Sadly Over-hyped

Very interesting film. Was caught on the premise when seeing the trailer but unsure as to what the outcome would be for the showing. As it turns out, it was a very good film.

Like the great film, it's made with a great deal of visible affection both in front of and behind the camera.

It is encouraging that the film ends so strongly.Otherwise, it wouldn't have been a particularly memorable film

"Beauty and the Beast" slipped around all my roadblocks and penetrated directly into my strongest childhood memories, in which animation looked more real than live-action features. Watching the movie, I found myself caught up in a direct and joyous way. I wasn't reviewing an "animated film." I was being told a story, I was hearing terrific music, and I was having fun.The film is as good as any Disney animated feature ever made - as magical as "Pinocchio," "Snow White," "The Little Mermaid." And it's a reminder that animation is the ideal medium for fantasy, because all of its fears and dreams can be made literal. No Gothic castle in the history of horror films, for example, has ever approached the awesome, frightening towers of the castle where the Beast lives. And no real wolves could have fangs as sharp or eyes as glowing as the wolves that prowl in the castle woods.Roger Ebert November 22, 1991

At the time the live-action remake of Beauty and the Beast came out last year I haven't seen the original animated movie. I was a huge fan of the remake until the Nostalgia Critic's review destroyed it for me because he was right about almost everything and he made me realize many of the remake's flaws and he opened my eyes. Fortunately I've seen a lot of movies during the past year and I'm not that easily impressed anymore.So today I saw the animated original, which is much better than the remake from the very introduction scene. In the remake they say that the enchantress erased all memories about the residents of the castle from the minds of the people who loved them so he became forgotten, which is a hideous way to fix a plothole. This line does not exist in the original, which I liked very much. I'll get back to that later.From the moment the "Belle" song started I started to realize just how much better this movie is. The dialog in between the strophes makes more sense, Paige O'Hara can actually sing (she's just one of many characters whose singing is much better, not only the singing is, but so is the instrumentalization of the songs, especially "Be Our Guest"). In the remake the three alike-looking girls who fell for Gaston sing dreadfully and so does Emma Watson) and there's better camera focus on the characters who are currently singing (and the score is better in the original. It's not bad in the remake though.). Another thing that's better in this scene is that Belle doesn't get her books from a church, but from an actual bookseller because it makes absolutely no sense that a church lends non-religious books to people in the village. The sheep sitting next to Belle and biting her book is just one of many little moments that add to the movie that gives it the magic the remake doesn't have. It also makes sense how they animate Gaston. It's very odd that so many girls in town would fall for the live-action Gaston who is really not as attractive as the remake wants him to be. This movie doesn't have as much unnecessary zoom as the 2017 B&B does. Why did they use it in the new movie? Because Belle didn't stand out from the crowd because she wasn't the only one wearing blue like in the original. And I still don't have any idea why they zoomed in so much on Gaston in the new movie.Gaston is much more of a dick in the original and it makes perfect sense that Belle is afraid of him because he's a stalker. In the new movie he's just some really annoying douchebag. Gaston's plan on how to become Belle's husband is much better in the original. Instead of getting her father locked up in an asylum so she would even marry Gaston to get him out of there, the writers of the remake decided to insert a boring scene where Gaston and Lefou follow Maurice halfway to the castle until, and there's no explanation why, Gaston changes his mind, ties Maurice to a tree so Belle has no one left but Gaston... That's his "plan" in the remake. Even Lefou's crush on Gaston is much more apparent here. Disney made such a big deal of it in the marketing of the 2017 remake, so it's pretty pathetic that they hardly got it right. In the original Gaston is much ruder and more violent towards Lefou so the fact that he's still on his side makes his crush much more apparent. In the remake Lefou even turns against Gaston in the end.Another chemistry that works much better in the remake is the one between Lumière and Cogsworth. Little moments like Lumière burning Cogsworth's arm are not in the remake. They make the original so special. Yet another moment from the 1991 version that is not in the remake is Belle's father doing all kinds of everything with Cogsworth when he first meets him. It's funny. It's adorable. In the remake they don't meet at all, the only time Belle's father meets any of the enchanted objects in that movie is him sitting at the dinner table, Chip moving towards him, saying that his mum forbade him to talk to strangers, Belle's father saying that it's alright and immediately running away from the castle. That's all we get in the remake, no fun, nothing. It's really not that great that Belle's father is afraid of the enchanted objects in the remake because there's so much chemistry in the 1991 version that make for great moments.Why is Belle's father a horologist in the new movie? It's not necessarily a bad thing but it's just an unnecessary change. The scene in the remake where we first meet him is really boring despite being much shorter and the original scene makes him much more adorable and interesting. His invention in the original (that doesn't appear in the 2017 version) is really nice, too. In the remake he's just a scatty old man. The way he gets to the castle in the 2017 B&B makes much less sense as well. I really don't like that they cut the signpost, the bats and the cliff from the new movie.In the original Chip made it possible for Belle, her father and the whole castle to be saved and he freed them before they were brought to the asylum. All of that has been cut from the remake where Belle and Maurice have freed themselves.In the remake the beast is really nice and friendly, which is the opposite of what he's supposed to be. In the original they got the beast right. In the beginning he's frightening and evil. In the remake the beast looks cute and beautiful, which was a huge mistake.Another character who's so much better in the original is Belle. In the remake she knowingly puts the whole castle at risk. In the original she doesn't know that the only way to redeem the castle is loving the beast in return. She doesn't learn that until she gets it over with. In the remake however she learns it about halfway throughout the movie, so she shouldn't hesitate trying to do something to fall in love with the beast. But that's exactly what she does, she spends so much time with the beast as if she had a lifetime.Another character that the remake turned into a lunatic is the enchantress. The remake added a whole sequence to the movie where we see the families of the residents of the castle return after the castle has been redeemed, which means the enchastress has kept families apart for ten years! This is why this movie didn't say that all memories about the people who live in the castle have been erased from the minds of those who love them, it's because those people didn't exist in the 1991 B&B!As you can see, the remake destroyed literally every single one of these amazing characters.There's so many more great moments I could point out that aren't in the remake, like the first scene in the library of the castle. There's so much nice buildup in the original and it makes for a really beautiful scene. And of course no comparison of the two movies may avoid mentioning the horrendous "adaptation" of the date night. In the original we see the enchanted objects planning and preparing it, we get a song about them looking forward to being human again, we see them washing the beast and cutting his hair and we see Belle and the beast having dinner. What part of this remains in the remake? Nothing. All they do is dance to "Tale as Old as Time" (which they renamed to "Beauty and the Beast" in the remake for no reason at all) for three minutes. The whole sequence is magical in this movie, but in the remake they cut so much of it that none of that magic remains. Yet another scene that's just so much better in the original is the scene where the villagers attack the castle. In the original it's fun and entertaining, in the remake it's overly serious and trying to be suspenseful. The final confrontation between the beast and Gaston is much better, too.The animation is great. However, I have hardly seen any of the Disney fairytale classics. The only one I've seen is the Lion King and I saw that one years ago, so I can't compare the animation to the other Disney classics, but all by itself the animation looks really good. And this movie doesn't have any terrible CGI like the remake does.The main problem with the remake is that it's a whole 38 minutes longer than the 1991 B&B, which is astonishing considering how much is cut from it. There's so many unnecessary additions in the new movie that destroy the pacing. The very few things the remake does better than the original is the fact that the enchanted objects look better and more alive, I really like "Evermore", the "Be Our Guest" scene looks gorgeous and the remake has a very beautiful end credits sequence.The only flaw I'm having with the original is that I still wonder why the dog is enchanted. The dog didn't do anything wrong at all.The remake is not a remake, it's like a re-imagining by someone who hasn't seen the original in 25 years and hardly remembers anything. This movie however is great. Please see the original if you haven't, it's so magical. Please do NOT see the 2017 remake. And please send Disney an e-mail telling them to stop destroying their old classics in the live-action "adaptations".

This movie make me remember something imposible can make it to be posible

This was another film my aunt possessed in her expansive and diverse VHS collection. At the request of my cousin Mikaly, we decided to view it following a good but brief and informal dinner. I came in expecting the music to be great and a lot of the other stuff to be top notch for Disney. So why don't I like this film as much as it seems it should be?While the story was overall well written with a magically acted script, I feel like it didn't do that much to stand out from other fairy tales in the way that Disney adapts them. Sure, it is hilarious and supremely majestic at times, but even though I did overall enjoy the story, I really didn't think it was anything highly special. The characters are ones I am slightly surprised to be so iconic (specifically the servants), but I feel that they would deserve it anyway since they're actually pretty complex for characters of moderate importance to the plot. I personally don't believe in the Belle Stockholm Syndrome theory, because both times when Beast gives Belle the opportunity to depart the castle, she does leave, and she has other reasons to head back to the castle than ones typically symptomatic of Stockholm Syndrome. I found Belle's ability to reform Beast so spontaneously really impressive, and I also appreciated Belle's secondary motives, namely improving her family's reputation. The animation is absolutely among the best of any animated film from 1991, with believable yet fantastically detailed settings. One thing that I took note of was that while most Disney Princesses have a more balanced spread when it comes to their beauty, Belle is more reliant on her clothing than the usual princess. I thought that the combination of her eyebrows and the shading on her eyes might raise a few doubts, especially to those not as desperate as Beast or vain as Gaston. Anyway, while I highly do commend the animators for their work (Be Our Guest is probably my favorite scene), Belle's final dance with Adam (aka human Beast) was copied from Aurora and Philip's dance at the dénouement of Sleeping Beauty. I don't need to explain the music; it's Disney's composers at their best. I will never forget Alan Menken for contributing to movies like this.Overall, I'm highly confident (not conceited, though) that this will turn out to be a movie you would enjoy if you view it. Sure, I don't think it's in the realm of films like Aladdin, but this is only my opinion; that's what the point of one's review is for, right? So, it's not highly likely to be one's favorite Disney movie, but they should still consider viewing it or listening to its stellar soundtrack (including the cut Human Again).