I don’t get Disney’s current trend of remaking old animation classics into Live Action films. Why is that necessary? Maleficent was fun, it’s true, but that was told with a more sympathetic twist to the villain, which I love (plus the old Sleeping Beauty was badly in need of a rewrite). But what was wrong with the 1991 classic B&tB? Nothing, that’s what. So I went into this new one wondering if it was going to be a waste of time. I’m still not sure it needed to be made but I’m absolutely glad they did. Read more
The original Beauty and the Beast, the 1991 animated version, is one of the five best animated movies of all-time; it was so good that it became the first ever animated movie to be nominated for Best Picture by the Academy Awards. With movie studios going through their vault of hit movies and remaking them, it was inevitable that Beauty and the Beast would get a live-action remake sooner or later. And thanks to the advances in creating special effects that make the unimaginable look more realistic than ever, along with Disney coming off a string of successful live-action remakes (Maleficent, Cinderella, Jungle Book), the studio fast-tracked remaking the “tale as old as time.” Even though the narrative of this Beauty and the Beast is uneven at times, the movie, as a whole, hits most of the right notes. I would say it’s difficult not to compare this live-action remake to the near-perfect animated movie; but, in reality, there’s just no way around it.
From Walt Disney Pictures and director Bill Condon, comes the live-action remake of the animated 1991 classic Beauty and The Beast. Composer Alan Menken, who won two Academy Awards working on the original, is also returning. Emma Watson and Dan Stevens will play the title leads respectively while the rest of the cast includes Luke Evans (Gaston), Kevin Kline (Maurice), Josh Gad (Lefou), Ewan McGregor (Lumiere), Stanley Tucci (Maestro Cadenza), Ian McKellen (Cogsworth) and Emma Thompson (Mrs. Potts). The film hits theaters March 17, 2017. Read more
Paula Hawkins’ best-selling novel works so well thanks to its balance of character study and mystery thrills. Sure, adapting a novel into a movie is no simple task, as certain aspects of the novel are constrained or changed due to budget and run time. But with The Girl on the Train, the movie adaptation derails early on due to story structure issues and certain plot elements that are either rearranged or presented with little to no detail. Along with story structure, any hope of further plot or character development is thrown out the window in favor of mishandled flashbacks, awkward premonitions, and steamy shower sex scenes.