4.5 Stars

 

Disney has done it again.  We all know the story.  It's a "tale as old as time".  We all know the formula by now.  Disney is taking their classic movies and re-making, re-imagining, recreating them (whatever you want to call it) as live-action movies.  In 2010, Tim Burton and Disney brought the live-action version of Alice in Wonderland with Johnny Depp to the big screen.  Maleficent followed in 2014 starring Angelina Jolie re-telling the story of Sleeping Beauty.  Next was Cinderella in 2015 and 2016 gave us Pete's Dragon and The Jungle Book.  Now, Emma Watson reprises the role of Belle in Beauty and the Beast.  Disney's original groundbreaking animated masterpiece was released in November 1991.  It was nominated for Best Picture of the Year, the first of only 3 animated movies to ever be nominated for Best Picture.  

For any of you who don't know, here's the story: A selfish Prince is turned into a hideous beast and his staff are all made into furniture and kitchen utensils.  The curse will be broken if the Beast (Dan Stevens) can find true love before the last petal of a magic rose falls.  Meanwhile, in a quaint village nearby,  Belle (Emma Watson) does not fit in with the rest of the bubbly bimbos who are fawning over the town hunk, Gaston (Luke Evans).  Instead, she immerses herself in books and imagination, traits she gets from her inventor father Maurice (Kevin Kline). Lost in the woods, Maurice stumbles into the Beast's castle and is taken prisoner.  Belle finds him and offers herself up for his release.  The Beast agrees and their courtship begins.  Meanwhile, Maurice returns to the town to enlist Gaston's help in rescuing Belle.  When Maurice can't find the Beast's castle again, Gaston has him committed for insanity (and also out of rage since Maurice will not give Belle's hand in marriage).  Belle sees her father in trouble through a magic mirror and Beast allows her to return to him, an act of selfless love.  She demands her father's release and offers proof that Maurice is not crazy by showing the villagers images of the Beast through the magic mirror.  Further infuriated, Gaston incites a riot and the villagers launch an assault on the castle for the final standoff.

The preview for Beauty and the Beast looked breathtakingly beautiful.  There is so much to show in so little time, so they don't really waste any of it trying to summarize the plot like they do in most previews, assuming you already know the story.  Instead, you are given little gems.  A glimpse of the Beast that looks like Disney's original animation come to life.  Brief shots of our favorite characters: Chip, Mrs. Potts (Emma Thompson), Cogsworth (Ian McKellen) and Lumiere (Ewan McGregor).  Emma Watson as Belle, who may not be the obvious choice, but looked in the preview to pull off the role quite well, and she does a fantastic job.  The CGI that looked like it would hold its own against Disney's latest reinvention of The Jungle Book that just won an Oscar for Best Visual Effects.  And some of the familiar music that made the first so special.  

I had extremely high expectations for Beauty and the Beast, but there were a few things that I felt would have to be nailed for this to be perfect.  Belle.  As I just said, Watson doesn't immediately stand out as the obvious choice for the role.  She looked great in the preview, but I wondered if she could hold it with the intelligence, grace, bravery, strength and singing required to match her predecessor's performance.  She did.  In fact, after seeing her performance and hearing her voice mastering so many iconic songs, I don't know that I could imagine anyone else in the role.

I also felt that the animation needed to be flawless.  This film had two previous movies to live up to: the original animated version from 1991 that was nominated for Best Picture and the 2016 Jungle Book.  Many of the critiques I've read about Beauty and the Beast criticized the CGI, specifically the Beast.  They say his eyes are off and the characters are flat.  I disagree and wonder if they didn't understand the difference in story-telling between Jungle Book and Beauty and the Beast.  Jungle Book was supposed to be much more realistic, aside from talking animals.  It wasn't a fantasy world, it wasn't a dream, it was a man-child in the jungle with real animals.  Beauty and the Beast is fantasy, a place of Belle's dreams and others' nightmares.  A Prince turned into a hideous beast.  Servants turned into a candlestick, a clock, a dresser, a teapot and cup.  Of course the animation is going to look different.  Now, that being said, there were a couple moments with Beast walking that were slightly less perfect than his animation for the rest of the movie.  However, the human characters' interactions with the animated ones were seamless.

The music.  Jungle Book didn't hold back with their musical numbers and I hoped that Beast wouldn't either.  They didn't.  In fact, we were introduced to a few new songs written just for this live-action version of the classic.  We get to see the history of the Prince and why he became such a selfish man.  We also got to see what happened to Belle's mother and what drove her father from Paris when she was just a baby.  Though they didn't have the same catchy lyrics that will have kids and adults singing for 16 years to come, they fit right in with the story and were welcomed additions to the film.

And finally, the ballroom scene.  The sweeping shot of the chandelier in the grand ballroom with Belle in her yellow dress and Beast in his blue suit was nothing short of iconic and groundbreaking in the original animation.  It's a lot to live up to.  They went a slightly different route with the ballroom scene.  Instead of one central chandelier, they had several in the room and the sweeping shot around the room revealed instruments on the wall helping to orchestrate their dance.  My only criticism of that scene was that the original shone so bright and golden and this version, although beautiful, was a little muted.

There were two other elements that could be challenged for their decisions.  The first is the reveal of the grand library to Belle.  In the animated version, it is a gift from Beast to Belle and the camera pans around to what seems like an endless offering of literature that makes her nearly cry with joy.  In the live action version, Beast simply takes her there to show off just how many books he has.  There's no build-up to the entrance to the room.  However, instead, they have a little playful banter that reveals the Beasts' softer side and also gives a hint that Belle is warming up to him.  It was sweet and tender.

The other element was LeFou (Josh Gad) and the way he portrayed his loyalties for Gaston.  In the animated version, LeFou is an impish, goofy, loyal, encouraging sidekick.  In this version, Gad plays LeFou as more than just a sidekick, but someone enamored with Gaston, not just for his size and strength and looks out of admiration, but from a deeper sentiment.  I realize this is 2017, but the affection was awkward and forced and detracted from their scenes together.

Beauty and the Beast had a lot to live up to, and the preview made it look like they were up to the task.  So I gave it a very enthusiastic and hopeful 4.5 Star Prediction. After watching the movie, I believe they were very successful in paying tribute to the original while making decisions to set their live action version apart and modern-ish for 2017.  I enjoyed it completely and thought it nearly perfect except for my few minor criticisms.  So I'm sticking with my 4.5 Star rating.  So, what movie will be on my mind next?  We shall see.

Beauty and the Beast Preview

Disney is doing it again.  We all know the story.  It's a "tale as old as time".  We all know the formula by now.  Disney is taking their classic movies and re-making, re-imagining, recreating them (whatever you want to call it) as live-action movies.  In 2010, Tim Burton and Disney brought the live-action version of Alice in Wonderland with Johnny Depp to the big screen.  Maleficent followed in 2014 starring Angelina Jolie re-telling the story of Sleeping Beauty.  Next was Cinderella in 2015 and 2016 gave us Pete's Dragon and The Jungle Book.  Now, Emma Watson reprises the role of Belle in Beauty and the Beast.  Disney's original groundbreaking animated masterpiece was released in November 1991.  It was nominated for Best Picture of the Year, the first of only 3 animated movies to ever be nominated for Best Picture.  

For any of you who don't know, here's the story: A selfish Prince is turned into a hideous beast and his staff are all made into furniture and kitchen utensils.  The curse will be broken if the Beast (Dan Stevens) can find true love before the last petal of a magic rose falls.  Meanwhile, in a quaint village nearby,  Belle (Emma Watson) does not fit in with the rest of the bubbly bimbos who are fawning over the town hunk, Gaston (Luke Evans).  Instead, she immerses herself in books and imagination, traits she gets from her inventor father Maurice (Kevin Kline). Lost in the woods, Maurice stumbles into the Beast's castle and is taken prisoner.  Belle finds him and offers herself up for his release.  The Beast agrees and their courtship begins.  Meanwhile, Maurice returns to the town to enlist Gaston's help in rescuing Belle and the villagers launch an assault on the castle for the final standoff.

The preview for Beauty and the Beast looks breathtakingly beautiful.  There is so much to show in so little time, so they don't really waste any of it trying to summarize the plot like they do in most previews, assuming you already know the story.  Instead, you are given little gems.  A glimpse of the Beast that looks like Disney's original animation come to life.  Brief shots of our favorite characters: Chip, Mrs. Potts (Emma Thompson), Cogsworth (Ian McKellen) and Lumiere (Ewan McGregor).  Emma Watson as Belle, who may not be the obvious choice, but looks in the preview to pull off the role quite well.  The CGI that looks like it will hold its own against Disney's latest reinvention of The Jungle Book that just won an Oscar for Best Visual Effects.  And some of the familiar music that made the first so special.  

I have extremely high expectations for Beauty and the Beast, but there are a few things that will have to be nailed for this to be perfect.  Belle.  As I just said, Watson doesn't immediately stand out as the obvious choice for the role.  She looks great in the preview, but can she hold it with the intelligence, grace, bravery, strength and singing required to match her predecessor's performance?  The animation also needs to be flawless.  This film now has two previous movies to live up to: the original animated version from 1991 that was nominated for Best Picture and the 2016 Jungle Book.  The music.  Jungle Book didn't hold back with their musical numbers and Beast certainly shouldn't at all.  Judging by the previews, they don't.  And finally, the ballroom scene.  The sweeping shot of the chandelier in the grand ballroom with Belle in her yellow dress and Best in his blue suit was nothing short of iconic and groundbreaking.  This film has a lot to live up to, but the preview makes it look like they're up to the task.  So I'm giving Beauty and the Beast a very enthusiastic and hopeful 4.5 Star Prediction.  Am I right?  We shall see. 

Saving Mr. Banks Review

5.0 Stars

Saving Mr. Banks from Walt Disney Pictures is the story of how Australian born author Pamela Lyndon "P. L." Travers (Emma Thompson) reluctantly agreed to allow Walt Disney (Tom Hanks) turn her best selling stories into a Hollywood movie.  We are all familiar with the popular Disney movie entitled Mary Poppins released in 1964, but the film was based on a series of books written by Travers in the 1930's in London.  Despite her less than modest upbringings, Travers found quite a bit of success from her books.  This film takes place at an important crossroads: Walt Disney has expressed interest in turning her books into a full length feature film right at the same time her funds from the book sales (which isn't selling any more) are completely gone.  Travers is in danger of losing her house and has no money left which is the only reason she agrees to even consider allowing her stories to be made into a movie.

The first rule in writing is simply to write.  The second rule, often debated as being the first, is that there are no rules.  That rule is usually followed with a series of "guidelines" for an aspiring author.  But the best, yet often most misinterpreted rule, is to write what you know.  Pamela Travers (born Helen Goff and later changed her name after her father Travers Goff, played by Colin Farrell) never had a nanny fly in from the clouds with a talking parrot umbrella.  But, in 1906, that's what it felt like to a little girl who was losing her father, her hero, when her aunt came to their shack of a house to care for them.  By the same token, Walt Disney never knew a talking mouse.  But, as a boy of 8 when his father made him and his older brother Roy walk morning and night in the snow delivering papers for his father's company else they felt the scorn of the buckle on his belt, that mouse was a good and dear friend to young Walt.  These were escapes, these were creations that stemmed from emotions that came to life either through written word, through drawings, or through movies that stirred common emotions in their audiences.  

A creator's greatest fear is not being criticized or told their creation is no good.  A true creator is not looking for praise, but a shared experience.  Criticism is actually good because it means people are talking about what you wrote or made.  No, a creator's greatest fears are that they will have no one to share their creation with, no audience to laugh or cry or think or become enraged or frightened.  A creator is also afraid that their work might be altered, corrupted, misrepresented and no longer true.  And that was Travers' biggest fear.  She didn't want Disney taking her family, her memories, her emotions and turning them into one of his cartoons.  Confused, Walt comments that she is talking about a "flying nanny with a talking umbrella" sent to save the children.  Her worst fears are realized when she rebuts saying, "You think Mary Poppins came to save the children?"

Saving Mr. Banks is the story of two stubborn, nearly immovable forces posing as two people looking to find a common ground.  Despite their best efforts, they actually do.  It takes Walt a while to understand the personal attachment Travers has to the books and their characters.  When it hits him, he realizes how close to home her stories really are.  It's then he is able to convince her that this story needs to be told and that he is the perfect one to tell it.  If you can set aside that this isn't a completely historical document, but rather based on the true events that transpired, if you have ever written or drawn or created or sang or built anything that came from your heart, this movie will entertain you and delight you and touch you as it did me. 

And perhaps that's why I gave this a perfect 5 star rating.  I cannot wait to own this movie.  As a writer, I also feel the sadness that my creations may never be shared with the world.  I also fear that if my creations do take flight, someday they may be twisted and bastardized to lose their true feeling that prompted their inception.  There are several touching scenes in the movie.  The limousine driver Ralph (Paul Giamatti) has a wonderful scene with Travers on the lawn outside the Disney Studios.  The scene in which the musical geniuses the Sherman brothers (B.J. Novak and Jason Schwartzman) finally propose a song that meets Travers' approval will almost have you applauding.  But for me, the scene that made me tear up the most, was the escort Travers received into the theatre at the premiere of Mary Poppins.  She was misunderstood to be a cold and unfeeling woman and that couldn't be further from the truth.  She had no family that would notice she was gone, no true friends (even envied those who gathered in the bar in the lobby of her Beverly Hills Hotel), and barely any human contact outside of her publisher and her maid.  Yet she spoke of emotions and life experiences that touched so many.  Though they didn't know the story, they knew the feelings.  And once Walt identified with those feelings, he knew he could tell the story.

I highly recommend this movie.  I'm sure this movie won't get the highest marks from everyone who watches it, but it moved me in such a way that I wouldn't feel right giving it any other rating.  So, what movie will be on my mind next?  We shall see.

Saving Mr. Banks Preview

Saving Mr. Banks from Walt Disney Pictures is the story of how Australian born author Pamela Lyndon "P. L." Travers (Emma Thompson) reluctantly agreed to allow Walt Disney (Tom Hanks) turn her best selling stories into a Hollywood movie.  We are all familiar with the popular Disney movie entitled Mary Poppins released in 1964, but the film was based on a series of books written by Travers in the 1930's in London.  Despite her less than modest upbringings, Travers found quite a bit of success from her books.  This film takes place at an important crossroads: Walt Disney has expressed interest in turning her books into a full length feature film right at the same time her funds from the book sales (which isn't selling any more) are completely gone.  Travers is in danger of losing her house and has no money left which is the only reason she agrees to even consider allowing her stories to be made into a movie.  

Saving Mr. Banks is also about two personal journeys.  Disney is riding high on the success of his movies and recent opening of his crowning achievement, Disneyland.  Though his intentions are good, he is surprised that Travers doesn't enthusiastically leap at the opportunity to grant him the authority to transform her children's stories into another Disney blockbuster movie.  Travers has grown rigid and closed-off over the years and it frustrates her and terrifies her to admit to herself or to anyone else that she needs anyone else's help with anything.  Both egos are put to the test as they slowly break down barriers to reach an agreement on what quickly becomes obviously more than just a series of fantastical tales for kids.

Travers grew up in Australia with her father (an unsuccessful bank manager who falls deep into alcoholism to cope with his failures), her mother, and her sister.  Though they fell on hard times, her father encouraged them always to dream big and tried to make the best of their situations for his family. Travers began making her own success in her teens as a published poet and budding actress.  She moved to England in the 1920's and began writing her Mary Poppins books in 1933.  Travers was always inspired and even somewhat emulated the writing of author J.M. Barrie who penned the Peter Pan story.  On the surface, Mary Poppins appears to be the story of a magical nanny sent to save the children in the story.  At least, that's what Walt assumed.  Travers further put up her guard against the whole idea of the movie responding, "You think Mary Poppins is saving the children?" It is clear that Travers was against the notion from the beginning and only entertained the idea out of sheer desperation for money.  She fights Walt every step of the way, but eventually the two manage to reach each other, to understand each other, and to touch each other's lives.  

Interestingly, this Disney movie about how Disney got the rights to make Disney's Mary Poppins is rated PG-13.  That should tell you already this movie is going to be deeper than dancing animated penguins singing alongside slapstick actor Dick Van Dyke (who also Travers protested vehemently).  The rating stems from some mild language, but mostly from the scenes that will take us to the darker world of her father's increased alcoholism and the effects it had on him and his family.  Saving Mr. Banks looks like it will be filled with laughs and tears and Oscar-worthy performances by Hanks and Thompson.  I'm predicting 4.5 stars, a movie I'd say was well worth the money to watch in theatres, one I'd probably pay to see again, and has a great likelihood of making it to my home collection.  Am I right?  We shall see.