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

"Mamma Mia: Here We Go Again" is a Fun Musical and Showcase for the Wonderful Lily James: Review

Film Review: Mamma Mia: Here We Go Again Mamma Mia: Here We Go Again is the sequel to the 2008 film Mamma Mia , which was based on the stage musical of the same name, which itself was based on the songs of ABBA. If it seems like some of the fun would be lost with each additional iteration,   Here We Go Again proves otherwise. As unnecessary as it may be, the sequel is an exceptionally fun time at the movies. Following the Godfather Part II template, Here We Go Again is actually half-sequel, half-prequel, with a continuation of the first movie's plot interwoven with flashbacks depicting how Donna met each of her daughter's potential fathers and how she came to inexplicably live on a gorgeous Greek island, which was set up in the first film. Being the second musical to exclusively feature the music of ABBA, Here We Go Again  faces the inevitable challenge of the first movie having done nearly all of the Swedish group's best and most well-known songs. A number of th

"My Mind Turns Your Life Into Folklore": Why Taylor Swift's "Gold Rush" Is a Song About Songwriting

"My mind turns your life into folklore." That line, from the song "Gold Rush," is the only time the word "folklore" is spoken on either of Taylor Swift's 2020 records, Folklore and Evermore , the latter of which is where the song appears. The presence of the line indicates that "Gold Rush" is a pivotal song not only in Swift's lockdown duology, but in her maturation as a songwriter.  Swift's early albums often drew heavily from her own experiences, with fans and the media scouring her lyrics for clues as to which ex-boyfriend her numerous breakup songs referred. Her tumultuous dating life made as many headlines as her music, in part because it informed so much of the music. The discourse was often ridiculous and reductive, and thankfully, that period of her career is over (Swift has been in a relationship with the actor Joe Alwyn since 2016).  Both of her 2020 albums have their fair share of autobiographical songs, but they also see

Film Review: "Hail, Caesar!"

Film Review: "Hail, Caesar!" "Hail, Caesar!", the latest film from Joel and Ethan Coen, is set in Hollywood in the early 1950s, the final years before the collapse of the studio system. Josh Brolin plays Eddie Mannix, a studio exec whose job entails putting out all the fires started by the stars of the various films in production at the studio. These stars include George Clooney as an actor in a Ben Hur -like epic who gets kidnapped, Scarlett Johansson as the star of an 'aquamusical', similar to the ones starring Esther Williams, and Channing Tatum, who plays a Gene Kelly-like dancer starring in a sailor musical. The amount of time and detail given to these movies-within-the-movie is evidence of the brothers' love and appreciation for moviemaking, without which the movie would be in danger of feeling hollow and disingenuous.