Disney has recently been remaking his hits with the industrial efficiency of a car manufacturing plant, but most of these updates had their own identity. Evil turned the villainess of the Sleeping beauty in his heroine, for example. The Jungle Book put some Rudyard Kipling in the heap. And Pete’s Dragon has not taken many of the 1977 model, with the exception of the title. But the “new” movie ” beauty and the Beast is the first of these Disney remakes take the opposite approach, and copy his source material in all ways possible.
The story is the same as in the well-loved 1991 of the cartoon, the characters are the same, the same Beautiful costumes are the same: the blue of the dress and the white blouse in the beginning, yellow prom dress later. And it is amazing to see that IMDb credits the screenplay by Stephen Chbosky and Evan Spiliotopoulis, as opposed to Linda Woolverton, who wrote the first, because the dialogue is the same. You need to go back to Gus van Sant’s shot-for-shot homage to Psycho to see a film that gives you such an amazing sense of déjà vu.
There are two obvious differences between the two versions, however. The first difference is that the course of the film in live-action, so there’s a lot of rococo style sets and complex digital creations to look at. And yet, despite the billions of dollars that have been spent on the Hogwarts-ish design of the production, the sad reality is that neither the one nor the showstopping numbers, the title of the song and Our Guest, is as magical and imaginative as it was in a cartoon that is released over a quarter of a century.
Some of the actors at the height of their predecessors, either. Buried as it is under layers of the image generated by computer, Dan Stevens manages to make the Beast his own by finding the pathos in his aristocratic awkwardness. Ewan McGregor, who puts a little oomph and ooh-la-la Lumiere the candelabra. As for the rest of the cast, Emma Watson is prim and petulant Belle; Emma Thompson Ms. Potts is no match for Angela Lansbury, who was as warm and soothing as the tea she brewed; and Kevin Kline is painfully mannered than Beautiful wittering father. In many cases, what it is that the voices in the cartoon were provided by musical and opera veteran who could really sing, whereas the same characters in the movie are played by movie stars who really can’t.
Beast of burden
The second difference between the two Beauty and the Beasts, it is that the new is more than the former. The director, Bill Condon, has taken a fairy-tale romance which jumped along the length of 84 minutes and made a drama which trudges along a painful 129. Some of the additions are well judged. In the prologue, the prince is become a sarcasm kid who throws decadent, Marie-Antoinette-the rivalry of parties at the expense of his poor subjects, so that when an enchantress turns into fangs, and fur of monster, the curse does not seem to be unjust, it did once. We also learn why the braggadocious huntsman, Gaston (a funny Luke Evans), is so keen on the village’s resident bookworm. Apparently, it lacks the thrill of his exploits, and to be knocked back by the condescending Belle is as close as it gets to dodging the bullets of the musket.
In a sense, looking at the beauty and the Beast, it’s like watching the extended cut of Apocalypse Now
But the film-makers’ efforts to fill in the cartoon of whites are much less welcome. Beauty and the Beast follows the tedious example of the latter Batman and Obligations of the blockbusters by explaining each facet of his characters, history and psychology – and, as in Batman, the death of the parents are a major factor. The result is that there are a number of speeches, as well as a few new songs, which only serve to make the whole enterprise more slow and more dark. It is a fatal error. The plot is based on the idea that, if Belle and her shaggy pretending not to fall in love by the time the petals fall from the enchanted rose, he will be trapped in his shaggy form for always. But the film moves at such a dragging pace, it feels as if the rose would have withered and died with three songs to go.
In a sense, looking at the beauty and the Beast, it’s like watching the extended cut of Apocalypse Now, in that it is interesting to see the scenes that have been placed in a classic film, but it’s obvious why they have been omitted in the first place. His faithfulness to the comic is what will appeal to some users, however. Just like the young fans of Harry Potter, novels that are considered the first films not on the way in which they have worked for the cinema, but on how slavishly faithful they were to the books, the young fans of the beautiful and the Beast can be happy to see so many of their favorite moments recreated and with Hermione in their start-up. At the other extreme, there are those poor people who have never seen the original – the first animated film to be nominated for a best film Oscar so they will find a lot of fun, even in its pale imitation.
But while the new film is not terrible, it is difficult to see what is the point of it is as long as the comic exists. Beauty and the Beast is simply a cover of a hit parade song, played with the cover of anonymity jurisdiction Condon of the motto has been, “It is not broken, don’t fix it.” Another motto could have been better: “If it is not broke, do not do so again.”