Log in / Sign up
My opinion of 2017’s “Beauty and the Beast” is not going to be a popular one. Before you dismiss me, understand that I’m being harsh not because of hatred, but because of love.
It’s about a prince (Dan Stevens) who has been magically transformed into a monster. To break the spell, he needs to get someone to fall in love with him. The film follows his efforts to woo Belle (Emma Watson), a young woman imprisoned in his enchanted castle.
Technically, the film is slick. The special effects are splendid, the performances good. You forget that Emma Watson (who is absolutely charming you) is acting on a set against computer-generated creatures. The costumes are beautiful, convincing and (as far as I can tell) historically accurate. The enchanted castle and the other locations are equally marvelous. The cinematography is professional. Even under the layer of special effects, you can still feel the chemistry between Stevens and Watson. So why did this film, despite being well made, leave me cold?
The problem is that the picture is a slave to its predecessor, Disney’s 1991 animated version of “Beauty and the Beast”. Whereas that film was original and could stand side-by-side with other iterations (such as the wonderful 1946 version), this film is so similar it’s superfluous. Every line, scene and moment that’s added to make the 129-minute running time feels like it was rejected from the original (in fact, a line from Belle right at the very end was) It doesn’t add anything to know where Belle’s mother is, what The Beast did to be subjected to his punishment, what would-be suitor Gaston (Luke Evans) and his sidekick LeFou (Josh Gad) did prior to the opening credits. Yes, one or two new songs are added, but they’re not on the level of the ones you already know. Whereas “Jungle Book”, “Cinderella” and “Pete’s Dragon” mixed things up by ditching the songs completely, dazzling us with ground-breaking special effects and radically altering the story, nothing new is attempted here. You can recite long passages of the film line-for-line without even seeing it.
As someone that respects film as an art form, “Beauty and the Beast” breaks my heart. Despite what some might say, making what was previously animated live-action does not make it more legitimate. This is not anyone’s vision brought to life. It’s a product, a focus group-generated conclusion that plays it so safe it’s guaranteed to make hundreds of millions by preying on people’s nostalgia. It’s not like Disney is remaking “The Black Cauldron” or “Home on the Range”, they’re bringing back one of their most popular stories with a new hat and calling it revolutionary. You’ve literally seen everything 2017’s “Beauty and the Beast” has to offer before and done better. (3D Theatrical version on the big screen, March 22, 2017)
There is a problem with your e-mail address and we are unable to communicate with you. Please go to My Account to update your email.
Please choose a username to sign your comments. Only letters, digits, dash - or period. Minimum 4 characters.
Your age and sex:
We publish all comments, except abusive, at our discretion.
Great observation on the carbon copy! I don't think that today's new young generation will feel as torn about the comparison.
I understand you'd be disappointed if you were looking for something new, but my daughter was born in 94 and doesn't remember the 1991 version at all. This movie was made for the young and the nostalgic. Usually the nostalgic want it to be exactly the same as they do a movie made from a novel. I don't remember the original version so I'm looking forward to seeing it once the crowds die down.