Beauty and the Beast
for some action violence, peril and frightening images.
Reviewed by: Blake Wilson
CONTRIBUTOR
| Moral Rating: | Offensive |
| Moviemaking Quality: |
|
| Primary Audience: | Kids Family Teens Adults |
| Genre: | Family Fantasy Musical Romance 3D Adaptation |
| Length: | 2 hr. 9 min. |
| Year of Release: | 2017 |
| USA Release: |
March 17, 2017 (wide—4,210 theaters) DVD: June 6, 2017 |
Is the Prince’s (the Beast) evil behavior simply a result of an innocent child having a bad father (as Mrs. Potts says), or is every person responsible for their own actions? See: What is sin? and the Fall of Man
Both Belle and LeFou LIE. What does the Bible say about lying and deceipt?
What is more important, beautiful appearance or beautiful CHARACTER and beautiful ACTIONS?
looking beyond a person’s exterior and bad behavior, to love them and encourage them to be better
What is true love and how do you know when you have found it? Answer
What’s wrong with being gay? Answer
Homosexual behavior versus the Bible: Are people born gay? Does homosexuality harm anyone? Is it anyone’s business? Are homosexual and heterosexual relationships equally valid?
What about gays needs to change? Answer
It may not be what you think.
| Featuring |
Emma Watson … Belle Dan Stevens … Beast / Prince Luke Evans … Gaston, the ruthless hunter Josh Gad … Le Fou, Gaston’s sidekick Ian McKellen … Cogsworth the butler and mantel clock Stanley Tucci … Maestro Cadenza, composer and harpsichord Kevin Kline … Maurice, Belle’s father Emma Thompson … Mrs. Potts, housemaid and teapot Ewan McGregor … Lumière, the valet and candelabra Gugu Mbatha-Raw… Plumette, the maid and a feather duster Audra McDonald … Madame de Garderobe, the opera singer, Cadenza's wife, and a wardrobe See all » |
| Director | Bill Condon — “Kinsey” (2004), “Gods and Monsters” (1998), “Dreamgirls” (2006) |
| Producer |
Mandeville Films Walt Disney Pictures See all » |
| Distributor |
This live-action remake of Disney’s acclaimed animated classic “Beauty and the Beast” retells the tale of a spoiled, selfish prince (Dan Stevens). After refusing an old woman shelter from the bitter cold, the prince is transformed into a hideous beast by an enchantress, and his castle is put under a powerful spell. Meanwhile, a young woman named Belle (Emma Watson), wants more than just a “provincial life.”
On his way to the fair, Belle’s father Maurice (Kevin Kline), is ambushed by a pack of wolves. Trying to seek shelter, he stumbles upon the beast’s castle. Having promised Belle he would bring her a rose, he takes one from the castle gardens and is captured by the Beast. Belle later comes to his rescue, and willingly takes his place in the castle dungeon.
Now the Beast’s prisoner, Belle befriends some of the servants in the castle, who have all been transformed into household objects. For a while, Belle remains unaware that she may be the key to reversing the spell. The Beast’s chances of returning to being human are all based on the timing of an enchanted rose and how fast it petals fall. If the Beast can learn to love another and earn her love in return, the spell will be broken. But if not, he and the servants remain the way they are forever.
Production Quality
At many points, I felt Disney and director Bill Condon did the animated movie justice. Though, perhaps the music is the best thing here. A fantastic musical on its own (having the original and having seen the stage play), the original’s songs are brought to life in a mostly fantastic style. I will say I think both “Belle,” “Kill the Beast” and “Something There” were realized in a way that was better than the cartoon, while “Be Our Guest” and “Gaston” didn’t quite live up to the original animated versions (though the animation in the “Be Our Guest” sequence is terrific). Three new songs from Alan Menken and Tim Rice are added in, and are surprisingly effective. I found “Days in the Sun” and “How Does a Moment Last Forever” to be very touching (especially the latter’s Celine Dion version in the end credits), while “Evermore” was fantastic. Stevens’ fantastic vocals aside, the song gave me chills. I guess you could think of it as a more melancholy, male-driven version of “Let it Go” from “Frozen.”
The casting is overall great. The best performances go to Stevens, Emma Thompson as Mrs. Potts, and Luke Evans as Gaston. Stevens really does a great job bringing his character to life, and brings some emotion behind the computer animation to help bring the Beast to life. Thompson comes very close to Angela Lansbury a handful of times, and sings the title song (“Beauty and the Beast”) very well. Evans brings a different side to Gaston that is both convincing and effective.
As for Watson, I found her performance to be a mixed bag. There were moments she did a great job, and she can sing. But, she didn’t engage me in the way that Paige O'Hara did in the original. The original Belle’s singing and speaking voice had me glued to the screen as a 3 and 4 year old (same with Jodi Benson’s original Ariel in “The Little Mermaid”), and had a kindness and warmth that Watson doesn’t quite carry here. Watson has the attitude and looks of Belle’s character, but she lacks in the heart department. I also found her reactions to the objects in “Be Our Guest” sadly unconvincing.
Visually, I found “Beauty and the Beast” to be amazing. The sets and costumes are spectacular, and really do bring the movie’s feel to life. Visual effects are a little off-kilter, at some moments, but they work very well, too, at many times. A couple of moments from the stage play appear. Many quotes are pulled cleverly from the animated movie, and, unlike the original, which starts off with stained glass windows, the opening scene is shown for real this time. And, I have to say, the way they realized it was spectacular. I felt like the animated movie was coming to life. At the same time, though, the ending didn’t quite have the same sense of awe the original had. The original ended with a beautiful stained glass window, the ending here was slightly abrupt and didn’t carry that same feel.
On the downside, some character and plot changes are a little annoying and unnecessary. How Maurice ends up being almost put into an asylum is changed drastically, and the character of Gaston is changed in this plot to almost a bipolar sociopath. I also thought that Belle being told about the spell (mostly) is not something that should have happened, as she was never verbally told about it in the animated version. Finally, a scene where Belle and the Beast travel to Paris through a magical book feels somewhat out-of-place and isn’t necessary.
Positive Messages
There are two main messages in both the animated and live-action “Beauty and the Beast.” One is that the outside appearance should not be a guiding force in life. Instead, it’s one’s character and actions that show who we truly are. We see the enchantress change the prince to reflect, on the outside, who he is on the inside. Then, as the movie progresses and Belle influences him, we see the Beast start to show a more kind, humble spirit. In comparison, we see Gaston as being more appealing on the outside, but on the inside to be boorish and incredibly selfish. This theme is very Biblical, as 1st Samuel lets us know that God does the same thing.
“But the LORD said to Samuel, ‘Do not consider his appearance or his height, for I have rejected him. The LORD does not look at the things people look at. People look at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart’.” —1 Samuel 16:7
The second main message is the idea of sacrificial love. This is first shown when Belle sacrifices her dreams and freedom to save her father. Later, when the Beast falls in love with Belle, he chooses to sacrifice his dreams of returning to being human in order to give Belle what she wants. We also see this in a surprising backstory about Belle’s parents, where one parent makes a sacrifice in order to protect Belle. The idea of sacrificial love is a key theme in the Bible as well, as God sacrificed His Son, Jesus Christ, to give us a chance at having eternal life. The Apostle John’s letter comes to mind here:
“By this we know love, that he laid down his life for us, and we ought to lay down our lives for the brothers.” —1 John 3:16
My grandmother, who attended the movie with me, gave me another positive theme from the movie. The Beast’s appearance resembles what the prince was on the inside at the time—the selfish, spoiled, unkind characteristics that we as humans struggle with. We as humanity were doomed to die and spend eternity in torment and horror for the evil we have done. Belle’s love for the man inside of the Beast redeems the Prince back to humanity and back to the light. In this case, this comparison can be made for Scripture’s meaning of what true Biblical love is. It takes an act of love to bring us back into the light. Just like this, Jesus’ act of love brought us out of the darkness and into the light.
“For you were formerly darkness, but now you are Light in the Lord; walk as children of Light” —Ephesians 5:8.
We also see strong examples of parental love in Belle’s father, and Belle shows the desire to help her friends and others. Belle is a strong and brave individual who always strives to be more than her limitations.
We also see a positive image of Jesus on the cross in a book shop.
Content of concern
Violence: The overall violence is amped up one or two notches from the animated movie. There are two wolf chases. One wolf looks like it has a gash on one its eyes. Maurice’s horse is nearly done in by the wolves, and the wolves snap at both Maurice and Belle. The Beast gets into a brawl with the wolves, and one sinks its teeth for a few moments into the Beast’s shoulder. The Beast drags a couple of people away somewhat violently. We see bite marks on someone’s stomach, apparently from a wrestling match. Belle throws a pot onto a character in defense. In the climax, people approach the castle with torches and swords. Gaston shoots his gun and hits its target a few times. One character falls to an apparent death. People are hit by teacups, a wardrobe, hot water, and other things in a slapstick battle between humans and enchanted objects. The Beast is tossed around and crashes into a couple of things during a fight scene. Someone is punched in the face and left for the wolves. There is comical, choreographed sword fighting in a tavern. A flashback shows someone with bruises on her face, and is shown to be fatally ill.
Language: The Beast uses a harsher word twice for what happened to him, but not in a profane context. For example, he says he’s been “eternally damned,” and also “you could have damned us all!”. Characters are called “idiots” a few times.
Drugs/Alcohol: Some alcohol might be visible at the tavern, but it’s hard to tell.
Sexual Content: Women are shown in cleavage-revealing outfits sometimes. Three women are clearly after Gaston, sighing and swooning at his appearance. There are a few kisses between couples. One very awkward and shoehorned moment shows the wardrobe attack three men and dress them in girls’ clothes. Two of them scream and run, while one smiles and marches off, giving the impression he likes dressing like a woman. The wardrobe then says, “Go on, be free!”
As many people know, this version of “Beauty and the Beast” has received a lot of controversy for what the director has called “an exclusively gay moment,” an apparent Disney first. The character of Le Fou (Josh Gad), Gaston’s sidekick, is the character assigned as Disney’s first “LGBT character.” Condon says, “Gaston is a character who wants to be like Gaston one day, and kiss Gaston the next.” Here is what I found most notable:
Le Fou comically says, after Gaston states he wants to marry Belle, “But there won’t be any more us.”
Le Fou prances around effeminately throughout the musical number “Gaston” (much more than the animated version). At one point, he has Gaston wrap his arms around him. Le Fou then asks, “Too much?,” to Gaston’s immediate disgust.
At one point, once Gaston becomes dead-set on killing the Beast, Le Fou tells another character, “We’re just in a bad place right now.” The character replies, “You’re too good for him anyway.”
For two seconds during the closing reprise of “Beauty and the Beast,” Le Fou hooks up with another guy, and they start dancing. This is the supposed “gay moment” and “payoff” the director had in mind to confirm Le Fou’s sexuality. This moment feels very shoehorned and forced into the ending song. In my opinion, this blink-and-you’ll miss it moment doesn’t clearly say as much as the LGBT community hoped. The two male characters have looks of shock on their faces, almost as if it is purely an accident and intended for laughs; it is during a dance when partners change.
That being said, though, the director’s intention cannot and should not be ignored. The Bible clearly warns in 1 Corinthians that homosexuality is a sin.
“Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.” —1 Corinthians 6:9-10
Other: Some characters lie and deceive. A dog is shown urinating on a hatstand at one point.
Conclusion
As a fan of Disney and the original film (which was the first animated movie to ever be nominated for Best Picture at the Oscars), I had not anticipated a movie like this in at least a few years. “Beauty and the Beast” always seemed like it was destined to have a live-action remake, as it is more of a human story than many of Disney’s cartoons. Plus, with “Cinderella,” “The Jungle Book” and the excellent “Pete’s Dragon” all translating to big screen brilliance, this movie’s presence is far from a surprise (as a fan, I would love it if Disney remade “Hunchback of Notre Dame” and “The Aristocats,” just a quick note if anyone from the studio is reading).
And, I have to say, at times, I really had a great time watching “Beauty and the Beast.” The transition from animation to live-action can be impressive and bring the same sense of wonder and magic the original brought. The soundtrack is spectacular, it’s a visual smörgåsbord, and the same strong moral and Biblical messages are shining here once again.
But, at the same time, this version of “Beauty and the Beast” breaks ground for Disney in a very unfortunate way. The decision to put in moments that hint at a character’s homosexuality is something that should have been reconsidered. Yes, it’s somewhat subtle. The way Le Fou acts in the “Gaston” number is much more of an indicator of his sexuality, honestly, than the two men dancing scene at the end. Yes, nothing is really spelled out, so younger kids probably won’t pick up on it, and any real uncomfortable moments are few and very brief. One might would wonder if the director had not publicized it, some might not have noticed it.
But, regardless, it is safe to say that Disney has sadly acquiesced to the left-wing pressure of “LGBT representation” in their films. It’s worth noting that staying away from worldly, political issues entirely is the reason why many go to the movies in the first place. They go for entertainment and escapism from daily worldly issues, and don’t want to be subjected to political statements, no matter how “subtle” they may be. I should also point out that this idea is not new for children’s/family movies, as similar controversy surrounded recent films such as “How to Train Your Dragon 2,” “Storks,” “Finding Dory,” and “Zootopia.”
Altogether, due to the subtle push of ideas that are contrary to God’s Word (as well as some intense moments and light magical elements), this version of “Beauty and the Beast” falls short of something I can recommend. It’s really a shame though, because those suggestive and awkward moments aside, it’s a really good remake with great music and some truly spectacular moments.
For parents and Christians who are unsure about what to do about this film, I would say take the content problems in this review into consideration before making a decision for yourself (and your family). Some think this movie should be avoided altogether, while some think of it as a teaching moment for their children regarding the worldly topics this movie lightly touches on. I will also say, for those who don’t have peace seeing this, the 1991 original is worthy of a re-watch. Because, while the remake does come close at times, it doesn’t quite recapture (as a whole) the same special and unique sense of awe and wonder that the original has.
Violence: Moderate / Profanity: Minor / Sex/Nudity: Mild
Editor’s note about the LGBTQ TACTIC used in this film
LGBTQ activists know that lightly inserting their agenda content into enjoyable and disarming movies that YOUR KIDS will watch (and view repeatedly) is MUCH MORE EFFECTIVE in achieving their goals than trying to get most non-LGBTQ parents to show their kids full-force LGBTQ propaganda and eroticism movies (although plenty of the later are produced). This same tactic is very effectively used by Liberals, to promote the message that nudity, casual sexual activity among teens, fornication or/and adultery are “totally normal and acceptable,” not sins that are actually very dangerous and lead to broken lives and more evil.
Being godly parents
Remember that God told parents to teach His commandments to their children—teaching them goodness and righteousness, proper fear of the Lord, to recognize sin and flee from it.
You shall teach them to your children, speaking of them when you sit in your house, when you walk by the way, when you lie down, and when you rise up. —Deuteronomy 11:19 (NKJV)
About Disney, and what to expect next
Although the LGBTQ agenda is not strongly pushed in this film (likely to avoid greater financial risk), it is definitely (and purposely) there and is part of a clear trend.
-
1991: Disney World begins hosting Gay pride events. By 2010, Gay Days at Walt Disney World (first Saturday in June, preceded by a week of area LGBT events) “is now one of the largest gay pride events in the world” (Time and Wikipedia).
1998: At a Gay and Lesbian student conference (UC-Santa Cruz), leading Gay activist Elizabeth Birch, a lesbian and former chair of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force reveals a recent conversation with then Disney CEO Michael Eisner in which he corrected her belief that 30% of Disney’s employees were Gay, telling her that it was actually 40%. (A video of her saying this at the conference is publicly available from Americans for Truth, who wonders what the LGBTQ percentage is now, 18 years later.)
April 2014: The Atlantic magazine (politics: left of center) publishes an article reporting, “It's not just Frozen: most Disney movies are pro-Gay / By preaching acceptance and questioning gender, the company’s kids films offer a queer-studies crash course.”
March 2016: The Walt Disney Company threatens to BOYCOTT Georgia over the state’s “Religious Freedom Restoration Act,” claiming it is anti-Gay and Lesbian.
May 2016: The Washington Post publishes an article titled “Are we ready for a gay Disney princess? We may be closer than you think.” (The newspaper is owned by Progressive Liberal activist Jeff Bezos, CEO of Amazon.)
May 2016: An activist starts a LGBTQ Twitter campaign that expands quickly—calling on Disney to make Frozen’s Elsa a lesbian, to promote LGBTQ to kids.
September 2016: Actress/singer Idina Menzel, the voice of Elsa in “Frozen” and the upcoming “Frozen 2” (2018), says on The Ellen DeGeneres Show, “I’m all for it. I think it’s a wonderful idea.”
November 2016: The Huffington Post reports that Disney’s “‘Moana’ directors say ‘possibilities are open’ for an LGBTQ Disney princess.”
February 2017: Disney XD cable channel shows a cartoon (aimed at young teens) that includes not only boys and girls kissing, but also Gay and Lesbian kisses in an episode of “Star vs. The Forces of Evil”.
-
The real Alfred Kinsey (1955). In the movie, “Kinsey” (directed by “Beauty and the Beast” Director Bill Condon, and starring Liam Neeson), Kinsey is shown engaging in or endorsing adultery, swinging, bisexuality, homosexuality, group sex, pornography, and sadomasochism.March 2017: The director that Disney chose for this “Beauty and the Beast” family film is the director of the “Kinsey” (2004) theatrical drama that endorses virtually ALL sexual sins, including homosexuality. He also directed the homosexual themed “Gods and Monsters”. Director Bill Condon is openly homosexual and proudly announces his insertion of a more overt Gay character in a Disney kids’ movie.
Secular mass media outlets tell the world that this new “Beauty and the Beast” is a “watershed moment” for Disney, sending an even clearer public message that Disney IS promoting homosexuality as normal and totally acceptable (not a sin and rebellion against God).
In light of what has been happening, it is not surprising that Franklin Graham says of Disney…
“They’re trying to push the LGBT agenda into the hearts and minds of your children—watch out! Disney has the right to make their cartoons, it’s a free country. But as Christians we also have the right not to support their company. I hope Christians everywhere will say no to Disney. I met Walt Disney when I was a young boy—he was very gracious to me, my father Billy Graham, and my younger brother when we visited. He would be shocked at what has happened to the company that he started.”
What’s next? The trend is clear, but not necessarily inevitable. The future depends on the response of Christian consumers.
Are you a Christian parent with a daughter attracted to EMMA WATSON AS A HERO AND ROLE MODEL?
Emma is regularly on our prayer list. Time magazine placed her on their list of the world’s 100 most influential people.
Few, if any, worldly celebrities people are suitable role models for followers of Christ. They have unregenerate hearts and minds, and follow the false worldviews of a sinful world in prideful rebellion against their Creator—leading fans astray from true goodness, righteousness, true justice and holiness. Our role model should be Christ. That should be enough said about this issue. If you need specific information about Emma’s worldview, read below…
Moral rating: Better than Average / Moviemaking quality: 4
Moral rating: Average / Moviemaking quality: 4
Moral rating: Good / Moviemaking quality: 5
Moral rating: Average / Moviemaking quality: 5
Moral rating: Excellent! / Moviemaking quality: 5
There were a few changes that I didn’t like. The most major one was that Belle was directly told about the curse (though not how to break it), whereas in the animated version we only see her look at a picture of the Prince, and it is left up to viewer interpretation whether or not she has figured out that the Beast used to be a human. However, it is likely that this change was made in order to tone down the “bestiality” theory that some viewers of the movie have, as directly stating that Belle knows that the Beast used to be human makes it so that this theory is no longer valid. However, at the same time it lacks the subtlety that the original movie had. See all »
Moral rating: Good / Moviemaking quality: 4½
Moral rating: Extremely Offensive / Moviemaking quality: 5
Biblically-speaking, there are effeminate moments, and some violence with a little blood. There are two variations of “d*mn,” but the word is not used in a profane context. As in the 1991 movie, there is no blasphemy, profanity, or nudity.
Moral rating: Average / Moviemaking quality: 5
I get the controversial topic, but I will assure you that it’s not Like it sounds; it’s a couple of times actually that moments happened. In my opinion, 1st was the Gaston song, there is a slightly suggestive dance with Le Fou and Gaston, and then there is the end part. Which is no big deal, but I still say take the family, you will love it
Moral rating: Good / Moviemaking quality: 3
Moral rating: Better than Average / Moviemaking quality: 5
We are weary of this perverted indoctrination. When will it stop? Probably not in this life. We are all like Lot; we live here in the midst, but we are daily vexed. The movie is not “good,” it is only fairly well made, with additions of things that are not “good.” Such is the world…
Moral rating: Average / Moviemaking quality: 4½
When will it stop?” It will stop when Christian’s stop supporting Hollywood with their money. Until we “Christians” get serious enough about the culture war we are in, that we unanimously boycott the smut that Hollywood is targeting our children with, then we can expect no change…
Churches are not willing to speak out on issues that matter (i.e., might in any way be perceived as divisive or political), so we lay people must.
Also, I just want to point out that we are not exactly like Lot. We still have a choice. He didn’t. Sodom was so hedonistic, it was in Lot’s face no matter where he went. We, in contrast, are actually paying the money God has provided us stewardship over, in order to fill our minds, and our children’s minds, with the Hollywood agenda. Until Christians are willing to forego the movie experience, and care enough about future generations to be more scrupulous about what we support financially, nothing will change.
The positive was that the music is really good, and they add additional numbers that aren’t in the original version. I’m not sure why, but the whole time I was sitting there wishing Anne Hathaway was in the role of Belle. I found Emma Watson’s presentation okay, but not spectacular. Dan Stevens is very good as the Beast/Prince. See all »
Moral rating: Average / Moviemaking quality: 4
Overall, the movie was okay, but it could have been better. It’s not exactly like the cartoon, but it has some parts that are. They added more songs, so it was a little drawn out. I think they could have done better. It’s like they made a huge deal out of it to get everyone excited about seeing it, but then didn’t spend as much time on it as they could have. I grew up on the cartoon version. I’ve seen it so many times I have it memorized. So to have the movie have some parts that are the same and some parts that aren’t, it wasn’t what was expected.
Moral rating: Average / Moviemaking quality: 3½
Stick with the original cartoon. And make sure your teen understands that one can not legitimately “pick and choose” amongst God’s commands. Yes, love and charity are good. But to say “it’s unloving and uncharitable to oppose homosexuality” is to, as Calvin put it (I believe), “climb onto God’s lap to slap His face.” IOW, homosexual activists want to use love and charity, which are Godly values, to promote homosexuality, which is decidedly NOT a Godly value.
Moral rating: Very Offensive / Moviemaking quality: 3
The Belle character was not at all like the animated one. This one is much more Tom-boyish. The songs about her being the beauty of the town don’t make sense; she does not have the poise and grace—she is too much of a strong-willed character to be what Belle is supposed to be. I feel like they lost almost everything from the original, sprinkling poison of PC (Politically Correct) all throughout the movie, that didn’t make sense, and just distracted from the sweetness of the original I hated what they did to one of my favorite movies.
Moral rating: Very Offensive / Moviemaking quality: 3
It infuriates me that Disney has gone this far in a children’s movie, and it’s the first time they have been this obvious so many times with the homosexual agenda. At least on video you can fast forward this, we were in the theater though. Their agenda is so in your face it’s nauseating, it hurt my spirit so much that this is going on in children’s movies, it was difficult to enjoy the rest of the evening with my husband. See all »
Moral rating: Very Offensive / Moviemaking quality: 4
Moral rating: Extremely Offensive / Moviemaking quality: 4
Moral rating: Extremely Offensive / Moviemaking quality: 3
It’s my favorite childhood movie, and now it’s marred forever. I read the reviews, hoping maybe it was just too much hype about the gay stuff. It’s NOT. In fact, I felt nervous throughout the whole movie with the sidekick guy, cause the way he acted around Gaston was so suggestive, in addition to the obvious parts. You literally couldn’t get a break from it.
Also, in cartoons you expect a lack of realism, so it’s almost normal for inanimate objects to move and talk, but seeing real-life dishes flying all around the room was eerie and reminded me of the occult. The enchantress had the creepy demeanor of a witch and with the extra magical traveling book it was all a bit unnecessary…
The cast lacked a lot for some reason. The teacup lady was a good actor, but she made a pro-gay comment which was disappointing. Watson was way too modern and tomboyish, including her dress. She tried, but it didn’t match. The transformed beast looked bland just like her (who looked much better before he transformed), so maybe they were a good match.
PROS (very few):
Beast had good acting, and looked pretty handsome despite the weird “goat” thing going on, and the ugly promotional pictures.
Belle’s father was heartwarming, and it was nice to get more character depth.
Every other character was black and most couples were biracial, which was nice to see.
CONCLUSION: I really, really regretted watching this because of the lasting effect it had. DO NOT WATCH out of curiosity or for the visuals which are so rushed you can’t even get a good look. you’re better off just sticking to the trailer. The gay stuff as well as the borderline occult stuff just leaves a bad taste in your mouth that you can’t wash out. Now, I’ll never feel the same way about castles and ballrooms or feel good about this movie anymore… :(
Moral rating: Very Offensive / Moviemaking quality: 2½
But when I heard about LeFou being Gay, I rolled my eyes. Just why? LeFou only dances with a guy in the very end and it looks like a joke, like they meant to encounter women in the dance, but accidentally got each other in a goofy whoops kind of way. There was just no need for this at all.
Bottom line, the 1991 cartoon is much better, a man-child beast matures into a gentleman, Belle learns to not be snobby, Gaston’s sexism and lust are painted as bad things, and Maurice goes the extra mile to try to save Belle in both versions. I did like how Mrs. Potts explains that the servants were cursed due to the sin of omission, something the Broadway show also said, no reason was given in the 1991 cartoon or its Enchanted Christmas sequel.
Moral rating: Offensive / Moviemaking quality: 4½
Regarding Lefou’s highly-hinted distorted love interest towards Gaston and members of his own gender throughout the film—being very wrong and against God’s will, I would say the whole concept of making him homosexual was unneeded, and made Lefou’s character a little less comedic and rather… creepy at times. And making him dance passionately with another man, hinting and/or possibly confirming his ungodly desires, was what kind of soiled the ending sequence for me. See all »
Moral rating: / Moviemaking quality: 4½
PLEASE share your observations and insights to be posted here.
I feel the same way about movies like this one. How can there be so many positive reviews on a “Christian” Web site for a movie in which the producer has openly stated that he is promoting the LGBDQ agenda. Are so many Christians profoundly ignorant of what is happening in America, where Hollywood (actors and producers) are actively promoting and pouring thousands of dollars in fundraising into bringing down the conservative Christian movement and forcing America down the trajectory of debilitated Europe. Terrorist attacks on a weekly basis, cultures being literally dismantled by political correctness, rioting in America’s streets, a generation lost, and still the majority of Christians filling our churches are so ignorant that we’re being entertained into oblivion! See all »
This movie is trying to make homosexuality look innocent and normal. What they don’t show is that gays and lesbians are way more likely to get diseases, commit suicide, and that they are more prone to be victims of domestic violence committed by their lover(s). Also, if you do a little bit of research you will find out that the director and Luke Evans (the guy who plays Gaston) are both openly gay. I not only encourage people to boycott this film, but to pray for the people involved in this film and the influence that they have on others.
Moral rating: Extremely Offensive / Moviemaking quality:
My Ratings: Moral rating: Good / Moviemaking quality: 4½