Marval Movie

Disney's original 1991 animated movie of Beauty & The Beast by Kirk Wise and Gary Trousdale is one of my favorite movies of all-time and stands as the pinnacle of animated musicals in my book. So I am probably a little biassed and come with high expectations.

Another great telling of the tale comes from Jean Cocteau in his abstract 1946 version of Beauty & The Beast. Which strips the telling of details and even scenery and allows the audience to think like children and believe in magic.

I'm not against telling the tale again, it has always been told in so many different way's in one way or another already. What I'm against is remaking it by the same company with virtually no real differences. It's biggest fault is this is not darker, surreal, child-friendly, psychologically complex, nothing. It is so damn near, beat for beat, the same movie, same costume decisions, same songs, so this begs the question, why are we hear?

The plot, surely you know it. A castle with a beast in it, a beautiful girl named Belle must break the spell. Beauty isn't just skin deep etc. We all know it, it is one of the oldest tales recorded in human history. Lets move on.

Emma Watson both succeeds and fails at Belle. As a smart young woman that stands by her opinions and clearly has great kindness in her nature she succeeds. As a singer in a musical she fails. She sounds auto tuned and uninterested, it seems like she's just trying to hit the notes and timing with no feeling or emotion behind it.

There are two definitely good things about the movie. These are Luke Evans as Gaston and Josh Gad as LeFou. They are both clearly having a great time chewing on they're obrolan and songs. Evans strikes the balance of being like the original but also making him his own, he's Evans playing the role of Gaston, not mimicking whats come before. Gad is clearly so happy to be in a Disney movie and plays him as Gaston's fanboy but also a good person that is swayed by social pressure.

Nearly everyone's singing comes off as lackluster, none of them seem interested in infusing any passion. That is said with the exception of Luke Evans, Josh Gad and Emma Thompson who sings the title number very well. But even then, as well as she sings it I sit there thinking "Your no Angela Lansbury." I shouldn't have to compare, not everyone has to be Angela Lansbury, but she's singing her song in Beauty & The Beast by Disney, so you have to compare and by comparison it's not as good. There are a few new songs in the movie and they area all unnecessary and unmemorable.

The castle is a lavish, detailed, baroque architecture styled set that has been very well crafted by the production team. Another beautifully realized element of the movie are the costumes. That look like the original animated costumes but translated well. Being rich in color and have intricate designs embroidered in them. 

It all certainly fails at it's attempts at comedy. They come, everything stops, nobody laughs, they go. That's it, waste of time.

For whatever reasons the filmmakers felt the need to add all these extra, real world details. For example: The backstory of what happened to Belle's mother, Gaston fought in the war, the Beast parents, the villagers had their memories erased and that's why they don't remember the castle. It is the inclusion of these that is detrimental to the narrative. If you bring in more real world elements then we start treating like the real world and that is lethal to a fairy-tale. Now there are questions like how can the Beast talk so well (let alone sing) with those huge teeth? If Chip has a piece of his cup missing does that mean some is scalp is gone too? Does this witch just go around cursing rich people? What are the economical consequences of having this castle suddenly cutting off all contact with the rest of the world?

So what we have is something that is well made but is ultimately inferior in everything it does compared to the original. If you haven't seen the 1991 version then you may be impressed by this one, if you already have then you'll just year to see it again done better.

Rating: 2 1/2 stars out of 4