Wonder Woman

Wonder Woman. Princess of Themyscira. Spirit of Truth. From suggestive bondage to symbol of freedom, whether to women or American ideals, Wonder Woman is one of the most prominent superheroes ever to grace the printed page, her place in the holy trinity of superheroes solidified alongside Superman and Batman. Created in 1941 by psychologist and suffragette supporter William Moulton Marston (a.k.a. Charles Moulton), supposedly with contributions from his partners Elizabeth Holloway Marston and Olive Byrne, Wonder Woman was conceptualised with the idea of creating a strong female role model for young girls to aspire to through well-rounded characterisation where compassion is complimented with power and determination.

Patty Jenkins’ Wonder Woman is the first live-action feature film devoted to the character and the fourth installation in the DC Extended Universe, thus far also known as Zack Snyder’s Murderverse. After the dark and dehumanised Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (Zack Snyder, 2016) and the plot-absent Suicide Squad (David Ayer, 2016), one may feel an initial hesitance or even aversion to the new film, fearing that Wonder Woman’s character as the most compassionate person on the planet would be betrayed in a dark, brooding, hyper-violent representation. Is this the case?

The film makes an effort to establish and humanise our protagonist. Introduced as a child (Lilly Aspel/Emily Carey) as she transitions into adulthood, Diana (Gal Gadot) is established sympathetically with her aspirations of wanting to be a warrior like the other Amazons and her relationships with her mother Queen Hippolyta (Connie Nielsen) and her mentor General Antiope (Robin Wright). Diana’s character often comes off as innocent and idealistic. Her central virtues are not betrayed but the filmmakers at least want to show that her compassion and love are tested.

The story takes place in the height of the First World War; Princess Diana, having lived for hundreds of years training on on the hidden island of Themyscira, home of the Amazons, sees a plane crash into the sea and rescues its pilot, Steve Trevor (Chris Pine) from drowning. Hearing of the war and the horrors that have transpired in its wake, Diana suspects that Ares, god of war, has corrupted the hearts of mankind, and sets out with Steve to end the war. She journeys to London, hijinks ensue, and they proceed unsolicited to Europe to thwart the evil plans of General Ludendorff (Danny Huston) and his scientist Doctor Poison (Elena Anaya) as the villains come closer to inventing a deadly gas that will further devastate the world.

On her journey, allies of Steve Trevor join Wonder Woman in her campaign: French Moroccan con man Sameer (Saïd Taghmaoui), Scottish soldier and singer Charlie (Ewen Bremner), and Native American smuggler Chief (Eugene Brave Rock). The team strikes a vague resemblance to the Howling Commandos from Captain America: The First Avenger (Joe Johnston, 2011), the members being of different cultural backgrounds. This is a minor note, but one may chuckle when Chief throws a tomahawk with dynamite strapped to it.

Perhaps one of the appealing traits of the story is the fish out of water element, which those who grew up in the ‘80s and ‘90s will be accustomed to. It is familiar. Normally critics might shake their heads at these kinds of scenes for wasting our time, but it is amusing to see Diana ripping up new clothes that limit her mobility or getting excited over seeing a baby for the first time. The film has its moments of humour now and then, which help tie the film together and compliment the more serious scenes and action scenes. Once the story goes to Europe, the filmmakers do their damnedest to set the mood for the suffering of the soldiers and victims at the front and how Diana reacts to it emotionally.

There are a few parts of the story that one may find questionable. Within the first act, each time the audience sees Diana exhibit one of her powers for the first time, she reacts to them as if she is discovering them, like she didn’t know she could do that, yet never questions why she can punch into stone to climb walls or clash her bracelets together to create shockwaves. Those familiar to the comics will know that the bulletproof braces are forged from Zeus’ aegis, so does that mean Queen Hippolyta gave her daughter these magical items while Diana was still in training and didn’t tell her where they came from? Because that seems like important information!

Another point is Diana’s hunt for Ares. Throughout the film, Diana reiterates how she thinks killing Ares will end the war. The more she says it, the more naïve she seems. Eventually Steve Trevor suggests that the war is far more complicated than the fault of any one person, that people could be bad on their own. This seems like a very real revelation, but the plot decides to go a different route. The twist that sparks the climax comes virtually out of nowhere, and the wholeness of the plot may be brought into question.

In both Greek mythology and the original comic book, the Amazons as women were separated from the world of men or male-dominated society to avoid subjugation. Given the shaky socio-political climate of today, this is a delicate thing to translate into current film without controversy. However, the representation of gender in this film is tactfully done. The film treats “mankind” as gender neutral and the Amazons as an all-female entity that isolated from humanity because the species in general became too corrupt for them to handle. The Amazons don’t even berate Steve Trevor for being a man; their concern is with their island being discovered by an invading force and him being in the middle of it. Both sexes are represented as having people who are good, who are bad, and who are morally compromised.

Gal Gadot’s performance is surprisingly good. Diana is not a stick in the mud and Gadot has more than two facial expressions, unlike Cavill or Affleck in previous DCEU films. Heck, this film allows her to have more than two facial expressions. Gadot’s depiction of Diana, or Wonder Woman, gives us a good range of emotional expressions. Chris Pine’s performance can seem a little stiff at times, like he is uncomfortable, but he gives his share of intensity where needed and serves as the component to counter Diana’s actions that may seem eccentric in the modern world. The actors playing the Amazons are required to put on Greek accents, which sometimes feels a little silly – not always, just sometimes – and as is typical for a World War II drama, all of the German characters speak English with each other, never German.

Danny Huston’s portrayal of General Ludendorff is not exactly well rounded like that of our protagonist, as the character is designed to be completely unsympathetic. Elena Ayana was a good choice as her mere presence as Doctor Poison is cold and creepy. Sameer, Charlie and Chief seem to have different personalities, being the nervous, lively and quiet types respectively, and while they mildly stand out, their characters don’t really play off of each other. Then again, the story is about Wonder Woman and while we can have a little focus on our side characters to make them recognisable and important to a degree, the majority of attention should be on her.

The action scenes are exciting and memorable. The audience is really allowed to appreciate Wonder Woman’s super-strength, such as when she lifts an armoured tank above her head. One of the best scenes is where Wonder Woman climbs onto no-man’s land and deflects the enemy’s bullets with her bracelets. After seeing the conditions for the soldiers in the trenches beforehand, there is a feeling of hope when Steve Trevor and his gang are finally able to get out there and fight. Zack Snyder’s fingerprints as producer tend to show in these action scenes, such as the annoying slow-mo in almost every one, and the part where Diana topples an entire bell tower to stop a single German sniper. It’s actually quite funny to put yourself in the shoes of the German Navy soldiers at the point where they happen upon Themyscira. They have no time to process the fact of an island of Amazons before they’re brutally massacred with primitive weaponry.

Another step up in the DCEU is the use, or rather liberation, of colour. Granted, grey dominates 1940s London and Europe, but at least the images are not grainy and the setting of Themyscira is bright. Contrast is prominent in this film, whether it is to characterisation, locations or narrative. Wonder Woman’s costume is great. The red breastplate and boots with gold trims, blue skirt, gold tiara and bulletproof braces bears great resemblance to the character’s most common design, with sort of an Ancient Greek twist to it. The red, blue and gold also stand out, even in less colourful environments. The cinematography allows for some rather dynamic shots, which look quite beautiful, though the quality of technique is debatable, to put it lightly. The pacing of the film is done really well from beginning to end. And while the editing is of a standard quality, there are sometimes issues with editing and continuity.

While the film can be unintentionally goofy at times, Wonder Woman is a saving grace to the DCEU. It shows that DC Comics filmmakers are catching on that audiences prefer a superhero movie that is fun and engaging rather than drastically out of the spirit of the original. It is easy to sit through without constantly scrutinising it. Sometimes, but not constantly. The story, for the most part, is told with good pacing and characterisation, especially of the protagonist. Gal Gadot’s performance is an immense contribution to this incarnation of Wonder Woman. The visuals and design are pleasing and the action is fantastic. It is very close to being a great film. Again, the slo-mo can be annoying, there are a few issues with technique in places, and some may argue the fish out of water narrative is a tired cliché, however comfortable the audience may be with it. However, Wonder Woman seems to be a well-made superhero film, with beautiful visuals, a balance of humour, drama and action, perfect pacing, and one wonderful lead actress. Perhaps the film is likeable because it is not the dark, poorly told excuse for a competition with Marvel Studios that previous DCEU films have been. And while Patty Jenkin’s Wonder Woman is in continuity with other movies, it is its own film. The effort is seen. The film – in spirit, tone, portrayal, and in story – does justice to Wonder Woman.

Ghost in the Shell

Rupert Sanders’ Ghost in the Shell is a live action remake of Masamune Shirow’s manga and Mamoru Oshii’s animé film of the same name. The story of Ghost in the Shell (or GITS for short, which has a totally different meaning in the UK) takes place in a cyberpunk world where technology is the dominant force and cybernetic enhancements are the norm. The story revolves around Motoko Kusanagi, otherwise simply known as the Major, a cyborg in the (mandatory) employment of the secret police department Section 9. As a cyborg whose brain resides in an otherwise robotic body, the Major sets out to eliminate international conspiracies and terrorist threats while dealing with the fragmented memory of her past life. While the manga had a somewhat light-hearted tone, the well-known 1995 animé adaptation found itself with an ontological theme in some rather talkative scenes, not helped in the original English dub by Mimi Woods’ dry monotone.

Scarlett Johansson (known by some of her fans as ScarJo, which sounds like the nickname of a pirate) takes the role of the Major. There was a controversy around casting Johansson in the role of a character who was originally Japanese, but we will not discuss that at great length in this article (see Cyborgs, Race & Animé Adaptations). Recently, marketing for the film released a Ghost in the Shell internet meme generator, and non-fans of the source material used it to mock and shame the film, Johansson, and other actors who have been previously associated with ‘whitewashing’. Yet no one ever brings up Samara Morgan from The Ring (Gore Verbinski, 2002) or Chris Adams from The Magnificent Seven (John Sturges, 1960). Frankly the whole racial controversy has proven tedious and pointless. Essentially, this is an American remake of a Japanese source, Johansson being cast was to compensate for the film’s prolonged time in development, and the majority of Japan doesn't have a problem with it.

Never ask people to meme your things for you.

Scarlett Johansson’s portrayal of the Major, known in this version as Mira Killian, is not unlike that of the animé. The Major is a stoic type. Johansson’s performance is unexpressive, which is intentional considering she’s supposed to be a robot. One thing you’ll notice is how little Scarlett blinks. Seriously, those eyes are huge. That’s not to say she’s emotionless; she just performs through subtle facial expressions, appropriate to the character, and is not without attitude. It is an improvement on her performance in Lucy (Luc Besson, 2014) where the character’s lack or loss of emotion was conveyed through monotone. Then again, there’s not very much about the character to like, at least not for a while. Her exchanges with her partner Batou (Pilou Asbæk), and later with animals like Batou’s stray dogs and a mysterious cat, represent most of the very few times the character acts human.

Batou is the closest to a saving grace in the ensemble of this movie. He has his friendship with Mira, he is serious but sympathetic, and Asbæk, while not as tough sounding as Richard Epcar, does emote where allowed, such as the scene where he is injured. Elsewhere, the cast is mostly lifeless. Togusa (Chin Han) is practically void of personality and contributes nothing to the story, unlike his animé counterpart who was a useful part of the team along with Batou and the Major. If an assassin were to put a gun to his head, why should one be concerned for him when he has no impact on the story or the audience? Then there’s the villain Cutter (Peter Ferdinando), our typical ruthless corporate scumbag with no depth. Uninteresting.

Leading the team of stoic faces at Section 9 is Chief Daisuke Aramaki (Takeshi Kitano, a.k.a. Beat Takeshi), who does vaguely resemble the character’s temperament from the animé. The confusing thing is Aramaki is the only major figure in the movie that speaks Japanese whereas everyone else speaks English. Yes, Sanders meant to make the setting an “international world”, hence the multi-national cast, but having them converse in several languages at once only serves to take the audience out of the movie. And then there’s the mysterious cyborg Kuze (Michael Pitt), our not-Puppetmaster for the film. It’s hard to know if this is supposed to be a sympathetic villain or not. His speech is hard to understand, as he tends to mumble and his cybernetic voice skips, he keeps to the shadows, acts uncomfortably and is relatively expressionless. And, whereas the Puppetmaster’s goal in the animé was to achieve the characteristics of a living being to compliment the sentience it had developed, Kuze only wants revenge. For a world full of brain augmentations, that’s quite uninventive.

There are a lot of callbacks to the source material, like the hacked garbage men and the cyborgs with the fingers that transform to type at super speed. They recreate the opening sequence of the animé almost shot for shot (with an alternative, almost completely instrumental version of the Japanese wedding chant that accompanied the scene). In fact there are quite a few scenes done that way. Such as the scene with the Major and Batou on the boat, and the iconic part where the Major tries to tear into the spider tank, morphing her muscles and damaging her own body under the strain, although if the filmmakers were going for an existential theme then they may be missing the significance of the muscles becoming more masculine, or of giving nipples (which the remake removes) to a cyborg who can’t reproduce. If the trailer drew you in with the promise of lesbian kissing, prepare to be disappointed. Honestly, the scene in question is more about Mira envying sensation because her cyborg body lacks the sense of touch. Still, the scene is abruptly short, and if it’s supposed to be a story about identity, why not show the Major exploring her sexuality? It feels like the filmmakers wanted to have these sorts of themes, but the film doesn’t take the time to explore them in any way that informs the plot or protagonist, at least not in any thought-provoking way.

These scenes are put in a different order too, and thus they don’t serve the purpose of the scenes they mimic. The boat scene, shown relatively early in the animé, was used to show one of Kusanagi’s interests, she and Batou enjoying the perks of being cyborgs, and Kusanagi venting about her identity. Here, it’s simply a junction from the previous scene to the next. Most damningly shot-for-shot of all is the fight scene where the Major takes down a mind-hacked criminal while she’s invisible. The cinematography and choreography is almost exactly the same. One of the shots, a close-up of the invisible Major’s head from the point of view of the opponent, doesn’t work in live action because they linger on the shot seconds too long, meaning the guy would have plenty of time to react. And the funny thing? She actually turns visible again before she finishes him off! Yes, it’s meant to be some kind of dramatic reveal and it lets Johansson show a little anger while she’s taking him down, but it doesn’t make sense for her to give up her best advantage in the fight.

As a cyberpunk movie there are interesting visuals. The effects like with the geisha robots, cyber-enhanced people, spider tank and hallucinations, and the costumes, including cybernetic implants, are well made. Admittedly, some parts of the CGI stick out like sore thumbs, like when Kuze holds a piece of Mira’s face in his fingers – and why is the section of her face that he takes off shaped like that? Some of the sets greatly resemble that of the animé, like Mira’s apartment and the buildings around where the invisible Mira fights the hacked assailant. In some cases though, the visual aesthetic can hurt one’s eyes. Not to complain that some of the environments are darkly lit, but the use of colour and soft or neon light can take one out of the tone this film is supposed to have. Now, one can admit that the use of neon lights is just typical of cyberpunk aesthetic and intentionally uncomfortable. The massive holograms filling the city’s skyline are an eyesore, and sometimes you can’t help but look at the gadgetry and think, what does this technology do? Why do cybernetics surgeons have holographic sound bars on their goggles? Did Skrillex design them? And this is a small point, but why are Batou’s dogs computer-generated? It’s a basset hound, not an alien.

Plus, there are no exploding heads anymore when the Major takes out her targets. Why not go all out? The film takes all the grit out and goes for a slick look instead. The action scenes aren’t all that engaging anyway. Not for lack of action, but perhaps because the audience can have so little investment in these characters. Another reason is because some are just laughable. Take for example when a gang of thugs is shooting machine guns at Batou, who is hardly even moving, and all the bullets miss him. Apparently the Yakusa have worse aim than the Stormtroopers from Star Wars!

The pacing of the film is quite disappointing. The editing lacks structure in a lot of places. In the first action scene, for example, one location jump too many reveals the entity behind the attack and betrays any sense of mystery the animé had. The film is not as atmospheric; the editing and pacing is too frequent and the music tries too much to be dramatic.

Speaking of a lack of mystery, ambiguity in regard to the Major’s identity goes right down the drain. The film actually reveals who Mira was in her past life. I’ll give you a hint: she was Japanese. This is just adding insult to the injury of not giving your existentialist subtext the focus to make it important. It’s far too easy. It goes against anything clever the animé devised. And the worst part of it is, after all defenders of the casting have said to debunk the cries of “argle flargle blargle: racism”, the issue is compounded when Johansson’s character starts referring to herself with her Japanese name. Was this revelation done in response to the backlash of non-fans of Ghost in the Shell? It’s a robot body, yes, but at the same time it’s almost like the filmmakers are confirming that they put a white face on a Japanese character! This whole non-issue has served only to diminish whatever enjoyment of the film one might have had!

Even forgetting the ordeal that has lingered around this film like a bad smell, the live action remake of Ghost in the Shell is plain disappointing. Even if one may have liked the representations of Mira and Batou, at least when they’re around each other, most if not all of the “characters” are a bunch of forgettable sticks in the mud with little to no reason for the audience to get invested in them. The plot is weak, the tone is generic, and its intended ontological themes prove ultimately pointless. There are too many questionable things such as choices in the aesthetic and story that take the audience out of the experience. It’s a real shame that the project has struggled for seven years to get into production, only to be met with ridicule and leave an uncharismatic impression.

Beauty and the Beast

Bill Condon’s Beauty and the Beast is Disney’s most anticipated release of the year, based heavily on Gary Trousdale and Kirk Wise’s timeless, beloved 1991 classic of the same name. As with many live action remakes of Disney’s classic titles, the film features an “updated” aesthetic, using ‘realistic’ CGI in place of traditional hand-drawn animation. This is not the first time Disney has done this and it appears this will certainly not be the last. Trousdale and Wise’s Beauty and the Beast represents part of the Disney Renaissance – in such company as The Little Mermaid (Ron Clements, John Musker, 1989), Aladdin (Clements, Musker, 1992), and the height of this era, The Lion King (Roger Allers, Rob Minkoff, 1994). These films represent the height of Disney’s animation standard and saved the company when it was failing in the 1980s. The Disney Renaissance Beauty and the Beast was released 26 years ago, yet it has survived for this long in the hearts and minds of audiences, and will continue to do so because it is timeless. So clearly, these films need to be remade!

In an interview with Pearl & Dean Premieres, director Bill Condon described the 1991 film as perfect and flat-out admitted that the reason for remaking it was the appeal of the live action aesthetic. Condon has answered this question already but it bears repeating: Why would you want to remake something if you think it is perfect? If something is perfect, there’s no way to improve it, ergo no reason to remake it, ergo the remake shouldn’t exist. This wouldn’t be so bad if it was a direct adaptation of Jeanne-Marie Leprince de Beaumont’s classic story, but that’s not what the Disney powers that be wanted. While nostalgia goggles may have most audiences excited for this film, it is with a mindset of questioning its purpose that one goes into the cinema skeptical.

The film opens with narration; the same narration, virtually, that opens the previous film, only with a different actor reading it. The opening narration isn’t even all that necessary because the prologue makes the effort to show the events of the Beast’s origin through actions rather than a montage of stills. And this sets the tone of the way much of the film has been scripted. It’s not uncommon or even out of place for an adaptation to quote the text it is based on. However, one can make the argument that too much of this film’s dialogue is ripped straight from the original movie, even to the point of mimicking the exchanges of entire scenes, albeit with slight alterations. It’s a real shame because in those parts where dialogue and story show originality, Stephen Chbosky and Evan Spiliotopoulos’ writing shows a lot of promise.

In the interview with Pearl & Dean, Condon also said the goal of the project was to distinguish the protagonist Belle as a 21^st Century heroine. The cartoon came out only less than a decade prior to the turn of the millennium, but very well. How then is Belle represented? Played by Emma Watson, the film expands on Belle’s character by showing her to be an inventor like her father, not only keeping up with his thinking but also helping with his projects (none that would blow up, thankfully) and making a few things of her own. It makes sense, the passage of craft and trade down families and all, especially given the time of the setting – although, beyond the first third her ability to invent isn’t shown much. A nice touch is how Belle’s interactions with Gaston (Luke Evans) are presented. Whereas Belle in the cartoon had no interest in Gaston but was polite enough to evasively humour him, live action Belle, while not rude, has no care to be around him or spare his feelings. The film makes it clear that Belle is no fool; she perceives Gaston’s intentions towards her. It also might have something to do with how Gaston is presented, which we will get to.

The film also tries to pronounce the townspeople’s distain for Belle and her being literate, although its not exactly clear why no one likes her reading or teaching a little girl to read, which she kindly does. Belle is introduced in a cover version of “Belle”, the opening musical number from the first film. In this sequence, she essentially steals bread from the baker and almost tramples on other people’s laundry as they’re washing. Not exactly a good influence.

But at least this means she has flaws. If characters were perfect, they would have nothing to learn, and the protagonist needs to learn something by the end. So, what does Belle learn? Well, nothing to do with stealing bread, sadly. Yes, she learns to love a person whose looks are not conventionally beautiful, but she’s just as much a victim of Stockholm syndrome as her cartoon counterpart. Besides, not loving the Beast is more about how the Beast kidnaps her father and takes her prisoner. It’s never explicit that Belle’s initial dislike for the Beast had anything to do with his appearance. If anything, in both versions she takes the existence of a ten-foot hairy demon rather well. Most people would be freaked out beyond a simple gasp.

One of the biggest letdowns in the film is Gaston’s characterisation. In the cartoon, Gaston doesn’t start off as a villain per-se, but was the kind of man who was always used to getting his way, and over the events of the film he develops into a monster. This was done intentionally to contrast to the Beast’s development from a selfish creature to a kindly man. However, the remake version presents Gaston as a much more tactless character, his violent aspects blown out of proportion to the point of attempted murder on Maurice (Kevin Kline)! It comes as an abrupt shock. Apparently having come back from war, which he found great pleasure in (seeing as thoughts of gore calm him), would seem to represent the military and its veterans as inhuman and bloodthirsty, or in LeFou’s case enabling that behaviour. Take as much offense to that as you will. By demonising this character to such an extreme, Gaston is no longer a character. He becomes a cartoonish caricature, and the comparison between him and the Beast is lost. He becomes dehumanised so the audience can’t empathise with him and therefor can’t learn from his actions. It is fitting to show him to be somewhat harassing so Belle can avoid him – it subtly teaches the audience that harassment is wrong – but turning him into a murderous psychopath so early on in the film with so little development comes right out of nowhere, is an insult to the character and a robbery of one of the original film’s most important themes.

It’s a tale as old as time (or rather the 18^th Century), one we all know so well from that iconic animated feature. When going in with the mindset that the only thing different will be the visuals, one worries that the remake will only be a shot-by-shot reconstruction. The dialogue, when there is too much taken from the 1991 script, furthers this worry. But while the plot is basically the same, the story does have some canny alterations. Some work, and others either compound the flaws of the first one or replace them.

For example, in the animated movie, the Beast is turning twenty-one soon, and he has been a beast for ten years, implying that when the Enchantress cursed him he was a child answering the door to his own castle! This version’s prologue, however, shows him as an adult man and the Enchantress (Hattie Morahan) breaking into his home. That seems a responsible enough start. But then there was the implication of how the kingdom has been living without a government since the Beast concealed himself from his subjects. The remake attempts to fix this by explaining that the curse erased everyone’s memory of those who had been cursed. The outcome is still the same. It turns out the Prince had been overtaxing his subjects for his own selfish desires, but even if the people didn’t have to pay taxes they would still be without a form of government or law and order or anyone to maintain their infrastructure and economy. For all Belle calls it a “poor provincial town”, it looks like a rather wealthy neighborhood. The place should look like Les Misérables. Here’s a thought: why not have a steward take care of the kingdom while the Prince-Beast conceals himself? Either that or make the town look like a dung heap.

There is a decent attempt to improve the romantic aspect of the story, through showing Belle and the Beast to have some common interests and most importantly having chemistry. Again, this comes from the original portions of the script and the scenes where they share and experience their environment are very human. And at least in this version the Beast doesn’t try to hit Belle when she sneaks into the West Wing. Unfortunately, for all they fall in love with each other, Belle still doesn’t know the Beast’s name! That was one of the most hilariously prominent flaws of the romance in the first film!

Speaking of Belle sneaking into the West Wing, there is a question of how “imprisoned” she really is. In the cartoon, the Beast takes Belle out of the dungeon and allows her to move freely through the castle. In this version, it is Lumière who leads her to a more comfortable room, and when the Beast finds out his will has been circumvented he just allows this to happen. In either case, Belle can leave anytime she wants. The only difference is that cartoon Belle initially stays due to a sense of honour while live action Belle is more proactively determined to escape. If Belle can run out the door at any time, what then is the point of calling Belle a prisoner? In this version, why doesn’t the Beast free Belle once he realises Maurice wasn’t a thief, instead waiting ‘til after they have their romantic dance? Maurice trespassing on Beast’s castle was the whole reason for Belle being a “prisoner” in the first place! Oh yes, that’s right, he needs to keep her close by so she will fall in love with him. That’s not creepy or anything…

To be honest, Maurice should have known better. Of course, he goes into the castle looking for shelter, but after making very little effort to see if there are any signs of life at all, he sees a banquet of food on the dining table and assumes that it’s for him. And when he’s scared out of the house by the menacing unseen presence there, he stops running and takes the time to steal a rose. Yeah, this Maurice may be sweet but he’s also kind of an idiot.

Of course, in a film set in France (or possibly one of its neighbors), everyone has a British accent, or American in Josh Gad’s case, except for that one guy. Lumière’s French accent is somehow even more stereotypical than in the cartoon, as is that of his lover Featherduster (Gugu Mbatha-Raw) to the point where their inflections can be a little unfitting. It’s almost like stereotypical French accents in movies attempt to make up for how British everyone else sounds. This may raise the question: if you want to hammer home that this guy is French, why not cast a French actor? Ewan McGregor's portrayal of the eccentric candlestick is okay and he is given some funny lines to work with.

It is revealed that the Beast’s greed for which he is cursed was the result of his father’s cold and unsympathetic parenting after his mother died. While it’s true that one’s environment influences one’s character, the explanation given seems to serve only to hand-wave a justification for Beast’s nature. You might as well say it was space aliens. Could the Prince not just be spoiled? He had to be corrupted by his father? The king only appears for a second, as does any mention of him. This route and the time taken through it seem far too convenient and easy.

One of the negative aspects of the cartoon’s story is that Lumiere, Cogsworth, Mrs. Potts and the rest of the castle’s staff are cursed for the Beast’s vain and superficial heart. This film attempts to justify their transformation into household objects by explaining, very briefly, that they did nothing to stop the Prince developing into a spoiled person. It’s actually a great way for the remake to raise the stakes – it’s not just their physiology that’s in peril, but their very sentience and lives. It seems the lesson is one against apathy, which is important to teach. It is, however, betrayed by LeFou’s subplot. While portrayed in a well-meaning light, LeFou (Josh Gad), Gaston’s lackey, goes through the movie doing the wrong things, knowing they are wrong, but he gets a happy ending, romantic love interest and all, because he abandons the villain at the last second. He’s basically Bartok from Anastasia (Don Bluth, Gary Goldman, 1997).

On a side note, it is heavily implied that LeFou is gay. Yes, there is an objectively gay Disney character now. And it’s not Elsa from Frozen. Funny how things turn out.

Belle doesn’t have much a different impact on the climax of the film than she did in the cartoon. She doesn’t get involved in the fight between Beast and Gaston; she is mostly there to give the Beast, and the audience, hope, which makes the scene all the more tragic as the battle ends. To be honest it’s more appealing that the proactive Belle struggles knowing what to do in this situation than it would be if she got involved in the fight. In the crossover video game Kingdom Hearts II, there is a scene where Belle is being held hostage by the villain Xaldin, so she elbows him in his stomach and escapes. It was good that she wasn’t being represented as damsel in distress, but at the same time it was an out-of-character thing for her to do. Still, she’s a smart girl; she could be tactical in order to help Beast out.

Now, as perhaps excessively the film imitates its predecessor’s script, adaptations are allowed to pull at their audience’s nostalgic heartstrings. And, yes. Call it manipulative, but there are parts where it pulls at your heartstrings. As an adaptation of a musical, the film is more than justified in reiterating the source material’s music. Here we have cover versions of the beloved songs “Belle”, “Gaston”, “Be Our Guest”, “The Mob Song” and the eponymous “Beauty and the Beast”, of which the film offers three different renditions. Not only that, but the film includes additional songs from the Broadway musical, which, to one who has only ever seen the cartoon, is a welcome change of pace. And they all sound fantastic. The Broadway songs help to inform a new kind of tone to the film adaptation, especially to the characters that sing them.

While the songs themselves are quite brilliant, if basically the same as the cartoon version – again, perfection cannot be improved upon – it’s the visuals to these songs that can feel a little awkward, at least for the better parts of the first and second thirds. In “Belle”, the performances from the ensemble are exaggerated, almost as if they were meant for the theatre rather than a film. During “Gaston”, the editing can be choppy and the 180° rule is rather ignored. “Be Our Guest” is plain confusing. For no reason at all, the animated characters draw references to completely unrelated movies like Singin’ in the Rain (Gene Kelly, Stanley Donen, 1952). Apparently “Be Our Guest” has been confused with “Friend Like Me”.

Towards the climax and the final act is when the film’s impact takes full effect. Tears will come to your eyes when all seems lost and one by one our characters’ fears seem heartbreakingly realised. Ewen McGregor and Ian McKellan's performances feel especially heartfelt here. The music is a major contributing factor to the mood in the final act. The Beast has his own musical number, “Evermore” from the Broadway show, as he looks on at Belle, who finally leaves the castle to rescue her father. Dan Stevens’ voice is already a great fit for the character, quite similar to that of Robby Benson, and when he delivers this song, it is beautifully, melancholically powerful. During the number “Beauty and the Beast”, as sung by Mrs. Potts (Emma Thompson), the music and visuals are entrancing as Belle and the Beast share a romantic dance, dressed in her glowing yellow dress and his cobalt suit. It is a beautifully designed, shot, choreographed, paced and edited scene. As the beautiful background unravels like clusters of stars as the Beast picks Belle up by her waist and spins her ‘round, one’s eyes are practically fixed on the couple as the two look into each other’s eyes. The chemistry of this entire scene is stunning.

We also get two other versions of “Beauty and the Beast”, one terrifically done by Madame Garderobe (Audra McDonald) and duet by Ariana Grande and John Legend during the ending credits. At first one might get hung up on how Grande and Legend’s version is nigh identical in its delivery to that of Céline Dion and Peabo Bryson’s version, but come to think of it that is an extremely impressive feat.

There is an elephant in the room that must be addressed when reviewing the musical aspect of the film. There have been accusations that Auto-Tune was used on Emma Watson’s voice. For example, when a clip was shown to Catherine Bott, a professional soprano, she believed this was so, saying that her ‘real voice’ showed fragility, which she believed would have been beneficial to the film. At first one might be inclined to give Watson the benefit of the doubt, but after listening to Dan Steven's cover of "Evermore" from the original soundtrack, one can hear use of Auto-Tune, meaning that more than one performance has been doctored in some way. As said before, Watson and Stevens' singing aren't all that bad, but when you manipulate their voices like this, audiences can sense the manipulation and it distracts from the experience. Audiences are going to get upset at something like this is because they either feel like the experience isn't genuine or that it is sensible to cast capable singers in a musical where the vocals are meant to be of a high quality. Another option, if you really want these actors in these roles but feel their singing is in some way inadequate, is to hire more capable singers with similar voices to dub over them, as has been done with movie musicals in the past. That way you have a better chance of maintaining the illusion and you give work to a few more talented people.

Some of the complaints in this review apply to previous live action Disney remakes. It’s seems apparent this is a studio-mandated remake, and it seems there are as many as nineteen more to be released in the coming years, reiterating classics from across Disney’s history. They are going to have the same problems as Beauty and the Beast and its 21^st Century predecessors. One must ask…will they last? Maleficent has been shunned, Pete’s Dragon was forgettable… That’s not to say Disney cartoons are flawless. Far from it. The Beauty and the Beast cartoon looked good and sounded good and was performed well, but it has its underlying problems. The difference is that the remake creates more of them. Even if there is a demand for these remakes, this demand is misguided. By remaking film after film to have just as many problems or more than their source material, simply for the sake of updating them, these imitations will inevitably become passé.

It’s obvious this remake comes from a well-meaning place. Love and passion have gone into the making of this film. No doubt about that. The mise-en-scène and visual design is wonderful, Belle seems a more determined and proactive protagonist, and the acting is superb across the board. The music is very well done, though most of it owes its appeal to the cartoon’s nostalgic value. And that’s all it needs to make it enjoyable in general, but the film’s surface appeal can trick its audience into thinking it has less than its share of problems. The script struggles between originality and quoting Linda Woolverton’s efforts from the cartoon version. Sometimes the pacing can feel all over the place. It tries to teach good lessons and fix the detrimental implications of the cartoon, and in some cases it succeeds, but in others it goes to unnecessary extremes, creates new detrimental implications, undermines the morals of its own subplots, attempts to fix things that weren’t necessarily broken with glancing explanations, and even creates plot holes, of all things! After experiencing the film’s spectacle, one wants to like this movie. One is even glad it exists, as it was able to bring both laughter to lungs and tears to eyes. It is an effort worthy of congratulation. At the same time, however, one can’t ignore how the film, for all its heart and grandeur, has these mistakes in the attempt at being updated.