Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Frankenweenie (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Before he hit the big time, director Tim Burton made a live-action short film named “Frankenweenie” which was a loving tribute to the classic horror films of old, in particular “Frankenstein”. Due to various issues, the 30-minute film never got the attention it deserved and was relegated to a video release after Burton’s stock had risen thanks to hits such as “Beetlejuice”, “Batman”, and “Edward Scissorhands”.
Disney has given Burton a chance to complete his vision for “Frankenweenie”, and Burton has done so by combining the visual themes of classic black and white with modern 3D and stop-motion animation.
The film centers around the town of New Holland, where young Victor Frankenstein (Charlie Tahan) lives in suburbia and spends his days, when not in school, on his love of science, and his beloved dog Sparky. His father, wants Victor to diversify his skills and agrees to allow Victor to take part in a local science fair if he agrees to play baseball as well. Victor agrees, but sadly tragedy strikes when Victor loses his beloved Sparky in an accident.
Devastated, Victor loses his will and his way until he is inspired by his science teacher, Mr. Rzykruski (Martin Landau) who explains how anything can be reanimated via electricity. Since their town is famous for its nightly lightening storms, Victor sets about to revive Sparky, and is able to do so much to his delight. While he is thrilled to have his beloved dog back, Victor must keep Sparky’s return a secret which proves to be a very difficult challenge.
In time, the secret gets out and chaos ensues, especially when Victor’s classmates decide to reanimate other dead objects so that they can compete at the science fair. Things quickly go amok, and Victor and Sparky must find a way to save New Holland and each other.
The film has the trademark Burton visuals which are indeed very lavish. The nature of stop-motion and 3D does at times have some jerkiness to the film, but all in all it is a rich visual experience. I am a fan of Burton, but I have always said he far to often puts substance over style as his visuals have often overshadowed plot and characters in his movies. This time out, Burton has kept the film basic and does not go overboard trying to over-complicate his plot and characters. The film is, at the core, a story about a boy and his dog and their enduring love for one another.
The film is loaded with quirky characters and visuals and several references to the classic horror films of old which inspired it. I was not sure that many of the younger viewers in the audience would be able to get several of the jokes in the film, but they, along with their parents, laughed and cheered throughout the film.
While it will not break any new ground in visuals and story, “Frankenweenie” is a pleasantly fun film that the family will enjoy and is well worth checking out.
Disney has given Burton a chance to complete his vision for “Frankenweenie”, and Burton has done so by combining the visual themes of classic black and white with modern 3D and stop-motion animation.
The film centers around the town of New Holland, where young Victor Frankenstein (Charlie Tahan) lives in suburbia and spends his days, when not in school, on his love of science, and his beloved dog Sparky. His father, wants Victor to diversify his skills and agrees to allow Victor to take part in a local science fair if he agrees to play baseball as well. Victor agrees, but sadly tragedy strikes when Victor loses his beloved Sparky in an accident.
Devastated, Victor loses his will and his way until he is inspired by his science teacher, Mr. Rzykruski (Martin Landau) who explains how anything can be reanimated via electricity. Since their town is famous for its nightly lightening storms, Victor sets about to revive Sparky, and is able to do so much to his delight. While he is thrilled to have his beloved dog back, Victor must keep Sparky’s return a secret which proves to be a very difficult challenge.
In time, the secret gets out and chaos ensues, especially when Victor’s classmates decide to reanimate other dead objects so that they can compete at the science fair. Things quickly go amok, and Victor and Sparky must find a way to save New Holland and each other.
The film has the trademark Burton visuals which are indeed very lavish. The nature of stop-motion and 3D does at times have some jerkiness to the film, but all in all it is a rich visual experience. I am a fan of Burton, but I have always said he far to often puts substance over style as his visuals have often overshadowed plot and characters in his movies. This time out, Burton has kept the film basic and does not go overboard trying to over-complicate his plot and characters. The film is, at the core, a story about a boy and his dog and their enduring love for one another.
The film is loaded with quirky characters and visuals and several references to the classic horror films of old which inspired it. I was not sure that many of the younger viewers in the audience would be able to get several of the jokes in the film, but they, along with their parents, laughed and cheered throughout the film.
While it will not break any new ground in visuals and story, “Frankenweenie” is a pleasantly fun film that the family will enjoy and is well worth checking out.
Beatriz (17 KP) rated Lilo & Stitch (2002) in Movies
Feb 22, 2019
Lilo & Sitch (2002)
Lilo & Stitch is one of my most favourite Disney films.
It was released in 2002 passed in Hawaii. It tells the story about a girl (Lilo) and her sister (Nani) that fight to stay together as Nani is trying to prove to the social worker Cobra Bubbles that she is fit to take care of her younger sister. In the meawhile Lilo is bullied and feels different so Nani takes her to a dog shelter to adopt a dog. There Lilo meets Stitch, a mutated alien (or more specifically, experiment 626) that is hiding, from the Galactic Police, on Earth, and ends up using Lilo as his shield. But with time Lilo and Stitch become Ohana ( "Ohana means family and family means no one gets left behind or forgotten)
Its a fun and emotional film that touched a lot of childrens and adults hearts (including mine)
Here are some interesting facts that i found about the film...
- The original story focused solely on an alien living in a forest, trying to overcome his isolation and find out where he came from.
Lilo didn’t become a part of the film until much later during story development.
- Stitch was not originally supposed to talk, but when the filmmakers realized the story hinged on him being able to express himself at the film’s end,
they began developing his voice. Director Chris Sanders provided Stitch’s voice during test animation, and eventually everyone got so used to it that they
decided to keep it.
- After an early test screening showed that audiences thought Nani was Lilo’s mother, filmmakers reworked some key scenes to make their sisterly relationship clear.
- Lilo & Stitch was the first Disney animated film since Dumbo to use watercolor painted backgrounds.
- While on a tour of Kaua?i, filmmakers noticed that their Hawaiian tour guide seemed to know someone everywhere they went. They were so struck by the guide’s
explanation of the term “‘ohana” as it relates to an extended family, that they made it the central theme of the film.
- In the climax of the movie, Jumba can be seen flying around in a huge red spaceship that looks very similar to an airplane. This is because in the originaL
edit of the film, it WAS an airplane! In the original edit, the writers and animators had Jumba hijacking a Boeing 747 from the Lihue airport and crashing it
into buildings throughout Honolulu.
Unfortunately, the movie came out right after 9/11/2001. The animators felt this was much too close to the attacks that happened on September 11th, so they
remodeled Jumba’s spaceship to look a bit different than a Boeing 747, and also changed the buildings to mountains.
- All of the landscapes in the movie are recognizable locations in Hawaii
- Not only was the setting and plot of the movie unique, Lilo & Stitch was also very unique in the way that Disney promoted the movie. Disney released a set
of trailers in which they inserted the character of Stitch into some of their more “classic” films.
Some examples of the movies they inserted Stitch into, are as follows: The Little Mermaid; Stitch surfs on a wave that crashes down onto Ariel. Beauty and the
Beast; Stitch can be seen loosening the chandelier during the ballroom dance scene and it almost lands on Beast and Belle. Aladdin; he steals Jasmine away
during their magic carpet ride. The Lion King; Stitch is on Pride Rock instead of Simba.
- Did you know that the character of Stitch was actually created way back in 1985? Stitch was created by one of the directors of the film named Chris Sanders
for a children’s book he was writing. The children’s book was never published, and Stitch was made into a movie 17 years later.
Chris Sanders was not only one of the directors of Lilo & Stitch, but he was also a co-screenwriter, a co-character designer, and also provided the voice acting
for Stitch.
- During the animation stage of Lilo & Stitch, the animators made a conscious effort to design the "alien" aspects of the film a certain way.
Since the movie was going to take place on the island of Hawaii, they decided to design all of the alien aspects of the movie to resemble marine animals.
This makes sense, since Hawaii is famous for its diverse marine plant and animal life that resides on the island.
It was released in 2002 passed in Hawaii. It tells the story about a girl (Lilo) and her sister (Nani) that fight to stay together as Nani is trying to prove to the social worker Cobra Bubbles that she is fit to take care of her younger sister. In the meawhile Lilo is bullied and feels different so Nani takes her to a dog shelter to adopt a dog. There Lilo meets Stitch, a mutated alien (or more specifically, experiment 626) that is hiding, from the Galactic Police, on Earth, and ends up using Lilo as his shield. But with time Lilo and Stitch become Ohana ( "Ohana means family and family means no one gets left behind or forgotten)
Its a fun and emotional film that touched a lot of childrens and adults hearts (including mine)
Here are some interesting facts that i found about the film...
- The original story focused solely on an alien living in a forest, trying to overcome his isolation and find out where he came from.
Lilo didn’t become a part of the film until much later during story development.
- Stitch was not originally supposed to talk, but when the filmmakers realized the story hinged on him being able to express himself at the film’s end,
they began developing his voice. Director Chris Sanders provided Stitch’s voice during test animation, and eventually everyone got so used to it that they
decided to keep it.
- After an early test screening showed that audiences thought Nani was Lilo’s mother, filmmakers reworked some key scenes to make their sisterly relationship clear.
- Lilo & Stitch was the first Disney animated film since Dumbo to use watercolor painted backgrounds.
- While on a tour of Kaua?i, filmmakers noticed that their Hawaiian tour guide seemed to know someone everywhere they went. They were so struck by the guide’s
explanation of the term “‘ohana” as it relates to an extended family, that they made it the central theme of the film.
- In the climax of the movie, Jumba can be seen flying around in a huge red spaceship that looks very similar to an airplane. This is because in the originaL
edit of the film, it WAS an airplane! In the original edit, the writers and animators had Jumba hijacking a Boeing 747 from the Lihue airport and crashing it
into buildings throughout Honolulu.
Unfortunately, the movie came out right after 9/11/2001. The animators felt this was much too close to the attacks that happened on September 11th, so they
remodeled Jumba’s spaceship to look a bit different than a Boeing 747, and also changed the buildings to mountains.
- All of the landscapes in the movie are recognizable locations in Hawaii
- Not only was the setting and plot of the movie unique, Lilo & Stitch was also very unique in the way that Disney promoted the movie. Disney released a set
of trailers in which they inserted the character of Stitch into some of their more “classic” films.
Some examples of the movies they inserted Stitch into, are as follows: The Little Mermaid; Stitch surfs on a wave that crashes down onto Ariel. Beauty and the
Beast; Stitch can be seen loosening the chandelier during the ballroom dance scene and it almost lands on Beast and Belle. Aladdin; he steals Jasmine away
during their magic carpet ride. The Lion King; Stitch is on Pride Rock instead of Simba.
- Did you know that the character of Stitch was actually created way back in 1985? Stitch was created by one of the directors of the film named Chris Sanders
for a children’s book he was writing. The children’s book was never published, and Stitch was made into a movie 17 years later.
Chris Sanders was not only one of the directors of Lilo & Stitch, but he was also a co-screenwriter, a co-character designer, and also provided the voice acting
for Stitch.
- During the animation stage of Lilo & Stitch, the animators made a conscious effort to design the "alien" aspects of the film a certain way.
Since the movie was going to take place on the island of Hawaii, they decided to design all of the alien aspects of the movie to resemble marine animals.
This makes sense, since Hawaii is famous for its diverse marine plant and animal life that resides on the island.
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated Wreck-It-Ralph (2012) in Movies
Feb 25, 2019
Wish it had been made by Pixar...
Contains spoilers, click to show
At first glance this would appear, as some reviews have sighted, the new Toy Story (1995). Maybe it is, but I just didn't feel it. I'm old enough to remember these 8-bit games and even though Fix It Felix, Hero's Duty and Sugar Rush are all fictitious, they're all rooted in the reality of the industry, with their real life counterparts being Donkey Kong, Call Of Duty and Super Mario Cart.
The plot is basically that of any Disney film and this is kind of where it fails a little. This isn't Pixar and I'm spending most of the time wishing that it was. Tangled (2010) had the same problem, with it being good, in fact better on the second viewing but not as good the masters of digi-mation would have made it. But Wreck-It Ralph would seem to cry out for the Pixar treatment. Its similarity in tone to Toy Story, with computer game characters coming to life when the kids leave, rather than toys, as well as the fact that this is the perfect subject for a Computer Generated movie!
The comedy was decent, with more of the successful jokes revolving around candy, Mentos and cola, rather than the arcade worlds themselves, but still, plenty of references for the game heads, which my wife is but I'm not, really. It was fun and the final reel was exiting, with the running time pushing two hours, it wasn't overly long but still felt wanting.
I think that it would have been better if there was more that just one line cameos from the established arcade characters, but I'll say it again, that for me, this wanted to be a Pixar classic but just couldn't match the standards.
The plot is basically that of any Disney film and this is kind of where it fails a little. This isn't Pixar and I'm spending most of the time wishing that it was. Tangled (2010) had the same problem, with it being good, in fact better on the second viewing but not as good the masters of digi-mation would have made it. But Wreck-It Ralph would seem to cry out for the Pixar treatment. Its similarity in tone to Toy Story, with computer game characters coming to life when the kids leave, rather than toys, as well as the fact that this is the perfect subject for a Computer Generated movie!
The comedy was decent, with more of the successful jokes revolving around candy, Mentos and cola, rather than the arcade worlds themselves, but still, plenty of references for the game heads, which my wife is but I'm not, really. It was fun and the final reel was exiting, with the running time pushing two hours, it wasn't overly long but still felt wanting.
I think that it would have been better if there was more that just one line cameos from the established arcade characters, but I'll say it again, that for me, this wanted to be a Pixar classic but just couldn't match the standards.
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated Ralph Breaks the Internet: Wreck-It Ralph 2 (2018) in Movies
Mar 7, 2019
Contains spoilers, click to show
At first glance this would appear, as some reviews have sighted, the new Toy Story (1995). Maybe it is, but I just didn't feel it. I'm old enough to remember these 8-bit games and even though Fix It Felix, Hero's Duty and Sugar Rush are all fictitious, they're all rooted in the reality of the industry, with their real life counterparts being Donkey Kong, Call Of Duty and Super Mario Cart.
The plot is basically that of any Disney film and this is kind of where it fails a little. This isn't Pixar and I'm spending most of the time wishing that it was. Tangled (2010) had the same problem, with it being good, in fact better on the second viewing but not as good the masters of digi-mation would have made it. But Wreck-It Ralph would seem to cry out for the Pixar treatment. Its similarity in tone to Toy Story, with computer game characters coming to life when the kids leave, rather than toys, as well as the fact that this is the perfect subject for a Computer Generated movie!
The comedy was decent, with more of the successful jokes revolving around candy, Mentos and cola, rather than the arcade worlds themselves, but still, plenty of references for the game heads, which my wife is but I'm not, really. It was fun and the final reel was exiting, with the running time pushing two hours, it wasn't overly long but still felt wanting.
I think that it would have been better if there was more that just one line cameos from the established arcade characters, but I'll say it again, that for me, this wanted to be a Pixar classic but just couldn't match the standards.
The plot is basically that of any Disney film and this is kind of where it fails a little. This isn't Pixar and I'm spending most of the time wishing that it was. Tangled (2010) had the same problem, with it being good, in fact better on the second viewing but not as good the masters of digi-mation would have made it. But Wreck-It Ralph would seem to cry out for the Pixar treatment. Its similarity in tone to Toy Story, with computer game characters coming to life when the kids leave, rather than toys, as well as the fact that this is the perfect subject for a Computer Generated movie!
The comedy was decent, with more of the successful jokes revolving around candy, Mentos and cola, rather than the arcade worlds themselves, but still, plenty of references for the game heads, which my wife is but I'm not, really. It was fun and the final reel was exiting, with the running time pushing two hours, it wasn't overly long but still felt wanting.
I think that it would have been better if there was more that just one line cameos from the established arcade characters, but I'll say it again, that for me, this wanted to be a Pixar classic but just couldn't match the standards.
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937) in Movies
Mar 7, 2019
Darker than you might expect...
Contains spoilers, click to show
The first of Walt Disney's historic features was a pleasure to watch. Beautifully animated with deceptively gentle strokes, we are delicately guided through the Brothers Grimm's fairy tale. But this is still a fairy tale and a 1930′s film, made at a time where stories were not so toned down for our children, and a healthy dose of fear and horror was not shied away from.
Snow White is definitely a ditsy princess, so innocent that her counter has to be the personification of pure evil and she certainly is. The Queen, represents some of our darkest emotions, and there is little effort to tone this down, which I liked, a lot. She is evil, driven by her vain jealously to firstly attempt to have Snow White murdered, and then failing that, to poison her into a narcoleptic state and have her buried alive! Is this what you now think of a s Disney film, with a U rating? No, but thanks to this and the following films successes, this is a prized classic and untouchable. I think that this is a true family movie, with as much darkness as there is light, with some great musical numbers, indelible characters and an animation style which is truly timeless.
I mean this is a musical which was made in Technicolor less than ten years after the innovation of sound was introduced to black and white films. This is a film which children feel a part of and don't even compare to black and white's of the same era, which of course, they hate and don't feel are real.
Hats off to Walt, who I must admit, I've never really been a fan of, but I'm working my way through his classics and am liking what I am seeing so far.
Snow White is definitely a ditsy princess, so innocent that her counter has to be the personification of pure evil and she certainly is. The Queen, represents some of our darkest emotions, and there is little effort to tone this down, which I liked, a lot. She is evil, driven by her vain jealously to firstly attempt to have Snow White murdered, and then failing that, to poison her into a narcoleptic state and have her buried alive! Is this what you now think of a s Disney film, with a U rating? No, but thanks to this and the following films successes, this is a prized classic and untouchable. I think that this is a true family movie, with as much darkness as there is light, with some great musical numbers, indelible characters and an animation style which is truly timeless.
I mean this is a musical which was made in Technicolor less than ten years after the innovation of sound was introduced to black and white films. This is a film which children feel a part of and don't even compare to black and white's of the same era, which of course, they hate and don't feel are real.
Hats off to Walt, who I must admit, I've never really been a fan of, but I'm working my way through his classics and am liking what I am seeing so far.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated The Nutcracker and the Four Realms (2018) in Movies
Jul 2, 2019
When I was younger, my mom and I would get all dressed up and we would take a special holiday trip up to Seattle to see The Nutcracker. I was captivated by the costumes, dancing and the story. When I found out that a film was being made based off of the famed ballet I was very excited especially with Disney behind it.
Clara is given a gift for Christmas that requires a one of a kind key. To find this key she must follow a piece of string that leads her into a world full of magic and mystery but is in a state of disrepair. Along the way she meets many different characters who want to help her find the key and restore harmony within the lands.
The film in its entirety is visually stunning and equally entertaining. In a way, the film sort of reminds me of Alice In Wonderland as it has a very Tim Burtone-sque feel to it. The star studded cast made the film that much better. It was lovely seeing Mackenzie Foy all grown up, the beautiful Keira Knightly with her somewhat annoying high pitched character voice, Morgan Freeman and Dame Helen Mirren’s amazing acting and Misty Copeland’s beautiful dancing just to name a few.
It is certainly refreshing to see a new twist on a classic story. I am pleased that they didn’t do away with the dancing along with the most familiar score listened to during the holidays. The CG sets were amazing with bold colors that made the film very visually appealing. It encapsulates an entertaining and adventurous story along with humor and excellent acting. In my book, that is the perfect recipe for a great film. I look forward to adding this one to my ever growing movie collection.
Clara is given a gift for Christmas that requires a one of a kind key. To find this key she must follow a piece of string that leads her into a world full of magic and mystery but is in a state of disrepair. Along the way she meets many different characters who want to help her find the key and restore harmony within the lands.
The film in its entirety is visually stunning and equally entertaining. In a way, the film sort of reminds me of Alice In Wonderland as it has a very Tim Burtone-sque feel to it. The star studded cast made the film that much better. It was lovely seeing Mackenzie Foy all grown up, the beautiful Keira Knightly with her somewhat annoying high pitched character voice, Morgan Freeman and Dame Helen Mirren’s amazing acting and Misty Copeland’s beautiful dancing just to name a few.
It is certainly refreshing to see a new twist on a classic story. I am pleased that they didn’t do away with the dancing along with the most familiar score listened to during the holidays. The CG sets were amazing with bold colors that made the film very visually appealing. It encapsulates an entertaining and adventurous story along with humor and excellent acting. In my book, that is the perfect recipe for a great film. I look forward to adding this one to my ever growing movie collection.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Winnie the Pooh (2011) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Everyone’s favorite “tubby little cubby all stuffed with fluff” is back in this sweet and lovable adaption of the beloved classic series written by A.A. Milnes. For those who aren’t familiar with the story of this beloved bear, young Christopher Robin and his active imagination creates the world of 100 Acre Woods along with its adorable characters, Winnie the Pooh, Piglet, Rabbit, Owl, Kanga and her son Roo, Eeyore and the bouncy Tigger.
As with most of the stories in the series, Winnie the Pooh is on an adventure in search of his favorite tasty treat: honey. As he begins scouring the woods for honey, he runs into his friend, the depressed donkey, Eeyore. Eeyore’s tail has gone missing and so begins the contest, to see which one of the 100 Acre Woods residents can come up with the best solution for a new tail for Eeyore. The prize, to Winnie the Pooh’s excitement, is a pot of honey! While they are on the hunt to help Eeyore find a new tail, the gang realizes that Christopher Robin has been kidnapped by a terrifying creature called the “Backson.”
With a run time of just over an hour, I was very impressed with the amount of substance this movie had. I was very glad that Disney stayed true to the way I remembered these characters from my childhood. The movie is instantly engaging with the story beginning in Christopher Robin’s bedroom and continues on by capturing the creative magic of being a child. Many people will probably write this movie off, due to its simplicity, however sometimes it’s the simple things in life that can provide such a wealth of charm, fun and beauty.
As with most of the stories in the series, Winnie the Pooh is on an adventure in search of his favorite tasty treat: honey. As he begins scouring the woods for honey, he runs into his friend, the depressed donkey, Eeyore. Eeyore’s tail has gone missing and so begins the contest, to see which one of the 100 Acre Woods residents can come up with the best solution for a new tail for Eeyore. The prize, to Winnie the Pooh’s excitement, is a pot of honey! While they are on the hunt to help Eeyore find a new tail, the gang realizes that Christopher Robin has been kidnapped by a terrifying creature called the “Backson.”
With a run time of just over an hour, I was very impressed with the amount of substance this movie had. I was very glad that Disney stayed true to the way I remembered these characters from my childhood. The movie is instantly engaging with the story beginning in Christopher Robin’s bedroom and continues on by capturing the creative magic of being a child. Many people will probably write this movie off, due to its simplicity, however sometimes it’s the simple things in life that can provide such a wealth of charm, fun and beauty.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Werewolf By Night (2022) in Movies
Oct 6, 2022
The latest offering from Marvel Studios has arrived and it is a change of pace for the studio as it delves into the darker side of the Marvel Cinematic Universe.
Werewolf By Night is a visually appealing tale that lovingly plays homage to the classic Black and White horror movies of old yet infuses modern content and a touch of humor.
When a group of Monster Hunters is assembled at Bloodstone Temple following the death of their leader, the assembled guests are tasked to compete against one another to find a relic and oh yes, content with a deadly monster in the maze as well.
The hunters are informed that they are fair game for one another and the combination of competition and survival promises danger and deadly encounters along the way.
Things are not as they seem as one of the hunters named Jack Russell (Gael Garcia Bernal) has a dark secret or two and when he ends up working with Elsa Bloodstone (Laura Donnelly), things get very interesting and deadly.
The show is deeply-enjoyable and makes me wish that this was a series versus a special but I would think that audiences will see some of the characters again in the future. There is a bit more violence than one might expect from the MCU but due to the Black and White filming, it is not as graphic as it could be but still might be more than some younger fans would expect.
Composer Michael Giacchino has done an amazing job with the show as the pacing is solid, the characters are interesting, and the visuals capture the enduring nostalgia of the bygone classics.
I enjoyed the special from start to finish and should be an enjoyable experience not only for Marvel fans but for horror fans everywhere.
Look for it on Disney+ on December 7th.
Werewolf By Night is a visually appealing tale that lovingly plays homage to the classic Black and White horror movies of old yet infuses modern content and a touch of humor.
When a group of Monster Hunters is assembled at Bloodstone Temple following the death of their leader, the assembled guests are tasked to compete against one another to find a relic and oh yes, content with a deadly monster in the maze as well.
The hunters are informed that they are fair game for one another and the combination of competition and survival promises danger and deadly encounters along the way.
Things are not as they seem as one of the hunters named Jack Russell (Gael Garcia Bernal) has a dark secret or two and when he ends up working with Elsa Bloodstone (Laura Donnelly), things get very interesting and deadly.
The show is deeply-enjoyable and makes me wish that this was a series versus a special but I would think that audiences will see some of the characters again in the future. There is a bit more violence than one might expect from the MCU but due to the Black and White filming, it is not as graphic as it could be but still might be more than some younger fans would expect.
Composer Michael Giacchino has done an amazing job with the show as the pacing is solid, the characters are interesting, and the visuals capture the enduring nostalgia of the bygone classics.
I enjoyed the special from start to finish and should be an enjoyable experience not only for Marvel fans but for horror fans everywhere.
Look for it on Disney+ on December 7th.
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….
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/