La Belle et la Bête: une 30e célébration

I'm thinking they just tried to do too much here. They tried to combine storyboards, animated version footage and live actors to tell the story again, but it was too much of a mish-mash to make sense. Including the small live audience who applauded at the strangest times. Disappointing too that the couple never danced together nor kissed! Not very romantic. Josh Groban had gushed about the amazing costume/contraption they built for him but it didn't come off well with him peeking out from underneath. And as much as I admire H. E. R.'s talent I thought having her come down the stairs playing her electric guitar was just weird.

I loved the animated BEAUTY AND THE BEAST 30 years ago, so I was looking forward to seeing this anniversary tribute. Sadly it was an over-produced and stuffed with performers who were not up to film and staged versions of this classic. The show had energy and point whenever Rita Moreno (the charming host), and Josh Groban (as the Beast) were around for the live, sung numbers. They were interspersed with the original animated film. H. E. R was a vocally wan Belle. Shania Twain as Mrs. Potts was the worst vocal casting as Mrs. Potts with nothing to compare to the transcendent Angela Lansbury in the film. Already well into her late 60s, Lansbury imbued the character with warmth and sang this character part with theatrical flair. Ms. Twain sounded mature and not in a good way. She's not known as an actress and it showed. Vocal energy arrived with the casting of Josh Groban as the Beast, and he was wonderful. H. E. R is probably a fine R&B artist vocally, but out of her depth in a musical. Martin Short as Lumiere and David Alan Grier as Cogsworth, showed theatrical flair. "Be Our Guest" is meant to be a showstopper, and it is a highlight of the original film. Here it was amplified so far beyond its charm as to be annoying. Simply put, this was an over-produced mess. No doubt, mine will be a minority opinion. But this is a rare instance of Disney throwing a fortune at a beloved animated movie classic. I just wish it had been better cast and produced with a little more restraint.

I have enjoyed this, but I can understand why others may have not.

This is not a direct adaptation of the story as much as it is an homage to the original story and how that came to be. It is part documentary, part adaptation with mixed results.

I have found H. E. R. To be a charming Belle, Josh Groban was great as Beast (though underused), Joshua Henry was a fantastic Gaston and Rita Moreno was a delightful host. Shania Twain was not bad as Mrs. Potts, but lacked the theatricality that Angela Lansbury brought to the role. Martin short was Martin Short, meaning a joy and David Alan Grier was well cast Cogsworth.

I liked the sets they used and the costumes, though I have found the Beast to me a little more frightening than it might have been intended. The musical numbers were well done and well sang.

The different styles flow better in the beginning than they do in towards the end and I feel that for what they intended to do they showed too much of the original movie.

Is this bad? No.

Do you miss out on anything if you don't watch it? Depends on how much of a Beauty and the Beast fan you are.

I saw the original many years ago but don't remember much about it, so even the animated movie was like seeing this for the first time. I have also seen a version with Robert Carlyle as The Beast aka Rumplestiltskin and Emilie de Ravin as Belle, as one of the stories told in the ABC series "Once Upon a Time". The animated movie, of course, was fantastic. Narrator Rita Moreno, who did a fine job, introduced us to the animator responsible for Belle. He did a wonderful job, as did everyone involved in the excellent animation, and I have to stay the more realistic animation in movies now doesn't quite have that degree of charm. And the acting performances were wonderful. Of course Angela Lansbury's Mrs. Potts was great, and I had forgotten how good Paige O'Hara was.

So we were promised that live action sequences would be musical numbers. That wasn't quite true, as they tried to add some spoken word or dance sequences. We could see the cast walking past a portion of the live audience and that was nice. But after the animated film began, somehow I didn't see the first of the live action sequences as working. I was pleasantly surprised by H. E. R. Most of the time. I don't care for today's music and don't see talent when I see any of today's stars performing what passes for music. But H. E. R. Was fantastic in most of her numbers. Josh Groban was great too, at least as a singer, but his costume looked very strange and I can't imagine something that big being comfortable.

Martin Short was very good, especially on the amazing "Be Our Guest". Still, I couldn't stop comparing him to Jerry Orbach and sometimes felt something was missing. Most of the cast members with spoken lines did a very good job. Joshua Henry had a Shakespearean style that seemed overly pretentious for what is essentially a kids' production, but fine for something more sophisticated.

And I can't say enough about "Be Our Guest". Great singing, dancing, and objects appearing mysteriously from under the table as if by Disney magic.

The conventional dance numbers were great. Not sure how to feel about the wolves or whatever those were. But was the Pilobolus/Esther Williams routine really necessary? It just seemed strange, even if they were quite good.

Great costumes, except for the Beast. In my opinion, Groban should have performed offstage with someone else wearing that hideous thing. I mean hideous in a good way, if we can't see him in it. Great sets, too.

But not all was good. I still saw some of the live action sequences as pointless or not done as well as in the movie. And Shania Twain did not show how talented she really is. I don't know if she didn't have the voice for this sort of production, or whether the problem was her mike. When she sang "Beauty and the Beast", it was better. Not great, but the live audience seemed to like it. As I recall Twain didn't have lines, because of course only Lansbury could really do them right. Maybe Lansbury's vocals would have worked better.

And they couldn't avoid what passes for music in today's world. Actually, music of this type has been around a while, but that doesn't make it good. At one point heavy metal guitar was used, and I didn't care for it. And toward the end, why did H. E. R. Need to pick up a guitar and play that garbage? And some of the music toward the end sounded more like today's music than what was in the movie. Also, H. E. R. Couldn't avoid doing the extra syllables so many stars want to do today.

Mixing the animation and the live action may not have been a bad thing, and some of the live action was certainly good, but in other ways, live action just showed how much better the movie was.

I suppose it was worth seeing.

I've seen a lot of crybabies in these reviews. If you feel the need to complain about the race of the people portraying the characters, you have problems. They were all talented. This wasn't meant to be a live action movie, they did that years ago. This was to show the work that went into it 30yrs ago, along with remembering the scenes in the original movie, and then watching them act out the most poignant scenes and songs of the film. What is so hard to understand about that? Too many people calling it confusing, there was nothing confusing. It was entertaining, reminiscent, and everyone who was apart of it did a great job. Stop reading into everything like it needs to be Oscar worthy before it receives praise. Not to mention if you have kids, they will enjoy it, it was wholesome, fun entertainment.