Who is this live-action remake of Beauty and the Beast for? It is far too frightening for children (the showing I attended had at least one kid cry in terror during one of the more intense moments), mothers will see it for the sappy romance, and fathers will attend only for Emma Watson. Those who grew up with the original? There are too many differences to coast on purely by nostalgia, including alterations to songs, as well as completely new ones.
But does that matter? The 129 minute long flick moves at both a brisk and a placid pace, taking breaks for exposition then it is back to high-flying musical numbers, the most impressive one taking place at the start of the film, when Belle lusts for something outside her small village. Its context is not what is extraordinary, it is the sweeping visuals and dozens of extras singing and dancing in harmony. It is the closet the film gets to the magic of the original; the remaining numbers and set pieces look too synthetic, obvious CGI creations that fail to convince me that the singing teapot is truly a teapot in front of a camera.
The other songs are perfunctory, obligatory in a film such as this, but even a salty man like me, who has not seen the original animated classic since you could buy it on VHS, could spot these new songs and the changes to the authentic ones. They were always small, the changes that is, but if I can spot them, then so could all the little girls in line dressed as Belle. Oh, and the new songs? Let me just say you will not be humming them on your way home from the theater.
Emma Watson is perfectly cast, controlling every scene she is in, showing vulnerability beneath her sassy exterior. But that is as far as ideal casting goes; the movie poster showcase many celebrities: Kevin Kline, playing Belle's father Maurice, Luke Evans as Gaston, and Ian McKellen, portraying Cogsworth. They are fine, not a perfect cast but never distracting, and they sing, act, and dance on cue. But they are names on a screen, and never devote their bodies, or voices, with the same level of almost sensual joy that little Hermiome brings to each scene she steals. Rounding out the remainder of the cast includes: Josh Gad, transforming Gaston's dimwitted sidekick into a flamboyant, paunchy ditz (in fact, he is the first openly gay character in a Disney film like this. Churches and Trump voters are pissed), and Evan McGregor, playing the only singing candle tree I can think of, but he cannot hold a candle to Jerry Orbach (pun oh-so intended, he actually does a decent job).
But this brings us to the beast, played by Dan Stevens, who's flowing locks of hair would look more in place on the cover of a romance novel in an airport. But that is by the end of the film; most of the time he is a CGI mess, a crockpot of different animal features and, as one kid a few rows down put it, "... is too scary." But our beast is a snazzy dresser, always wearing a fitted suit. Boy, I would have hated to have been that tailor.
But when you remake a beloved film, your source material is so strong it is almost impossible to fail. Sure, this is not in the same league as the original, or even the 2016 remake of The Jungle Book, but I found myself engrossed in the story, the same way I had when I saw the original. But what is the point? This film will make a lot of money for Disney, but this is four-star material diluted into a two-star remake. Emma Watson's performance gets the flick an extra one.
No comments:
Post a Comment