Hello degenerates,
heathens, weirdos, deviants, rebels, and defected Imperial officers. I am
the Rock Otaku, and I’m here to show you worlds such as hard rock, metal, punk,
alternative rock, movies, TV, anime, video games, and anything that makes us
scream, shout, and want adventure in the great white somewhere.
Today, I review a
movie that I’ve recently seen that both fits my interests alongside my
standards of high-octane, high-caliber blockbusters: Beauty and the Beast (2017)
But before I dig in,
let me tell a story.
Once upon a time,
there was an animation studio that lived in Burbank, California. They were once a floundering shell of the
same studio that advanced the medium of animation and brought cutting-edge technology
to the art to tell timeless stories for all audiences. But like the sands of time, the man that lead
their glories died and left the studio to an uncertain future. To ensure their livelihood, the men that
stood by this legend’s side brought in several new apprentices to learn the art
of animation from the masters, become masters themselves, and continue the
legacy of this one man while adapting to the times and pushing the boundaries
of storytelling themselves. After a long
grueling process, where some of the apprentices left this quest to attain glory
for themselves, the art they developed, with the help of outside resources that
pushed their work to the masses, started to go from mediocre or below the
desired standards to outright masterpieces, launching a Renaissance that began
with a mermaid. From this story came various
groups of people, some masters of art, others storytelling, others music, and
everyone passionate, who went to work on another project that would SURPASS
their previous achievement. With
guidance from Don Hahn, direction by Kirk Wise and Gary Trousdale, animation
that included the talents of everyone from Glen Keane and Andreas Deja, and
music and lyrics by Alan Menken and the late Howard Ashman, who put his all
into what would be his final project, the Walt Disney Studio would bring to the
world Beauty and the Beast, a
cinematic landmark that pushed the limits of animation further back, appealed
to all audiences young and old, captured their hearts as well, and was
nominated for the Academy Award of Best Picture.
And now we have a
remake from the director of Twilight:
Breaking Dawn Parts 1 and 2 in theaters with an all-star cast of Emma
Watson, Dan Stevens, Luke Evans, Josh Gad, Kevin Kline, Ewan McGregor, Ian
McKellan, Emma Thompson, Stanley Tucci, and several other well-known actors and
actresses, and the same composer from the animated classic. The immediate question is: Why?
Why remake something
that established Disney as THE studio for animated masterpieces, that touched
audiences when it came out, touches today’s generation and will touch future
generations, and was NOMINATED FOR BEST PICTURE!? The first animated feature to do so, to be
exact. Why redo what can be considered
perfection?
The answer? Uh… You get a decent movie, to be honest.
There are some issues
here that I’ll get to, but let me discuss the positives first. First, the acting is definitely good, not
great, but good. There’s a sense that
these actors were chosen because of their iconography and star power rather
than if they fit the character, even weirder when a good chunk of the main cast
is covered in massive amounts of CGI.
But most of them, with a few notable exceptions, do a good job here,
with Kevin Kline and Josh Gad being among the better actors, both due to their
performances and how they both take the characters they’re playing, Maurice and
LeFou, in new directions that allow them to show their acting chops while
giving strong arcs in character development, especially the latter, which I’ll
get to in the spoiler section. The
colors are also strong here, being vibrant when needed, like with the village
and in several key scenes, and muted and dark to set an eerie atmosphere around
the Beast’s castle after the curse is put on it. Plus the plot does fill in a few plot holes
from the original to ensure that things flow better, despite the animated movie
having easy reasons for some of them.
As for the bad, there’s
an issue with two characters, Belle and the Beast. Not to say that these are bad characters, but
they are nowhere near as strong as they should be, especially when you make
comparisons to the original film. For
the former, it really does feel Emma Watson was cast due to her star power
thanks to her role as Hermione Granger and her appeal as a feminist icon. Not to say that making Belle even more of a
feminist icon than the original is a good idea, but they almost hit the
mark. Too bad some of her actions aren’t
convincing, the performance feels like Hermione Granger in France, and her
singing voice (with or without AutoTune) is nowhere near as fitting to the
character as Paige O’Hara’s excellent performance. The Beast is slightly better in the acting
department by Dan Stevens, who could make for a much bigger star after this,
but the CGI is surprisingly unneeded, due to his design, as proven by the
mini-series of the same name with Ron Pearlman and Linda Hamilton and the works
of Guillermo Del Toro in regards to creature design and makeup, being a little
too human-looking. It’s as if that to
ensure there is an illusion of an actor playing a CGI character, they gave the
beast a more human face and moé girl fangs rather than go all the way with the
CGI and recreate the animated beast in a live action environment. But the CG issues don’t end there.
There is a lot of CGI here,
making good chunks of the movie look like a video game. I should not be complaining about that for
action movies, but this is a fairy tale romance, and in a vain effort to top
the impressive visuals of the original, they do so much that it looks very,
very fake and obvious. And the worst
part, some of the designs, while okay, really push it in regards to how out of
place they look when next to any of the live action actors. Said designs range from believable in that
situation, really altered to fit the whole live-action aspect of this film, and
others outright discomforting and unappealing, ranging from how stiff Coggsworth,
Mrs. Potts, Chip, and a few others look to Lumiere being reimagined from a
bouncing candelabra to a little golden man with candle-holders on his head and
replacing his hands. And for the CG
sets, sometimes they’re unnoticeable and mesh with any practical sets used in
this movie (which is pretty strong), sometimes they really do stick out like a
sore thumb. If you told me that the
movie was loaded with CGI and it’s VERY easy to spot, I would have stuck with
the ’91 original animated classic, especially if it were an exact remake of it.
While not exact, this
movie’s plot points are so slavishly close to the original’s that it really
makes this movie feel almost unnecessary if it wasn’t as good. In reality, it’s obviously not as good as the
original, but when it tries to add backstory to them, there are moments where I’m
like “well that’s alright, I guess?” “I really did not need that, but it’s
alright,” or (Spoilers) “did they pull the Martha thing from BVS again?” Along with that, there are a few alterations
to the characters that may work with some and may derail the movie for
others. In this version, Belle is the
inventor who’s seen as the complete kook (instead of Maurice in the total
weirdo department), the Beast is said to have transformed as an adult and the castle
was frozen in time, with all memories of it and his servants removed from the
townsfolk (which is important for the ending), Gaston is a war veteran and a more
sinister than his animated counterpart, LeFou is smarter, has more common
sense, and questions his loyalty to Gaston while keeping him controlled (and
something else for the big spoiler section, but it’s not as important to the
movie as you’d think, it’s a side thing), Maurice being played as a much more
tragic figure than his animated counterpart (and less likely to be played
weirder in YouTube Poops than in canon, despite being played by Otto from A
Fish Called Wanda), and being amazing, and there’s a new character that gives
some backstory to the Dresser here. Does
this fundamentally change the main plot?
The truth is, it doesn’t. And
that really hampers the two leads, who’s roles were done to perfection in the
original, but here, the glaring problems causes them to feel a lot weaker and
grow in friendship rather than romance, despite the movie telling me that they’re
in love at the end. I’ll get to the
other characters, but I’ll need a rundown of everything else.
Despite their CGI designs,
the castle servants are done okay here, and some of the casting is surprisingly
great. For Lumiere, I did catch on that
it was Evan McGregor playing him, but his French accent was pretty impressive
(better than his American accent, to say the least *cough*Robots was alright,
ERod*cough*). I really did think that it
was actually pretty funny to have Ian McKellan play Coggsworth and actually be
pretty funny at points while giving him the right amount of class and dignity,
plus having Gandalf against Hermione is enough to drive early 00s fantasy film
fans nuts. Plus Emma Thompson really
knocked it out of the park as Mrs. Potts, nailing Angela Lansbury’s Cockney
accent and motherly tone, and at least they got a British boy to play Chip
rather than some American boy like in the original, so that’s a minor
improvement. Everyone else was pretty
good, even Stanley Tucci, with all of them having to play the characters with
their voices, with Plumette and the Dresser giving some nice ladies much needed
exposure in the Hollywood circuit. And
is it weird that there are a lot of extras and actors of a more diverse makeup
than the original, or even 18th century France? I might have to look into the latter.
Plus the set design,
when not drenched in CGI is fantastic, the colors are extremely well done, and
the cinematography is beautiful at points, even when some of the scenes were
better shot in the animated original.
And the music, yes the music is decent here. The good is that Alan Menken is back to score
the feature, and he’s on a role in recapturing the music of the original, and
rescoring the musical numbers to give them a more live-action, Broadway feel at
points. However, some of the cues did
come from the original, as if Disney is trying to saying “Remember the original
film?” That and the new songs range from
unneeded to surprisingly good, as I feel “Forevermore” could have worked in the
original, despite it being more straightforward in the Beast’s love in Belle
there. But there is one major point to
note about the songs from the original here.
Some of the actors
aren’t as strong as their animated counterparts while Josh Gad is excellent
here. While Dan Stevens is no Robby
Benson, he does give a slight air of dignity to the musical numbers while
having some good pipes. If the only
issue with Luke Evans is that his singing voice isn’t as deep as Richard White’s,
then it’s clear he did a good job as Gaston in the singing department while
exuding arrogance and vanity. The actors
playing the servants also do a good job, some of them better than others, while
Emma Thompson does a pretty good job at here singing. The weak link? Emma Watson.
She sounds like she’s doing karaoke versions of these songs at best and filtered
with a lot of AutoTune at worst, and we can agree that the original actor,
Paige O’Hara trumps Ms. Watson in this department. Apparently Hogwarts doesn’t have singing
classes. The choreography is pretty good
here, giving it a Broadway feel at times while going overboard with the CGI to
top the original’s visuals.
But before I get to
the end, I have to bring this up. With
all the ornate visuals of the castle, the costume design, the casting, the
setting, the props, and some of the effects work, does anyone get a certain
vibe from this movie? If you do, then I
can tell you that this movie’s visual look reminds me a lot of the visual kei
subculture in Japan. Why? Well, the 18th century French
designs and ornaments are so gaudy and makeup laden that the opening itself,
which deviates from the original, reminded me of the visual appearances of
bands like Malice Mizer, L’Arc-en-Ciel, and Versailles (Philharmonic Quintet)
based on their attire and makeup. Which
becomes even weirder since they casted actors and actresses of ethic descents
rather than white to play many roles here, some of them major, and a big part
of the appeal of modern visual kei is the idea of Japanese men (and sometimes
women) dressing as European noblemen of the 18th and 19th
centuries while playing rock, punk, metal, pop, alternative rock, electronic,
and other genres of music with a classical flair. If this movie gets fans for its visuals, I’d recommend
that if you are one of these fans, search for a visual kei playlist on YouTube
and admire the costumes while getting your face melted.
So before I get into a
few spoilers, let me get this out of the way and reveal the score first. This movie is fine, it isn’t the 91 original
classic, and it’s trying to be. Where it
works is when it captures what worked about the original in the story department
and translating it to live action while giving us new versions of certain
characters that probably work as well, if not better than, their original
counterparts some of the time. The
visuals are fittingly gaudy, but impressive, despite the use of CGI. The music and songs are good here. But Emma Watson is clearly miscast while the
CG budget either needed a boost or a decrease to feed the practical effects and
makeup effects budget for a certain character due to the direction they
went. In all, it’s not an awards winner,
nor is it a complete disaster, but it’s definitely a crowd pleaser.
Final Rating (Spoilers
below included): 6/10 (good on its own, but meh compared to the original that
it’s trying to be)
Now for the
spoilers. Apparently the Beast was once
a kind, selfless, charitable kid before his mother passed away, then his father
corrupted him. As for Belle, we learn
that she was born in Paris, and she and Maurice moved out when her mother died
from the Plague, with the mask-wearing doctor in check to verify it for
historical nerds. And yes, I could say
that this is a decent idea, especially since the servants tell Belle of the first
thing I’ve mentioned (with a new musical number thrown in for good measure),
but after Batman V Superman: Dawn of
Justice, having the two leads bond over their mothers may have to wait a
while before coming back. Plus we learn
that the unnamed war in the movie really put a toll on Gaston psychologically,
causing him to be significantly crueler and more bloodthirsty than his animated
counterpart. Whereas in the original,
Gaston is a jerk, but a lovable one, whose tendencies got worse after being
rejected by Belle and STILL trying to get her in his arms, right down to having
Maurice institutionalized, this version is a bigger asshole while using hunting
references to explain why he’d prefer Belle.
That and he uses guns a lot more here, using a pistol rather than a bow,
arrows, and a dagger against the Beast.
For Maurice, he’s significantly played to be more fatherly and tragic,
considering that Belle’s mother died in her infancy and she never got to know
her. As for how Belle learns, we learn
that the Enchantress gave Beast a book that allowed him to travel to any place
in the world he desires, and Belle uses it to go to where she was born,
learning the truth there. That and the
Enchantress is seen a lot more here, first as a beggar in the village Belle
lives in, then helps Maurice after Gaston tried to kill him, then came along
with the villagers when they went with Gaston to “kill the Beast” in the final
act. And she reverses the curse (and
brings everyone back to life from death or complete transformation into knick
knacks, and interesting change from the original) when she stumbles on the West
Wing, seeing a crying Belle over the Beast.
And her role creates some plot holes that I’ll discuss at a later
time. As for the ending, I did get a
laugh out of Coggsworth revealed to be unhappily married after he returned to
normal while Mrs. Potts did have a husband here (both of them villagers).
Now to look into the
controversy that flared up. A couple of
weeks ago, Bill Condon revealed that there was a big “gay scene” involving
LeFou and confirming that he was gay in this version. As a result, some of the scenes in the movie
where he’s trying to keep Gaston in check come off as… not really as off
putting as expected and closer to the new characterization of him being SMARTER
than Gaston and concerned about the town’s war hero’s decreasing sanity. Hell, the “gay scene” is just a shot of him
dancing with another man in the final moments of the movie, with no cheeky “are
we doing this?” look in the both of them.
They just continue dancing merrily. Short, sweet, and not mocking them both for it. And it’s so quick that I’m
sure that gay-rights activists are going to feel blue-balled unless they looked
between the lines beforehand (and even in the original, where you can make the case
where the dumber version of LeFou is gayer than the new version). Even more surprising is that there’s a scene where the
Dresser does her work on three thugs, and while two of them freak out when they
end up in women’s clothes, one looks as if he enjoys the change in dress. And guess which two
characters end up dancing together in that “gay shot” because saying “gay scene”
is really overselling what amounts to nothing plot-relevant anyway. At least LeFou’s a better character in this
version than in the original, though.
Jeez, I hope the next movie I review isn't loaded with controversy about one's sexuality. Though I am interested in checking out Power Rangers.
Until next time, this
is the Rock Otaku. Live Loud, Play Hard, and Be Out Guest.
All used references
are done under the rules of fair use and are owned by their original
creators.
No comments:
Post a Comment