Beauty and The Beast (2017) film review

Year: 2017
Running Time: 129 minutes
Director: Bill Condon
Writers: Stephen Chbosky and Evan Spiliotopoulos
Cast: Emma Watson, Dan Stevens, Luke Evans, Josh Gad, Kevin Kline, Ewan McGregor, Ian McKellen, Emma Thompson, Gugu Mbatha-Raw, Stanley Tucci, Hattie Morahan

Beauty and The Beast is now showing everywhere and is distributed by Walt Disney Pictures.

Disney's second time round with Beauty and The Beast breathes spectacular new life into the much adored classic while always remaining lovingly respectful to the original fairy tale and animated original.

For a film that is so enchanting, whimsical and charming, it is incredible how much criticism and backlash Beauty and The Beast has received right through from it's initial announcement in June 2014 to it's recording breaking release in the United States last week and in Australia this week. While a film that has so far made over $460 million worldwide is clearly not being hurt by any criticism it has received, Bill Condon's Beauty and The Best certainly deserves to be defended from the unwarranted, meaningless and clueless backlash it has received.

While it is based on the original story written by Gabrielle-Suzanne Barbot de Villeneuve and revised by Jeanne-Marie Leprince de Beaumont, the film is more so a live-action love letter to it's animated older sibling released by Disney in 1991. In the quaint French village of Villeneuve, Belle (portrayed by Emma Watson) is an outsider as even though she is beautiful, she is considered peculiar as she seems happier with her nose in a book than responding to Gaston's (Luke Evans) romantic advances. Her wishes for adventure are answered when her father (Kevin Kline) is captured by the terrifying Beast (Dan Stevens) in his castle and when Belle ventures to rescue him, she offers herself as prisoner in order for her father to be set free. During her period of stay, Belle finds herself strangely and increasingly drawn towards the Beast and she may be the one to set he and the enchanted members of his household free from their damning spell.

When Disney officially announced that it would be remaking one of it's own into a live action film, it was met with a great deal of scepticism. Since then, it has been met with the predictable backlash that occurs when a beloved family classic is remade. Much of the criticism has proved to have been unwarranted since the release of this film, but Beauty and The Beast has also attracted controversy for it's romanticising of Stockholm Syndrome (which is also completely predictable) and it's very brief "gay scene" (if you can even call it a scene). However, Disney deserves praise once again for overcoming the obstacles of the remake and also deserves defence against the controversy.

The inevitable question that had to be asked in June 2014 was "Why would Disney want to remake a near-perfect film?"

It's a valid question. When Beauty and The Beast was released in 1991, it became the first animated feature film to be nominated in the Best Picture category at the Academy Awards. It became an instant Disney classic and still remains a favourite Disney film for many, many people. Remakes are absolutely in fashion at the moment and it's not completely crazy to believe that Disney could have just fallen in step with this fad.

However, this is Disney we are talking about. The empire has had tremendous success turning their animations into live action (eg. Cinderella and The Jungle Book) and expanding the universe of their classics (eg. Maleficent and no doubt the upcoming Mary Poppins Returns). If there is one studio that could pull off this mammoth task of bringing Beauty and The Beast to the world of live action and coming away with a success, it is Disney...and they have delivered. That's not just in regards to the incredible box office earnings thus far either.

Beauty and The Beast is truly an exquisite piece of cinema that is absolutely beautiful to behold. Although it is not as grandly emotional, it is certainly touching and very family friendly. Did it need to be remade? Of course it didn't need to. However, Disney saw that the opportunity was there for it's 1991 film to be remade and use live action thanks to the advances in CGI to create something different and special. The CGI does incredible things for the film and helps to make memorable scenes from the original even more memorable and spectacular (including the pivotal dancing "Beauty and The Beast" scene and "Something There" in the snow). The CGI also brings such characters of Lumiere (Ewan McGregor) and Cogsworth (Ian McKellen) to life and gives them more refined and intriguing features than what we saw in the animation.

Whilst many will argue that this 2017 film is too much like the original, this is simply not true. One only needs to revisit the original to realise that there are many differences. There are many similarities there too, but with live action comes a whole set of new rules which need to be abided by which don't apply as much to animation. For example, character development is far more important in live action than it is in it's animated counterpart. This is a real treat for those who are fans of the 1991 original, as the characters of Belle, Beast and Gaston (to a lesser extent) are opened up. Although her singing voice may not be as powerful as one would hope for this role, Emma Watson does Belle great justice. She personifies what Belle is about and shows how her character truly is a modern girl in a time where she didn't belong. This does admittedly fit Watson's real life persona, but this character trait and her soft, but strong performance as Belle makes her a perfect Disney princess for these times.

The live action also obviously calls for a different mode of direction and bringing several of the musical numbers to life would have been no simple task. Bill Condon's direction of these Alan Menken, Howard Ashman and Tim Rice musical numbers (several of which were also adapted for this film) is superb and although animation can do a great deal with these songs, what live action gives the viewer is definitely more impressive, especially during "Belle" and "Gaston".

One issue that is always brought to light when Beauty and The Beast is spoken of is the presence of Stockholm Syndrome, which is the concept of the captured coming to feel empathy or developing strong feelings for their capturer through manipulation. It was only inevitable that this was going to arise with the release of this film. Also there is it predictable wrath of those who believe that Beauty and The Beast is dangerously sexist as it depicts a woman being captured and abused by a tyrannical beast. Both of these arguments are redundant here. Belle was never actually captured in this film nor in the original, as her father was captured and she demanded a switch. If there are similarities to Stockholm Syndrome (which there are very little when you look at the actual definition), that is the fault of the original story and not of the filmmakers. However, the condition wasn't even acknowledged until the 1970's so it is highly unlikely this was a theme on the intent in the original story. Beauty and The Beast has always been a romantic fairy tale about not judging a book by it's cover and this is the way it should be read.

Finally, the biggest and most controversial talking point in the past week has been the very brief acknowledgement of Gaston's sidekick, LeFou (played by Josh Gad) as homosexual. Several cinemas around the world have banned the film from being shown because of this inclusion. One can only imagine that the large majority of the outraged haven't actually seen the film, as what they are so up in arms about takes up only a matter of seconds in over two hours. There is absolutely nothing in these few seconds of screen time which is damaging, graphic or crude and all you would have to do is blink to miss it. This controversy is a massive overreaction and there are far more important things to be outraged about in this world rather than whether a Disney film has maybe 20 seconds where a man looks lovingly at another man.

Beauty and The Beast has overcome a great deal of scepticism to become a beautiful film that is an enjoyable and stunning companion piece to it's animated original. It's controversy is completely unfounded and should be enjoyed and praised for exactly what it is.

8/10

The Girl on the Train (2016) film review

Year: 2016
Running Time: 112 minutes
Director: Tate Taylor
Writers: Paula Hawkins (based on the novel by), Erin Cressida Wilson (screenplay)
Cast: Emily Blunt, Rebecca Ferguson, Haley Bennett, Justin Theroux, Luke Evans, Edgar Ramirez, Allison Janney, Lisa Kudrow, Laura Prepon

The Girl on the Train is now showing in cinemas everywhere and is distributed by Entertainment One in Australia.

One has to feel sorry for The Girl on the Train.

When the novel by Paula Hawkins was released in early 2015, it instantly drew comparisons to Gillian Flynn's "Gone Girl" with it's similar themes and suspenseful nature. It was only ineviatble that the film directed by Tate Taylor would also be compared to the film version of Gone Girl, which was directed by David Fincher. While this comparison is harsh to have to contend with, The Girl on the Train also faces the comparison that could never have been avoided which is the eternal question of whether the movie is as good as the book.

It feels as though The Girl on the Train was never destined to be it's own film as the filmmakers obviously knew the pressures they were going to be unable to avoid. As a result, it evidently struggles with it's own identity and caves under the pressure in several areas, but excels itself in others.

The girl on the train is Rachel (Emily Blunt), a woman who has turned to alcoholism after several bad turns in her life including having her husband, Tom (Justin Theroux) leave her for another woman, Anna (Rebecca Ferguson) whom he is now married to with a small child. Rachel travels by her old house each day and see's an idyllic couple a few doors up who she likes to believe are living the life she misses so greatly. However, one day she witnesses something in this perfect house that makes her fall apart and plummet into an alcohol-induced black spot which she can only remember fragments of. It is only when she hears that Megan Hipwell (Haley Bennett) has disappeared that she starts to become paranoid that she is the one behind her disappearance.

Although there are several notable differences from the book that impact the film's depth, The Girl on the Train carries with it the same atmosphere and suspense which made the novel so popular. The story is in itself unsettling with characters that are intriguing, but are all quite unlikable. All the people in the film (except Lisa Kudrow's Monica who was invented for the film) are extremely flawed human beings to the point that they all feel dirty to watch. Emily Blunt's Rachel is one that is particularly hard to watch, just as she was to read in the book. This is a woman in so deep that she cannot pull herself, only dig herself in deeper. Of course, this terrible character trait is what moves the story along and is ultimately justified despite being so frustrating. A film does not need to have likable characters in order to work and although all the cast give splendid performances, there is no connection between the viewer and the characters because one does not want to feel connected to people like this.

However, unless you have read the book, Taylor's film does carry a real sense of suspense and unpredictability that make it impossible to look away. The reason The Girl on the Train is so often compared to Gone Girl is because they both have the resounding theme of how well do we really know the ones closest to us. Paula Hawkins book delves into this in greater detail than the film. As the book was written in the first person by all three of the main female characters in rotating order, the film struggles to adapt to this and fit it into it's nearly two hour running time. Rebecca Ferguson's Anna is particularly hard done by as her character is sliced of all her gritty inner thoughts and true character development.

One of the resounding questions posed by anyone who had read the book beforehand is how Emily Blunt could have possibly been cast as Rachel? In the novel, Rachel is referred to numerous times as being unattractive, overweight and repulsive..... a description that does not suit the genetically blessed Blunt. The make-up department certainly tries their hardest to make her less attractive, but the way Blunt disappears into her role makes one forget about her outward appearance. Her performance is of the incredibly unstable Rachel is just superb and shows a great deal of variety within her screen time. The bathroom mirror scene is particularly memorable for how terrifying she suddenly becomes.

Haley Bennet is also wonderful as Megan. Her character and performance seem one-dimensional for the majority of the film until towards the end when she has the opportunity to show how much talent she truly has and rises to the occasion. Rebecca Ferguson does what she can with her role, but again, she is denied the depth Rachel and Megan are given. Luke Evans shines as the grieving husband, Scott and it is unfortunate he didn't have more screen time. Justin Theroux does fine as Tom, but his is the only performance in the film that feels a little too restrained, particularly as it heads into the final quarter.

The Girl on the Train cannot help but be compared to the novel in which it is based on by those who had read it, which in this case is not a good thing. The film has a dark and grimy atmosphere with a screenplay that evidently struggles to be all it wants to be. Yet, the cast (particularly Emily Blunt and Haley Bennett) breath life into the film and save it from being merely a failed adaptation.

6.5/10

Dracula Untold (2014)

 

Year: 2014
Running Time: 92 minutes
Director: Gary Shore
Writers: Bram Stoker (characters), Matt Sazama and Burk Sharpless (screenplay)
Cast: Luke Evans, Sarah Gadon, Dominic Cooper, Charles Dance, Art Parkinson, Diarmaid Murtagh

Dracula Untold will open in Australian cinemas on the 2nd of October 2014 and is distributed by Universal Pictures. Opening in the United Kingdom also on the 3rd of October and the United States on the 10th.

As a new retelling of Bram Stoker's famous creature of the undead, Dracula Untold is an atmospheric and entertaining hybrid of the historical picture and supernatural fantasy. However, unlike other films based on Dracula, it is not as much a horror film as a historical drama with moments of pure human emotion and captivating images from the Transylvanian dark ages. As an origins film, there is the guaranteed ending, but the screenplay by Matt Sazama and Burk Sharpless gives greater depth to the story which offers welcomed suspense and surprise to this untold story of Dracula.

Although Prince of Transylvania, Vlad Tepes (Luke Evans) has achieved long awaited peace for his country, the threat from the Turks and their leader, Mehmed (Dominic Cooper) is never far away. When Mehmed demands soldiers from Vlad's kingdom for his army, Vlad seeks the help of a supernatural evil in the mountains (Charles Dance) in order to protect his kingdom and save lives. This creature of the dark strikes a sinister deal with Vlad in which he will hold the same powers as he for a number of days in order to save his kingdom, but must not lose his self control or he will become what he is forever. However, Vlad will whatever he needs to do to save his people and protect his wife, Mirena (Sarah Gadon) and son, Ingeras (Art Parkinson).

Dracula is a phenomenon which society will never grow tired of. Gary Shore's retelling of the origins of the mythical creature is an original cinematic experience for the character in this snapshot of a small period in time in which Vlad the Impaler became his alter ego. Whilst the subject is one which the audience is well aware its outcome, there is still a degree of unpredictability in its story which is a welcomed surprise, though it's ending does tend to stroll into the not so unfamiliar territory of cliché. Dracula Untold aims to be as much of an epic motion picture event as it possibly can in a running time of 93 minutes, but evidently tries a little too hard too impress in particular battle scenes which make it seem a little more comical than intended.

Visually, Dracula Untold very much resembles a cross between The Lord of The Rings/ The Hobbit and Game of Thrones, but this is not something which will generally be acknowledged as a negative aspect of the film. For many this similarity will lie with the presence of actors from both of these franchises, but it is more the medieval battles scenes and royal thrones which will prompt this comparison. However, the film is wonderfully atmospheric and the time period is captured in it's intriguing atmosphere of beauty and dread. As a whole Dracula Untold is not surprisingly a dark film in mood and visuals. There are some exquisite landscape shots and incredible production design and art direction. The battle scenes are quite spectacular, if not a little over-exaggerated and shot in an erratic fashion.

Luke Evans is perfect for this role which shows a different side to Vlad/Dracula than is traditionally seen, which is that of a father, husband and leader as well as a monster. He is extremely enigmatic and believable as the man who has a dark side that he insists on hiding from those who love him. Evans has wonderful on screen chemistry with Sarah Gadon and Art Parkinson, who both are also very good and bring an emotional edge to the film. Gadon is right on cue with her show of passion for her husband and maternal instinct for her child, while Parkinson is a real stand out and performs with emotion beyond his years.

As a film which relies more on the historical side of the beginnings of Dracula rather than on the not uncommon horror aspect of his story, Dracula Untold opens this story up to a greater audience. The film is an original spin on a character who has been seen in film and television countless times over the years and allows cinema audiences to find out who was the man before the monster.

7/10