*Spoilers… kind of. Not really, if you have seen the original*
Well, this review IS going to relate back to the original quite a bit, as it is incredibly difficult to write a review for a film that is pretty much word for word with the one it is copying. So if you have not seen the classic animated one (for shame on you), then go and watch that!
That opening line might have suggested that I did not like this live-action tale as old as time, but I can assure you that I was glued to the screen throughout. I think the main reason was that I wanted to see just how this adaptation matched up with the original.
Being a massive fan of the animated version (what? It’s okay for a grown man to like that kind of Disney film), I know that film inside and out. Rather than do what Jon Favreau did with the reboot of the Jungle Book did back in 2016; which was to make a similar film that did not copy the animated one word for word, and just have loose hints towards it throughout, which doesn’t always work out as the previous incarnation of the Jungle Book died a death the moment it left the gate, Bill Condon’s Beauty and the Beast decided to do the same thing we have seen before, with most of the lines copied straight from the previous version. This included every song (except the song ‘Human Again’ which was on the special edition version of the original) as well as every scene, but with a few of them, expand on it, fleshing out certain characters’ back-stories and pretty much just bulking up the original by about thirty minutes. The film also included two additional songs that were unfortunately forgettable the moment they had ended and never quite matched up to the original ones.
This ‘copying word for word’ was maybe one of the main reasons this film did not fill me with the same feelings that the animated one does. I did feel myself comparing it throughout the entirety of the film. During the first song; Belle, the character in question, never quite hit the same notes as she did in the animated version, and certain aspects of the songs were sung dramatically different to how they were before. This is the problem when the original film had been out nearly as long as I have been alive. So naturally I grew up watching that edition over and over throughout the last 26 years.
I didn’t mind the lyrics changes here and there throughout the various songs, and it is understandable that different actors/actresses never quite hit the same notes or sung parts of the songs differently, it was just that knowing these songs so well, it didn’t have the same magic. Whereas the Jungle Book was completely different to the original, so I did not have much to compare.
A clear example, of the point mentioned, above is during the opening; when the old crone shows up asking for a room, but the Prince turns her away, well this scene is now bulked out with some random party that the Prince is throwing (which helps explain why there were so many people turned into household objects), the line at the end of the intro; “For who could ever learn to love a beast?” does not hit anywhere near as hard as it did in the original. You find yourself saying the lines in your head, but then when they do not hit their mark, you can’t help but feel a little disappointed.
This is of course my own personal view on this. I know that a lot of people my age and above would feel this way, as most older people who go to see this film (not going for the sake of a child) would only see this if they are a big fan of the original.
If you have never seen the original, or simply do not really care much, then none of the above will matter.
Emma Watson is a peculiar choice for the role of Belle. While she is good looking, she does not have the same drop dead, head turning looks that would cause the entire town to be going on about her. This is again me having an idea of what the live-action Belle would look like. Her performance was great, mind you, and I never did find myself questioning her capabilities of playing the character.
The Beast (played by Legion’s Dan Stevens) did a good job of replicating the original version of the character. However, this meant that he did not shine through the costume personally and so he just felt like an exact copy of the Beast from the animated film.
Ian McKellen was fine as Cogsworth (Are the objects they appear as based solely on the name of the character? Is that how the spell works?). McKellen managed to break free of the shackles of trying to match up to the original and gave the character a little something extra.
Ewan McGregor’s Lumière, on the other hand, left me disassociating his performance with the original’s in a different way. While he did bring something new to the character, it was incredibly difficult to get past his ridiculous French accent, the likes of which sounded as if I (an average Joe) was doing an impression of a Frenchman. It was almost comical as to how it sounded, breaking the immersion for myself a number of times. The same could be said for Emma Thompson’s version of Mrs. Potts. Her incredibly cockney voice was laughable, but not in the way that was intended.
Luke Evans’ Gaston I thought was very good. He was probably the best character in the film. While not as built as the original Gaston, I was willing to look past the aesthetics of the character, so long as the performance of the actor playing them was able to match up with the source material (the same view I had with Jeffrey Dean Morgan’s Negan on the Walking Dead). Thankfully he did play the character well. The issue I had with him, was not the performance, but instead character’s motivations and reasoning (which is down to the script).
In this incarnation of Beauty and the Beast, Gaston is a straight up dick. He is evil. While in the animated film, he only wanted to marry Belle and was plotting to throw her father into an insane asylum to blackmail her into marrying him (a move which I probably would not do myself to win the affection of the lady I planned to marry), but in this version, Gaston ties Belle’s father to a tree and leaves him for the wolves to eat… I am not sure what he was planning to achieve with this tactic, but I am pretty sure it was not going to work. No one plots like Gaston, but this is just going well too far.
Although Belle had already made it pretty clear already that she was 100% NOT going to marry Gaston, which was portrayed with an incredibly awkward scene near the beginning of the film; “You know… books. Want me to come round for dinner tonight?” “No” *awkward silence before Belle moves on and the conversation ends*, where as in the original, she did kind of lead him on a bit and didn’t give Gaston a firm answer until he was already rallying the town to go after the beast.
The character’s demise is nowhere near as good as the originals. It did feel a little like an afterthought, considering that all they needed to do was just continue following what had happened in the animated film, like they had already done so before, but instead they just decide to do away with him quickly and in a rather silly way.
Finally we come to Josh Gad, who played LeFou; Gaston’s little sidekick. In this version of the film, LeFou was mentioned a lot in the news in the build up to the film’s release, as being the first openly gay character in a Disney film. While I have nothing against this, it is clear that the film-makers were a little concerned with how they were going to have their first gay character portrayed, and so LeFou has been changed quite a bit in this one. In the original he was just Gaston’s little friend who brown-nosed him and egged him on, whilst following his every word, as well as being quite evil; he was willing to kill the little dog/pouffe (had to triple check the spelling of that word, given this paragraph’s subject matter) until the cooker and the knives got involved. In this film LeFou is only after Gaston’s affections, starting off as his little brown-nosing friend (of course only because he was in love with him), but eventually turning against his mentor and joining the side of the goodies later on (even getting involved in the ending ball scene).
While this character change wasn’t overly a big deal, and did not ruin anything of the film, I couldn’t help but feel as if Disney were treading on eggshells and didn’t want to do anything that would make a certain group of people look bad. An admiral decision that was a little eye rolling-ly obvious as to what they were doing.
The actor’s performance was fine, although I couldn’t help but hear his Olaf voice from Frozen break through a couple of times. I fear that the actor might get typecast if he continues down this path.
Disclaimer: I have a young daughter which is why I am so clued up on NEW Disney films as well.
Overall, I did enjoy the 2017 version of the film. I doubt I would go out of my way to watch it again when I can just as easily watch the 1991 version, which is far more enjoyable. However, if you are a fan of the original, then it is worth checking out solely to compare, as well as seen the parts that the film-makers added in to help bulk up the story. Explaining that the town were under the spell as well, so that they never remembered that there was a massive castle nearby, and why there were so many people at the castle the night that it was cursed, are nice editions to the classic that help answer a few questions we might have had.
A few other chances that were added in, such as what happened to Belle’s mother, and that with each drop of the magic rose petal, the servants of the Beast are turned more into the objects and less human, were all good touches that do not mess with the original formula, but simply add a new level of depth to the already established story. Which is what one can only hope for when they decide to remake/redo a classic childhood film.
If you are like me and spend the entire film comparing, then you might not enjoy it as much as you should, but going into the live-action version of Beauty and the Beast with an open mind, and you will come out humming along to your favourite song from the film (for me it is Gaston’s “Kill the Beast”, a song which was done well once again in this adaptation).
I’ll end with a few questions I have, not necessarily to do with this version, but with the original as well. Maybe some of you can help me with the answers to these question, but I have always wondered this. The newer version answered a few other questions I had (like how did the townsfolk not know about the Castle), but these ones still lingered;
Why was his carriage a spider? I understand that it turned all the servants into household objects (did they need to eat and poo?), but why did it change the castle’s carriage into an inhuman contraption with eight spider legs (even to the point where it hissed and rattled as it walked off)?
What was the grey stuff? Why introduce it as ‘the grey stuff’? It sounds absolutely revolting. It was creamy and Lumière gave us no indication as to whether it was meat (as Emma Watson’s version of Belle made me believe that she is most likely a Vegan).
Where did the magic mirror come from? Was it something to do with the curse? Did the crone give him it to rub salt into his wound? “Oh here is a magic mirror you can see anything you want”. And for that matter, how did it work? Could the Beast have gone “Show me the woman who would love me”?
Were the servants ageing? In this version, Mrs. Potts meets up with Mr. Potts at the end. Was he the same age when she got turned into a teapot? Or was she ages during the 10+ years she had spent there at the castle?
How old was Mrs. Potts in order to have a child the age of Chip, as I am under the impression she is reasonably old, and he is quite young.
Why did Gaston worry so much about Belle when those three triplets look well up for it?
I guess we will never know the answers to some of these questions, but thankfully the magic of the original film has not been despoiled by this new version. I just hope the same can be said for the 2019 live-action version of the Lion King.
Leave a Reply