Beauty and the Beast (2017) Review
I was probably one of the last 7 Disney fans on earth to see the new live-action Beauty and the Beast film, and now that it’s out of theaters and the Beauty and the Beast Blu-ray has been out for a few weeks, it seems the “perfect” time to review it. Hey, better late than never, right? No? Well…whatever.
Actually, I wanted to drop in with this review because I think Beauty and the Beast is a fascinating film in some regards, and the polarized reactions among fans is something worth discussing. In so doing, I’ll also discuss where I think the new version of the film succeeds and fails.
With Beauty and the Beast (2017), I’ve seen little middle ground in viewer reactions. This is increasingly normal with all things in fandom, but I think the polarized reactions among Disney fans (and Millennials, generally) both stem from the same place: nostalgia.
Nostalgia provokes different things in different people. For some, it makes them emotionally vulnerable. Others feel a protective sense of ownership over the thing they cherish. This is one of the reasons sequels of classic films engender strong responses.
This is certainly true of Beauty and the Beast. The result is that many who grew up with the original are eager to find a new way to revisit not only characters and songs they love, but their youth. On the other hand, there are those who are so protective of those memories and characters that any new story featuring them cannot possibly live up to the original. It’s a foregone conclusion before the movie is even released.
I’m pretty sentimental towards 1991’s Beauty and the Beast, which was released during the formative years of my youth, and for me stands behind only The Lion King as movies ‘young Tom’ loved.
While watching the 2017 Beauty and the Beast, there were a number of times–almost exclusively during songs–that I felt a rush of emotion. After each number ended, this faded away. In retrospect, that emotional resonance felt unearned. This movie had done little to provoke such a response…aside from reminding me of how its predecessor makes me feel. The emotion I felt during the movie was not due to what I was watching, but my memories of the animated classic.
If you can somehow strip away your nostalgia and emotional baggage (a difficult if not impossible task), I think what you’re left with is a fairly meh film. While the Beauty and the Beast remake does some things right, at the end it felt a bit too slickly-produced and cold for me. The overriding feeling I had when finishing the movie was not satisfaction for having seen a good or great film, but yearning for the original. (Which begs the question: why bother with this one?)
A couple of things the live action film does right are empathy and, to a lesser degree, exposition. It benefits from being able to go to darker places and having a longer running time, since it doesn’t have to follow the unwritten rules for Disney animated films. That gives this version of Beauty and the Beast the chance to provide the viewer a bit more backstory that further humanizes the characters.
More backstory is not always a good thing, though. In a few cases, scenes felt like they existed solely for the sake of the story diverging from the animated classic. (“See? It’s different!”) As with the parks, story for its own sake does nothing. In other cases, story changes feel unnecessary and have likely been made to sidestep potential claims of Stockholm Syndrome.
Some of the exposition makes it easier for the viewer to empathize with the characters, but there’s also the fact that these are adept human actors. A lot of emotion can be conveyed in good animation, but there’s something to be said for the pain visible in Kevin Kline’s face or the conflict in Josh Gad’s as he grapples with whether to support his friend as Gaston transforms into a real villain. (On the other hand, animated Belle offers more emotional depth than Emma Watson Belle.)
What live action giveth, it also taketh. The live action Beauty and the Beast is willing to go to some slightly darker places the animated classic could not, but it also dovetails with the animated version to go some places a live action film should not. In the process, it feels campy.
This is a problem inherent in remaking the animated classics. Disney needs to cover new ground to justify the film’s existence, but also needs to play the hits, so to speak, because that’s what audiences expect and want. The result of that in Beauty and the Beast is some abrupt shifts in tone, and a movie that feels all over the place.
Is this movie supposed to stand on its own as a more ‘adult’ Beauty and the Beast…or is it a remix of the animated classic that is simply no longer drawn by hand? (Begging another question: if you want a more ‘adult’ live action Beauty and the Beast, why bother with this when the 1946 version does a better job at offering exactly that?)
Then there’s the CGI. There’s way too much of it, and it feels hollow. The nature of this story requires at least some CGI, but not in literally every background or environment. I get that Beast’s castle is supposed to feel cold, but I got the same vibe from Belle’s provincial village. (Why not actually film in France?) This was especially disappointing, as both of last year’s remakes, The Jungle Book and Pete’s Dragon, do an exceptional job with emotive CGI.
Ultimately, I don’t regret having watched Beauty and the Beast nor do I think it’s an awful film. It’s just fine. There were a few nice moments, and as mentioned above a few times the movie gave me goosebumps. For the most part, that had nothing to do with what I was watching…it was all about 1991 Beauty and the Beast. I have no intentions of watching the new version again because the animated version is far superior. (Frankly, it’s a masterpiece.) Where the live action Beauty and the Beast succeeds, it does so as a result of it riding on the coattails of that version, and most new aspects it brings to the table, I’m fine doing without. Suffice to say, there’s a reason the 1991 version was the first animated film ever nominated for Best Picture…and why this version will be forgotten in a decade.
Well, I for one, do not get the folks who thought Gaston’s character was played well in the live action. While I realize his vanity can’t be played up quite as much in live action, he was just so dull in this one. It was like in his big number, he only did the things – like expectorating – because he could, not because it massaged his ego. At the end, he didn’t seem to bouyed because Of the adulation. Without his ego-centric motivation, he was annoying, not evil. .
I also thought Kevin Kline played his role as best he could without falling asleep. As for the non-human characters, I would have liked them much better if their faces were clearer. A lot of their expression was lost in the details. Those performances were ok, but lacked the same zing of the original.
I did like how they covered some of the plot holes of the original, and at least we find out why Belle’s mom isn’t around.
As for Belle, I think this is the key difference: In the live action, when she asks her dad if he thinks she’s odd, it’s because she thinks she might be and that has her down, and that frames her mood for the rest of the movie. In the original, she asks because she can’t imagine why anyone would think that because she knows she’s smart and happy and if these simpletons don’t see that, maybe she needs to be somewhere that they will. It’s a little dismissive of the townsfolk, but establishes her self-confidence.
So, throw my vote to the original, but the new one has some merit.
I don’t understand. Why are we even comparing animated to live? EVERYONE who damns the live version with faint praise begins with “well in the animated version…” So what? Maybe because I was 31when I saw the ’91 version and knew it wasn’t real people but toons, I can see that this film is different, had to be different for obvious reasons and while using the basic story and music AND using them well, made a film about real people by real people. It should be critiqued on its own. Choppy, campy, too much back story, fine! That’s reviewing. I for one have no love affair for the ’91 version. Sacrilege I know. It was over-exaggerated drawings, Belle was as vapid as Emma has been claimed cold and frankly I liked the Beast better than Adam in both. Cut the animated umbilical cord and review the 2017 version which is very good in my opinion.
I think I’ve yet to read a review of any remake that does not compare the remade film to its predecessor. How is that not relevant? The threshold question of whether a remake is superfluous by virtue of what came before is one worth asking.
Jean Cocteau was one of the greatest filmmakers of all time, and the special effects he used so masterfully in the 1946 La Belle et la Bete are incredible.
I just love that version of Beauty and the Beast. I think I’ll watch that instead of getting Disney’s remake on DVD.
On a sidenote, why on earth aren’t there more remakes where they take a lousy film and make it awesome, like Ocean’s 11?
I am doing a Beauty and the Beast movie review, and i think your movie review gives me some idea. thank you.
Same reaction as you: There’s nothing “bad” about it, but absolutely no artistic reason for it to have been made (as opposed to financial reasons–it made lots of $$$ for Disney), and the additional backstory dragged things out. In contrast, the Jungle Book went off in a completely different direction than the original that made it feel fresh.
I feel there was no way that the original could have been improved, so it was a no-win situation in some ways. The upcoming Little Mermaid will be more interesting, given that Ariel’s desire to sacrifice everything for her man won’t be acceptable today, which will force Disney to do something more radical with the story.
A further thought: They should have based the movie after the theater version, as the biggest difference is the servants slowly become objects over time. This would have better catered to the strengths of live action, added tension to the story, avoided the actors & actresses becoming overwhelmed by CGI, and made the movie less cartoony overall.
I enjoyed it-which surprised me. I love the animated version and I also love the Broadway production. This reminded me of a much better Broadway version! It is definitely a movie I will add to my collection. I think when a classic is made into a new film expectations run high-expectations not only for the quality of the movie from some but expectations that it will never match the original from others. I myself am guilty of that-especially with the Dumbo remake in progress. I do wonder if we had never seen another version of the film what our thoughts might be?
I thought the live action was clumsily written. Example: in the song “Gaston”, at the end of the animated version, Le Fou struggles to spell Gaston’s name, showing us that he may be illiterate. At the end of the live action version, Le Fou struggles with the spelling, then TELLS us he’s illiterate. Bad storytelling. Also, no one can replace the great Jerry Orbach as Lumiere. His is the definitive performance of “Be Our Guest”. I’m going to go listen to it right now.
“Meh” was my reaction, too. I thought if I’d never heard of the animated film, I’dve thought this was a good movie. But having seen the original, the 2017 version didn’t have a single scene the original didn’t do better. The word is overused but this time it applies: the original is a masterpiece. The live-action version is good, but not on that level.
Actually, I agree with your review. When I first saw it, I was very excited to go and did very much enjoy parts of the film. Echoing a popular opinion on here, Emma Watson is a fine actress, but she’s not Belle. Gaston was great. I love Dan Stevens too, but the Beast was somewhere in the middle of all of that for me. I think my favorite moment was Be Our Guest, but since Ewan McGregor is my absolute favorite actor, I may be biased!
Beauty and the beast was THE movie of my childhood. I was 6 when it came out, and I wanted to be Belle (even tried to coordinate reading and walking at the same time – to disastrous results). So, when the live action remake came out, I was super excited. And it lived up to my expectations on what this movie should focus on – a relationship of equals.
In the animated movie, the relationship between the Beast and Belle seemed contrived and REALLY quick (I hate you, but now I love you in a flip of a three minute musical montage). In the live action movie, you got to see a relationship develop based on shared interests and mutual respect (and that library! I LIVE for that library). Yes the CGI was overdone, but I enjoyed the story that the enchanted objects gave, and the reason they all stuck around after all these years.
And Watson’s portrayal of Belle was my favorite part (except for the singing – yes, it wasn’t great, but it wasn’t Russell Crowe in Les Mis terrible). Watson’s Belle was the Belle I had wanted to be since I was 6 – intelligent, hardworking, brave, and able to rescue herself. And for those who say that Watson’s Belle came off as cold, condescending, or as a “petulant child,” I didn’t see that characterization. Watson’s Belle was tired of being misunderstood and shunned by her town for no reason other than she was “different.” As someone who was also soundly rejected and made fun off for no reason other than who I was and my interests, it can make you cold to outsiders. You build up walls to protect your delicate heart from being repeatedly trampled. Watson’s Belle started out that way, but I loved seeing her take her walls down, and see that not everyone is going to think she is “strange,” or “weird.”
So, sorry for the super long comment, but I love both the animated and live action versions of Beauty and the Beast. But then again, I think the animated Sleeping Beauty is awesomely women-centered (watch it again, but don’t think of it as Aurora’s story, but the fairies, and it changes everything – they save the day!). 😀
Agreed with almost everything you have to say – three things in particular I’d add:
1) I thought Luke Evans did an outstanding job as Gaston and delivered by far the best performance of the movie. “Gaston” was definitely the best musical number of the film and was about the only thing in the movie that (IMHO) “earned” an emotional response.
2) I love Emma Watson, but she was not the right choice for Belle. Singing ability aside (and oh boy, there’s plenty to talk about on that alone), her characterization of Belle was completely off. By “off” I don’t just mean not accurate to the animated film, but detrimental to the film’s ability to draw us into the story. In the animated film, Belle is completely believable as a warm and friendly but strong and courageous young woman – she’s someone you care about and want to be friends with. Watson’s Belle is cold; condescending; and in scenes where she should be angry, yet dignified and assertive, comes off as a petulant, whining child. That’s a big problem because this is Belle’s story, so if we don’t believe in or care about Belle, what does that leave us with? Not much.
3) If you’re going to (attempt to) do an almost shot-for-shot remake, just don’t bother. The film’s slavish devotion to its animated predecessor serves only to highlight where it falls short. The 1991 animated film is almost impossible to improve upon, so it would’ve been a *much* better choice to either do something totally different or just don’t do anything at all. Unfortunately, an unimaginative shot-for-shot remake is the easiest way to cash in, and 2017 BatB’s box office numbers will only reinforce that kind of thinking.
Agreed! I was on the fence about seeing this movie in theaters, and the release of the “Belle” video clip convinced me not to, also beyond the bad singing. Her eyeroll when she sang her first line about the baker and her deliberately stomping through the other villagers’ laundry came across so smug. She also had a total lack of joy and enthusiasm when she talked about her books. Perhaps that one villager thought Romeo and Juliet sounded boring because she described it so lifelessly?
Also her singing voice was really bad. She can hardly match pitch, she can’t hold a note. They tried to get away with it with Les Mis – style speak-singing but it doesn’t work, especially when the male actors can sing. I found her performance utterly charmless, and I love her as Hermione. Just terrible casting.
I feel the same way. I really, REALLY love Emma Watson’s Hermione, so I was rooting for her in this one, but I just didn’t get it. I also, really liked Gaston in this one and didn’t feel like Belle would’ve fallen for the Beast. To me, there wasn’t the same loving shift from bad to good between Beast and Belle before Gaston came to kill him. It was almost as though she defended him because she thought it was wrong, but not because she was in love with him. I didn’t love the CGI either. It was just ok to me. Maybe I expected too much. I LOVED the live action Jungle Book, though, so I don’t think it’s the nostalgia for me. My 2 year old niece, however, loves this one more than the animated which is hilarious and crazy to me. She won’t pay the animated one any attention, but will sit through the entire live action.
I think Emma Watson is a terrific actor, but I felt she demonstrated little range in the role. I wasn’t sure if that was just my perspective, or if others felt the same. (I’d go as far as to say her performance was the weakest of the main characters in the movie.)
Seeing Emma Watson in the previews for the movie was a huge turn off. I never saw it, kind of glad I didn’t.
I enjoyed the film, but felt that in making the castle characters more like “real” objects they really lost expression and charm. And while I appreciated the backstory, I also felt like it really did nothing to move the story along. I would have liked to see more about how Belle’s and Beasts relationship evolved, and would have appreciated more focus on that.
Totally agree with all of this.
The decision to fixate on Belle and her father’s relationship while rushing through Beast and Belle supposedly falling in love made little sense from a plotting perspective to me. You can infer everything about the father/daughter relationship and its significance. Having Belle fall in love with Beast cannot be inferred, and should’ve been better-developed in the film.
I took my 6 year old niece to see the movie. She was so mesmerized by it that was all she could think about for afew days. Me iI have never seen the cartoon before and can tell you I thought the movie was really well done. Maybe some people that don’t like it compared it to the cartoon and to them it came up short. Just because golden state is a really great team doesn’t make the cavalier’s terrible.
The Cavaliers are not a remake of the Warriors, so that analogy doesn’t really hold water for me.
I was just trying to say if you judge the movie without comparing them you may find out that the movie was pretty good.
Perfectly articulated my thoughts about this film. I saw the movie on a first date and just couldn’t get myself to enjoy it – there was no emotional resonance for me and I kept thinking “how is this supposed to be an improvement on the original?” At the end of the movie, my mouth must have been ajar because I couldn’t believe what I’d just seen and my date asked “I take it from your expression that you loved it?!” Nope, not quite..
I don’t think a remake necessarily has to be an improvement on the original, but it does have to bring enough new to the table to justify its existence. For example, I would not say the Jungle Book remake is better than the animated version, but for me, it offers something that’s fresh enough to stand on its own merits as a very good movie.
Since it’s impossible to strip away seeing the animated version from our minds, I don’t think we can predict how we would have felt seeing this one without the other. Perhaps the “goosebumps” moments would still have happened, who knows?
I liked the additional exposition (aging up the young prince, saying why the village cannot remember a nearby castle, changing weather, etc.). I know you could explain those away in your head form the original, but it felt nice to have those “officially” explained. I really liked Beast’s “Evermore” song as well – that was the highlight of the movie for me. So I’m glad they made it if just for that song.
I guess for me, the way the goosebumps moments came out of nowhere–and were consistently during the familiar musical numbers–leads me to believe that the emotion was unearned.
Failing that, when I ask myself which I’d rather rewatch, the animated version easily gets the nod. With the Jungle Book, the answer to that question could go either way.
I guess you were not swooning over Gaston’s brilliance 😉 nor captivated by the sheer joy and color of the “little town” and tavern scenes. These were far superior to oringinal, IMO.
Actually, I did like the tavern scene quite a bit. The scenes in the little village did less for me, though. The village is supposed to feel quaint and intimate, but due to the heavy-handed CGI, that’s not really the impression it gave me. To each their own, though! 🙂
Of course!! The dividend opinions are interesting, just surprising to me because the color and joyful energy brought tears to my eyes, much more than original 🙂 and that Gaston!!!! *sigh*
Perfect review. I remember leaving the film thinking it was really good. Then later I felt as if it had fallen flat, but I couldn’t put my finger on why. This exactly explains it. I wanted to like it because of my love for the original, and I did enjoy the Gaston story line take to an extent, but ultimately the stuff I was clinging to was my nostalgia for the original. Thanks for defining this for me!
Oh man, now you have me second guessing myself! I bought the dvd/blu-ray without having seen the movie assuming I’d love it and want to own it….now I’m thinking I may need to redbox before I open it. I’ve been unsure about the whole concept all along, having grown up absolutely loving the original….But after the initial viewing, maybe rewatching the animated one is better than watching the new one so I really don’t need to own the new one…
For what it’s worth, I know I’m in the minority on this film when it comes to Disney fans. You very well might totally disagree with my take, and find yourself rewatching it for years to come.