The Disappointing Beauty and the Beast 2017: A Review of a Mediocre Remake

Watching the 2017 live-action adaptation of Beauty and the Beast was an exercise in mixed feelings. If you’re hoping for a fresh, invigorating twist on a beloved fairy tale, the film may be a letdown. This review seeks to dissect the various aspects of the remake to help you decide whether it’s worth the time and, more importantly, whether it has any true value over the animated classic.

Plot Analysis

Starting with the core story, the 2017 film struggles to offer anything truly new. In an era where more innovative reimaginings and reboots are becoming more the norm, this film remains surprisingly close to the source material. It should have used the live-action medium to retell the story in a way that felt natural and inventive, but instead, it feels like a familiar script with a fresh coat of paint.

Minor changes, like the focus on Belle’s mother or the magical teleportation scene, offer some pleasant surprises but fail to significantly alter the narrative or emotional beats. A key plot hole in the original, where the castle’s magic is never sufficiently explained, is only slightly rectified. These changes, while well-intentioned, ultimately feel like mere window dressing on a tired script.

Character Development

Speaking of characters, the 2017 version of Beauty and the Beast struggles to capture the depth and charm of the animated original. Belle feels generic and fussy, often coming across as entitled and self-important. Despite Emma Watson’s commendable efforts, her portrayal of the character lacks the soul and nuance introduced by Paige O’Hara.

The Beast, on the other hand, is a letdown. The moment when he gifts Belle his library, one of the most poignant scenes in the original, is here reduced to a humorous one-liner. The character remains largely one-dimensional, with no real breakthrough in character development.

Supporting characters fare little better. The massive cast has been pared down to a degree that feels unsatisfying. Lefou’s character transformation from a goofy sidekick to a potential love interest is awkward and confusing. The ending, with the Prince growingl into a growl for no apparent reason, fails to elicit any emotional response from the audience.

Acting and Visuals

Acting wise, the film has its strengths and its weaknesses. Emma Watson is not a bad actress, but her performance falls short of the legacy set by the animated version’s Paige O’Hara. She brings little life to the role, and her performances lack the depth and emotion that make the original so captivating.

On the bright side, the supporting cast shines. Ewan McGregor as Lumiere, Emma Thompson as Mrs. Potts, and Ian McKellen as Cogsworth deliver standout performances. Luke Evans brings a memorable charm and charisma to Gaston, and Josh Gad provides excellent comic relief as Lefou.

Visually, the film is a mixed bag. The production design is top-notch, with stunning sets that bring the world to life. However, the cinematography is rather boring, and the visuals are often underwhelming. The CGI used to bring the Beast to life is, at times, laughably fake and detracts from the overall experience.

Final Verdict

In the end, the 2017 live-action adaptation of Beauty and the Beast feels like a missed opportunity. While it boasts beautiful sets and some strong performances, it fails to live up to the magic of the animated original. Its attempt at reinvention falls flat, and the story and characters just don’t connect with the audience in the same impactful way.

For those who have not seen the animated version, it’s highly recommended to start with that. The 2017 film, while not entirely without merit, pales in comparison. It’s a mediocre adaptation that, while visually arresting, lacks the heart and soul of its animated predecessor.

Final Score: 5.5/10