"Beauty and the Beast" (2017) Review

Title: Beauty and the Beast

Directed by: Bill Condon

Written by: Stephen Chbosky and Evan Spiliotopoulos

Year: 2017


There have been quite a few cinematic iterations of the Beauty and the Beast fairy tale dating back to the 1946 French picture. However, the most iconic is almost certainly Disney's 1991 animated feature, which managed to snag itself a Best Picture nomination at the respective Academy Awards. Continuing with its wave of remakes, Disney has now given Beauty and the Beast the live-action treatment. Does this version expand upon the beauty of the original, or is it a beastly abomination?

Belle, the beautiful, resident bookworm of a local French town is taken prisoner by a ghastly beast who resides in an enchanted castle where the furniture and decorations are alive. Though a captive, Belle attempts to bring out the good within the hideous creature, and the Beast is slowly learning that with compassion and romance, he might be able to save himself.

Emma Watson plays the former half of the eponymous duo, Belle. This seemed like an excellent choice upon announcement, as Watson is quite the sweetheart in the eyes of the public. Unfortunately, Watson has the emotional resonance of a plank of wood. Her acting is not stale, but none of the emotional beats connect on her end, and she fails to embody the character of Belle beyond the wardrobe and simple kindness. She is simply a pretty face that sounds like Belle, but doesn't feel like Belle. Furthermore, Watson is not a singer. I say this as a fact rather than an insult, but the character does call for some singing. To her credit, Watson does the best she can, but ends up sing-talking her way through the majority of it all, and it is painfully obvious.

Dan Stevens, on the other hand, is very good as the Beast. The deep, gravelly voice he provides for the titular character is mostly his own work, with little digital alteration, which is incredible. Although he impresses, the same cannot be said for the design of the character. With hands instead of paws and a lack of animal teeth, this incarnation of the Beast is far too human, thus betraying the point of the story. The face is simply that of a man's with excessive fur rather than an ugly creature's altogether. By making him look more human, the filmmakers have nullified the theme of finding the beauty within the beast by already giving him a relatable appearance.

Continuing with the cast, Luke Evans plays the villainous Gaston. He captures what makes the character so lovingly detestable and is one of the highlights of the film, despite not being "roughly the size of a barge." Josh Gad is hit-and-miss as the comedic LeFou. He has a few funny lines, but does not offer much beyond that and often borders on vexing. Disney made a big deal about LeFou's outward flamboyance, and this was a shameful move. At best, LeFou's homosexuality is only teased at, making it seem more like a marketing move than anything else. Rounding out the human cast is Kevin Kline as Maurice, Belle's father. Kline kills it in the role, which has been altered significantly. Kline's performance is where the true heart of the film lies.

Moving on, we have the magical, speaking household items to mention. Ewan McGregor is the charming candelabra Lumière. McGregor dons a fine French accent and gives one of the better performances. Ian McKellen lends his voice to the character of Cogsworth, a stuck-up clock that is wound too tightly. McKellen does the best he can, playing the role well, but he is not given much to do. Lastly, Emma Thompson portrays the motherly Mrs. Potts. Although she is a benefit to the picture, it does often sound like she is trying to replicate Angela Lansbury's performance from the animated film.

Visually, Beauty and the Beast is immaculately made and boasts wonderful production values. Despite looking a tad oversaturated at times, this film is sprawling with beautiful scenery and set design. The highlight of course is the castle. The gothic architecture is superbly realized, evoking an imposing but hauntingly alluring atmosphere with overly ornate decorations and grand scale. The special effects are quite good, but a little hyperrealistic at certain moments. The performance capture done for the Beast is on the same level, fitting in nicely.

When it comes to the music, this variant of the story borrows just about every song used in the 1991 version, as is to be expected. Though lacking the glamour and fluidity of the animation (which is essentially an insurmountable hinderance), the musical sequences are handled adequately, with "Be Our Guest" once again being the standout, along with "Gaston." However, there a couple of new songs added for this rendition of the classic tale. "Days in the Sun" is not all that good, and even worse when taken into context. It is supposed to set up a storyline about the prince's past, but this thread goes absolutely nowhere, rendering it pointless. "Evermore," is fantastic, but has no place in the film. This song details how the Beast feels towards Belle, but seems to only have been included to give the Beast a singing scene. The animated movie handled it much better by employing silence and relying on the Beast's facial expressions and actions before telling Belle to leave.

As for the plot, this 2017 remake is incredibly faithful to its animated counterpart. The two films play out almost exactly the same way, note for note, which is fine for purists but leaves those wanting something different a bit dissatisfied. As such, this live-action film can be seen as an update more than anything else, as there is very little in the way of innovation or originality from a story perspective. However, the new additions cannot be dismissed, such as a more detailed prologue. Ditching the stain-glass windows that opened the animated feature, this film actually shows the events that led to the prince's abhorrent transformation, which I thought was a nice touch that differentiates the two pictures.

Another added aspect is a sub-plot that expands upon the curse that pervades the looming castle. This time around, the longer the curse is active, the more the inhabitants of the castle become more like their transformation and less human. When the last petal from the plot-important rose falls, not only will the Beast and household objects remain as they are, but they will lose their anthropomorphic qualities. On paper, this seems like a well-added layer of tension, but really only works if you have not seen any of the previous movies relating to this source material. Furthermore, this plot point is sporadically mentioned. It is only brought up once or twice not counting the finale, thus making it almost irrelevant in retrospect.

This film also seeks to explore more of Belle and Maurice's past by incorporating a storyline revolving around the mother and her death. The trouble is, it runs into a dead end almost instantly. The information gained about the mother services the plot in no way, nor is the lore provided engaging or enriching. Even worse is the magical item linked to this part of the plot. The enchantress that placed the curse on the castle also left a special book that allows the user to teleport anywhere they want. Belle and Beast use the book to visit the bedroom where Belle's mother died. Everything in this room is left intact, including a plague mask from one of the doctors that treated the mother, even though it has been roughly two decades. But the greater offense comes later. When Belle leaves the castle to save Maurice, she takes Philippe (the horse) and rides to town....instead of using the book to transport herself there near instantaneously. This is easily the biggest plothole in the entire film, and I cannot understand how it made it past the scriptwriting process.

Speaking of plotholes, there are plenty more. For instance, Maurice rides to the castle on Philippe (escaping the ravenous wolves) and gets captured by the Beast. Philippe then gallops back to the town where he runs into Belle, who rides him back to the Beast's abode. She is able to free Maurice who is later shown to have made it back to the city. As I said earlier though, Belle takes Philippe and rides to the town during the latter half of the picture, implying that Philippe was at the castle the whole time. So did Maurice walk back to the town? And how did he evade the wolves?

The enchantress presents yet another issue. She cursed the prince because he insulted and refused her. But when Gaston calls her "an ugly old hag" in the tavern, she does absolutely nothing to him. Was it because he followed it up with "no offense"? Is that enough to redeem Gaston for a lifetime of cruelty? And the conclusion is very poorly handled. In this adaptation, the Beast dies as the last petal falls. But he is able to be brought back to life and restored to his former self because the enchantress just so happened to walk in the room where she had no business being just as Belle admitted her love for the prince. The animated film handled this much better because Belle restored the Beast with an act of love; crying over his apparent loss of life. She did not have to say "I love you," which is directed towards the audience more than anything.

When I walked out of the theatre, I liked Beauty and the Beast. But the more I thought about it, the more it began to crumble. The music echoes the beats of the original (though they do not reach the same heights) and the visuals are worthy of being deemed a spectacle. The performances are rather good for the most part, but Watson is unable to connect with the audience. The additions to the film are either questionable or bad (with minor exceptions), and the plot holes are abundant. There are also a number of laughably bad moments, such as when Belle asks if the prince would ever grow a beard and he growls back; or how Maurice is dragged out of the castle. (Seriously, my friend and I were laughing way too hard at points). I think the problem lies within the animated film; it is considered one of Disney's best for a reason, and a remake was not warranted. This movie offers few things that are new, and the ones that are good are almost insignificant. The 1991 iteration is far superior to this 2017 product. Lacking the charm and magic of the original, this is a hollow, though beautiful, update that proves to be quite divisive.

Grade: C