Emma Thompson (as Mrs. Potts) sings the title tune, and she doesn't hold a candle, let alone a teapot, to Angela Lansbury's version.
Last fall, Entertainment Weekly asked Lansbury what she thought of the upcoming remake, and she said: ''I was a bit taken aback. I thought, 'Why? Why are we doing this over again?' ... I can’t understand what they’re going to do with it that will be better than what we’ve already done.''
Disney got their answer earlier yesterday: Why spend $160 million to do a live-action remake?
Because the remake could gross $160 million-plus this opening weekend alone!
(For the record, I'm not automatically against remakes. Last year's Disney's ''The Jungle Book'' was a visual stunner and breakthrough in CGI animation. And Neel Sethi brought a real-life charm as Mowgli, the one human element, in an otherwise brilliantly computer-generated movie. ... To me, the live-action ''Beauty and the Beast'' isn't an improvement on the animated original, other than grossing more $$$$. But that's what counts.)
P.S. Oops, sorry for misspelling ''extravaganza'' in my original post!