[yasr_overall_rating]
An adaptation of the Disney fairy tale about a monstrous-looking prince and a young woman who fall in love.
Disney seems to be able to franchise anything. Walt built his empire by making a “Brand” out of a mouse. Mickey went from a pen and ink drawing in 1928 to major motion picture star to a spokesmouse for the Disney company at its Disneyland theme park and television programs to the logo appearing on EVERYTHING Disney including the water tower at Disney Studios.
“Beauty And The Beast” is not Disney’s story. Neither is “Snow White,” “Aladdin,” “Cinderella,” or (arguably) “The Lion King.” But Disney has done so much with this story it might as well be. In 1991 Disney released “Beauty And The Beast” to rave reviews not only for its story, acting, and music but for its innovation of computer animation. As a computer geek, I was blown away at the ballroom scene for the sheer detail and computing power it took to create. “Beauty And The Beast” is the reason the Academy of Motion Picture arts and Sciences has a Best Animated Picture category. BatB was nominated for Best Picture and damn near won so to keep a ‘cartoon’ from winning Hollywood’s top prize, they created a new category. In 1993 Disney invaded Broadway with BatB helping to create the ‘brand’ even further. An anniversary re-release with added songs, a collector’s edition, millions in merchandise, and now to re-create the movie yet again in live action has pretty much cemented BatB as a Disney product.
So remaking beloved animated films into live action is becoming the new norm for Disney Studios. Although “Cinderella” and “The Jungle Book” were not direct re-makes, Beauty is. The storyline is unchanged but enhanced with more fleshing out of characters and events which makes this movie soooo much better than the 1991 original. There is such extensive use of CG that calling it a live action film is almost misleading.
This is a big budget film. $160,000,000 big to be exact and Disney will re-coup that money ten times over even without the home video and merchandising if for no other reason than there is a abundantly large built in audience for this film. Disney faithful, fans of the film, Emma Watson groupies, and the simply curious will be more than happy to pony up the $10-15 per ticket to see this film and they should. This film is worthy of it. I personally saw it in a state of the art Dolby theater which enhanced the picture and sound beyond belief but this film is perfectly fit for any theater.
From the opening scene of the little peaceful village where Belle and her father reside we see that Emma Watson is exactly the effervescent lovely girl that is Belle. She strolls through the town singing her namesake song wonderfully with a soft sweet voice and pure innocent facial expressions. This is my only complaint with her entire performance. Her voice is not the Broadway Belter that we’re used to from the animated movie and of course the Broadway Stage, but softer and somewhat more poignant. It’s a complaint, but a very small one. Emma carries the movie as she should portraying Belle as a strong, thinking woman who is still vulnerable in her feminine ways. The full opening number is done in the style of MGM movie musicals. Effective and fun, but standard fare.
The whole movie is less slapstick than the animated version or the Broadway play. The main beneficiary of this is Josh Gad as the character LeFou. In the 1991 version, LeFou (The Fool) is nothing but a punching bag for Gaston both verbally and physically. In this version, LeFou is a much more filled out character who spends almost the entire movie exploring his own sense of self and riding the edge of alternative sexuality in a reach of character expression never before seen in a Disney film. Nowhere in the script does it ever say that LeFou is gay. He makes open flirtations with the triplet sisters in hopes to score leftovers from Gaston’s wooing, or lack thereof, but for four seconds at the end of the film he is seen dancing with a man. The briefest flash of that made my eighteen year old daughter’s jaw drop to the basement of the theater we were sitting in. “They did that in a Disney movie?!?!” was her exclamation after she regained her senses. Yes, they did. And it’s already causing stirs. A theater in Alabama has refused to show the film after it learned of the indication of said “relationship.” I’m thoroughly expecting a Million Moms March on the Disney Studios parking lot or at least a call for boycott.
Luke Evans is solid as Gaston, the new “icky heart throb” character being made popular in cinema. His chin is only slightly less prominent than that of the cartoon character and he’s not quite as overall stupid. He is just as narcissistic as the original and his voice fills the role with the arrogant grandeur needed for this part. His obsession with Belle is truthful while not being creepy or overplayed. I really appreciated the fact that the scriptwriters gave Maurice (Kevin Kline) far less doddering old fool dialogue and created a deeper father figure for Belle. The real accomplishment though was the Beast.
The Beast is not as imposing as in the original version. Played by Dan Stevens who, out of makeup, is as uneventful as dry white toast, transforms into a a hairy, lion-faced hulk of a creature baring ram horns with a voice falling somewhere between Michael Dorn’s Worf and Hugh Laurie when he’s being sensitive. This particular Beast looks like an amalgamation of every Beast character from the 1946 classic film to the 1980s TV show starring Ron Perlman. The best part is that Stevens plays him not as an angry out-of-control rager but more as a melancholy prisoner resigned to his fate. He is certain nobody, especially Belle, could love this freak trapped in a monster’s body but then as he watches her watching him, he begins to break. There is much more in the transformation of him in this version than in the original. By the time he lets her go back to her father he knows he loves her and he is sure she loves him but will never be able to admit it because of his appearance. A great love story with much more maturity than Disney usually produces.
Visually, the film is beautiful but not stunning and the sound, cinematography, and other technicalities of this movie are as good as anything else I’ve seen. The movie as a whole is good. It’s just that it is not as good as Disney wanted you to believe it was going to be and to be honest, was a slight letdown after the anticipation. Still, I must put it in my “recommend” file.
In theaters Friday, March 17th
