Skip to main content

New "Beauty and the Beast" Fails to Put New Spin on the Tale as Old as Time: Review

Film Review: Beauty and the Beast



The new live action version of Beauty and the Beast is not very good. The film's best moments come directly from the 1991 animated version, which I once named the best animated Disney film of all time. It seems so preoccupied with recapturing what made that movie so great that it forgets to make this one unique or different in any way. At every possible chance director Bill Condon has to establish an interesting visual look for the film, he defers to the animated film and copies its look. What is the point of making a live action version of an animated movie only to make it look like its animated? Beauty and the Beast never answers that question, and the result is an uninspired retread of a classic story.


I was initially skeptical of Emma Watson playing Belle, but she quickly won me over. She is beautiful enough to be the most beautiful girl in the village, and she looks smart enough that her 'bookishness' would make her an outcast among the villagers. That's a quality I am not even sure the animated Belle conveyed well enough. She does well with the songs, although it's obvious that she is not a singer. The rest of the cast is populated by well-known actors dutifully recreating their characters. Perhaps most impressive was Luke Evans as Gaston, who apparently has a great singing voice. It makes me wonder why Hollywood is so insistent on casting people who cannot sing as the leads in musicals while casting people who can sing in movies about vampires and hobbits and superheroes. 


Image result for beauty and the beast 2017
The script remains faithful to the animated movie, despite some added elements to the story, few of which come off as improvements. The role of the enchantress who curses the Beast is greatly expanded, which mostly entails her lurking in the background of scenes. There's also a sojourn to Paris that is bafflingly irrelevant to the plot.  I did enjoy the tiny backstory given to the harpsichord and the wardrobe (played by Stanley Tucci and Audra McDonald, two actors I never mind having show up in a movie). The three new songs written for this movie are all terrible. I appreciate the attempt to make it into a more full-fledged musical, but why didn't they just use the songs written for the Broadway musical? Not including those songs was a huge missed opportunity. 

Parts of the design elements of this movie seemed engineered to show up in the below-the-line categories at the Oscars, but I think every single of one them missed its mark. No way any of the dreadful new songs get nominated for Best Original Song. The CGI on the objects in the castle at times bordered on creepy, too realistic to believe they can sing and dance. The costumes were intended to look opulent, but instead look garish. Both the sets and the costumes in the village scenes look distractingly cheap, which is bizarre considering the movie cost $160 million dollars to make. 

The 2017 Beauty and the Beast is very much an animated film, replete with a cartoonish visual style and dumb sight gags to keep kids interested. I'm sure many, maybe even most, moviegoers will love it for the same reason I didn't. But this was always guaranteed to be huge at the box office, which is why it makes no sense that of all the recent live action remakes of animated films (Maleficent, Cinderella, The Jungle Book), this is the one that is most faithful to the original. The assurance that it would be a hit should have given Disney the confidence to take a risk and introduce a bold take on the story for the 21st century. Considering that Dinsey has 12 more live action remakes of animated films in development, I hope the takeaway from this isn't that strict adherence to the original is what fans want. Even if it is, it comes off as a more of a lazy cash grab than an actual movie. 

What did you think of Beauty and the Beast? Leave a comment! 

Comments

Post a Comment

Leave a comment!

Popular posts from this blog

"Us" Is a Really Weird Movie, And Isn't That Great?: Review

Film Review: UsThere's a lot to be said about the new movie Us. Don't worry, I won't spoil anything about the plot, all you need to know is that it's a horror movie about a family who encounters it's doppelgängers. Us, Jordan Peele's follow-up to Get Out, is wacky and wild and sure to be polarizing.
It has been five full years since Lupita Nyong'o won an Oscar and this is basically her first leading role in a movie. I find few things more frustrating than when Hollywood fails to capitalize on exciting talent. But thank god for Jordan Peele, who has given Nyong'o a doozy of a role, or double role rather, as the actors also play their doppelgängers. She inhabits the two characters, one a protective mother and the other a crazed killer, by changing her movements in ways that are strangely complimentary. It's thrilling to watch. Nyong'o's screen presence has a commanding elegance that recalls the best of Old Hollywood stars. I'm so glad an in…

Ranking the "Mission: Impossible" Films Worst to Best

The Mission: Impossible movies, based on the 1966-73 television series, are about Ethan Hunt and the Impossible Mission Force doing something that seems impossible at first, but always ends up being possible. Tom Cruise stars in all the films as Ethan, and other members of the team are Luther (Ving Rhames) and Benji (Simon Pegg). I like the Mission: Impossible movies because each film has a different director and thus each one has their own distinctive feel. Sure, there are a couple of constants (Cruise is in them all, they all are spy/action movies, and they all have people wearing masks - a nod to the TV show), but going into a Mission: Impossible movie you are never quite sure what you are going to get. Sometimes it's a silly fun spy franchise, other times it feels like nothing more than an excuse for Tom Cruise do to some sort of crazy stunt. Since the first film was released in 1996, there have been five movies, with a sixth on the way. Here's how I would rank the movies …

Ranking the Five Best On Screen Portrayals of Hercule Poirot

Before Kenneth Brnagh dons the iconic mustache in the highly-anticpated new adaptation of Murder on the Orient Express (in theatres November 10th), I thought I would take a look back at some of the most famous portryals of Hercule Poirot. Agatha Christie's signature creation, Poirot is peculiar. meticulous, and at times, bombastic and arrogant, but he always solves the case in the end, with the help of his little grey cells. Countless actors have portrayed the Belgian detective on stage, screen, or radio, including Charles Laughton, Austin Trevor, Orson Welles, and Ian Holm. But this list focuses on TV or film adaptations just becuase those are the ones I have seen.


5. Alfred Molina (2001)
Molina played Poirot in the 2001 TV movie version of Murder on the Orient Express. He's a terrific actor, generally, but his Poirot is not distinctive or memorable in any way. The accent is not great, the mustache is not great, and he is not eccentric enough to get away with being rude to peo…