La belle et la bête

Greetings again from the darkness. If you are looking for dancing tea cups or singing candelabras, you've come to the wrong movie. If you are looking for the Gothic approach to the dark psychological analysis of the original story … again, you've come to the wrong movie. Director Christophe Gans (Silent Hill, 2006) offers up a version that is neither animated Disney (1991) nor Jean Cocteau (1946), though his film does have a visual flair that will likely keep audiences (it's not for very young kids) engaged throughout.

The familiar story was first written by Gabrielle-Suzanne Barbot de Villenueve in 1740, however, it's the revised version from Jeanne-Marie Leprince de Beaumont in 1756 that provides the fairy tale/fable that has been filmed so many times since. The story's genealogy based in France instills a bit more hope and responsibility in a project starring Vincent Cassel, Lea Seydoux and Andre Dussolier, and directed by the Frenchman Gans.

Ms. Seydoux is an admirable Belle, and her grace and beauty make for quite the contrast to her needy and entitled sisters. Her time in the castle with the Beast is limited, and therein is the film's biggest weakness. We never really see the transformation of the Beast to a man who repents, turns over a new leaf, and is worthy of love … it all just kind of happens thanks to the beautiful dresses. Mr. Gans and Sandra Vo-Anh co-wrote the script, and this misstep deflates the core of the story. We are on our own to interpret the messages of class warfare, greed, and judging others by looks. The focus instead is on the visual presentation, which at times is spectacular.

The set design and costumes are especially impressive and elaborate, and though the look of the Beast may not be precisely to your imagination, the film isn't shy about putting him front and center with the camera. Vincent Cassel's time as the Prince is pretty well done, and the CGI and explanation of the gold doe, nymph of the forest, magic healing water, pack of beagles and the curse are enough to move the story along … even if some details are lacking.

A bedtime story being read to two young kids is the framing device and might explain why the fantasy world is emphasized over the dark psychological undertones (more prevalent in the Cocteau version). While some might view the ending as somewhat mawkish, it's really nice to see happily-ever-after is not twisted into some contemporary take on independence.

Beauty and the Beast is another proof that French cinematography is on par with current Hollywood blockbusters in terms of CGI and outperforms them in storytelling. It might be wrong to generalize like this, but the previous sentence can't be negated in any serious discussion.

Beauty and the Beast is, hopefully, a fairy tale known to everyone. Discussing the script or actors' performance would be beyond the point. The story is retold in a visually perfect manner. Actually, this is in line with movies in which a superhero does the same thing one more time, but with a different lead actor and targeting the audience that was too young to witness the previous installment.

The best thing about this movie is the atmosphere. It is indeed a fairy tale, with some passion and some action, but it never becomes sleazy or boring.

La Belle et la Bete has all the whimsical magic and fantasy of a captivating fairy tale but with the humanity of a feature adaptation.

There is just something about these fables that have the ability to touch the audience's heart. La Belle et la Bete (Beauty and the Beast) brings the French fairy tale to life in an equally as wondrous but more realistic manner than the Disney classic.

American audiences will recognize the story without confusion as only minor changes are made with Christophe Gans's adaptation. A once prestigious and wealthy sea merchant (André Dussollier) is left disgraced and penniless when his three cargo ships go missing. With everything confiscated by the banks to compensate for his debts, the newly destitute family retreats to the provincial countryside. The merchant and father becomes lost when returning from a trip to the city. Seeking refuge, he finds shelter in a mysterious but magical castle. Overstepping the castle's generosity, the father must trade une vie pour une rose, a life for a rose.

The French film La Belle et la Bete is what I had so desperately desired but failed to receive from Disney's Maleficent. Though it does not attempt to reinvent the tale from an alternative perspective, La Belle et la Bete does give audiences a refreshingly real story rather than a romanticized but far fetched fable.

In every scene and with every single frame, director Christophe Gans captures the magical and otherworldly awe inherent in a fairy tale. The castle's fortress is a maze of crumbling corridors and overgrown staircases that we explore with Belle during the day. From the set design and landscapes to the opulent costumes and cinematography, La Belle et la Bete transports its audiences to a magnificent and enchanting fantasy land.

In almost all regards, La Belle et la Bete is an overwhelming success but there are weaknesses in the narrative and film. The CGI is vastly inferior to the rest of the environment of the film and is a distraction. The writers and director do not take the added time to truly cultivate a love story between Belle (Léa Seydoux) and la Bete (Vincent Cassel). For a film that claims its genre to be romance, this is rather a large component and therefore complaint. Further the introduction of the Gaston character and eventual climax at the castle feels rushed and slightly out of place.

La Belle et la Bete is a spectacular cinematic experience that should be voraciously devoured by lovers of the fantastical, especially children. (Though there is nudity, it is minimal, tasteful, unavoidable and completely nonsexual.)

Please check out our website for all the recent releases reviewed in full.

The story "Beauty and the Beast" is a classic. However, there is no one definitive version. Instead, it's a folk tale that's been passed down for generations until a very popular version was written by a couple women well over two centuries ago. And, since then, other versions have also been written. I mention this because if you watch ANY version of the story, you must accept that they will be different. This version is very different from the two most famous versions, Disney's and "Belle et Bête" (1946) by Jean Cocteau...and that's okay with me.

This new French version is different from many other versions because it concentrates much more on the family's back story and how awful Belle's siblings are. This is a highly dysfunctional family and the father seems oblivious to the monsters he's helped to create. All are monsters, except for Belle. And eventually, you learn that the father isn't all that wonderful either. When he's lost in the forest in the cold, he seeks shelter in what looks like an abandoned castle. However, after eating like a pig from the sumptuous dining table, the guy begins stealing stuff from the place. He says it's because it's abandoned...but the food was warm and obviously the guy was just a thief. On the way out, he stops to pick a single rose for his sweet daughter--and that is when the beast appears and tells him of his punishment. He will be allowed to return home to put his things in order, but he MUST return to be the creature's prisoner. But, when Belle learns of this, she bolts to the castle--offering up herself instead. As for the rest of the tale, it's NOT what you'd expect. There is a story involving Belle's crappy brother and some money-lenders as well as the creature's back story. Unlike most versions, this one slowly reveals bits and pieces of this sad tale and exactly why he's been turned into a beast is quite strange. But again, since there is not one version of the story, such license is understandable.

So was this film worth seeing? Well, yes and no. It's far from the best version I've seen but it is worth your time. Major pluses are how beautiful the film is in many places as well as a few changes to the generally accepted story. I appreciate how Belle's father really DID deserve to be punished, whereas in other versions Beast just seems mean and unfair in punishing the old guy. But, what didn't thrill me was the amount of extra story. With all the subplots and back story, so much of the romance between Belle and Beast is missing--and her falling for him seems to make far less sense. Plus, while some will love all the CG, I think after a while it was just too much--such as the HUGE creatures that appear at the end and start stomping on everyone as well as the bizarre crazy-eyed puppy creatures! I prefer a simpler version that is a bit smaller in scope and less intense. Call me a romantic at heart, but a bit less would have delivered so much more.

By the way, the version I saw DID have English subtitles, but they were not very good in places. Once in particular, I would have misunderstood an important part of the film had I not understood what they were actually saying in French.

I should have seen this before the latest Disney version of the tale. It came a couple of years ago, with a wonderful cast and visuals. French cinema is not a great vfx powerhouse. Unlike most of the famous Hollywood mythical and fairy tales originated from Europe, it's rare to see them converted to films in the similar fashion in its homeland. One of the reasons was the international market, to earn back everything they have spent for it, and more. When such projects do happen, sometimes the filmmakers tie up with Hollywood co-production to secure returns. Even if you take this film's worldwide box office, nothing overwhelming. But the challenge they had taken was truly appreciable.

That's not it, this is the most redesigned versions of them all I've seen so far. Because I haven't seen any other than Disney's, excluding the modern timeline adaptation like 'Beastly', 'I' et cetera. Yeah, even the Disney's live-action retained original from their animated version, but visually extraordinary. And in here, the story was same, thought told in a different way. The graphics too were very nice, I did not expect that. Despite it is being a fantasy and a children's tale, the contents were more serious. That reveals they were very keen to bring the adults to the screens than the kids. Yet nothing too seriously targeted the grownups like 'Tale of Tales'.

Everyone knows the basic storyline of this tale. A recently lost their fortune, a family of six siblings with their father relocates to a small farmhouse. No one other than the youngest daughter, Belle, was happy to be in such nature surrounded place. But one day when her father got into a big trouble, she takes his position and becomes a prisoner in an abandoned castle. Since then she begins to learn about the mystery man of the castle, particularly his past, reason to be ended like that. And following, a twist in the narration leading to the finale, everyone's fate will be revealed.

❝Remember... A life for a rose.❞

The film was two hours long and well filled with the scenes in it all over. It doesn't feel like we're watching a fantasy film. The colours, costumes, medieval story, misty mountain, all is the major reminder that you are watching a fairy-tale. Though you won't get anything magical from the story right away. Not until the third act. As for the story, from such vastly known tale, you can't expect any major surprise. As I said, some minor changes can be witnessed throughout. But such kind of scale the flick has in all the department, that too coming from Europe makes it a very special.

Definitely no to comparison with the Disney's. Both of them were fine products on their own way. But people would compare and pick one when they are based on the same source. That can't be stopped. Disney had created their own brand, aiming for kids. You can find the people who liked both the live-actions. I never knew the original tale, I mean from the original source/text. Those who are familiar with are saying, this is most closest one. But something I did not understand was the Beast was cute furry Beast, just like Disney's. I anticipated something tough physique, hard character, I mean Beast as a real Beastly.

Excluding that slight displeasure, I have had no other complaints with the film. I enjoyed it, yet there's another thing which is actually a question rather than a disagreement. The actors did their parts, though I felt the Beast character should have been played by a younger one. Vincent Cassel is a brilliant French actor and he did his best for it. Lea Seydoux as Beauty surely an excellent pick. The direction was good. Cautiously spent for everything in the film. So they have got a fine final product. Most of the people going for it, only keeping in mind Disney. You won't get that Disney's singing, dancing, overall appeal. One must clear off his mind from any great ideas and then only give it a try. Remember, it is not a very good film, but simply a good film.

7/10