The rest of the cast are all suited to their roles perfectly fine, with British acting titans Emma Thompson and Ian McKellen lending their voices enjoyably, but the standout is Kevin Kline as Belle's father, Maurice. Rather than being depicted as a kooky inventor (as in the original film), Maurice is personable and comes with a tragic backstory that permeates through all of his protective actions. It's a sympathetic new look at the character, and perhaps the only improvement over the original. And while that isn't to say that the new version is bad, the differences can certainly be felt, particularly when it comes to the songs. Some new additions have been added, and they're pretty good, particularly the Beast's solo number, "Evermore." Beyond that, the body of the soundtrack is built on Alan Menken's brilliant songs that helped define the original film, including "Be Our Guest," "Something There," and the titular "Beauty and the Beast." And although the voices singing them aren't bad, it only reminded me how much more lively they sounded in the original. The most defining aspect for me is the film's visual style. At some points, such as creating unique environments, the film is incredibly striking. The forest that surrounds the castle is teeming with a haunting atmosphere, and the castle itself feels organic and alive (fitting, since most of its objects are alive). Similar to the original, the design took me back to the look and feel of the innovative 1950s Dracula films, but never in a way that would frighten younger viewers. But in other aspects, such as the castle's living inhabitants, the approach leaves more to be desired. Firstly, there's the matter of the Beast. I hate to keep comparing this version to its '91 counterpart, but in that film, he moved like a wolf, but looked like a bear crossbred with a buffalo. It was a unique and truly monstrous interpretation, but here, he looks like a man wearing monster makeup (which is what he is). I'm impressed that the visual effects artists opted for a more retro technique, but it doesn't completely fool me like an effect should. It goes to show that in live action, there's only so much you can do to blur the line between fantasy and realism. The same problem befalls the objects of the castle (Lumiere the candelabra, Cogsworth the clock, Mrs. Potts the tea kettle, and so on). The animation style of the original allowed their faces to be much more expressive, but in live action, their expressions feel rather limited. It really comes down to knowing your story, and which tools are meant to be used to tell it. For example, in The Jungle Book, the characters were able to look unbelievably real because real animals were used as a reference. But in real life, common household (or castle, as it were) objects don't have expressions, so this is truly a tale meant for the unlimited realm of hand-drawn animation. While it may sound like I have a lot to gripe about, the truth is that I truly did enjoy Beauty and the Beast. I never expected it to exceed the original, but simply to pay tribute to it, and that's exactly what it did. To be honest, a lot of my complaints (the on-and-off visuals, the songs sounding just servicable, and the story beats occasionally feeling laid out) are virtually unnoticable if this is your introduction to this story, so the film is perfectly fine on its own. I just happen to be an older soul with a penchant for anything older than I am (be it movies, music, or otherwise), so while I did like Beauty and the Beast, I can assure you that you would enjoy it more than I did. 2017's Beauty and the Beast is very enjoyable, but I can't emplore you enough to watch the 1991 original as well. I'm giving Beauty and the Beast three out of four stars.
0 Comments
3/23/2017 0 Comments 'Power Rangers' Movie Review
3/6/2017 0 Comments 'Logan' Movie Review
|
|