This remake is not quite as beautiful as the original 1991 Disney animation movie. It was a paint by number cash grab

Rating: 7/10 (23 March 2017)

When I first heard that Walt Disney Pictures was remaking the 1991 Disney animation movie of the same name with director, Bill Condon. I was really looking forward to this. Maybe, this version could breathe new life into the traditional classic fairy tale. Sadly, it does not. Instead, the film, of course, not only simply replicating the original movie content â€”i.e.: its script, and â€“ with this â€“ also its corresponding themes, music, moral framework and "message", but also its nearly identical "frame-to-frame" camera shooting, despite not being animation, features a different cast, have a few new songs and some fixing of loose plot line from the first movie. Both movies tells the same tiresome semi-disturbing story of a bibliophilic young woman, Belle (Emma Watson) developing "Stockholm Syndrome" for her captor, the terrifying beast (Voiced by Dan Stevens), because she sees some humanity within him. Without spoiling the movie, too much, while, the first movie is a generally highly critically respected as a work of art, because how well-delivered and well-written, the songs, script and animation was, this film doesn't really stand out on its own, compare to the other classic live-action versions of classical Disney animation movies like 2016's 'The Jungle Book' & 2016's "Pete's Dragon'. Even mediocre films like 2014's 'Maleficent' & 2015's 'Cinderella', at least, try to do something innovative with the material, they were given. As much as I kinda like 1991's version, I have to say, I kinda don't want the same story, retold to me, again without something fresh. It's sad, because I was really hoping that this movie would be more of a hybrid of the first movie and the traditional story that was written by author, Jeanne-Marie Leprince de Beaumont. Who knows, maybe this film could had reintroduce us, to the original idea of the fairy tale that full of surrealist romper, metaphor and allegories imagery like the 2014 remake of the Jean Costeau's 1946's version, while keeping some of that Disney magic around. I wanted to see the version where Belle's father, Maurice (Kevin Kline) is a merchant, having adventures at sea, only to find his treasures in ruins; meanwhile, Belle's sisters and brothers trying to tame the beast and steal his loots for their own, but failing, because they don't see the beautiful inside of the creature. I wanted to see the Beast's treasure turn into rags! It's a powerful message. Better yeah, I want to see the version by Gabrielle-Suzanne Barbot de Villeneuve where Belle is not really a merchant's daughter but the offspring of a king and a good fairy; whom a wicked fairy is trying to killed, in order to marry her father the king; with the Beast, the only creature who can protect her. At least, that version would make more sense with the backstory of the two lovers past being brought up. In this movie, it's pretty pointless, as the tragic of their families don't led to anything. Plus, the whole ex Machina 'magic book' twist would had more purpose in Villeneuve's version than this film where it was rarely picked up. Despite that, the mediocre story isn't the only problem, I have, against this film. The movie pacing is a bit off. There is a lot of filler, that wasn't really needed, like the murder plot of Maurice, instead of going straight to the asylum subplot. One of my biggest complains about this film, is how this movie felt too much like an English accent driven West End stage play with most of the cast, being over theatrical in their singing, and dialogue reading than a realistic French movie. Don't get me wrong, Emma Watson and Dan Stevens are fine performers, when given, great direction, but I felt that, the chemistry for these two, just didn't click, even if the Beast was lot nicer in this version and Belle wasn't such a stuck-up. Maybe, it's because how fake looking, the CGI was. The Beast, never really looked like, he was really there. So, I never really got the idea of them, connecting. The same with the walking, talking home furnishings played by great supporting performers like Ewan McGregor, Ian McKellen, and Emma Thompson. I found them to be, alright, but a bit disjointed. The same can be said about the locations, like the village of Villeneuve and the Castle. It looks like sets with limited structures, filled with a lots of blue screen that was built in a staged studio than real-life locations in France. It was really jarring. I wish, the movie took advance of filming outside, more. Everything looks too control. Even the controversy idea of the movie, introducing more minority and LGBT friendly characters with LeFou (Josh Gad) & Gaston (Luke Evans) wasn't really a big deal, as there was nothing in this, that seem insulting. In the end, it was alright movie to watch in theaters with your kids. Just note that the movie will feel a bit pointless after watching it. After all, you could had save money and just rewatch the first movie that was nominated for Best Picture at home. At least, that is what I felt like.