Film Review & Discussion

[holmes221B]

I have heard of The Great Wall, but I have never heard of The Wall. Even though it came out this year, the title is very unfamiliar to me. By "one location", do you mean like one huge area or one small area? Sorry if I seem too dumb, I just wanted some clarification.

[Leopardnight]

Oh, no worries!
The entire film takes place in a construction site. There's room to run around and it's a fairly large area, but the entire film is set there.

[Puzzles101]

Sorry to change the subject, but I am rather excited for the new Pirates of the Caribbean movie that is coming out this Friday.

Sure, it took them five movies to finally name a movie after the theme park ride, Dead Men Tell No Tales, but I have always enjoyed those movies, even though the first one was my favourite and the fourth one made no sense, but they were all still good, for me that is. My opinion: I have not seen a good movie that came out this year so far in a while (except for Beauty and the Beast and maybe a few others), and I am rather curious to see what adventure is coming next for Captain Jack Sparrow, even though I heard that this will be the last movie with Jack Sparrow in it.

[Anza]

Sorry to change the subject, but I am rather excited for the new Pirates of the Caribbean movie that is coming out this Friday.

Sure, it took them five movies to finally name a movie after the theme park ride, Dead Men Tell No Tales, but I have always enjoyed those movies, even though the first one was my favourite and the fourth one made no sense, but they were all still good, for me that is. My opinion: I have not seen a good movie that came out this year so far in a while (except for Beauty and the Beast and maybe a few others), and I am rather curious to see what adventure is coming next for Captain Jack Sparrow, even though I heard that this will be the last movie with Jack Sparrow in it.

I am also incredibly excited about this movie! Honestly, I thought they should have stopped after At Worlds End. Personally At Worlds End was my favorite as well as the first one. They should have just made three! I felt as though the fourth movie not only made no sense but was an attempt to get more money for Disney. It was just a money grab! As long as this new one is better then the fourth I'll be pleased. I mean Johnny Depp is always just so good no matter what role he plays ^^

[Dizzy socks]

Bizarrely, in the last week i've watched both Shutter Island and the new Pirates of The Caribbean - and enjoyed both of them. I don't want to spoil anything with the Pirates, but having not seen the prior films, I was pleasantly surprised. It was funny at times, and moving at others. And Depp excelled.

Shutter Island was amazing, I thoroughly enjoyed it. I enjoyed the ambiguity maintained throughout - there was a never a truly definitive moment as to which perception of the story was real.

[Captain Peregrin]

Well, I watched Beauty and the Beast yesterday. I liked it more than I thought I would! I can definitely see why some people would prefer it to the animated version - it has less goofy moments and feels a little more grounded. I loved what they did with the side characters! The problem for me was more with the three central characters (Belle, Gaston, and the Beast). I really wasn't fond of the Beast's design - it was way too humanoid, more like a satyr than any real animal, and it's just never as scary as the old one. Also his temper is pretty downplayed and they blame everything on his father, which might have been a bit more tolerable if they had given any indication of what that had entailed. As for Belle...it's tough to make that character interesting, and I don't think they managed it. She just turns into "woman too smart for her time" even though it's clearly late 1800's France and a reading woman shouldn't be that strange by itself - the outrage when she teaches the little girl to read is a bit much. And I know why they made her try to escape so early (to counter those persistent claims of Stockholm syndrome), but I preferred the Belle who promised to stay to the Belle who promised to escape. Gaston just lost most of his charm. He's a creep, and that's about it. The general tone of wanting to "fix" all the little issues with the original only serves to draw attention to its own issues, with the most prominent for me being that horse. So much rides on Phillip (pun intended), being intelligent in that cartoonish way, and also people ride him everywhere (usually at a gallop) and he never even gets winded. And they leave his bridle on and expect him to eat. It just clashes with the more realistic tone. Another thing that I thought of: If the enchanted servants were growing more and more still and object-like, why not have the Beast getting more beast-like?

[WHEN'DHEGO?!?!]

Actually, it takes place in the 1700s, same reason why they got rid of the Eiffel Tower bit in Be Our Guest, because it hadn't been built yet.
It's extra pointless to try to 'fix' the Stockholm Syndrome thing, because the first movie makes it abundantly clear that she doesn't have it too. She leaves as soon as she's allowed to, and only goes back and stays of her own accord.

[holmes221B]

Pardon me for being dumb, but what does Stockholm Syndrome have to do with Beauty and the Beast?

I liked the new Beauty and the Beast, but I agree that there were some problems. I agree with the fact that Beast's design was more like a satyr. Another fact that I agree on is that Beast didn't act more "beast-like" while the servants grew more inanimate. The third is that the music and the songs were changed, as mostly represented by the first song in the movie "Belle". In my opinion, I liked the part in the original that had someone say "Maurie, the baguettes! Hurry up!" but they instead put in a man who forgets everything.

[Captain Peregrin]

Pardon me for being dumb, but what does Stockholm Syndrome have to do with Beauty and the Beast?

It's a really stupid internet thing. Some people like to criticize Beauty and the Beast by saying that Belle just has Stockholm Syndrome (she doesn't). But evidently the director of this version took it into consideration, anyway.

[Silverhart]

Judging by the costumes it's definitely early-mid 1700s (you know, I always thought the original was set earlier). I don't know very much about France in that era, but I do know in England at the time it wasn't uncommon for women of all classes to read. The literacy rate among women was still probably lower than men, but there were plenty of books written specifically for women (some even by women), and accounts of women reading to children. So yeah, it's sort of odd that they decided on a specific time period that was marked with a rise in literacy and books. I mean, it's literally called The Age of Enlightenment.

I can see how people could accuse the story of Stockholm syndrome, but I agree that was never really the case in the original movie. It has nothing to do with the story, or the meaning it's trying to convey. Both Belle and the Beast had to change themselves (the Beast moreso) in order to cultivate a relationship.