Search
Search results
Mark @ Carstairs Considers (2086 KP) rated Snuffed Out (Candlemaking Mystery #2) in Books
Mar 9, 2018
One of Harrison's tenants is electrocuted, and Harrison doesn't think it was an accident. I still loved Harrison and the other characters, but the plot was very slow with little progress until the end.
Read my full review at <a href="http://carstairsconsiders.blogspot.com/2013/02/book-review-snuffed-out-by-tim-myers.html">Carstairs Considers</a>.
Read my full review at <a href="http://carstairsconsiders.blogspot.com/2013/02/book-review-snuffed-out-by-tim-myers.html">Carstairs Considers</a>.
Mark @ Carstairs Considers (2086 KP) rated At Wick's End (Candlemaking Mystery #1) in Books
Mar 9, 2018
Harrison's great-aunt has died, and she left Harrison her candle shop. Harrison knows nothing about the business, but while trying to figure it out, he also figures out that his great-aunt was murdered. I like the character but the plot could have been better.
Read my full review at <a href="http://carstairsconsiders.blogspot.com/2013/02/book-review-at-wicks-end-by-tim-myers.html">Carstairs Considers</a>.
Read my full review at <a href="http://carstairsconsiders.blogspot.com/2013/02/book-review-at-wicks-end-by-tim-myers.html">Carstairs Considers</a>.
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated Batman (1989) in Movies
Oct 10, 2019
Batman- i love this movie, i have seen it about 7-9 times. I love michael Keaton as bruce wayne/batman. I love jack nicholson as the joker. This movie has action, comedy, suspense, laughing gas, a prince song, adventure and so much more. Also you have darkness, romance, lots of screaming from Vicki Vale played by Kim Basinger. Did i mention that Tim Burton directed this film.
The Plot: Having witnessed his parents' brutal murder as a child, millionaire philanthropist Bruce Wayne (Michael Keaton) fights crime in Gotham City disguised as Batman, a costumed hero who strikes fear into the hearts of villains. But when a deformed madman who calls himself "The Joker" (Jack Nicholson) seizes control of Gotham's criminal underworld, Batman must face his most ruthless nemesis ever while protecting both his identity and his love interest, reporter Vicki Vale (Kim Basinger).
Keaton's casting caused a controversy since, by 1988, he had become typecast as a comedic actor and many observers doubted he could portray a serious role. Nicholson accepted the role of the Joker under strict conditions that dictated top billing, a high salary, a portion of the box office profits and his own shooting schedule.
The tone and themes of the film were influenced in part by Alan Moore and Brian Bolland's The Killing Joke and Frank Miller's The Dark Knight Returns. The film primarily adapts the "Red Hood" origin story for the Joker, in which Batman inadvertently creates the Joker by causing him to fall into Axis Chemical acid, resulting in his transformation into a psychopath, but it adds a unique twist in presenting him specifically as a gangster named Jack Napier.
Considered the role of Batman, including Mel Gibson, Kevin Costner, Charlie Sheen, Tom Selleck, Bill Murray, Harrison Ford and Dennis Quaid.
Brad Dourif, Tim Curry, David Bowie, John Lithgow and James Woods were considered for the Joker.
This film is great and should be watched.
The Plot: Having witnessed his parents' brutal murder as a child, millionaire philanthropist Bruce Wayne (Michael Keaton) fights crime in Gotham City disguised as Batman, a costumed hero who strikes fear into the hearts of villains. But when a deformed madman who calls himself "The Joker" (Jack Nicholson) seizes control of Gotham's criminal underworld, Batman must face his most ruthless nemesis ever while protecting both his identity and his love interest, reporter Vicki Vale (Kim Basinger).
Keaton's casting caused a controversy since, by 1988, he had become typecast as a comedic actor and many observers doubted he could portray a serious role. Nicholson accepted the role of the Joker under strict conditions that dictated top billing, a high salary, a portion of the box office profits and his own shooting schedule.
The tone and themes of the film were influenced in part by Alan Moore and Brian Bolland's The Killing Joke and Frank Miller's The Dark Knight Returns. The film primarily adapts the "Red Hood" origin story for the Joker, in which Batman inadvertently creates the Joker by causing him to fall into Axis Chemical acid, resulting in his transformation into a psychopath, but it adds a unique twist in presenting him specifically as a gangster named Jack Napier.
Considered the role of Batman, including Mel Gibson, Kevin Costner, Charlie Sheen, Tom Selleck, Bill Murray, Harrison Ford and Dennis Quaid.
Brad Dourif, Tim Curry, David Bowie, John Lithgow and James Woods were considered for the Joker.
This film is great and should be watched.
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated The Silence (2019) in Movies
Jul 7, 2020
Good But Not Great, Hints of Tension & Terror
The Silence is a 2019 horror film directed by John R. Leonetti and based on a screenplay by Carey Van Dyke and Shane Van Dyke. It is an adaptation of a novel by the same name by author Tim Lebbon. The movie was produced by Constantin Film and EMJAG Productions and distributed by Netflix. It stars Kiernan Shipka, Stanley Tucci, and Miranda Otto.
A team of researchers accidentally unleash an unknown species of blind winged creatures deep in a cavern underground. The creatures, called "vesps", violently attack the researchers, killing them before flying out of the cave seeking the noisiest areas next. Ally (Kiernan Shipka), who lost her hearing in a car accident, lives with her brother Jude (Kyle Harrison Breitkopf), parents, Hugh (Stanley Tucci) and Kelly (Miranda Otto), grandmother Lynn (Kate Trotter) and dog Otis. As the outbreak spreads, a state of emergency is declared and people are urged to stay quiet and indoors. However Ally suggests the countryside is likelier to be more quiet so they set out in two cars, accompanied by Glenn (John Corbett), Hugh's best friend.
This movie was alright, but i felt it could have been better. It wasnt terrible though and even had some really good scenes. It was a pretty cool idea/concept. I feel that the film A Quiet Place, did a better job in almost every way in comparison. I think that this movie wasn't able to sell the tension in a convincing way and was unrealistic in some parts. I liked Stanley Tucci's acting but the daughter's was hit or miss for me the entire film. And I'm sure there were plenty of plot holes in this film too, I could feel them as the movie went on. As critic Chris Agar of Screen Rant put it, "...a fairly bland thriller that struggles to leave much of an impact - despite some fleeting moments of pure tension and terror." I give it a 6/10.
A team of researchers accidentally unleash an unknown species of blind winged creatures deep in a cavern underground. The creatures, called "vesps", violently attack the researchers, killing them before flying out of the cave seeking the noisiest areas next. Ally (Kiernan Shipka), who lost her hearing in a car accident, lives with her brother Jude (Kyle Harrison Breitkopf), parents, Hugh (Stanley Tucci) and Kelly (Miranda Otto), grandmother Lynn (Kate Trotter) and dog Otis. As the outbreak spreads, a state of emergency is declared and people are urged to stay quiet and indoors. However Ally suggests the countryside is likelier to be more quiet so they set out in two cars, accompanied by Glenn (John Corbett), Hugh's best friend.
This movie was alright, but i felt it could have been better. It wasnt terrible though and even had some really good scenes. It was a pretty cool idea/concept. I feel that the film A Quiet Place, did a better job in almost every way in comparison. I think that this movie wasn't able to sell the tension in a convincing way and was unrealistic in some parts. I liked Stanley Tucci's acting but the daughter's was hit or miss for me the entire film. And I'm sure there were plenty of plot holes in this film too, I could feel them as the movie went on. As critic Chris Agar of Screen Rant put it, "...a fairly bland thriller that struggles to leave much of an impact - despite some fleeting moments of pure tension and terror." I give it a 6/10.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Luce (2019) in Movies
Oct 26, 2019
Luce was an interesting film to watch, it shows a lot of different relationships and as such it's a very wordy sort of film. I'm not averse to wordy films but they can be a little dry to watch, luckily in this case the main cast are engaging and keep you interested.
Had we not been blessed with such a great performance from Kelvin Harrison Jr as Luce I think this would have failed to make it out of the blocks. Luce becomes something very serious in his hands and the swing in the character left me with an uneasy feeling as I watched. The one frustrating thing I found was that I could sense the insincerity in all of his responses so I was frustrated that it was only really Miss Wilson that picked up on it. I understand that it's a necessary part of the story... but still.
Octavia Spencer didn't disappoint as Harriet Wilson. She got to give a good range as she devolves after going head to head with Luce. I think she probably managed to cover every emotion and handles either end of the spectrum very well.
Tim Roth and Naomi Watts play Luce's adoptive parents. Roth is someone I love on screen but Watts is an unknown entity for me as I've only seen her in 2005's King Kong. There's obviously a certain amount of tension/conflict between the couple but even taking that into consideration I didn't feel there was much of a rapport between them. Even when you take into account the conflict in the film I couldn't quite find it in me to feel anything for the couple, good or bad. Roth as Peter was good and brought across the slightly bitter side of the character well but Watt's Amy didn't seem to have enough emotion behind her. I'd have said that Amy in particular could have stood to be a little grittier, at least a small part of her did need to be a bit of a pushover but combined with her activities in the film the character didn't feel entirely believable.
Luce was enjoyable to watch but looking back I'm less enthusiastic despite the good performances at the front of it. The good sadly didn't outway the average for me and at times it became a little confusing, but it's still a solid film.
From the full review previously posted on: http://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/10/luce-movie-review.html
Had we not been blessed with such a great performance from Kelvin Harrison Jr as Luce I think this would have failed to make it out of the blocks. Luce becomes something very serious in his hands and the swing in the character left me with an uneasy feeling as I watched. The one frustrating thing I found was that I could sense the insincerity in all of his responses so I was frustrated that it was only really Miss Wilson that picked up on it. I understand that it's a necessary part of the story... but still.
Octavia Spencer didn't disappoint as Harriet Wilson. She got to give a good range as she devolves after going head to head with Luce. I think she probably managed to cover every emotion and handles either end of the spectrum very well.
Tim Roth and Naomi Watts play Luce's adoptive parents. Roth is someone I love on screen but Watts is an unknown entity for me as I've only seen her in 2005's King Kong. There's obviously a certain amount of tension/conflict between the couple but even taking that into consideration I didn't feel there was much of a rapport between them. Even when you take into account the conflict in the film I couldn't quite find it in me to feel anything for the couple, good or bad. Roth as Peter was good and brought across the slightly bitter side of the character well but Watt's Amy didn't seem to have enough emotion behind her. I'd have said that Amy in particular could have stood to be a little grittier, at least a small part of her did need to be a bit of a pushover but combined with her activities in the film the character didn't feel entirely believable.
Luce was enjoyable to watch but looking back I'm less enthusiastic despite the good performances at the front of it. The good sadly didn't outway the average for me and at times it became a little confusing, but it's still a solid film.
From the full review previously posted on: http://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/10/luce-movie-review.html
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets (2017) in Movies
Jan 22, 2021
Where to begin with Luc Besson? The masterpiece of Leon aside, he is notorious for creating beautifully bonkers visual treats that twist and turn like a monkey on cocaine, making as much sense. This comic book adaptation starts well, with some jaw dropping CG design and a decent concept – it truly is a dreamscape of glorious colour and imagination rarely matched… but so is Tim Burton’s Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, and we all know how awful that is.
He just doesn’t have the knack with story and character in the same way as he does with the visuals, often leaving you with the impression that even the actors are confused by what is going on, and why, and what the hell is coming out of their mouths as an excuse for dialogue.
I like Dane De Haan, he has shown a lot of promise in some valiant near misses, such as Chronicle, The Place Beyond the Pines and The Cure For Wellness – three films I enjoyed, with reservations, that were better for him being in them – but he has not quite made it to the A-list as yet. Here, opposite the gorgeously cute but somehow hollow presence Cara Delevingne, he is burdened by a love story with no chemistry and some cringe-worthy banter. As the film ultimately focuses and depends on the likability of this relationship it inevitably fails; melting into comic book kookiness that loses a lot in translation.
I almost found myself hating them and wishing they would die painfully so the film could end, but not quite as much as I hated how fundamentally terrible Clive Owen was as the villain – I mean, so awkward and awful it made how uncomfortable Harrison Ford seemed in Ender’s Game look like an Oscar worthy performance. Risible. Inexcusable. Inexplicable. But that’s Besson where let loose into the realm of full sci-fi.
One corner of joy was Rihanna as the shape-shifting Bubble, who showed a charm and talent for film acting I hadn’t quite expected, and how much fun Ethan Hawke had dressing up and hamming it up as Jolly, her pimp. But essentially, you’d be better off turning the sound off completely and just drinking in the spectrum of imaginative design on display. A film that may hold some cult status into the future, and one small children may get oddly addicted to, but as a functioning and satisfying cinematic story… just, no.
He just doesn’t have the knack with story and character in the same way as he does with the visuals, often leaving you with the impression that even the actors are confused by what is going on, and why, and what the hell is coming out of their mouths as an excuse for dialogue.
I like Dane De Haan, he has shown a lot of promise in some valiant near misses, such as Chronicle, The Place Beyond the Pines and The Cure For Wellness – three films I enjoyed, with reservations, that were better for him being in them – but he has not quite made it to the A-list as yet. Here, opposite the gorgeously cute but somehow hollow presence Cara Delevingne, he is burdened by a love story with no chemistry and some cringe-worthy banter. As the film ultimately focuses and depends on the likability of this relationship it inevitably fails; melting into comic book kookiness that loses a lot in translation.
I almost found myself hating them and wishing they would die painfully so the film could end, but not quite as much as I hated how fundamentally terrible Clive Owen was as the villain – I mean, so awkward and awful it made how uncomfortable Harrison Ford seemed in Ender’s Game look like an Oscar worthy performance. Risible. Inexcusable. Inexplicable. But that’s Besson where let loose into the realm of full sci-fi.
One corner of joy was Rihanna as the shape-shifting Bubble, who showed a charm and talent for film acting I hadn’t quite expected, and how much fun Ethan Hawke had dressing up and hamming it up as Jolly, her pimp. But essentially, you’d be better off turning the sound off completely and just drinking in the spectrum of imaginative design on display. A film that may hold some cult status into the future, and one small children may get oddly addicted to, but as a functioning and satisfying cinematic story… just, no.
Lee (2222 KP) rated Luce (2019) in Movies
Oct 30, 2019
Luce (Kelvin Harrison Jr) is the perfect student. Captain of the high school track team, a passionate member of the school debating society, a great writer and a polite, grown-up young man that just seems too good to be true. Luce was adopted at the age of 9 from war-torn Eritrea by white couple Amy (Naomi Watts) and Peter (Tim Roth, sporting a pretty dodgy American accent). Following years of therapy and the devoted efforts of Amy and Peter, he seems to have successfully put his horrific and traumatic childhood behind him, embracing his future in America.
But then one day, Luce's history teacher, Harriet Wilson (Octavia Spencer) becomes disturbed by a recent assignment that Luce has submitted. The purpose of the assignment was to write an essay in the style and thinking of a historical figure of their choosing - an idea which Luce seems to have embraced a little too passionately with his choice of Frantz Fanon, a black philosopher who was highly supportive of violent revolution. At the same time, a search of Luce's locker reveals some highly explosive fireworks, and Harriet is worried to the point where she calls Amy into the school in order to discuss her concerns.
The assignment, and the fireworks discovery, leads to a series of conflicts among all of the main characters. Luce remains polite and calm throughout, claiming that he was merely doing what was asked of him for the assignment. He states that his locker is shared with friends, so the fireworks must belong to one of them. Tensions are also high between Luce’s parents, seemingly regarding some lingering resentment they have about the fact that Luce is not their biological child. Meanwhile, Harriet is involved in a series of cool, calm stand offs with Luce, each of them believing that there is more to the other than meets the eye.
There are a lot of times during Luce where motivations and actions of characters aren’t very clear. A number of tense moments occur along the way too, in order to try and ramp up the tension, including the introduction of Harriet’s mentally ill sister, horrible racist graffiti on Harriet’s house and accusations of sexual assault. You never know who to trust or what to think, and it all feels as though it’s building towards something big.
Unfortunately though, that’s not the case, and it all just kind of fizzles out towards the end. It’s clear that the filmmakers are more interested in delivering undertones of privilege and prejudice throughout, promoting more questions than they provide answers, and that’s not for me. Overall a pretty solid movie, let down in its delivery towards the end.
But then one day, Luce's history teacher, Harriet Wilson (Octavia Spencer) becomes disturbed by a recent assignment that Luce has submitted. The purpose of the assignment was to write an essay in the style and thinking of a historical figure of their choosing - an idea which Luce seems to have embraced a little too passionately with his choice of Frantz Fanon, a black philosopher who was highly supportive of violent revolution. At the same time, a search of Luce's locker reveals some highly explosive fireworks, and Harriet is worried to the point where she calls Amy into the school in order to discuss her concerns.
The assignment, and the fireworks discovery, leads to a series of conflicts among all of the main characters. Luce remains polite and calm throughout, claiming that he was merely doing what was asked of him for the assignment. He states that his locker is shared with friends, so the fireworks must belong to one of them. Tensions are also high between Luce’s parents, seemingly regarding some lingering resentment they have about the fact that Luce is not their biological child. Meanwhile, Harriet is involved in a series of cool, calm stand offs with Luce, each of them believing that there is more to the other than meets the eye.
There are a lot of times during Luce where motivations and actions of characters aren’t very clear. A number of tense moments occur along the way too, in order to try and ramp up the tension, including the introduction of Harriet’s mentally ill sister, horrible racist graffiti on Harriet’s house and accusations of sexual assault. You never know who to trust or what to think, and it all feels as though it’s building towards something big.
Unfortunately though, that’s not the case, and it all just kind of fizzles out towards the end. It’s clear that the filmmakers are more interested in delivering undertones of privilege and prejudice throughout, promoting more questions than they provide answers, and that’s not for me. Overall a pretty solid movie, let down in its delivery towards the end.
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….