m4st4 wrote: ↑

March 12th, 2019, 9:46 am

Nomis wrote: ↑

March 12th, 2019, 9:26 am

I just saw the whole film

basically

I mean, we know the whole film. It’s just a matter of: is it Cinderella good... or is it Beauty and the Beast bad? Or somewhere in the middle, a la Jungle Book. Right now I’m leaning towards maybe I’ll be able to live with myself after watching it.

It looks Beauty and the Beast bad. It feels just as fake.

Beauty and the Beast was bad?

Cilogy wrote: ↑

March 12th, 2019, 10:15 am

Beauty and the Beast was bad?

Yes. Feel free to tell me it wasn’t so I can foe you.

m4st4 wrote: ↑

March 12th, 2019, 10:39 am

Cilogy wrote: ↑

March 12th, 2019, 10:15 am

Beauty and the Beast was bad?

Yes. Feel free to tell me it wasn’t so I can foe you.

I mean, I think it had bright moments.

I wouldn't call it bad simply because Gad, McGregor and McKellan were great. Like, there was a bunch of auxiliary stuff that was good around the main core.

Watson was clearly just a pretty face.

Cilogy wrote: ↑

March 12th, 2019, 11:20 am

m4st4 wrote: ↑

March 12th, 2019, 10:39 am

Cilogy wrote: ↑

March 12th, 2019, 10:15 am

Beauty and the Beast was bad?

Yes. Feel free to tell me it wasn’t so I can foe you.

I mean, I think it had bright moments.

I wouldn't call it bad simply because Gad, McGregor and McKellan were great. Like, there was a bunch of auxiliary stuff that was good around the main core.

Watson was clearly just a pretty face.

i was gonna correct your grammar as a joke [ i cant explain how that qualifies as a joke but it does to me] saying you meant anciliary instead of auxiliary but then i googled it and it turns out they mean the same thing

the lesson being the real joke is the english language

Cilogy wrote: ↑

March 12th, 2019, 11:20 am

Watson was clearly just a pretty face.

But that's the role.

Numbers wrote: ↑

March 12th, 2019, 2:49 pm

Cilogy wrote: ↑

March 12th, 2019, 11:20 am

Watson was clearly just a pretty face.

But that's the role.

For real? ‘Just a pretty face’ is a code for a ‘pretty cardboard cutout’, Belle is supposed to ignite both desire and romance inside the beast. She is also a book worm, Watson had a lot to play with but the hard truth is she can’t, she doesn’t have it. Naomi Scott is a weird white substitute for Jasmine but I’m betting she’ll be more interesting.

@numbers No the role requires charm and screen presence as well as a good singing voice. Now Watson is a good actress. She is terrific in Perks. But something is really off about her Belle. She didn't immediately feel like a miscast at first. But somehow she really wasn't up for the job.

Stevens and Evans are the best things about the film for me.£

Master Virgo wrote: ↑

March 12th, 2019, 3:17 pm

@numbers No the role requires charm and screen presence as well as a good singing voice. Now Watson is a good actress. She is terrific in Perks. But something is really off about her Belle. She didn't immediately feel like a miscast at first. But somehow she really wasn't up for the job.

Stevens and Evans are the best things about the film for me.£

Exactly.

Sheesh. I wasn't serious.
I just meant to point out that she was the Beauty of the Beauty and the Beast.

I'm not dumb, y'all.
I think.