With the success of Disney remaking
their old animated classics, some have been met with good success like with
“The Jungle Book,” “Cinderella,” and even “Pete’s Dragon,” while others have
been on the downside like “Alice in Wonderland” and…that poor excuse of a
“Sleeping Beauty” villain origin story. But with it meeting box office success,
you wonder what direction they’d take things next, and it unfortunately turned
towards “Beauty and the Beast.” Now why would I be worried about this decision?
I think the better question is “why WOULDN’T I be worried?” And the answer to
both questions is very simple: the original film.
You
see, “Beauty and the Beast” has a strong place in not just Disney history, but
film history in general. It was Disney’s 30th theatrically animated
film, and was part of a time I consider to be Disney’s best era of animation:
The Disney Renaissance. After the success of “The Little Mermaid” and “The
Rescuers Down Under,” Disney was coming out of this big funk of an era that it
seemed like they couldn’t get out of, and this era was proof that they could
deliver more than what was expected at the time. And to me, “Beauty and the
Beast” is their Magnum Opus. I mean, people constantly suck up to “The Lion
King” or “Frozen,” but there are things that they failed to do that “Beauty and
the Beast” did. It was universally praised by audiences and critics alike, even
to this day, and was the first animated film to have the honor of being
nominated for the Best Picture Oscar. Think about that; this animated film from
Disney was put on the same level of praise as “The Silence of the Lambs!”
That’s how good of a film “Beauty and the Beast” was, and still is!
So it just makes you wonder, why
would you want to tarnish the legacy and importance of such a film as this? I
mean, that can be said for any other remake, but a film like this is simply too
perfect. What more is there to do? Well, despite what I and others think, the
film ended up getting made by Bill Condon, the director of “Dreamgirls,” “Gods
and Monsters,” and “Twilight: Breaking Dawn”…oh you heard me right, he directed
the last two “Twilight” movies. You see why I was scared now?!
But despite this, I went and saw the
movie…and it was exactly what I was expecting. A film that failed to even come
close to the bar that was set exceptionally high. Does that mean the film is
bad? No, it just makes it…underwhelming.
The story is as follows, like the
original: Belle is the only young girl of the town seen as the odd one out. She’s interested in what most girls are turned away from, such as books and
the inventions her father comes up with, and continually turning down the town
hero, Gaston. When her father is taken prisoner by a prince turned beast, Belle
offers herself in his place, in which the Beast and his servants see as an
opportunity to break the spell put upon them.
Okay, so what works about this
remake? Well, the production value looks absolutely stunning, whether it’d be
the old French village or the Beast’s castle, it definitely looks like a lot of
effort went into the look of the film…for the most part, but we'll get to that. I also thought the cast did an excellent job with what they were given.
Emma Watson is a great Belle, Luke Evans is an enjoyable Gaston, Josh Gad is
lovable as Le Fou, and Kevin Kline is a very good Maurice. Ian McKellen and
Ewan McGregor as Cogsworth and Lumiere are a good duo. They’re funny, have a
good amount of personality, and their chemistry together onscreen is very
believable. Sure, they’re nowhere near the levels of David Ogden Stiers and the
late-Jerry Orbach, but they are a good fit. Emma Thompson as Mrs. Potts is a
fitting successor to the great Angela Lansbury, and I was absolutely floored by
how amazing her singing was when singing the titular song.
However, what I was most impressed
with was Dan Stevens as the Beast. While I was very cautious about how they
would handle him in the film, he really does a fantastic job portraying the
Beast as he should. He looks and sounds just the character in the animated
film, that I was almost convinced that they got Robbie Benson back to dub over
him in the film. The mannerisms, the posture, everything about his performance
was the Beast. And as for one of the new songs they added into the movie,
“Evermore,” was actually pretty damn good, showcasing Stevens’s excellent
singing voice, and it actually had me near tears.
That’s pretty much all that
I can say that I loved about the film, leaving the rest of the film to be…mediocre. For starters, the film’s use of CGI and green-screen got
really distracting. There were multiple instances in which you can OBVIOUSLY
tell that its fake, and it takes me completely out of the movie, with the
biggest notice being Emma Watson during the “Belle (reprise),” when she approaches
the top of the hill. I mean, after coming off of “The Jungle Book” and “Pete’s
Dragon,” you’d think the effects would keep improving, but that’s not what I
got. I also wasn’t really impressed with the performances of the song numbers. Sure, “Beauty and the Beast,” “Evermore,” and “Something
There” were done nicely, but the rest of them feel like the tempo was slowed
down so the cast could catch up to the melody, such as “Gaston” and especially
“Be Our Guest.” And I know you’ll argue that because the animated film had it
faster because the actors didn’t have to move much or lose breath. Counterargument: Jerry Orbach, Paige O’Hare, and Richard White performed on stage at the Oscars the year the film was nominated,
and they kept up with the tempo perfectly well. And they didn’t need to
autotune their voices like they did with Emma Watson (don’t act like you didn’t
hear it, because I sure did). And aside from “Evermore,” the other songs “Days
in the Sun,” “Aria,” and “How Does a Moment Last Forever” feel out of place and
don’t fit in with rest of the movie.
So far, a lot of people have told me that this film is just like
the original animated film. But that’s the biggest problem that I have with
this movie: there’s nothing new to really make it pop out as a different
entity. Look back at some of the previous remakes that Disney has done, and
you’ll see that they had it handled different from the original. “Cinderella”
gave more backstory and character development to both Cinderella and Prince Charming (Kit),
and didn’t make it a musical; “The Jungle Book” took elements from
both the original book and combined it with elements from the animated movie,
giving us a stronger narrative, and effects that were so much better than I was
expecting; “Pete’s Dragon” was changed from the early 1900’s to the 1980’s, and
was made less cartoonish by having Pete be an orphan raised by a dragon after a
car crash killed his parents, and is rediscovered back into society. Hell, even
“Alice in Wonderland” and “Maleficent,” as bad as those two were, they still
did something different to stand out as its own entity, such as having a grown up Alice for "Alice in Wonderland" and having Maleficent be the main focus in the "Sleeping Beauty" retelling. Granted, “Beauty and
the Beast” is a much better film than “Alice” and “Maleficent,” but that's beside the point. It just doesn't do anything new with the original. Sure, there are some details that they
fix up and show a lot more of the story, but then there are moments where it
adds even more problems. Like, did we really need to see the prologue acted out, instead of told through stain glass windows? And if that’s the case, why was the narration kept in, because it just
makes it seem repetitive. Why did the sorceress give the Beast have a book that
takes him anywhere in the world? And with that, why didn’t Belle just use that
book to get to town and back faster? And why did the sorceress keep herself in
town to deal with these people? Why did Disney announce that LeFou was gay,
even if the film doesn’t make mention of it whatsoever? Why are people so nostalgia blind that they aren't even acknowledging these problems???
Okay, I’ve gone on long enough about
this film, so let me just wrap up. What are my overall thoughts? Well, it’s not
a bad film, far from it…but it’s not something I would recommend. Unless you’re
really curious, it’s worth a rental at best. While it does a lot of things that
I admire and appreciate, it does an equal amount of things that bring it down
for me. I can understand their interest in a remake, but I felt like they
should have waited another decade or so, take more time to see what they could have done better with it.
Rating: 5/10
No comments:
Post a Comment