suessis

I purposely waited until I had watched the whole first series before I commented largely because the first two or three episodes of every series are not enough to really gauge where a show is going. Now that I've seen it I rated this show as a 7 because I think it has a lot of potential and I am looking forward to more but the 1st season really went too fast. Certain elements of the story looked like they were thrown in there just to get them in. As someone who has read the books I was able to follow things pretty well but I'm not sure how a non-book reading audience has managed.

This is one of the most faithful adaptations to a book that I've ever seen. Still some key elements to the story were left out. I am hoping the show has reasons for this and we will find out in the next two seasons.

The show is beautifully shot and most of the writing is pretty good (make sure that Sarah Dollard writes most of the shows next time around. Her episodes were the best.) The special effects needed some work but they were serviceable.

Since Sundance has joined the mix of the financing please let that mean that there will be more episodes. This series DESPERATELY needed more time to tell the story. Another 2-3 episodes would have helped immensely with character building and believability. Here's hoping Bad Wolf has someone reading these comments and will look into that.

I have been wondering while listening to the reviews of this latest version of Disney's Beauty and the Beast how many of the critics panning it are Millennials who were kids when this came out and have been spoiled by the era of CGI. I was an adult when that film came out but loved it anyway. The 1991 version was a leap forward in Animation with its use of computer produced art and the more intimate storytelling that was only seen before in moments of The Little Mermaid.

When they said Disney had turned it into Broadway Musical I wasn't surprised because that is essentially what this is. It's a Menken/Ashman (with some help from Tim Rice) musical of which the 1991 film was simply one version. Menken and Ashman both treated it that way and the film was all that better for it. If you look at it from that perspective the why of redoing it can be answered. Like any other well- loved musical doing it again with a different cast and director will always be something people will want to do. I think it's time to see this for a new generation.

This is a visually stunning film. The CGI of the Beast was only distracting in the beginning but once you got connected to the performance that Dan Stevens gives it no longer matters. Like the 1991 version the colors in this film are vivid and bold. The set decoration and costuming are lavish and beautiful. The character design of the household objects is amazingly detailed. The film hearkens back in some ways to musical extravaganzas of the 50s and the 60. The "Belle" sequence reminded me of the film version of the Oliver musical. The "Gaston" sequence had moments that reminded me of Seven Brides for Seven Brothers and when Emma Watson sings "Belle (Reprise)" reminded me of Sound of Music. The end titles even had nod to the same genre.

The musical numbers were very well done particularly the rendition of the "Gaston". Of the new musical numbers "Evermore" and "How Does a Moment Last Forever" were beautiful and fit well into the new version. Emma Watson did a very good job as Belle. While her voice is not Broadway quality is sweet and charming. I think Autotune has been imagined on it because the media has told people it was there in the trailers. Dan Stevens as the Beast is very powerful and manages to give Beast life under all the CGI. The supporting cast (especially Luke Evans, Josh Gad, Ewan McGregor, and Emma Thompson) are all very good. The cast doing the voice parts also infuse life into their characters with their vocal performances. Despite his concerns about his French accent McGregor did a brilliant job with his role. Emma Thompson gave a pleasant rendition of "Beauty and the Beast".

While the film is reverent to the 1991 film it should be taken as its own entity. I highly recommend this film for family viewing. It is a beautiful, joyful experience.

The real star of this film is the extraordinary screenplay written by Aaron Sorkin. The characters he creates here are dark, flawed, and the epitome of the worst of the 2000s culture that the target audience of the film sprang from. Fincher does a fabulous job of interpreting this and bringing it to life on the screen. His visual of the script is bold and vibrant, exactly what was called for by the script.

The problem with this film is that the performances aren't really that spectacular. They are good enough to carry the film but that's the best I can say for them. Armie Hammer as the Winklevoss twins was probably the weakest link of the bunch. He hammed it up big time and turned them into caricatures. I still haven't figured out why Jesse Eisenberg's performance was so applauded. The performance at times was two dimensional.

All in all this is a great film. Fincher has done better with "The Curious Case of Benjamin Buttons" but this was arguably one of the better films of the years.