Whooooooops. I apologize. That one completely slipped my mind, and I even had to look it up - it’s apparently still in the 7th run theater around here.
I think the next live action Disney movie is Mulan. Beauty and the Beast came out in 1991 - more than 25 years ago. I think it’s a cool way to make it fresh for newer audiences.
[Moderating]
I’m not sure how big a spoiler it was, since I knew it even without having seen the movie, or really even having followed it. But I’ve boxed it up anyway.
Dan Castellaneta’s been doing it since the mid-ninties.
But only for TV, direct to video, and video games, not major movie releases. Which is utterly standard for animated movies - when they extend the property to other markets, they get cheaper actors to replace the well known actors from the original. If they had done a movie sequel, they would have hired Williams again.
Yes, I’ve just read that here.
He has God or Jesus with him when he goes to the movies? I’d hate to be the guy sitting behind God. “Hey, asshole, move your damn head, I can’t see a thing!”. Flash of lightning, smell of crispy flesh, God gets back to his popcorn.
I guess he’ll show another screening of Fifty Shades Darker instead.
#familyvalues
Isn’t “God or Jesus” redundant 
“Hey, shut off that damn halo, would you?”
There is a BBC review, and it is beastly.
The casting call has gone out.
Hollywood has done remakes since there were movies. Why is anyone surprised?
Take a look at the Ronald Colman Prisoner of Zenda(1936) or the Stewart Granger Prisoner of Zenda(1952) The latter is a word for word remake of the former, it’s just in color.
Well, I loved it. It’s late and we just got in, so not going into detail, but I thought the second half was better than the first (unlike the 1991 film, where I felt the exact opposite), enjoyed the new songs, and, like I said, loved it.
I saw it last night with my kids. I don’t think they had ever seen the original, and I probably haven’t seen it in at least 20 years - maybe not since the original theater release, except some of the song excerpts.
I thought is was well done overall. They did a good job of making Belle a stronger character (although she was not exactly a wilting flower to begin with) and Maurice had a bit more depth than the cartoon version. There was some backstory about Belle’s mother that was probably unnecessary, but it was not intrusive. I liked how they had Mrs. Potts explain the justification for the enchantress punishing the entire household, instead of only punishing the prince/Beast.
There were a few songs which I wasn’t sure were in the original or not, but one that I’m pretty sure was new was the Beast’s song when he lets Belle go to save her father - it was a lovely, sad song about lost love.
What really made the show enjoyable to me was the little girl about 5 years old who sat right behind me wearing her Belle dress singing along and dancing to the songs she obviously knew very well and occasionally explaining to her Mommy what was happening. I’m not being sarcastic, she melted my heart a little. 
I meant to add just one criticism: I thought the sound mixing during the musical numbers, especially Gaston and Be Our Guest, was a bit off. It was very difficult to pick out some of the lyrics, which was a shame.
What, she explained how the Disney writers saw the 1946 Jean Cocteau version and copied it?
And here I thought I was the only one having flashbacks to 1998.
My 16 year old daughter saw it last night, and said it was excellent. She’s seeing it again tonight too.
Today’s NYT review really liked it.
My 12 & 14 year old daughters saw it last night, with 2 of their friends. All of them loved it. So I’d say it’s hitting its target demographic perfectly.
(I watched Lego Batman. OK, but not as good as the first Lego movie).
While at that, Sleeping Beauty was seriously deconstructed as Maleficent.
Hope not as jarringly as the live-action Alice in Wonderland recasting of the protagonist as action-heroine “chosen one” character.