Filmology Rating: 3.13 out of 4

The 1991 Beauty and the Beast film reflects the peak of the Disney Renaissance.  The film was also a landmark for the Academy being the first animated film to ever be nominated for Best Picture, losing to The Silence of the Lambs.  Needless to say,  Beauty and the Beast is a film that is important to both cinephiles and mouseketeers.  So, why release a remake of the film?  I went in wanting this film to justify itself for being made; a reason that should be simple enough.  

Belle, played by Emma Watson, longs for a life outside her little village.  She feels trapped not being able to find the perfect man and always being judged by everyone in the town.  It doesn’t help that the war hero, Gaston, played by Luke Evans, keeps trying to convince Belle to marry him, claiming that he will be the perfect husband for her and her the perfect wife for him.  Belle finally gets her chance to leave the village but it means that she will be a prisoner at the Beast’s castle.  The Beast, played by Dan Stevens, has lost most of his humanity but hopes to reclaim it by trying to woe the prisoner.  

During the first twenty minutes of this film I had my arms crossed flabbergasted at what I was watching.  For the most part it was a shot for shot remake of the animated film.  Think of Gus Van Sant’s remake of Psycho or Zack Snyder’s Watchmen, films that must have had the original source material on set everyday and treated it like the Bible.  If Disney is going to spend $160 million on the film I feel that they would want a unique product that the world hasn’t seen before, not a rip off of a film that everyone has been watching for the past 26 years.  Nearly three generations have grown up watching the animated film; yet Bill Condon, the director, doesn’t appear to understand the difference between homage and rip off.  

The only thing that kept me from getting up and leaving during those first twenty minutes was not Emma Watson’s portrayal of Belle but to my surprise Luke Evans as Gaston.  While Evans has appeared in many West End productions, like Rent and Avenue Q, most audiences will remember him as the villain in Fast and Furious 6 and Bard in The Hobbit trilogy.  This is the best that Evans has even been on the silver screen and I found myself always longing for the film to show more of Gaston instead of Belle or the Beast.  In fact, the Broadway production of Beauty and the Beast featured a song entitled “Me” that Evans would have sang with the perfect amount of smug that you couldn’t help but find yourself smiling at the egotistical villain.  One of my favorite aspects to this Gaston is that he actually feels like a human character and not a muscle hunk who complains that he can’t get the girl.  Amazingly enough, one might find some sympathy for Gaston during his first few scenes.  This feeling is an astonishing feeling to have toward a Disney villain.  

The running length of the film must be addressed, with this film running around 45 minutes longer than the original animated film.  While I assumed the film would have added some of the songs from the Broadway production like “Home” or “No Matter What” I quickly came to hear that the film would try to create new showstopping numbers like “Days in the Sun”, “How Does a Moment Last Forever”, and “Evermore”.  When I say showstopping here I mean it in a negative way, the movie came to a screeching halt and for those few minutes of screentime it felt like a lifetime.  The new numbers plus the subplot of Belle’s mother are completely unnecessary.  The original script by Linda Woolverton was incredibly tight, not having any loose ends or unneeded scenes, but this film with a script by Evan Spiliotopoulos and Stephen Chbosky adds subplots that add nothing to the story or the characters;  so you are left scratching your head as to why they destroy the pace of the film.

Maleficent justified its existence by being an allegory about rape and female empowerment, Cinderella justified its existence by having some of the best costume design and a star making performance from Lily James, and The Jungle Book justified its existence by showing some of the most mind blowing photorealistic animation ever put to film.  While I might not have enjoyed all of those films, I can at least justify an artistic reason for them being made, on the other hand,  Beauty and the Beast offers no reason for its existence other than commerce.  I feel the real question comes down to this, when I have a child will I show them this film or show them the original animated film?  This is a case where you don’t mess with the original.   

Rating: Rent It

-Jonny G

Beauty and the Beast got remade! Is any other introduction needed when describing one of the greatest Disney animated films?

So for those of you who don't know, Disney plans to remake essentially all of their original animation films within the next few decades, 22 to be exact (so far). This includes Aladdin, Lion King, Mulan, a Cruella de Vil origin movie (staring Emma Stone), Snow White, and much more. This has me both very excited and also slightly skeptical because I don't want Disney to just churn these films out with the sole purpose of making a lot of money and have them turn out like crap. “Beauty and the Beast” however did not fall into this category. This was a wonderfully magical film that brought the original feeling forth while adding new elements to the story.

Some of you might be saying to yourself, wait they added new elements to the story? Is that a good thing or bad? Rest assured that it was a good addition to the film. Specifically, the question of what happened to Belle’s mother was something new they added. I really liked this aspect actually because it was something that I really never thought of with the original. It added a lot more heart, character development, and created a few new scenes because of it.

With the original film coming out in 1991, there has been 26 years of advancements when it comes to animation. The good thing about all of this was that the new animation technology still kept the original feeling of the film. The musical numbers were very much the same but it added a lot of vibrant colors and great special effects to amplify this original feeling. Now with a lot of special effects and of course, not actually having a talking candlestick and clock (disappointing I know…) there will be a lot of green screen work. Sometimes it was a little more noticeable with how Belle (Emma Watson) reacted but this is a very small critique.

Now let’s talk about Emma Watson and the rest of the cast…. They were excellent! Emma Watson was a very believable Belle. She had a great singing voice and also had a very believable romance with the Beast. This movie focuses a lot more on the gradual development of the relationship and how it turns romantic than the original did (longer screen time and bigger budget help out a ton). The Beast was really great as well with some excellent animation that both captured the beastly nature and gentle side as well. And last but definitely not least was the great relationship between Gaston and Le Fou. They were hysterical! Together they created a lot of really funny moments that had me and the audience laughing. Altogether, the writers did an excellent job with its characters and bringing new qualities to the film.

I just have to say this, if you have a problem with the “gay character/s”….. get over it. Seriously.

“Beauty and the Beast” maintains the elegance and enchantment of the original film while bringing a fresh spin to the table. If you haven’t seen this already, this being the 7th highest grossing opening weekend film in history so I assume a lot of you already have, you need to go see it!

Rating: See It

-Nick