Movie Reviews

Movie review: ‘Beauty and the Beast’

Comments (11)
  1. Andrea Hinrichs says:

    I took my grand children to the play and to the cartoon movie version. I bought them the book.
    Now I will be taking my great grand children to the new movie. This is a delightful fairy tale.
    Some ADULTS are making way to much of this.

    1. Patti says:

      Not at all, Andrea. The adults are responding to a timely issue that is worthy of discussion. They, like you, are entitled to their opinion and to explain the basis of that opinion.

  2. Donna Zuehlk says:

    I don’t know. A part of me says that if we don’t take a stand on the LBG issue when it is tiny, or subdued, won’t it just grow into a monster itself. Remember a little leaven leavens the whole batch.

  3. I guess I’m not understanding this post? LCMS shared an enormous amount of negativity in their review towards the Christian Movie production of the movie “Shack” in the last couple of weeks. But more or less a genuine satisfactory towards this “money moguls” Disney movie?! I must have missed all the gay, dark and missled obsticales in The movie ” Shack “that the Christian Movie producers must have mixed in some where??!! Guess I will just have to see “Shack” again to see if I can find them!! Can’t understand why LCMS gave this Christian production, which is a much better quality family movie, such harsh reviews, and yet, I feel, LCMS just gave a very light mundane review to this Disney children’s movie that clearly has no Christian Value in it at all! Disney has been making movies for some time now with the sole purpose of trying to disconnect are children’s Christian Faith Values, they do this for a hefty profit off of all of us! As for myself and my family, we will continue to only patronize Christian Faith Based and Produced Movies only. We greatly enjoy them with the assurance that all contents are “family based material suitable for our faith based attendence!

    1. Christian says:

      The main reason the Shack had a more negative review was because there were some aspects where there were elements that were passed off as Bible based, when in reality they were not. For example, sin was called it’s own punishment, when that is not what the bible says. There is also another part where it says Jesus was not abandoned on the cross, when Jesus himself asked “Why have you forsaken me?” as he hung dying. I’m sure with a bit more research, you could find many more theological missteps from the Shack. Meanwhile, Beauty and the Beast also has a few controversial parts to it, but they are not made prominent. I saw the movie with another adult who was not aware of the negative media surrounding the movie and she noticed nothing wrong with it, despite her strong christian values.

  4. Becky Oliver says:

    I agree with Andrea. My husband and I took our 8yr old son to see it last night. I am a life long Lutheran and we are an active Lutheran family. We send our son to a Lutheran school.If at all this movie had any innuendo it was not even enough to mention. I doubt most adults would notice anything. It was a great movie and at the very end you see a flash of a close up of a face smile and then another flash of a close up of a face smile. Read into that what you will. Sure they could have done without the last 2 smiles but the more we talk about it we are feeding into what they were trying to accomplish when it isn’t even worth mentioning.

  5. Gordon Morris says:

    Having been a member of the LCMS for many years, I was appalled to see this glowing review of the live-action “Beauty and the Beast”. Pastor Giese is obviously familiar with Disney, and the way the film empire has degenerated to the point of accommodating “cultural consumers”. He rightly states that Disney’s “bread and butter has been family entertainment”. “Has been” is the appropriate description, because the “bread and butter” that “makes money” for Disney’s empire today is anything but “family” entertainment.

    What concerns me most is that the analysis of the film–and the guidance about whether to see it–is almost entirely based on “cultural” standards, not biblical standards. This is shocking coming from an LCMS pastor. After the token acknowledgment that parents and guardians are charged with “making discerning judgments concerning what their family watches”, he then says the film is “about as good as a live-action adaptation/remake can be”. Really? Pastor Giese’s statement that “society is disinclined toward discernment when it comes to films which, on the surface, come across as wholesome in spite of many obviously problematic elements.” is accurate. But it seems that “society” is not alone in lacking discernment in this area.

    He did include one quotation from the Apostle Paul that is very appropriate: “Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect” (Romans 12:2).” But Paul’s admonition is not applied to this situation–if fact Pastor Giese addresses “those who have seen the film, or will see the film”, and then gives guidance to pick out a few fleeting images that he then tries to apply to last days eschatology. But the implication is clear: that Christians can immerse themselves in the “world”, allowing Disney to work his magic to help them “conform” to a compelling tale, but certainly not leading them to “renew their mind” with God’s Word. And film is a very effective medium of persuasion, using everything from engaging characters, to humor, to music, to tear-jerking emotions, so as to ensure that those leaving the presentation have nothing but warm, positive feelings about the whole thing–including the increasing conformity with the desires of our fallen world–which Pastor Giese admits is not Scriptural!

    Perhaps a more appropriate instruction from the Apostle speaks more clearly to this, and to anything else that the “world” wants to embrace and promote. Philippians 4:8 (ESV) states: “Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things.” From the detailed description with which this review began, I do not see how any of those words can apply to “Beauty and the Beast”.

    This week we attended an LCMS church with a sign posted to be seen be anyone leaving the parking lot: “You are now entering the Mission Field”! That is absolutely true. However, missionaries do not attract people to Christ by becoming like them, but instead by presenting “Jesus Christ and him crucified”. And parents do not train up their children in the way they should go by filling their minds with immoral, unscriptural ideas, but rather–as the Bible commands–by using every opportunity to teach them God’s Word, explaining the Gospel, and demonstrating that God changes lives and empowers His people to “be holy as He is Holy” (another command that is rarely remembered)!

    Rather that telling “Christian viewers” what to think about when they see the film, Pastor Giese should be telling Christians to NOT be viewers, but to be “imitators of Christ”, and “doers of the Word”. Or better yet, not even writing and publishing a review that will help Disney make even more millions, because of the recommendations of a “Lutheran Pastor”!

  6. Ron says:

    “For the most part, it sticks much closer to its source material than other Disney live-action films.”

    Is Rev. Giese totally unaware that the “source material” is Disney’s own ludicrous re-write of the original tale, the re-write which Disney used for its animated version? Disney made up many of the scenes and sub-plots in its cartoon version. It is far removed from the original.

    The secular world deems it “cool” to be “bi” or include “gay” or “transgender”. Narcissistic millenials, who were poorly taught by the ‘all religions are equal’ coddling parents have no real moral guidance. This live version is simply another re-write to advance an agenda. It is even farther removed from the original tale and the tweaks are totally unnecessary butchering for the sake of the agenda.

    While I like Emma Watson, I hated her being cast in this. First, she is British and the story is decidedly French. Second, her vocals are weak, at best. Third, she is not a good enough actress to pull this off —- it’s Hermione Granger in a dress and sans a wand, nothing more.

  7. John Joseph Flanagan says:

    The current Disney is not the Disney of Walt. I read enough about the LGBT encounters inserted into the script by the homosexual director of this film to reason that it is more diversity rubbish from the degenerates who run Hollywood. So I refuse to see it. I do not need more of the culture’s display of indoctrinated values and sexual preferences. But many Christians are oh so tolerant and will see the movie anyway. How can they support such trash? Do you wonder why more people are falling away from the faith every day?

  8. Lisa says:

    I loved this movie! I highly enjoyed it. I find that it answers questions that you had from the first movie. Like, where is Belle’s mother. If you want to buy it, it’s available on amazon:

  9. Kate says:

    I actually thought this movie was much more overtly supportive of Christian values than it was overtly supportive of homosexuality. (It seems to have sort of a tortured relationship to homosexuality, at least if the choices of which characters are gay say anything, which I personally think is sort of sad for the director, but which might make all the outraged paragons of virtue in this comment section feel a little better.) The only decent person in the village is the village priest (who is also the person who lends Belle her books), there are whole songs about maintaining faith, hope, and love in the face of darkness, the sorceress and her rose seem almost Virgin Mary esque to me, and it is an understatement to say that the last scene is resurrection-y. We watch all the faithful castle people die one by one and then watch as they are resurrected and joyfully reunited with their loved ones as the sun rises over the world, all the snow melts, and that statue turns into either St. George or (even better) the Archangel Michael and the devil.

    Anyway, having never encountered this director before, the first thing I thought after watching the film was that he must be Catholic (and indeed he was raised in an Irish Catholic family/neighborhood in Queens; I couldn’t figure out what his relationship to the church is now). I came across this page because I’ve been looking around to see if anyone else noticed this stuff, but most people who are inclined to see a Christian message in the movie waste their time inventing silly Christian messages like “the prince was turned into a beast because he sinned against his sex by wearing makeup” (no matter that this was a perfectly masculine thing to do in the 18th century). Personally, I think the real issue with the movie is that, like the first version, it encourages young girls to think they can change abusive partners if they love them enough, but I’m not sure that’s really so at odds with a lot of Christian teachings on the subject.