Attractive new Beauty still pales next to the original classic

Rating: 6/10 (18 March 2017)

Disney's new and improved "Beauty and the Beast" has lots going for it.
The beast's voice (as rumbled by Dan Stevens) is perfect, as is Ewan MacGregor's Lumiere and Ian McKellan's Cogsworth. In fact, the whole cast is attractive, engaging and surprisingly musical (who knew Luke Evans could sing?). Speaking of music, the original songs are just as good as you remember. There's even a few additional numbers that, while not spectacular, add color and depth to the story.
Speaking of spectacle, the biggest Beauty in this version is the production value. As I watched, every new scene had another gorgeous set piece. The entire Disney stable was obviously working overtime and it shows. Every chandelier is wrought with golden filigree, every turret on the castle is weathered and majestic, every costume gleams with ribbons and needlework. Even the horns of the beast are works of art.
I am also pleased to say that the story itself, is, aside from a few minor additions, essentially identical to the original. This really is the 'tale as old as time' and nothing new could improve it. The filmmakers made the right call here.
With so many things going right for it, this new Beauty is unfortunately missing one very important thing:
Belle.
Emma Watson isn't Belle. She just isn't. Even if you haven't seen the original it's obvious that something is missing from our Disney Heroine. On the surface Watson has everything we need. She's beautiful. She's plucky. She can sing, she can dance - heck, she's even comfortable on horseback.
With all those boxes checked, you'd think the movie would soar - and there are moments when it lifts off. But multiple times I found myself pulled out of the experience by Watson's disconnection. Unfortunately, she is only partially engaged with the character and so we cannot fall completely in love.
Now, to be fair, I've heard critics say Watson is only marginally talented and I would disagree. Her version of Sam was the reason Perks of Being a Wallflower is a millennial classic - and let's be honest, could you imagine anyone else as Hermione? No, I don't think her talent is in question. I'm honestly not exactly sure what happened. It's possible that acting against a digital actor was too difficult. It's also possible that with a giant studio movie like this there were too many cooks in the kitchen. Regardless, Emma Watson's uneven performance is the major weakness of the film.
If you loved the original you're obviously going to see this version - and you should. It's beautiful, enjoyable and you'll leave the theatre singing some of the best Disney music of all time. But I'm willing to bet you'll also have a stronger urge to see the cartoon version, and perhaps that was the point of this remake all along. The 1991 Disney film remains one of the best movies ever made.
Three stars (out of four)