kellym40 film review

Bourne uncovers more truths in ‘The Bourne Ultimatum’

Rating 4/5

This Bourne trilogy might be considered overrated. Some might say the story is inconceivable. Why do you need three films to discover one’s identity? I think the answer is that it really doesn’t matter. As I’ve said of the other two films before this installment, the film’s story and characters are engaging enough to buy in to this world that has been created. The audience is free to cheer on Matt Damon’s Jason Bourne character. It is clear now that Bourne (or whatever his true name really is) does not want to be a part of this secret government program any longer, and it is this inner conflict and the continuing pursuit of his “enemies” that make these compelling characters to watch.

Run, Jason, run. And run some more. The successful techniques and elements used in Identity and Supremacy are prevalent here in this film, which adds to the success of these films. Tony Gilroy returns with writers Scott Z. Burns and George Nolfi to pen the script to create this thrilling world with truly living three-dimensional characters to entertain. Director Paul Greengrass helms this production and brings together the elements almost flawlessly for a well-coordinated piece of film. As with the other films, the camera movements, quick shots, music, cinematography, acting and dialogue come together with seeming ease.

I have said this in my previous review that it almost seems preposterous the kind of situations that arise and Bourne finds himself in. Because I don’t pretend to admit that I know everything there is to know about the government, CIA, and its secret programs and operations. I am aware they exist. But the sequences in these films are so well done that Greengrass skillfully weaves the story into the action of the film to provide enough excitement to again sustain that suspension of disbelief and be fully engaged in the film.

Everything comes together to complete this trilogy. However, it still leaves more. One might think what other circumstances and situations Bourne might find himself in? How do the government officials with all their resources bent on stopping Bourne and not be able to do it? Bourne is someone is has a remarkable set of skills and uses those skills skillfully in order to stay ahead of his enemies and to stay alive.

In respect of not sounding too repetitive, there is not much more to say about this film (or the other two in the trilogy) that hasn’t been said or mentioned. This character seems to go on and on. I read another reviewer that mentioned Bourne could feasibly go on for years to come, like James Bond, with other actors portraying this character. As I mentioned in my review of The Bourne Supremacy, Matt Damon is Jason Bourne. I can’t really see anyone else playing this role. But I suppose it could be done since it was done with Bond (Sean Connery, Roger Moore, Timothy Dalton, and Pierce Brosnan to name a few). Time will tell what is in store for this character and these stories.

There must be a variety of stories that could be taken from the Robert Ludlum novels as it has spawned this trilogy, a fourth film (previously mentioned in another post) with a Bourne-like character and the story unfolding as the events of this third film are playing out. And a fifth film, released last year, in which the Bourne character is back in Jason Bourne. And guess who’s back to portray Bourne? That’s right. Matt Damon returns for a fourth time as Jason Bourne. But how much more of his story is there? We shall see. For now, we can sit back and get caught up in the action and excitement of this world with the Bourne trilogy.

 

 

 

kellym40 film review

Terror mounts at high altitudes in ‘Snakes on a Plane’

Rating 1.5/5

Well my title might be a little misleading. Because I don’t think the characters in the film were ever really terrified, just maybe slightly alarmed. The danger seemed almost laughable, and still slightly plausible. But the execution of the script never really made be feel for the characters to care what happened to them. Although the film did deliver one of my favorite lines in cinema as only Samuel L. Jackson can deliver it, Snakes on a Plane was filled with a smorgasbord of seemingly repetitive shock effects that the suspense and “terror” is drowned out and does not sustain the film for its nearly 105 minute run time.

The plot is simple and seemingly basic. Jackson plays FBI agent Neville Flynn. He is on a flight from Honolulu to Los Angeles transporting a witness (Nathan Phillips) to testify against a bad man. The bad man is so bad that he manages to load the cargo of the plane with crates of deadly, poisonous snakes. And that’s how the snakes get on the plane. The snakes get loose and begin creating havoc among the passengers of the plane killing several. The survivors then have to deal with the threat of the snakes for the remainder of the flight. The survivors include flight attendants Juliana Margulies, Rachel Blanchard, Lin Shaye and Bruce James; passengers Sunny Mabrey, Flex Alexander, Kenan Thompson, Keith Dallas, and pilot David Koechner (who later meets his demise, but more on that in a bit). There are a few others but they’re hardly worth mentioning. They either die early in the film or they have such a low impact on the story or outcome of the film that they don’t really deserve a mention.

While the survivors scramble to keep alive, Flynn is in contact with his FBI buddies on the ground and gets them to scramble around to find a snake expert to develop anti-venom to treat the ones who have been bit, but still stay alive long enough for the plane to miraculously land. It makes for some mindless entertainment but it is not thrilling enough to keep me totally involved in the story.

Some problems exist with the story. How does the villain of the story know for sure the snakes would get out? (I mean supposedly there is some kind of pheromone or something released which apparently gets the snakes agitated and that’s why they start attacking everyone, but if they don’t get out then what’s the point?) As I said, the pilot survives for a while, even after getting bit in the arm, but then later is killed late in the second act. Now there is no one to fly the plane. So Flynn asks if there is anyone with any kind of flight experience. And guess who has experience – Kenan Thompson. However, his experience comes from a flight simulator. The miraculous landing comes from Thompson taking the controls and Jackson delivering his line about getting these “motherfucking snakes off this motherfucking plane.” His plan is to shoot out a window and watch as the snakes get sucked out of the plane while holding on for dear life. The plane is safely landed in the hands of someone who is just good at a video game, which might be plausible in the world of this film but still seems a bit far-fetched.

What else can be said of Snakes on a Plane? Not much. With its flaws and low-key performances, it does have some credibility, just not much to write home about. Perhaps just enough to write a seemingly scathing review for a blog? Well here it is. This film might be another one of those movies that would be good for some mindless entertainment on a lazy afternoon, but nothing more than that. David R. Ellis’ direction was nothing great here. Maybe in the hands of a more prolific director it might have been something, but as it is it leaves something to be desired. The script, written by John Heffernan and Sebastian Gutierrez, left a lot to be desired and seemed mediocre at best.

So if you’re in the mood for some great acting, a good story, compelling characters, then you might have to check out something else like a Scorsese picture. You won’t find much of that here. But if you want to kick back, have a few laughs, and let your mind wander in the presence of tedious storytelling and senseless action, then pop some popcorn and buckle in.

 

kellym40 film review

Bourne is back in ‘The Bourne Supremacy’

Rating 4/5

Director Paul Greengrass helmed the follow-up to 2002’s The Bourne Identity. Tony Gilroy returns as screenwriter, again adapting the script from Robert Ludlum’s novel. In this installment, there is more of the same from the first film but is taken to another level as we learn more about Bourne and his past as an event forces him out to again go on the run to face the ones who are after him.

The film begins with Bourne living happily with Marie (Franka Potente, from the first film) on a beach in India. Soon they are on the run after Bourne notices a man out of place. From there, things escalate and Bourne is thrust into another adventure with high stakes on the line. The film does not fail in delivering the fights, chases, and fast-paced character driven action that made the first film a success.

This installment brings together the usual thriller components and hurtles from location to location across the world, while never being bogged down with unnecessary action, dialogue, story and character development. Matt Damon returns as Jason Bourne and still brings the energy and intensity he had in the first film. I think what makes these films stand out for me is partly because of Damon’s performance. He brings the right level of energy without being overbearing and still true to the character and story. He wasn’t a flashy, over-the-top character to just exist because he is a character written on a page. He brings life to the character and it is hard to imagine any other actor in this role. Matt Damon is Jason Bourne

Joan Allen joins the cast as Pamela Landy, a CIA agent charged with finding Bourne after evidence emerges that Bourne was involved in a murder of a CIA agent and his criminal contact in Berlin. Brian Cox returns as Ward Abbott, essentially Landy’s boss. And Julia Styles reprises her role from the previous film.

The plausibility of some of the events in the film from ever happening (or happening they way they were portrayed in the film) is borderline preposterous, like similar events in the Taken franchise, but Bourne just does it better. It makes Bourne look like a guy who knows what he’s doing and does it so well. This is in part due to the fact the source material seems to be more credible than the Liam Neeson franchise. What also sets these films apart, as in the first film, is the use of the various locations and music to underscore the developing story. I also like the quick camera cuts and close up shots during the fight scenes. It seems to put the audience in the middle of the frantic action taking place on screen. Some may not like that. I think it adds to the film.

Are these films perfect? Not really. But they are very effective in telling the story while keeping the audience entertained and enthralled and they have just the right amount of movie magic to maintain that suspension of disbelief. Greengrass and company have scored another hit with this franchise. Identity doubled its production costs while Supremacy took in more than half of its production costs as revenue. There doesn’t seem to be anything slowing down the momentum of this engaging trilogy.

kellym40 film review

Thrills and action prevail in ‘The Bourne Identity’

Rating 4/5

Say what you will about action movies. Say what you will about thrilling thrillers. Say what you will about Jason Bourne, a character portrayed by Matt Damon in the film adaptations of the Robert Ludlum novels. Tony Gilroy and William Blake Herron took Ludlum’s world of the CIA and trained assassins and created a fast-paced, high-energy story about a man whose lost his memory and tries to escape the world in which he was in, all the while running to find a new life for himself.

The Bourne Identity could be considered a skillful action movie in that the action scenes (fights and chases) are done well. Director Doug Liman has put together a highly efficient film where all the film elements seamlessly move together to produce a quite entertaining, enjoyable, well-acted film.

In the film, Jason Bourne (Damon), a CIA operative in a secret program trained as an assassin, is found floating in the sea and awakens with no memory of who he is or his former life. As he fights his way to discover his identity, he realizes the path to his past is much more than he thought. As the story unfolds, pieces of his past are revealed but apparently not enough to fully infiltrate his true self because two more films were warranted for the scope of this character and his past. And not only two more films in this Bourne trilogy, but a separate film (based on a Ludlum novel) with a different character, similar to Bourne (because Bourne wasn’t the only one in the program), and most recently a fifth film entitled Jason Bourne. But I am swaying off the topic just a bit and those reviews will follow in future posts.

In his quest for his identity, he enlists the help of a woman Marie (Franka Potente) he met a bank and learning he has a particular set of skills he doesn’t seem to remember how he obtained those skills. He offers Marie $10,000 to drive him to Paris. Along the way, he discovers clues about his past while evading numerous agents out to kill him because the government officials heading up the secret program believe he is a rogue operative and needs to be stopped because he seems to be a threat to the government.

In most stories of good guys and bad guys, the good guy (hero) is someone the audience is supposed to feel for. They should be cheering him on and developing a connection with him (or her) so that when the hero triumphs there is a satisfaction and a relief felt by the audience. In a story such as this, the hero is a trained assassin who goes on missions in order to save American lives, but that may not always be the case because he may not always be told the whole truth (for the sake of the mission and to protect the government and have deniable plausibility. But there might be a connection here with this particular character because as he is learning who he was, and it becomes clear he doesn’t want to do that anymore. He wants to be left alone and live a different life away from the government. This is a character driven story in that Bourne drives the action. He runs. He fights. He rests. Confronts some of his enemy. Repeat. This is a standard formula in most action films of this genre.

The action sequences are well choreographed where Bourne seems to be a one-man army taking on several assailants at once and appearing to be thinking one step ahead of his enemy at all times, which include Chris Cooper, Brian Cox, and Clive Owen. The performances were outstanding. Damon brings a sincere, energized look and feel to the character and all the actors brought something to their individual characters, which made them distinct, interesting, and entertaining and moved the story and action along. There were wonderful locations and the cinematography just added to the film and never seemed to lack in keeping it from being dull.

One might view The Bourne Identity as mindless entertainment. It might have some flaws, but I believe they would be miniscule compared to the story and action of the film. It was an entertaining, character-driven thrill ride, unlike the Taken films. Bourne just seems to do it better.

kellym40 film review

‘Going in Style’ needs just a little more style

Rating 2.5/5

The recent release of Going in Style was a remake of a 1979 film of the same name starring George Burns, Art Carney, and Lee Strasberg. It would be interesting and fun to see those actors in that film and I will have to check that out. So that will be on my list for a future post. Not having seen the prior film, I cannot comment on it so I’ll have to rely on what I saw as I viewed this 2017 version.

This 2017 remake stars Michael Caine, Morgan Freeman, and Alan Arkin, and was written by Theodore Melfi and Edward Cannon. At the helm of this production is director Zach Braff. The trailer leads us to believe the film is a laugh out comedy. I believe it was written as a comedy (or at least meant to be a comedy) but it is not what it appears. Of course there were comedic moments in the film, but they were few and far between and those moments did not sustain the film as a comedy. However, I believe this version seemed to be more of a social commentary on big corporations keeping the working-man down and the importance of family. But even those elements did not seem to hold up the film. With all that being said, the filmmakers were more than likely looking at the big names (Caine, Freeman, and Arkin) in the cast to really sell this movie. The film also starred Ann-Margret, Christopher Lloyd, and Joey King.

Even with its flaws, the film was enjoyable. It was probably not as enjoyable as it could have been, but still watchable. One of the main problems with this film, though, is that it plays on and on, seemingly taking forever to really get going. The plot is pretty basic, as the three main characters have been screwed by big banks and a shady corporate deal that robs them of their pensions. So they decide to rob a bank (the same bank that holds the mortgage for one of them). All the planning, family issues, and social issues that are shown through half of the film come together for the actual event of the heist, which remarkably takes only a few minutes of the film. Most of the time for the film is spent looking into the lives of these characters and their reaction to the world around them.

The performances were adequate here for the film, but nearly bordered on low-key performances and almost seemed wasteful of the talents from these three film actors. There have been other films where it seems to have low energy or a lot of excitement infused in the action of the film and I mostly despise those films. I’ve compared those films to seeing a live theatrical play where the energy from the actors is low and the play just seems to drag. That’s almost how this film felt at times, but even so there was a quiet charm to the film. It had just enough to keep me into the film and engaged with the characters and story to see it through, despite its quiet, slow action and soft characters.

If you’re looking for a fun time, laugh out loud comedy, then this film is probably not for you. If you might be looking for stellar performances from three iconic actors, you might look somewhere else. But even with its slow-moving action, low-key performances, it might be good for some simple entertainment for a lazy afternoon. As it did with me, it might just keep your interest just enough to be watchable and enjoyable on some level.

 

kellym40 film review

Johnson flexes some muscle in ‘Hercules’ and fails to make a punch

Rating 2/5

There could be much to say about director Brett Ratner’s 2014 Hercules, but I don’t think there really is. I suppose, though, if you enjoy some action, fighting, a little humor, campy dialogue, and Dwayne Johnson flexing a little muscle while pushing over a large statue, then this might be for you. It’s like if you like that sort of thing, that’s the sort of thing you like. Writers Ryan Condal and Evan Spiliotopoulos are credited for the script that boasted 98 minutes of the aforementioned campy dialogue (although not as campy as most of the Kevin Sorbo television series of the ‘90’s) and seemingly bland story.

Earlier in the same year, audiences were treated to The Legend of Hercules starring Kellan Lutz and directed by Renny Harlin. In that film, (which I have not seen yet, but probably will appear in a future post) a story surfaces, which supposedly is grounded more in the traditional Greek mythology of Hercules’ origin. Ratner’s version portrayed Hercules as sort of a mercenary for hire, which is apparently based on another story of the famed demigod, leading a small rag-tag team of “misfits” on quests to earn gold. It was like if the A-Team was set in the fantastical realm of Greek mythology. If you need to overthrow a king, and if no one else can help, and if you can find him, maybe you can hire Hercules.

The performances were nothing extraordinary here but basically cookie-cutter two-dimensional characters with no real distinguishable characteristics. They really had nothing that allowed me to have an interest to what happened to them. The film also starred Ian McShane, John Hurt, Rufus Sewell, Aksel Hennie, Ingrid Berdal, Reece Ritchie, Joseph Fiennes, Tobias Santelmann, and Rebecca Ferguson, and of course many others; but again there was nothing that made me feel for the characters or care about their activities and story arcs.

I will admit, though, some of the fight scenes and big battle scenes were decently choreographed and done to an almost precision point that served the film well for what it was. I just particularly didn’t care for the type of film it appeared to be. However, even with its faults, the film was somewhat enjoyable on some level. There was some entertainment in the characters but it didn’t have enough to sustain my interest through the duration of the film. Other films seem to do it better with a more engaging story and characters even though there might not necessarily be a lot of action in every scene with huge explosions and fights.

There are those that may find this particular kind of film more enjoyable. That’s not to say it wasn’t watchable, because it was. It’s just not something I would necessarily see again if I didn’t have to. It might serve a purpose to have something playing in the background while performing another activity or something to watch for some simple entertainment on a lazy afternoon.

 

 

kellym40 film review

Neeson uses his skills to run in ‘Taken 3’

Rating 2/5

After 2012’s follow up to Taken, we get a third (and supposedly final) installment to the Taken franchise. In this film, nobody’s really “taken,” except maybe for the audience. Released in 2014, Taken 3 brings back writers Luc Besson and Robert Mark Kamen and director of the second film Olivier Megaton for a seemingly tiresome ploy to somehow capitalize on the moderate success of this particular action franchise.

This film also brings back the Mills family – Bryan (Liam Neeson), Lenore (Famke Janssen), and Kim (Maggie Grace) – and is set in Los Angeles. Bryan and Lenore are still divorced, but have a friendship going after the events of the other films and having Kim in common. This relationship puts a damper on Lenore’s current beau, Stuart (Dougray Scott), who simply asks Bryan to stop seeing her. After an opening sequence that doesn’t really get answered until much later (and is a weak plot point at best), Bryan goes to meet his ex at his place after receiving a text from her. He arrives and soon discovers she has been murdered. Of course, the police are alerted anonymously and Bryan has to fight his way out to go on the run.

That’s the premise. And that’s what moves the film into the second act and an unbelievable high-speed foot chase. Bryan leads the police through the streets to a house where he barges in on the unsuspecting couple, runs upstairs, then finally to a garage where he somehow knows there is a hole, covered with boards, underneath a car, that leads to the sewer. And I thought some of the sequences in the second film were a bit outlandish. I suppose, though, if you are an excellent former CIA operative with incredible skills, it could be slightly plausible you would have escape routes, weapons and gear hidden around the city like some great covert Easter Egg Hunt. But I digress. Bryan is on the run and his mission is to find out who murdered his wife and who framed him.

The film’s redemption is Neeson’s performance. Despite the obscure sequences, plot, and storylines, he still brings something to the character, but not at the level of his first outing. I’m sure he did what he could with the material he was given and Megaton’s direction. The addition of Forest Whitaker as Franck Dotzler, the police officer charged with bringing Mills in, but is always seemingly one step behind, offers a decent performance. However, it still lacks depth. For the most part, the performances were lackluster and 2-dimensional.

The cinematography is not as breathtaking in this film as the other two (France and Turkey) although it seems to utilize the locations well and serves the purpose of the film. But with that, the action and story doesn’t quite move along as well in this outing (not necessarily because of the cinematography, but story itself) because it is more drawn out (at nearly 20 minutes longer) than the first two installments. The camera movements made the fight scenes and chase scenes a little too fast-paced to easily follow to allow the audience to fully be aware of the surroundings and scope of the action.

Taken 3 is not about the characters being taken, it’s about the audience being taken, taken for a near 2-hour ride of quick-moving, incongruent scenes with a weak story. The characters, story and action of this film did not have enough substance for me to enjoy this film as sometimes that helps me retain interest. Maybe a better vision for this film would have helped. I don’t know. What I do know, there are other films, and even a television show, in this genre that do it better.

 

 

 

kellym40 film review

Mills uses his skills again in ‘Taken 2’

Rating 2/5

I suppose it was inevitable there would be a follow-up to Taken. The sequel showed us what would happen if Bryan Mills (Liam Neeson) and his wife (Famke Janssen) were taken. The same writers Luc Besson and Robert Mark Kamen return, but fail to bring it to the same level as the first one. There are moments in this film where it might be exciting and interesting, but there seems to be far more inadequacies that take me out of it to fully enjoy the film.

Olivier Megaton’s direction is an attempt to follow its predecessor but falls short in its delivery of the same level of action and continuity the first one had. It still follows that this film be built around a phone call between Bryan and Kim (Maggie Grace) like in the first one when Kim was taken. If this was the thought behind these films, perhaps I could write a screenplay based on a conversation I had with a friend over the old phrase “Where’s the beef?”

The film opens in Albania where Murad Krasniqi (Rade Serbedzija), the father of one of the men Bryan killed in the first Taken film, is with his clan at the burial site of his son and the rest of the others Mills killed because they simply got in his way. So of course he vows to get Mills and make him pay for the death of his son. Never mind the fact his son seemed to take enjoyment out of taking young female tourists and making them sex slaves.

And it just so happens that Bryan is in Istanbul on a private security assignment and has brought his family along for a little R & R in the country. Of course these bad guys find out and decide to take Mills and his wife while Kim is in the hotel room preparing to get ready to meet them after a little swim. Here’s where the phone call comes in, because apparently these guys aren’t smart enough to check for and take any forms of communication away from him before they tie him up. Bryan calls his daughter to tell her that he and her mother have been taken and gives her instructions to help them escape. And of course, being a former CIA agent, he has a case filled with “emergency equipment” like hand grenades, a map and other material. Here’s a part where inconsistencies comes in to play. He tells Kim that the men who took him are going to come after her. So he helps her get out and as she is doing so she is running barefoot through the rooms and halls of the hotel and finally gets to a window. She steps out barefoot on the ledge. But as the bad guys close in, one of them notices a sandal on the floor by the window. A. Single. Sandal. She didn’t have any footwear running through the hotel, but suddenly she leaves a single sandal by the window? It’s those little things that take me out of the film.

Now I know there are probably numerous inconsistencies in various films, but it’s the execution of character, action, story and other elements in a film that can hold my interest and suspension of disbelief for the sake of the film. Taken 2 did not do that for me like the first one did. The film really left me with no real connection with the characters. Yes I was sort of rooting for Mills to kick some ass and take some names as he fights for the freedom of himself and his family, but a real emotional connection was lost to me in this film. Thankfully it does move rather quickly and only has a 92-minute runtime.

Taken 2 plays as a slick, fast-paced action flick but its substance leaves something to be desired. If fast paced action is what interests and entertains you, then Olivier Megaton and company might just have the thing for you. But if you’re looking for a little more, then this film probably misses the mark.

kellym40 film review

Bryan Mills has a particular set of skills in ‘Taken’

Rating 3/5

In 2008’s Taken, Liam Neeson stars as Bryan Mills, a former CIA operative who uses his particular set of skills to rescue his daughter while on a trip to Europe with a friend. Luc Besson and Robert Mark Kamen penned the script that gave director Pierre Morel a framework of action and a world in which these characters could play.

I don’t think the film is an accurate depiction of what the CIA is or does, but it does show what a father of Mills’ background might do in a situation such as the one depicted in the film. From the start, Mills is not particularly happy about his daughter Kim (Maggie Grace) going off to Europe to “study” with a friend. Come to find out they are there to party and have fun. He already has a somewhat strained relationship with his ex-wife Lenore (Famke Janssen) and when Kim tells him she wants to go to Europe he immediately is apprehensive because he knows how cruel the world can be for people, especially two teenage girls. But through some assurances, he allows his daughter to go and thus sets the action of the film in motion.

The plot was simple enough I suppose. Was it accurate? Probably not entirely. Was it believable? Not necessarily. But it had a decent set up and plenty of action to keep me in the film. The characters seemed to be drawn efficiently with enough characteristics to make the bad guys bad and the good guys good. Neeson portrays Mills with precision while seemingly being a master of every skill imaginable that aids him in finding his daughter. It almost seems, though, that if all CIA agents were as skilled as Bryan Mills, the world’s terrorists should be afraid, very afraid. I would say it is probably one of Neeson’s better performances. Kim is not seen through most of the film after she is abducted, but Grace still brings a frightened reality to the character. Janssen is not seen much through the second act either, but delivers a believable and honest performance.

It seems the film was set up around the phone call that Mills makes to his daughter to check up on her after she failed to call when she arrived at her destination. About this time, men who the girls just meet enter and abduct the unsuspecting visitors. He tells his daughter that she will be taken and he tells the kidnapper on the phone that he will find him and he will kill him. With that, the kidnapper says “Good luck.” So, with the help from his CIA pals, he manages to get the name of the kidnapper and Mills begins his cross-country trek to get his daughter back.

Mills becomes a one man army and stops at nothing in his pursuit. It does make for an entertaining film even with some of the sequences seemingly implausible. But supposedly with the skills and expertise that Bryan Mills has, nothing is impossible (or improbable) in the course of the film.

There were moments in Taken that seemed a little outlandish, almost preposterous. But the film had enough action to keep me in the film and entertained. It’s one of those films that could make you go “hmmm,” but still has the action, story, and characters to be a watchable film.

kellym40 film review

Love knows no boundaries in ‘Beauty and the Beast’

Rating 3/5

This review is being written never having viewed the 1991 animated classic or the 1946 original or any other incarnation of the classic tale. In viewing the latest version of Beauty and the Beast, one can only think how good it might be. There must be something to this story for it to have seen two television series, the classic Disney animated film, a foreign film from France/Germany in 2014 and now this film version. As I understand, this 2017 version is more of a direct remake of the 1991 Disney classic. At the 1992 Academy Awards, the film was nominated for Best Picture (which apparently was the first animated film to do so) and Best Sound and won Oscars for Best Original Song and Best Original Score.

This film version has its merits and does bring some of the magic and wonder that you might expect from Disney in a tale like this. Bill Condon directed this story from writers Stephen Chbosky and Evan Spiliotopoulos and has produced a new version for new viewers. The cinematography by Tobias A. Schliessler was marvelous to look at and added to the film with musical numbers like “Be Our Guest.” From the depictions of small villages to the vast countryside and from the crowded, treacherous woods to the grand castle in which lived the prince (Beast), the cinematography brought the characters and surroundings to life.

The acting in this film seemed short of extraordinary, but that is not to say the performances were dull or plain, they just appeared to fit and served the purpose of the story. The film starred Emma Watson as Belle, the fair beauty of the land, who lived with her father Maurice (Kevin Kline), and Dan Stevens as the Prince turned Beast by the Enchantress (Hattie Morahan) because of his vanity and cold soul. Luke Evans portrayed Gaston, a seemingly vain character himself who would do anything to win the affection of the fair Belle, while LeFou (Josh Gad) stood by and unwillingly served him. Not knowing the cast before going in to seeing this film, I was surprised at some of the acting talents that lent their voices through much of the film, talents such as Ewan McGregor, Ian McKellen, Emma Thompson, and Stanley Tucci. Of course there were many others (because musicals usually bring large casts to the production) whose faces we did not see for much of the film that did a wonderful job with their voice characterizations.

I believe the musical score and choreography were worthy of most any big stage musical production and the CGI seemed to flow flawlessly through the musical numbers. So, hats off to the original animated inspiration. There might be differing views here, though. While this production’s musical performance served its purpose for this production, from what I understand, it might pale in comparison to the 1991 animated classic in some aspects. Not having seen the animated version, I can’t quite adequately compare the two. But I, regardless if the film is a remake, a remake of the remake, or some sort of adaptation of the original source material, I take it as I see it in the current version. In this case, this musical version appeared to serve its purpose – and I believe that purpose is to entertain and be visually stunning while still maintaining a true sense of story.

Even with its merits, stunning cinematography, and near flawless CGI action sequences, the film does suffer from some inadequacies. In part, the aforementioned CGI, but mostly the relationship between the Beast and Belle. It seemed a bit rushed and the sense of connection between the two wasn’t quite strong enough for me. I wanted a little more to be truly believable. From what I understand, the backstory of how Belle lost her mother was a nice little addition to the story and character, but I’m not sure if it was truly warranted.

There was some talk in the film’s release about some “gay characters.” I don’t consider this a true issue or controversy. There might have been a “sense” of it if you were actually looking for it, but it was not overtly done and was done with enough subtlety that I don’t believe should really be an issue. That’s all I’m going to say about that.

This new version of Beauty and the Beast fell just short of remarkable, but still had enough story and action to keep me engaged with the characters to make this an enjoyable film to watch. At some point, I will have to visit the 1991 animated version to truly compare the two (as I have with other remakes) to test the true virtue with this story. Until then, I leave you with this enlightening and entertaining film.