Watered down, dull retelling of a timeless classic with questionable choices

Rating: 6/10 (16 March 2017)

When you take a timeless classic like Beauty and the Beast, one of few animated films in history to ever to be nominated for best picture, you know there's going to be trouble at the idea of remaking an otherwise flawless film (that's not to say the original was one hundred perfect, but near darn close!). But this is corporate Disney at it's best, trying to take something that was so special and rehash it for more money instead of creating something entirely new.
It's no question that animation is an extremely difficult medium to translate into live action. From a creative (non-financial) standpoint it's controversial on whether or not certain films should be done in the first place, as they can be difficult to recreate...and this version of Beauty and the Beast is the perfect example of this. With questionable CGI, wooden leads, a weak script and an absolutely atrocious rendition of Howard Ashman/Alan Menken's beloved 1991 score you have to wonder where Disney went wrong. What were they thinking?
Let's start off with the good: the production values of the film are breathtaking, make no mistake. The sets and costumes bring Belle's world to life as if the animation was real. Belle's village is nearly an identical replica of the cartoon and Beast Castle's looks absolutely stunning. Every last detail from the way Beast's servants are animated to the transformation sequences look fantastic. The cast for the most part is competently cast and acted, with Luke Evans hamming it up as Gaston and Josh Gad stealing the show with Lefou. Kevin Kline brings a charming new rendition of Maurice as do Ewan McGregor, Ian McKellen, and Emma Thompson as Lumiere, Cogsworth, and Mrs. Pots respectively. The script changes Disney made to expand the lore of the curse as well as provide more backstory on Belle and the Beast were a welcome change. Two new songs added to the film, "Evermore," and "How Does this Moment Last Forever?" are pretty, but almost make the film seem overstuffed. Some subtle moments that were changed also may rub some the wrong way, however. The script itself didn't add anything new and at times felt awkward.
Emma Watson and Dan Stevens, unfortunately, are horribly miscast as Belle and Beast. While Dan Stevens' vocal tone and inflections make a decent Beast, there is absolutely zero chemistry with his costar Emma Watson. On paper Emma is a wonderful choice for Belle. Not only does she look the part but she is a wonderful role model for kids. Sadly she merely does not have the acting ability to pull off Belle convincingly. Belle here lacked the innocence and charm of her animated counterpart. This especially shows in the scenes Belle has with Lumiere and the rest of the servants. And the unfortunate mistake of having Disney decide to keep the musical numbers from the legendary songwriting duo Alan Menken/Howard Ashman is where the magic is utterly destroyed. Not only is it absolutely unacceptable on Disney's part to cast two people who do not come from musical backgrounds to lead a musical, (for the most part Beauty and the Beast is considered a musical) but it is also an insult to Menken/Ashman's legacy. If Howard Ashman were alive today he would be outraged. A huge part of the original's charm is the music, and the soul behind the characters. Instead of hearing the powerful, heartfelt notes and chords that describe Belle's longing for change, we hear soft, heavily processed, robotic renditions of "Belle" and "Something There." It doesn't help Steven's singing voice sounds like an old fart. If Disney really wanted Emma's face so badly they could have at least dubbed her voice. While Gad, Evans, McGregor, and Thompson pick up the slack a little bit in their musical numbers, the music still falls flat. To add insult to injury the instrumental score was almost entirely rewritten by Menken for this film. What happened to those quiet, powerful rhythms when Belle is exploring the castle in the West Wing, or the dramatic musical tension where Gaston and Beast have their final battle in the original? All of that is gone.
Minor nitpicks include the CGI; certain parts of the castle seem engineered which was distracting, especially the scene with the wolves. Subtle script changes also removed a lot of the charming little character moments that were present in the original. Lumiere, Cogsworth, Mrs. Potts and Chip unfortunately suffered the worse from this with barely any screen time. Lefou and Maurice were actually an improvement over their animated counterparts, which was great. The changes they made with the enchantress were also wonderful.
Beauty and the Beast overall is a watered down, dull retelling of timeless classic. Now that's not to say this film is completely terrible; children and families who have never seen the original will eat up the gorgeous cinematography, charming characters and the lavish musical numbers. But for those who are classic-goers like me looking for an imaginative retelling, Disney's newest 2017 remake of Beauty and the Beast clearly shows that it doesn't hold a candle to it's predecessor. For those looking for a passionate, powerful, and inspiring film, do yourself a huge favor and turn on the animated version instead. On it's own the film is below average, if not awful, at best. 3/5 for an adaptation, 2/5 as a standalone.