Beauty and the Beast (2017)

photo courtesy of movies.disney.co.uk

SPOILER-FREE REVIEW

     Beauty and the Beast is the latest in Disney’s series of live-action classic remakes. Disney has had some real standouts and some real duds in the bunch, and Beauty and the Beast is somewhere in the middle. For a purely nostalgia-driven experience, it packs in enough fun and flourishes to be a good time at the theater—it’s just that there’s not much at all going on beneath the shiny veneer.

     The movie follows Belle (Emma Watson) as she lives her life in a provincial, backwater town. The disappearance of her father leads her to a mysterious, hidden castle on the outskirts of town. In the castle, things are not as they appear: the silverware and household items are alive, and the castle is ruled by a horrible, monstrous Beast (Dan Stevens). It will take true love to lift the curse and restore the Beast and his servants to their human state. Can love truly melt a stubborn heart? Can beauty truly love a beast?

photo courtesy of digitalspy.com

     If that sounds intriguing to you, then you should probably go ahead and re-watch the Disney original, which is by far the superior film. The update tries to keep things fresh and new, but most of the added elements are clearly distinguishable—because they’re of decidedly lower quality than the rest. The old stuff that we knew and loved? It’s there, shining through the mire occasionally. But for the most part, it’s those things that end up on the cutting block this time—the things that contributed most to the original’s heart, warmth, and charm.

photo courtesy of hollywoodreporter.com

     Beauty is not a total disaster by a long shot. In fact, it’s really fine. For people who are just in it for the ride, for a good time at the movies, or even just to relive the beloved story, it’ll probably get the job done. It’s an effective nostalgia ride, through and through. The essentials are all there: the bashful beauty, the charming Beast, the eccentric servants (who are at times hilarious, at times stilted). The movie is also undoubtedly visually stirring, with a warm color palette and gorgeous sets.

     Josh Gad and Ian McKellan are the standout cast members, with hilarious performances that lift up the rest of the action. Gad is perfectly cast. The movie actually does alright in the humor department, with an eye on sharp, witty jokes that suit a modern audience.

photo courtesy of eonline.com

     But that’s where it stops. The movie’s lead, in Emma Watson, is surprisingly wooden and unconvincing as Belle. She gets into her rhythm somewhere around the halfway point, but even then the magic isn’t quite working. Luke Evans (Gaston) has his moments, but he’s just not the right choice for the character. The CGI is pretty rough, especially considering the wonders Disney worked with The Jungle Book just a year ago. The nail in the coffin is the script, which is poor even by mindless blockbuster standards. Awkward dialogue, weird plot choices, and lame dead ends weigh it down.

     Oh, and that gay character that caused all that hullabaloo? Not worth the controversy. His “gay scene” is a brief footnote—hardly a statement of any kind.

photo courtesy of trailers.apple.com