REVIEW: Beauty and the Beast (2017)

     Sitting in the crowded theater, having just seen coming attractions for the fifth films in the Pirates of the Caribbean and Transformers franchises, I heard the woman sitting next to me turn to her boyfriend and sneer "Has Hollywood just completely run out of ideas?"  My inner monologue said to her, "You mean like this movie we've all just paid to see, which is a remake of a remake of a remake of a remake?"   My inner monologue isn't always very nice, but I sometimes wish it was a bit braver.

   Anyway, yes, let's talk about Disney's live-action Beauty and the Beast, a remake of one of the more beloved Disney films, and one of the most acclaimed animated features of all time.

   The new Beauty and the Beast, or "BB17" as I'm going to refer to it henceforth for the sake of brevity, is a more-or-less straight-up remake of the original 1991 animated film, but a bit sideways as it meanders slightly through the Broadway musical adaption of the same cartoon.  All, however, are adaptations of a 1946 French film, which of course is itself based on a much older story.  At any rate, BB17 hews closely to the animated feature, albeit with some minor deviations, and there is some new content as well.  If you've been living under a rock and don't know the story, an attractive bookish young woman named Hermione Granger...er...Belle (Emma Watson) is held prisoner by a brooding Beast (Dan Stevens), whose transfigured servants (Ewan McGregor, Ian McKellen and Emma Thompson, among others) conspire to help the pair fall in love in order to lift the curse they're all under.  Luke Evans plays Gaston, a boorish suitor of Belle's, and Kevin Kline plays Belle's father.  Josh Gad, Audra MacDonald, and Gugu Mbatha-Raw (I love her name) also appear, as does Stanley Tucci in a role not in the original film.

    There's a whole conversation to be had about the justification of remakes, which someday I'll write about in more depth.  So discussions about artistic validity and cash-grabiness aside, the worst thing I could say about BB17 is that it really doesn't have the same soul or charm of the original film.  It feels very much like an adaptation, much in the way most movie musicals do, so if you know the original, you know what to expect.  The movie acquits itself well enough, but you can't help but feel that you've seen it all before.  It says something about movie making technology, though, that the gorgeous CGI-enhanced animation of the original film from Pixar's nascent days which was so eye-catching has become perfunctory by 2017.  It's certainly nice, but it's nothing revolutionary.  Indeed, some of the most astounding effects I've ever seen in live theater were in the Broadway version, which are carried over here but seem like run-of-the-mill computer work.  There's definitely less of a 'magical' quality present.

   The film is pretty enough, but the CGI doesn't always work.  Beast is often a bit TOO animated to be convincing; though Stevens' features are clearly discernible there are points where he doesn't feel quite real in shots with Watson.  Strangely, the opposite is true of the servants - there's something lacking in their animation that makes them seem almost a little creepy...Lumiere in particular is nowhere near as expressive as his 2D incarnation.   The computer animation does not serve the characters as well as the hand-drawn versions.

    CGI not withstanding, the production quality on this film is amazing.  The costumes are beautiful, as are the sets.  The score is everything you'd expect, with some new content added - only a bit from the Broadway version, but with some brand new songs by Alan Menken, with Tim Rice stepping in for the late Howard Ashman.  Of particular moment is Beast's solo late in the film, which gives some much needed emotional time for one of the titular characters.

   All of the acting turns are quite good...even if McGregor's accent is a little silly... though the quality of the musical performances varies.  Emma Watson has a lovely voice but it lacks power, so some of Belle's singing is passable if a bit weak.  Stevens has a fine voice and acquits himself well, and Thompson, MacDonald and McGregor are absolutely solid, as one would expect.  Kline and McKellen don't really have much singing to do, but the standout for me was Luke Evans....I wasn't aware he could sing, but he does an absolutely fantastic job, not only musically, but also giving Gaston more charm and likability for a character who is, frankly, a creep.  Josh Gad, too, gives a far more nuanced performance than one might expect, and was another surprise.

  Incidentally, I should mention that there has been something of a furor over the revelation that Gad's character would be openly gay.  I think this is something of a manufactured scandal, as the original film certainly implies that LeFou is in love with Gaston, even if it's not as explicit as it is here.   That people would call for a boycott of BB17 speaks volumes about their stupidity as a.) there is nothing even remotely salacious in this film, and b.) some people are gay, get over it.   It's hard not to equate the people foaming about LeFou with the angry villagers in the film, going after anyone different or unusual with torches and pitchforks.  Missing the point, much?

   Some of the best things about BB17 is actually what has been added.  While there are a few cuts and changes ("Human Again" is missing, and Gaston's proposal scene is less public and far more subdued, for example), the movie does add in some backstory, flesh out some characters, and tweak a few sloppy plot points.  There are some scenes added in flashback about Belle's mother, which are superfluous, though it does allow for some beautiful shots of 18th-century Paris by night.  Maurice, Belle's father,  is no longer an inventor, but an artist, and his character is far less kooky.  Beast, in particular benefits from some exposition that explains his personality, but best of all is the correction of what is to my mind a huge problem with the original film...in this new take, rather than being a nigh-illiterate brute, Beast is a well-educated literature lover.   This gives Belle and Beast a grounded connection, and, more importantly, something to talk about, as it makes them far more of a matched pair and greatly lessens the feeling of Stockholm Syndrome.  The whole relationship is therefore improved, and this also makes Beast a far richer character.

    The original film also has a few major plot holes that the remake closes nicely, particularly in regards to the problem of Beast's age at the time of the curse...while there must be a time freeze, by clearly making Beast older it neatly sidesteps the implication that he was a child at the time.  The enchantress who casts the curse gets more screen time, which is a benefit, and the weird weather shifts in the animated film are explained, speaking of a time freeze.  (Caveat: I know there was an additional animated feature dealing with some of Belle's time at the castle called "Enchanted Christmas", which may have elaborated on some of the plot issues in the original film, but I have not seen it.)  For the most part, the additions are beneficial, which I think is key to any remake - if you're going to do it, you might as well do your part to add something worthwhile.

    So while BB17 is going to inevitably be saddled with comparisons to the original movie, and therefore lacks the soul of the first outing, it's a perfectly enjoyable film in its own right.  I would have to think that any children coming to this movie for the first time without having seen the original will be just as taken with it.  There's no doubt that Disney's trend of turning animated classics into live action films will continue (indeed, Aladdin and The Lion King are apparently already underway), but at least they've been quality productions so far.   In a vacuum, BB17 is an excellent family film.   It's well made, it's fun, and what the movie lacks in freshness it adds in new depth...so all in all...there may be something there that wasn't there before.

FINAL RATING: 7 PAWS (OUT OF 10)

REVIEW: Logan

Seventeen years.  It's a hefty chunk of time.  In some cultures, it makes an adult.

     For an actor to play a role for that long a period in the movies is unusual, certainly in the fantasy/action genre.  We're on our sixth James Bond, our sixth Batman, our third Superman, our third Spider-Man.  (Speaking officially, anyway.)   But Hugh Jackman has been *the* Wolverine for more than a decade and a half, with appearances large and small in nine movies.  This latest, Logan, released today, has been publicly touted as his final turn as the iconic character.

   So - are we ready to say fare-thee-well?

   While it is, technically, a superhero movie, it is a very, very different one.  It's a bleak, somber tale, set some years after the epilogue in Days of Future Past, which, without giving too much away, reveals that the happy ending implied by DoFP does not last.  Logan - now aging, tired, and slowly being poisoned by the adamantium in his system, is working as a limo driver while he cares for an infirm Charles Xavier (Patrick Stewart), when he finds himself forced to care for a young mutant named Laura (Dafne Keen) with a remarkably familiar 'gift'.  Pursued by the forces of a ruthless genetic corporation, Logan finds himself on the run, with his two charges in tow.

     The movie alludes heavily to the classic western Shane, and those allusions are apt.  This is not a film about good versus evil or saving the world, nor is it a CGI-heavy, colorful spandex outing, either.  It's an intimate story about a fading warrior trying to find a toehold in a world into which he no longer fits, while caring for a revered father figure who has become enfeebled and petulant.   Like many of the film heroes of yore, this is in truth a character study more than anything else.  Think of it as a superhero's version of Unforgiven.

   

    The performances are excellent.  While many felt Hugh Jackman to be an odd choice, at least physically, for the role of the five-foot-and-change swarthy, stocky Canucklehead all those years ago, there's no doubt that he has come to define the character.  He's never not been good in the part, but here he excels with a weighty, weary take on a familiar character that instantly evokes compassion and sympathy.  It's a little shocking to see a character who's been heretofore nigh-indestructable facing not only his own weakness and mortality, but that of others as well.

    Patrick Stewart is also wonderful (when isn't he, though?) as Xavier, who slides in and out of lucidity, but still retains that avuncular kindness that's been his hallmark over these films - and he has been playing this role as long as Jackman's been playing his.   Frankly, I find the Xavier of the comics somewhat unlikeable ("A jerk") as one of the X-Men famously declared, and I've loved Stewart's portrayal as a more humane idealist rather than the manipulative Machiavel he's often been in the source.
   

    Richard E. Grant and Boyd Holbrook play the films' villains - Dr. Xander Rice and Donald Pierce, respectively, but neither role is particularly memorable.  Stephen Merchant also has a featured role as the long-suffering mutant tracker Caliban.  But the real breakout star of the film is Dafne Keen, playing Laura, aka X-23.   Laura can switch from being a sweet, almost motherly little girl longing for a family to a crazed and terrifying berserker in a second, and is utterly convincing in both modes.  This is Keen's film debut, and I'm interested to see what she does next...it's an unexpectedly powerful and nuanced performance.

   I should mention, by the way, that this is most emphatically NOT a movie to bring young kids to, regardless of how much they may like the X-Men.  It is R-rated, which I really hope continues to prove the exception, not the rule, in superhero films, and it is extremely, graphically violent.  Said violence is not just directed at the usual evil goons, either.   There is quite a lot of the stabby-stabby going on, complete with sound effects, and the dialogue is peppered with words you wouldn't find in an average comic.  So word to the wise - this is a pretty intense film...we've come a long way from a point where a film's most blue line of dialogue was "Okay, you're a dick."

 

    I will say that this is a very high-quality movie - and I mean that not "for a superhero movie", but as a movie on the whole.  Someone could watch this film having little to no knowledge of the previous X-films and be able to follow a poignant, gripping, beautifully shot and acted tale of a faded warrior.   Taken out of the context of the X-Men universe, it's quite a good movie.

    However, it's in context that I'm having some trouble with the movie.  I want to be very careful here and not give away any of the salient plot points, so I won't really elaborate on the specifics.  Suffice it to say that some of the events and conclusion of this movie throw a lot of the franchise to date into shadow.   Don't get me wrong - this film is very true to its characters, and it is in many ways a beautiful movie that I suspect will resonate for quite some time.  Even so, I think I'm going to have to think of it as a standalone, and not necessarily the inevitable outcome of the whole franchise.

  

    It's going to be strange, now, not having Jackman around as Wolverine.  Marvel (via Fox studios) has been public about their current uncertainty of what to do with the character...though given his massive popularity, I'm sure he'll be recast sooner or later, but I suspect in the short-term we will be Logan-less for a while.  If rumors hold true, the next film in the direct X-franchise will be set in the '90s and feature James MacAvoy training the New Mutants, and I have to think Logan will not be appearing.

    At any rate, Logan is a magnificent swan song; Jackman has earned an iconic stature in pop culture, and I don't think anyone could blame him for wanting to be able to stop obsessively going to the gym after almost two decades to maintain that physique.  His final outing is an excellent performance, and just as Jackman made his Hollywood career seemingly out of nowhere by bursting onto the scene in 2000, I suspect Dafne Keen may find herself with a similar trajectory thanks to remarkably similar circumstances, if she plays her cards right.

    And so, Hugh Jackman ends his seventeen-year run as one of the world's most memorable superheroes.

   Thanks, bub.

FINAL RATING: 8 STARS (OUT OF 10)

    Oh - one addendum - there is no post-credits scene this time.  However, there is a scene BEFORE the movie opens, acting as a sort-of-teaser for Deadpool 2.