematography is inoffensive enough but lacking in any real punch, a disappointment given the film’s bursting energy.
I feel that Streep too is aware of these shackles and her characterisation, whilst capable, lacks the finesse of some of her other work. Let’s remember though, that Streep at her worst is many other actresses at their best.
Overall, Ricki & the Flash is a capable film led by a pleasant and inoffensive cast. Meryl Streep is always reason enough to give any movie a go, but this somewhat muddled comedy drama is towards the bottom end of her work.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/09/06/the-iron-lady-goes-all-iron-maiden-ricki-the-flash-review/
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Beauty and the Beast (2017) in Movies
Jul 12, 2019
Whenever I was asked who my favorite Disney prince was, I’d answer, without hesitation, “The Beast.”
Friends would look at me askance and ask, “The Beast? Really?”
And I’d simply reply, “Have you not seen his library?”
I also claim Belle as my favorite Disney princess. As a bookworm, Beauty and the Beast gave me a princess I could relate to. Sure, I had just graduated from high school the year before the animated film – not really the demographic Disney was catering to. But when I first watched Belle’s introductory scene, as she made her way through the village with her nose buried in a book while the townfolk sang of her “odd” behavior, I felt l the corners of my lips rise on their own, in a smile of recognition.
Sure, it also may have been because of the clever lyrics of the late Howard Ashman and the wondrous melodies of Alan Menken in that first song alone, but Belle quickly me over not only with her joy for stories and spirit of adventure, but also with her brave spirit.
Beauty and the Beast is a fairy tale told many times over and Disney’s live-action version follows the animated classic closely with some variation and additional scenes and few more songs. Like the animated film, it’s sweepingly romantic and just as enchanting. What the audience may struggle with is that Emma Watson’s Belle is not as…well, animated as the animated Belle. She brings a solemnity to the role, and as singing talent goes, while she is no Paige O’Hara, she can sing.
Luke Evans makes a menacingly handsome Gaston and his big number, with his sidekick LeFou (Josh Gad) is an entertaining high point that cements Gaston’s position as my favorite villain. Dan Stevens brought a bit more humanity to Beast, and with a heartbreaking song of his own, his despair is more keenly felt in this movie. But I have to admit, I prefer Josh Groban’s version of Beast’s solo, which you do get to hear if you sit through the credits.
Lumière the candelabra and Cogsworth the clock were brought to life with great voice work Ewan McGregor and Ian McKellen, respectively. Emma Thompson voiced Mrs. Potts perfectly. I don’t know if it was her voice, the theme song or the ballroom dance scene that provoked an overwhelming sense of nostalgia, but the captivating combination literally brought tears to my eyes. Kevin Kline, who played Belle’s father, Maurice, Stanley Tucci, and Broadway great Audra McDonald round out a solid supporting cast.
As a huge fan of the 1991 Beauty and the Beast, I didn’t believe a live-action version could improve on the beloved, timeless classic. But just like with the animated film, it was truly the songs that made the movie, and the music does it again for the live-action film, making it a memorable, magical treat for young and old alike.
Friends would look at me askance and ask, “The Beast? Really?”
And I’d simply reply, “Have you not seen his library?”
I also claim Belle as my favorite Disney princess. As a bookworm, Beauty and the Beast gave me a princess I could relate to. Sure, I had just graduated from high school the year before the animated film – not really the demographic Disney was catering to. But when I first watched Belle’s introductory scene, as she made her way through the village with her nose buried in a book while the townfolk sang of her “odd” behavior, I felt l the corners of my lips rise on their own, in a smile of recognition.
Sure, it also may have been because of the clever lyrics of the late Howard Ashman and the wondrous melodies of Alan Menken in that first song alone, but Belle quickly me over not only with her joy for stories and spirit of adventure, but also with her brave spirit.
Beauty and the Beast is a fairy tale told many times over and Disney’s live-action version follows the animated classic closely with some variation and additional scenes and few more songs. Like the animated film, it’s sweepingly romantic and just as enchanting. What the audience may struggle with is that Emma Watson’s Belle is not as…well, animated as the animated Belle. She brings a solemnity to the role, and as singing talent goes, while she is no Paige O’Hara, she can sing.
Luke Evans makes a menacingly handsome Gaston and his big number, with his sidekick LeFou (Josh Gad) is an entertaining high point that cements Gaston’s position as my favorite villain. Dan Stevens brought a bit more humanity to Beast, and with a heartbreaking song of his own, his despair is more keenly felt in this movie. But I have to admit, I prefer Josh Groban’s version of Beast’s solo, which you do get to hear if you sit through the credits.
Lumière the candelabra and Cogsworth the clock were brought to life with great voice work Ewan McGregor and Ian McKellen, respectively. Emma Thompson voiced Mrs. Potts perfectly. I don’t know if it was her voice, the theme song or the ballroom dance scene that provoked an overwhelming sense of nostalgia, but the captivating combination literally brought tears to my eyes. Kevin Kline, who played Belle’s father, Maurice, Stanley Tucci, and Broadway great Audra McDonald round out a solid supporting cast.
As a huge fan of the 1991 Beauty and the Beast, I didn’t believe a live-action version could improve on the beloved, timeless classic. But just like with the animated film, it was truly the songs that made the movie, and the music does it again for the live-action film, making it a memorable, magical treat for young and old alike.
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….