Sunday, April 2, 2017
Beauty and the Beast
This is not a review of the new Beauty and the Beast.
I have not seen the live-action version of the 1991 Disney cartoon classic.
Nor do I plan to any time soon.
Part of my reason is simply that that 1991 version IS a classic. The voice and singing cast was perfect. The cartooning was incredible. The cartoon deserved its Academy Award nomination for best picture.
The fact that the new one is also a Disney film is not a draw. I have not been impressed with Disney fare of late. There's always been a marketing element to Disney productions, but they have just gotten so blatant about it. Frozen, which does have lots to praise, comes to mind.
From some trusted sources I have read some reviews of the film that have left me underwhelmed and fed into my suspicions. To be honest, I'm also not a big fan of Emma Watson's acting post-Potter - and she's the marketing draw. (She was one of the weak links in the Potter films too.) I do like Kevin Kline, and Emma Thompson, but not enough to pay for a ticket for this movie, though.
And there's the whole homosexual element that's crept in. It's apparently not blatant, but still - why?
I don't mind a remake that adds something, or that stands up against the earlier versions - some of the remakes of A Christmas Carol, for example. Or the 2005 Peter Jackson King Kong. But I've seen too many failures - the most recent Ben Hur, to name one.
So I'll pass on Beauty and the Beast at the theater. I'll check it out when it's on DVD - or on television..
I wish Disney would get back to producing something new and creative and not so blatantly a marketing product. But I have doubts they will: Such an effort might not make as much money.
Pax et bonum