Directed by Bill Condon. With Emma Watson, Dan Stevens, Luke Evans, Josh Gad. An adaptation of the Disney fairy tale about a monstrous-looking prince and a young woman who fall in love.

Beauty and the Beast (2017) - IMDb

Disney's animated classic takes on a new form, with a widened mythology and an all-star cast. A young prince, imprisoned in the form of a beast, can be freed only by true love. What may be his only opportunity arrives when he meets Belle, the only human girl to ever visit the castle since it was enchanted.

Come on Disney: what were you thinking?! You've got one of the most beloved films in your entire catalogue; the first animated film ever that was nominated for a best picture Oscar - and you give the new version of that film to the director of 'Twilight' parts 3 and 4? Has anyone of your executives even seen Bill Condon's 'Twilight' films or did you just look at all the money they made during their opening weekend? Just so you know: those films are atrocious. There are porn films who look better and have better plots (seriously).

Now the good news is, 'Beauty and the Beast' is nowhere near as bad as the Twilight films, but it DOES bear a striking visual resemblance to those teen shlock movies. And that's what I don't get: if you have the chance to make a film that will make 1.5 billion dollars (given the reviews are good) - wouldn't you want to make sure to make the best looking film possible? But over large stretches this film has the mediocre looking CGI of a cheap Lionsgate fantasy film and the nuanced color-grading of a bowl of M&Ms.

Emma Watson isn't half bad as Belle, but her acting feels forced in a way you can practically read the directions she gets from her director on her face ("now act SURPRISED" - "now show us a sense of WONDER" - "now look SAD"). Great actors like Kevin Kline are simply wasted because they have nothing to do besides just being there and have a certain look. The one actor who makes something of his role is, naturally, the one who plays the baddie; Luke Evans at least looks like he's having fun.

But all that is still not the worst. What sank the film for me was Beast. It's mind-boggling to me how a gigantic company like Disney lets a film open if the most important CGI effects obviously don't look convincing yet. Beast's face never looks real and that's just not acceptable. It's been almost 10 years since we got a completely convincing CGI "beast" face with Peter Jackson's King Kong, complete with alive looking eyes and natural facial expressions. Since then we got films like 'Dawn of the Planet of the Apes' and 'Jungle Book' that looked even better and more realistic. So what happened? What did they spend the 200 million budget on?

I'm sorry to say it, but this film represents a huge missed opportunity for Disney.

YOUR REACTION?

Facebook Conversations