Shot-for-shot an inferior remake of the original

Rating: 6/10 (17 April 2017)

I like to think I keep myself across reviews of films from all quarters but I genuinely can't remember reading one of Beauty and the Beast that divulged it was simply a shot-for-shot remake of the original. So you can understand my disappointment when I came out of the cinema realising I could have saved my money and watched the 1991 classic at home (for me, one of Disney's greatest achievements).
I have enjoyed the recent live-action remakes of Cinderella and (especially) The Jungle Book. Each took the original story and added their own identity with a few nice performances, special effects and surprises thrown in. Beauty and the Beast however stuck firmly to its original, successful model. And after the special effects master- class that was the remake of The Jungle Book, this CGI Beast was horribly fake and stilted in places.
All the best songs were taken straight out of the 1991 edition. All the best scenes were taken straight out of the 1991 edition. And despite, on paper, the best cast yet, every single performance (barring perhaps Luke Evans as Gaston) was eclipsed by the 1991 edition.
I'm glad I spent good money to see the live-action remakes of Cinderella and The Jungle Book. But with Beauty and Beast I feel I've been conned by sloppy and lazy film-making purely for the purpose of 'cashing in' (which Disney have been highly efficient at again I might add).
Not a bad film... just entirely unnecessary. A waste of a great opportunity and a great cast. I'll be sticking to the 1991 original religiously from now on.
Oh, and for my money, some of the singing voices (Especially Emma Watson) have been processed to within an inch of their lives.