The BFG/Beauty and the Beast

For his adaptation of the Roald Dahl classic, Steven Spielberg joined with screenwriter Melissa Mathison again, who worked with him on “E.T.” almost 35 years ago. Another story of an unlikely friendship, “The BFG,” released in 2016, is even more incredible and serious, and also relying heavily on effects. However, it’s also highly involving, with a great cast and obviously a beloved story with an ironic sense of humor.

It’s set in an ageless London, where Sophie, played by Ruby Barnhill, lives in an orphanage. One night she sees a silent giant, played by Mark Rylance, stomping the city streets, so he takes her back to Giant Country so she can’t reveal that he exists. As she gets to know him, Sophie sees that he’s an outcast amongst his own kind, half the size of nine giants (Bill Hader, Michael Adamthwaite, Daniel Bacon, Chris Gibbs, Adam Godly, Paul Moniz de Sa, Jonathan Holmes and Ólafur Darri Ólafsson) who live around him and tease him harshly because he doesn’t eat human beans. Rich Cline said in his review, “This has earned him the nickname Big Friendly Giant, which Sophie shortens to BFG as she accompanies him into a colourful parallel world in his job collecting dreams and nightmares. “ Then when the bullies’ threats get worse, Sophie thinks of a plan to get help from the Queen (Penelope Wilton) and her staff (Rebecca Hall and Rafe Spall).

Cline said, “With a surging emotional score by John Williams, the film has an earnest tone that's sometimes rather overpowering, especially as Spielberg gives everything a storybook glow, from the puddled cobblestone streets of London to the windswept topography of Giant Country and the glowing colours in the dream realm.” The film looks amazing, and performance-capture work makes the giants into lively characters. Rylance is really recognizable as BFG, and he face is really expressive. He and Barnhill make great partners, and both give great performances that make their characters relatable. Cline noted, “Although it's impossible not to wish the film looked a bit more realistic and grounded.”

Cline continued, “The best scenes are the ones that bristle with real-world wit, such as the lively sequence in which Sophie and BFG visit Buckingham Palace. In these moments, there's an satirical edge to the slapstick that adds a striking layer of meaning. Otherwise, the film feels goofy rather than blackly ironic.” For example, the main bully Fleshlumpeater (Clement) is really evil, but his tortures are funny when it should be scary. Despite that, Spielberg has the talent of getting into the childlike thought in everyone, and this film has a lot of that. It also thankfully never goes over into silliness as it tells us of the strength of unexpected friendship.

Now I come to a movie that I was really disappointed with, the 2017 remake of one of all time favorite classics, “Beauty and the Beast.” You might say that there’s nothing wrong with Emma Watson’s singing, but her professional judgment is a little off.

Acting in Disney’s live-action remake of “Beauty and the Beast” as her first huge lead after Harry Potter makes you think things on so many different ways (especially since Watson decided this over Emma Stone’s Oscar-winning role in “La La Land”).

Vicky Roach said in his review, “This rather antiseptic adaptation of Jeanne-Marie Leprince de Beaumont’s 18th Century fairy tale about a kind-hearted young woman who falls in love with the monstrous prince that kidnaps her is a curious choice for an actress who has made more headlines, in recent years, for her feminist activism.”

This film’s highly successful Disney live action ancestor, “Maleficent,” remade from “Sleeping Beauty” from the point of view of the famous 1959 villain (Angelina Jolie).

Tim Burton’s earlier, surprising remake of “Alice in Wonderland” recast Mia Wasikowska as a Joan of Arc-type fighter strong enough to kill a jabberwocky or two.

Roach noted, “A version of Beauty and the Beast that explores Belle’s Stockholm syndrome tendencies might have been worth exploring.” However, Bill Condon stays close to the beloved 1991 animated movie’s main story.

Roach said, “What “modern” tweaks there are feel token.”

Belle is hated in the village where she lives with her father, played by Kevin Kline, because she reads books. Roach said, “Puh-lease (although to be fair, most of the townsfolk, male and female, appear to be illiterate).”

A lot has been made of Josh Gad’s bizarrely strange LeFou, crying sidekick to the evil Gaston, played by Luke Evans.

However, if Disney’s first openly gay character was going to be pathetic flatterer, the filmmakers would have been better to leave a lot alone.

The disappointment of Dan Steven’s Prince, on the other hand, is probably common to the story, no human actor could match the CGI Beast with five minutes of screen time.

Roach mentioned, “Criticism of Disney’s animation is tantamount to blasphemy (for a “live action” film, Beauty and the Beast has an awful lot of CGI), but for this viewer, some of the imagery simply didn’t cut it.”

For example, the eyes on Emma Thompson’s Mrs. Potts feel basic and fake and the veteran British actress’s voice fails to exceed the severity of the original animated one.

Ewan McGregor’s candelabra Lumiere is a little more flexible. However, Ian McKellen feels miscast as Cogsworth.

Roach credited, “Watson fulfils her role as a classic Disney musical lead more than adequately — she’s the best thing about Beauty and the Beast.”

However, the filmmakers have nothing – besides the greatness in digital technology – to add to what is a story everyone knows.

Roach ended her review by saying, “Twenty-five years after its first, groundbreaking Disney outing, in the wake of gender-redefining female leads in animated Disney triumphs such as Moana and Frozen, Beauty and the Beast feels almost like a throwback.”

Check in tomorrow for the next installment on another novel adaptation in “Disney Live-Action Month.”