Adaptations: Beauty and the Beast
Welcome to the first post in a new series on this blog, called "Adaptations". In this series, I will be looking at different film (and occasionally, television) adaptations based on classic stories centred around female characters, notably romantic classics. I will then share what I think each adaptation excels at, e.g. the best adaptation, the worst adaptation, the best interpretation of the female lead, and so on. Adaptation articles such as this will alternate with the reviews and features I also post on this blog.
Background on Beauty and the Beast: Beauty and the Beast (original French title La Belle et la Bête) is a fairytale attributed to have originally written by Gabrielle-Suzanne Barbot de Villeneuve in 1740. However, the original story was very long, so it was later rewritten and abridged by Jeanne-Marie Leprince de Beaumont. It is Beaumont's version of the story that is the best known in literature, and is available in public domain to read here.
The original Beauty and the Beast story tells the tale of Beauty, a kind young woman with a nickname that reflects her physical appearance. Beauty had wished for her father to bring her a simple rose back from his travels, which he tried to steal from the Beast's garden, only to be caught. Beauty feels that this is all her fault, and sacrifices her freedom to be the Beast's prisoner, saving her father. She must live with the Beast in his castle, which is filled with delights designed to entertain her. She is treated very well, although she cannot be entirely happy, as she misses her family. Additionally, she only sees the Beast, her only companion, once a day when he visits her each evening. Every time they meet, the Beast asks her if she will be his wife, which Beauty always refuses. This is partly because she is falling in love with a prince who she meets in her dreams each night, a secret she keeps to herself. One day, the Beast sees how much Beauty misses her family and allows her to visit them, on the condition that she returns at a set time, which she readily agrees to. Time passes while at home with her family, and Beauty loses track of it, only remembering that she has to get back to the Beast when it is too late: he is dying. Beauty rushes back to him. She begs him not to die, and promises to love him if he doesn't, now wanting to be his bride. The Beast transforms into the Prince from her dreams, having been cursed to live as the Beast many years before. The two marry, and live happily ever after.
I will only be looking at full, official retellings of Beauty and the Beast, so films and shows that only reference or lightly feature the characters and story won't be included here, such as Once Upon a Time. I'm also going to avoid cartoon versions apart from the Disney classic, as the majority are simply ripoffs of that. Additionally, live action is closer in theme to what I normally review on this blog.
Without further ado, here is the list:
Best adaptation of the story:
Beauty and the Beast (original French title: La Belle et la Bête, 1946 film)
While my personal favourite Beauty and the Beast adaptation is the 1991 Disney cartoon, I have to acknowledge that this 1946 film is the overall best film based on the classic tale. It's a beautiful adaptation that clearly influenced several of the other entries in this list. It's a very faithful adaptation of the original fairytale, so I don't feel the need to summarise the plot of this specific film.
As this was actually one of the last films I watched for this post, one of the standout features for me was just how many elements it contained that clearly inspired later adaptations of the story. From the talking household furniture, the mirror showing anything you wish to see, and the existence of Avenant, a mean but handsome man after Beauty's heart. This kind of character is in several Beauty and the Beast adaptations, the most notable one being Gaston from the Disney cartoon.
For a film made in the 1940s, I was very pleasantly surprised with the quality of the technology. There are little things, like having the Beast's ears prick up and move when he can sense an animal he wants to hunt. The main visual element that impressed me was when Beauty offered a pearl necklace to her sister, and when she took it, it immediately turned into what looked like intertwined sticks (downside of black and white films- you can't always properly see what everything is). When the sister drops it to the floor in disgust, it immediately turns back into the set of pearls, and I was very impressed with how well they edited that. While watching this, I felt a similar kind of enchantment to what I've experienced from watching the 1939 film The Wizard of Oz. It was also a really interesting idea to have the same actor who plays The Beast and The Prince (Jean Marais) additionally play Avenant, the Gaston type character. It's a little confusing, but I think it works well in the context.
I would have liked to have seen a better build up of chemistry between the Beast and Beauty - he is willing to be her loyal servant as soon as he meets her, which takes away from his character a bit. However, his devotion to Beauty makes her uncomfortable at first, and she has to grow fond of him over time, so it's not like their development plot was bad, it just felt a little rushed.
Nonetheless, it's a rather magical, classic film and I look forward to revisiting it sometime in the future.
Would I recommend this version? Yes
Rating: 10/10
Worst adaptation of the story: Belle and the Beast: A Christian Romance
If you read my review, you will know that I hated this film. The acting is awful, the beast isn't a beast but an annoying man-child, and the plot is clunky, with more of a concern to reference the Christian faith than tell even a semi-decent story.
I've ranted about this film before, and I don't have the strength to do it again.
Would I recommend this version? No!
Rating: 1/10
Best Beauty:
Belle from Beauty and the Beast (1991 Disney film)
As tempting as it is to give award all of the positive categories to the Disney cartoon, I will limit it to this one. Belle really is wonderful.
The Beauty character (as I've learned from watching these adaptations) is at risk of being dull, by only having the traits of physical beauty and being the Beast's designated One True Love. Thankfully, Belle is beautiful both externally and internally. She is intelligent but remarkably kind and considerate of others. Not just with her father and the Beast, but even with Gaston, who is delightfully awful. When he proposes to her in a smug way, Belle is still really polite to him. However, she's not a push over. She fights for what she believes in, whether that's saving the Beast from an angry mob, or simply pursuing her right to read and educate herself while everyone else looks on disapprovingly. She is the only Beauty who has a chance to escape from the Beast without being set free by him, yet when he's wounded, she chooses to keep her promise and go back to look after him. She's very brave.
Additionally, Paige O'Hara does a stunning job as Belle's voice actress, and Belle is a gorgeously designed character. She's beautiful, but not in a flamboyant way that suggests she cares very much about her appearance.
As for the film itself, this is the film everyone imagines when they hear Beauty and the Beast, and rightfully so. It's a classic. Aside from the stunning animation, the two titular characters have a beautifully natural relationship that develops from strangers, to friends, to a meaningful love. It really helps that their story has no timeline, so it is ambiguous to the audience just how long Belle was in the castle with Beast. Other stories imply that they were only together for about a month, or even less, which weakens the love we're supposed to believe those two characters would have built. Even though they are drawings in motion, everything about the relationship between these two feels right.
Beyond that, all of the characters are great, distinctive and fun in their own right, the animation is stunning, the songs are iconic and the story even manages to surpass the quality of the original fairy-tale it is based on. There are a couple of plot holes regarding the Prince's backstory, and it's guilty of setting my personal romantic expectations too high (sadly, it looks like I'm not going to be swept off my feet with the offer of my own library any time soon) but aside from that, it's a pretty flawless film. If you somehow haven't seen it yet, I highly recommend that you seek this out right now (and if you have already seen it, go and rewatch it).
Would I recommend this version? Yes
Rating: 10/10
Best Beast:
Vincent in Beauty and the Beast (1987 TV series)
Ron Perlman as Vincent, with Linda Hamilton as Catherine
Darn you 1980s, and your cheesy photo-shoots - how am I supposed to convince the people that this lion man is attractive, when this is the best image I can find?
Terminator The 1987 series follows Catherine (played by Linda Hamilton, best known as Sarah Connor in the films) a lawyer in New York. When mistaken for someone else one night, Catherine is abducted, beaten and left to die until she is rescued by a mysterious stranger. This stranger nurses Catherine back to health where he lives in "The World Below": the sewers of New York where the stranger lives with other societal outcasts. He feeds her and talks with her, so they bond over time. However, Catherine's entire face is bandaged, so she cannot see him. When Catherine finally removes her bandages, she finds that not only is her face now horribly scarred, but her carer all this time has been Vincent, a half-lion man played by Ron Perlman. Despite Vincent's striking appearance, Catherine still accepts him as a friend, and once she returns to civilisation, the pair are still heavily involved in each others lives. They help each other, and realise over time just how special their bond is.
A reason why I personally love the story of Beauty and the Beast so much is because I'm a massive sucker for the trope of a big, masculine man who is a bit intimidating at first, but is actually a complete sweetheart underneath the rough exterior. Vincent epitomises this heavily, and his fragile manner around Catherine is precious. He's sweet, brave and is deeply loyal to Catherine and his family. Sadly, you do have to try and ignore the fact that he kills at least one person in almost every episode. In his defence, they are always the bad guys.
I also appreciate that he's an actual kind of Beast - you'll find that those aren't as common in Beauty and the Beast adaptations as you would think.
Catherine and Vincent are really good together. My favourite scene is in Series 1, Episode 7, when Catherine tells Vincent she's been offered a wonderful new job, but if she took it, she would have to move away from New York. This would mean that they couldn't see each other anymore.
Without hesitation, Vincent beautifully tells her that she has to take the job, because it's such a wonderful opportunity for her. However, once Catherine has left him, he has a very quiet moment where he expresses his heart break alone. No tears, no screaming or roaring. He's just clutching his heart, and it seems like he can't breathe. I felt like I had never really felt true heartbreak from a character, but the weird-looking lion man in this scene really got to me. I just want to hug him. But then, Ron Perlman is a terrific actor. Bear in mind that he's working with a face full of prosthetics and makeup, and he still manages to emote a lot while being subtle when needed. That's talent.
The prosthetics on Vincent have aged pretty well, although the wig isn't great - that hair looks like it belongs on the very cheesiest of 1980s historical romance novels. However, that kind of romanticism certainly suits Vincent, and does fit in well with the tone of the series. Meanwhile, the prosthetics were made by Rick Baker, who also did special effects makeup in films such as An American Werewolf in London and Hellboy (2004), the latter in which he worked with Ron Perlman again. Vincent does look impressive in the show, although I will admit that I feel the Disney cartoon Beast has the most creative and impressive Beast design overall.
I've only watched the first series as I'm writing this, and it has some flaws. One of them being that this show has the weirdest kissing scene I think I've ever seen, which is not the fault of the actors, it was a stylised choice. It is a shame though. Additionally, Vincent does kill too many people to be entirely comfortable with (even if he does feel guilty about it), and because it was made in the late 80s, some parts really haven't age well. However, if you don't mind sitting through a rather cheesy show that can feel frequently repetitive for the sake of seeing two good characters in a decent love story, then I recommend this show. You should watch one episode alone just for Vincent.
Also, fun fact for Game of Thrones fans: George R.R. Martin was one of the writers for this show.
Would I recommend this version? Yes.
Rating: 6/10
Strongest chemistry between leads:
Beauty and the Beast (1976)
This version of Beauty and the Beast follows the original story quite faithfully. Belle (played here by Trish Van Devere) replaces her father as a prisoner in the Beast's (George C. Scott) castle, as punishment for stealing a rose from the Beast's garden. As Beast and Belle get to know each other, they begin to fall in love, though many obstacles try to keep them apart.
George C. Scott and Trish Van Devere were married in 1972, until Scott's death in 1999, meaning they had been married for four years when this film was released. Their chemistry onscreen is remarkably strong. This film does a couple of unique things with the story that interests me, one of them being that Belle admits to having feelings for the Beast before she leaves him to return to her family. While Beauty generally has to leave the Beast to realise her true feelings for him, this Belle admits she is disgusted with herself for having strong romantic feelings for Scott's Beast, because he is an animal. While these two are enjoyable to watch together most of the time, the strong chemistry almost works against their character development, as these two characters seem to be affectionate towards each other far too soon. I could forgive it on Beast's part a little more, as that character is generally mesmerised by Belle's beauty from the beginning in every carnation. However, it doesn't feel like Belle took very long to adjust to the Beast, let alone fall in love with him.
Trish Van Devere and George C. Scott as Belle and the Beast
Something that really fascinated me about this film was the portrayal of Belle's family. Not only does she have the horrible sisters that she has in the original story and some other adaptations, but her father is given a somewhat sinister edge here. He believes Belle has been put under a spell by the Beast, as he can't believe she truly wants to return to him on her own, so her father conspires with his other children not to let Belle have the thing she needs to return to him, despite Belle crying, lamenting that the Beast will die, and even lets her go off in search of the castle by herself, stubbornly certain she'll fail and return home (there is a bit of a plot hole here in how her father was able to go to the castle twice, yet Belle can't find it once). He won't listen to her, and they never reconcile by the films end.
Otherwise, the film is a pretty standard adaptation. It's not bad, (a bit campy: there's a ridiculous scene of Belle and the Beast playing hide and seek that goes on for far too long, and is shot in a really cheesy way), but not exceptional.
However, I do just want to point out that George C. Scott won the Oscar for Best Actor (for his performance in the 1970 film Patton, an award which he declined) six years prior to this adaptation, then went on to make this little made-for-TV film for the Hallmark Channel alongside his wife. It seems like he was an interesting man.
Would I recommend this version? Yes, but there are superior adaptations of this tale, which you can find in this list.
Rating: 5/10
Most loyal to the original story:
Beauty and the Beast (1987 film)
Unfortunately, there is very little that is remarkable about this adaptation, except that it is extremely loyal to the original story. Apart from inserting the odd song here or there, this is pretty much a direct screen version of the original fairytale.
While this is an achievement, this odd film has very little else to boast about. It looks and feels like a cheesy made-for-TV film that is definitely a product of its time. The acting can be a bit cringe inducing, and it's the first time I've ever watched a musical where I've prayed for them to stop singing. However, I appreciate that a truly loyal adaptation of the original fairytale exists, and clearly some effort was put into it.
Would I recommend this version? Only if you want to see an accurate retelling of the original fairytale. Otherwise, no.
Rating: 3/10
Least loyal to the original story:
2012 TV show (retelling of 1987 series)
This one is actually an adaptation of the 1980's series with Ron Perlman as Vincent, only instead of a lion man with a beautiful soul, we now get a very conventionally attractive man with less charisma than a toilet brush as our Beast.
Like the 1987 series, Beauty and the Beast follows a Catherine (here played by Kristin Kreuk). This Catherine is a police detective seeking justice for her mother, who was murdered nine years ago. Catherine was almost killed too, however, she was saved by someone she identified as a "Beast" (I don't know how, you can very clearly see that it's a man she saw). Catherine's search leads her to Vincent (played by Jay Ryan), an ex-soldier in hiding after a science treatment gone wrong. When Catherine learns that Vincent (who has a scar on one of his cheeks to make him ugly, and speaks with a deep, computer corrected voice when he's angry) is the beast who saved her all those years ago, the pair realise they will have to work together to stay alive, and learn the truth about what happened to Catherine's mother.
I was tempted to nominate this for the Most Boring adaptation (see below for who I awarded it to instead), but instead, this one had to win the least loyal award, simply because the beast character is so far removed from being a beast, that it's quite insulting, especially when you have Ron Perlman's version as its predecessor.
Catherine also makes for a dull Beauty, and while she isn't the only person guilty of that on this list, (it's quite shocking to see how bland Beauty generally is onscreen), Kreuk is also the worst actor in this show, from what I've seen. The acting in this series is rather bad all round, but Kreuk really is our worst offender. As she's tasked with being not just our leading lady, but a version of a beloved character from a successful show, Kreuk needed the acting skills to deliver charm and sincerity to this role, even when the script didn't. Sadly, she just doesn't succeed at this and her lines are all delivered rather flatly.
Ultimately, I've decided this TV show wins Least Loyal to the Original Story because the original fairy tale is so beautifully creative, that it opens up a lot of opportunity for an onscreen adaptation. This Beauty and the Beast is so lazy that it's insulting, and instead of a unique retelling, we got an adaptation of an adaptation, which is ultimately just your average American crime show.
Would I recommend this version? No
Rating: 3/10
Most boring:
Beastly (2010)
Does anyone else remember this film being advertised everywhere at the time of its release, only to be forgotten about immediately afterwards?
While watching all of these adaptations, I have been delighted, horrified and confused. Beastly is the only adaptation that has bored me, to the point where I found it hard to focus while watching it.
Beastly follows Alex Pettyfer as Kyle, a pretty and popular high school student. He is obsessed with physical beauty, particularly his own. One day he insults the way Kendra (played by Mary-Kate Olsen) looks and she punishes him by revealing herself to be a witch, who curses him to be ugly, with scars, a bald head and *gasp* tattoos. One of these tattoos depicts a tree that will take a year to bloom (it's a magical tattoo), and when that year is up, Kyle will remain ugly if he finds no one who will love him despite his looks. When his shallow father abandons him because of his new appearance, Kyle becomes a recluse, who lives alone with his housekeeper Zola (LisaGay Hamilton) who is an immigrant, and his blind tutor Will, played by Neil Patrick Harris. As Kyle slowly gets closer to the two people who stand by him, he also begins to form an attachment to Lindy, a kind girl he knew at school (played by Vanessa Hudgens), who is the Beauty figure here.
The fact is, Kyle is never ugly, even with the great big boils on the side of his nose. He goes from pretty boy to looking like (a still very pretty) edgy kid with tattoos. There are definitely girls who would like him in that form. If anything, the only thing that might put people off of him in this form is his newly lowered self esteem, but the film never explores confidence as an attractive quality, only a cocky one. I've seen conventionally good looking actors become ugly before, and it works because they're talented enough to make the character interesting. My personal favourite (and admittedly, this is a bit niche) is Ramin Karimloo in the 25th Anniversary edition of The Phantom of the Opera.
However the lack of stakes going for Kyle, as well as his lack of development, makes it very hard to feel anything much for him. If we don't care about our lead, what is supposed to keep the viewer invested? It doesn't help that he stalks his love interest for quite some time before speaking to her, and when they do finally interact, the chemistry between Pettyfer and Hudgens is a little lacklustre, although it's clear they're trying. Ultimately, it's just a very average chick flick with some awkward dialogue, and in the moments it's trying to be loyal to the source material, it just feels like we're going though the motions.
Neil Patrick Harris as Will is the highlight of this film for me, as he brings the only charm this film has to offer, though I admit I might find his character a little annoying in a more interesting film. Here though, I thought Will and Zola were the best part of Beastly. It was also a little interesting to discover a Beauty and the Beast adaptation that focused on Beast as the lead instead of Beauty, and I would hope to see that carried out in a more successful adaptation one day. It's surprising how late into the film they actually had Lindy/Beauty interacting with Kyle in his Beast form. Other than that, Beastly has very little to offer.
Would I recommend this version? No, but I recommend this video analysis of the film by Jenny Nicholson
Rating: 4/10
Most Stockholm syndrome heavy:
Beauty and the Beast (original title La Bella e la Bestia, 2014 Italian miniseries)
I am completely fascinated by this series, because Belle (played by Blanca Suaréz) is a very good Belle. She is kind, beautiful and brave, yet she suddenly becomes wimpy mush at the hands of this "Beast", who is closer to a knock-off Phantom of the Opera than a Beast.
This version contains one of, if not the worst, versions of the Beast I have seen while watching films and TV shows for this article. This version presents us with the kind of Beast I hate seeing the most: the Beast who isn't actually an ugly monster, and is just a mean, handsome or average looking man, like in Belle and the Beast: A Christian Romance or Beastly.
Maybe I'll write my own Beauty and the Beast retelling that follows this plotline, only I'll call it Beauty and the Nasty, Selfish Arsehole so that people won't be confused or disappointed when there isn't an actual Beast.
The Beast in this version does nothing to redeem himself from past mistakes, Belle just bears with his nasty behaviour and eventually falls in love with him. They do not grow together, they do not learn. He becomes obsessed with her, and somehow becomes an even worse person because of it. They marry, and even then, Belle doesn't look particularly happy about it.
While I usually dislike it when people claim that Beauty and the Beast is a romanticised fiction based on Stockholm syndrome, I have to agree with anyone who makes that statement about this particular adaptation.
All of that aside, this is a pretty dull version of the story. Additionally, I watched the English dub, and the voice acting is rather awkward.
Would I recommend this version? No.
Rating: 3/10
Most dark:
The Virgin and the Monster (original Czech title Panna a Netvor, 1978)
I think this one could win the award for best film poster. Yes, it has no link to the Beauty and the Beast tale, or even to this film really, but you have to appreciate that gorgeous design.
The Virgin and the Monster (which is also available with the English title Beauty and the Beast) follows Julie (played Zdena Studenková), a beautiful young woman whose father is about to be punished for stealing a rose from a garden as a gift to her. Julie decides to take his place as the captive prisoner of the owner of the rose garden. However, Julie can never see her master's face, and spends many of her days alone in his castle, though she dreams of a handsome man each night...
This film has some very striking visual elements. The opening credits display beautiful art pieces similar to the above film poster, which do a good job to set the gothic mood of the film, even if the content of those paintings don't tie in with anything in the plot. After this sequence, the first scene takes us to a meat market.
If you're thinking about becoming vegetarian or vegan, this part of the film will encourage you nicely. We see a chicken being beheaded, a goat being pinned down and a knife being held to its throat in preparation for beheading, a pig squealing in distress as three men drag it along by its tail and ears to slaughter, followed by the dissection of animal parts and handling of animal blood - it's probably one of the most disturbing ways to start a film that I have ever seen. A key theme in the film is the Beast being a hunter with a strong hunger for blood and flesh (this is the only time I have seen the Beast character think about eating Beauty). There is one scene where he hunts a doe, and the fate that the doe meets is worryingly realistic - I don't doubt that creature died for this film and it doesn't sit well with me. Perhaps the market scene exists to show how we aren't so different from the Beast, but it doesn't justify the scene for me.
On the subject of the Beast, let's talk about this adaptation's interpretation. In terms of appearance, the Beast in this version (played by Vlastimil Harapes) is a predatory bird. Through this series, I've seen the Beast character in many creative forms (ignoring the human based ones) including a lion, a warthog, and a mix of different animals in one form. While the bird idea is unique, and a lot of effort clearly went off into a mostly successful design (keeping the human eyes looks just a bit ridiculous to me) sadly, this design just does not work in this context. It isn't beastly, and when people scream in horror at the sight of him, I can't help finding it ridiculous. He's just a big bird. I suppose watching Sesame Street in my early years desensitised me to those.
Vlastimil Harapes as Natvor (which means "monster" in Czech), the Beast in this film
A lot of the film is filmed from his point of view, which is an interesting idea. If we see the Beast reach out one of his clawed hands, we can predict from his movement whether he intends to attack or caress. Unfortunately, this doesn't make him an interesting character. The viewer know barely anything about him, therefore I could not be concerned about him, his intentions, or any connection he may have hoped to build with Julie.
The biggest problem in this film (after the treatment of animals, obviously) is the pacing. Julie doesn't even meet the Beast until 50 minutes into this 84 minute film, and she's not allowed to see his face until there's only about 15 minutes of the running time left. Julie falls in love with the Beast by only hearing his voice upon first meeting, and the Beast is transfixed by her beauty. There's no conflict, no room for character development, and no chance for true chemistry to form. So really, what's the point? I do not believe for an instant that these two share a genuine, deep connection of any kind.
The Virgin and the Monster definitely feels like a product of its time, although it looks like it was made earlier in the 70s than 1978. Zdena Studenková makes a beautiful Julie, but unfortunately this character is rather dull and naive in personality.
The score accompanying this film is simply a pipe organ. It does well to evoke the gothic tone this film sets out to have, but unfortunately this instrument plays so much it begins to feel tediously camp, and I found myself longing for another instrument to play.
While The Virgin and the Monster has some visually arresting elements, that doesn't make it a good film. It's slow, and is either dull or shocks for the wrong reasons. However, I admire some of its creative elements, and appreciate a unique take on the Beast's design, even if I personally don't think it was right direction to take this character in.
Would I recommend this version? Sadly, no.
Rating: 4/10
Most bizarre:
Beauty and the Beast (original title La Belle et la Bête, 2014)
It probably doesn't help this version much that it had very broken English subtitles, which made the oddness onscreen even harder to follow as a non-French speaker. There is a lot to be confused about in this French production, despite it being a fairly loyal retelling of the main story. The beast/prince played by Vincent Cassell is old enough to be Belle's (Lea Seydoux) father and he has beagles that for some reason have been cursed to be weird, tiny CGI beagles, just as the beast is cursed to be a beast. There also isn't a clear romance or chemistry that justifies happily ever after for the two leads here. Additionally, there's a lot of focus on the backstory of the prince, and how he became the beast after his wife died, which could have been good, except it convinced me that he was too in love with his dead wife to ever truly love Belle. I remember how I felt watching this film a lot more than I remember the plot, and I felt weird.
It's a pretty film, with two lead actors whose work I have enjoyed before, although neither shined here unfortunately. Out of the two CGI Beasts I have come across for this article, I prefer the look of this CGI Beast than the one in the Disney live-action remake, although I don't feel like this one was fully realised either.
Would I recommend this version? No.
Rating: 4/10
So bad it's good:
Beauty and the Beast: A Dark Tale (2009)
With this poster in mind, I was pleasantly surprised while watching this to find that I hadn't accidentally stumbled across a niche porno film with a semi-decent budget.
Beauty and the Beast: A Dark Tale follows Belle, our Beauty, played by Estella Warren. One day, while she's out looking for medicinal herbs, a wolf (played by a husky, and later, what appears to be a stuffed animal) attacks her. She is saved when an arrow kills the wolf, and when she looks for the archer who saved her, she spots a hideous man (our Beast, played by Victor Parascos) who then shoots an arrow at her. Belle manages to escape and warn everyone about the Beast, although it seems she may have caught the wrong one, as she should really be worried about wicked Count Rudolph (Rhett Giles), and his witch friend, Lady Helen (Vanessa Gray). Will Belle team up with Beast in time to stop this evil duo?
Beauty and the Beast: A Dark Tale isn't the best or funniest so bad it's good film I've seen, but it is entertaining. In the opening scene, Count Rudolph wickedly pushes his cousin out of a window. Not only do we see the cousin fall to his death in some delightfully bad greenscreen (pictured below), but we also hear Count Rudolph refer to himself as "ruthless" about five times, and he is revelling in it. Additionally, the cousin screams for an awkwardly long time as he falls, and we see his bloody, impaled, supposed-to-be-dead body, except you can see the actor's stomach move up and down as he continues breathe. It's just a fun way to start a film.
After that, the film is relatively tame and kind of bland, although the odd misuse or overuse of an effect makes for a fun viewing experience at times. This film features trolls (and anyone who enjoys so-bad-they're-good films will know trolls are a promising element in this kind of film), but the trolls are more like big, ugly, bald dogs. That might not be so bad, except dogs aren't trolls, and the rendering of these creatures awful. It makes me feel bad for the actors who had to act against these CGI creatures, because they didn't know what the end result would look like, and so they give it their all to act afraid of them, only to be laughed at when next to these renderings, because it looks ridiculous they're shown to be frightened of creatures that very clearly aren't really there.
Also, Belle's house exterior is the most laughably fake prop (I can't seriously call it a set piece) I have seen for a long time. It was great.
There are some odd choices with editing too. I can't be sure whether to blame the film itself for this, but the version I watched would cut away from certain scenes, particularly if it was related to a character injury or death, to the point where there would be fights that were suddenly over and I would have no idea why until a random shot of an enemy body appeared five minutes later. Also, the sound edits weren't the best. My favourite was when a crowd of people were shown to be laughing, and the laughter that played was louder, more enthusiastic and contained more people in it than were in the actual crowd. The camera cut away from the crowd for a moment, and when it cut back, everyone had a straight face, but the laughter effect still played for a moment. It was hilarious. The opening theme that plays over the film title is oddly similar in part to the instrumental opening of Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street. I know this is a very specific thing to mention, but it really stood out to me when I heard it.
You should take it as a bad sign that I've barely spoke about the actual Beauty and the Beast plotline here. There is one, and it's actually fairly competent, yet not particularly memorable against the film-making elements, as well as a little over-complicated. The film also opens with the cliche kind of line of: "You've heard a lot of versions of this tale before, but this is the real one", which has been done to death and I can't stand.
Estella Warren was a rather flat Belle, which is sad as the character on paper is actually okay. She makes medicine and is very active in the plot. Warren lets this character down though.
It's funny when you first see her, because everyone else is in full-length medieval dress, while she's strutting around in her pink mini dress with her boobs out on display, occasionally at risk of fully flashing the audience during the odd fight scene. She's a pretty woman with a good body: having an outfit that matches the kind the rest of the cast wears wouldn't take that away from her, although I won't flatter this film by saying it is clearly trying to take place in a specific period of time. Warren's acting is flat throughout though. She isn't monotone, she just sounds too calm about everything, like she doesn't consider the meaning of any of it. However, I do believe she kind of likes the Beast. I don't believe in them being in love with each other for an instant though.
Victor Parascos as Beast is probably the strongest actor here, although he doesn't particularly shine, at least in this role. He does give a respectable performance for the most part though. I have mixed feelings about his Beast design though. While the makeup is decent for such a cheap production, it's open that this version of Beast is a deformed man rather than a creature, and I don't particularly like that idea. His prince form is rather dashing though.
Meanwhile, Giles and Gray as our two main villains are having a fun, campy time that's fun to watch, particularly Giles as Count "Ruthless" Rudolph.
My favourite actor in this film is an female extra, at around the 50 minute mark. She fights to hold Belle back from seeing something that would deeply upset her, and apologises her. This woman appears to be genuinely distraught when Belle escapes her grasp, and I found myself stunned by her level of acting compared to the other extras and main actors with her in this scene, including Belle. I hope this random extra goes onto great things.
In conclusion, this is a simple B movie that I don't think too many people would care to stick with to its end. There are a few laughs brought on by ridiculous moments, and I do believe the people behind this film really did try to an extent, but unfortunately, it just isn't good enough.
Would I recommend this version? No.
Rating: 3/10
Most unnecessary:
Beauty and the Beast (2017 Disney retelling)
Actually, Belle and the Beast: A Christian Romance feels like it would fit this category a lot more, but this 2017 live action remake of the 1991 Disney cartoon wins because it solely exists because a big studio wanted to make some money.
It's a bit sad, because this isn't even one of the worst versions of the story, not by a long shot. Unfortunately for this film, the original Disney film is iconic, and for good reason: it is the far superior film, on this list as well as between the two Disney versions. Emma Watson's Belle is sadly another bland one, which is disappointing when the film insists she is an charming oddball. A key example of this is during the opening song "Belle". In it, Belle is singing about how she doesn't fit in with the people in her town, and wants more than the life she has there. In the cartoon, Belle is the only person in the town who wears blue, making her stand out amongst the crowd of people in dull, autumnal colours. Additionally, she is so happily caught up in the book she's reading, that she either doesn't care that the townspeople are all talking about how odd she is, or she doesn't care.
In the live-action remake, a lot of people in the town wear blue, so you barely notice her as she walks around. She also comes across as having a slight superiority complex when she comes into contact with others in the town. Or maybe she's just bored. There's also the issue of Emma Watson's autotune singing compared to Paige O'Hara's stunning, emotive vocals in the cartoon.
Other than that, the CGI already hasn't aged very well, and it seems a great shame that they used that instead of makeup and prosthetics for the Beast (which was the original plan). Additionally, in attempt to cover up some plot holes from the original film, a lot more were made. Why did Belle choose to ride back to the village on a horse when in this version the Beast has a magic book that allows people to travel anywhere they want to, immediately? Gives Beast his time for a solo I suppose. The greatest crime this film committed, in my opinion, was the great butchering of the library scene. In the cartoon, Beast gives it to Belle because he wants to do something nice for her, and he's really excited about it. Here, he criticises her taste in literature and takes her to the library so that she will educate herself. No thought, no meaning. It's actually a little depressing.
However, I like most of the new songs, particularly "Evermore" (although I think "If I Can't Love Her" from the stage version should have been featured somewhere). I prefer Maurice, Belle's father, here too. He's not a source of comic relief this time around, but I do believe this version played by Kevin Kline is more likely to have raised a daughter like Belle, and the scene we first see him, where he sings "How Does a Moment Last Forever?" is one of the films highlights. The backstory with Belle's mum is interesting, and creates a nice bonding moment for Belle and Beast. I also think Dan Stevens was good as the Beast, although I think he would have thrived more with more gentle scenes, and makeup instead of CGI.
Would I recommend this version? Yes, but only if you watch the cartoon as well. Judge between them for yourself.
Rating: 6/10
Most surprising:
Beauty and the Beast (1962)
This was the first English language adaptation of the Beauty and the Beast tale onscreen, and also the final film I watched for this blog post.
By that point, I thought I had learned that there were two kinds of Beauty and the Beast adaptations: those that followed the moral, and those that missed the point completely, so Hollywood could churn out yet another good-looking person meets good-looking person and lust occurs, kind of story.
This 1962 film didn't do that though. It took the original fairytale and turned it into a new story, but one that stayed faithful to the two main characters and the purpose of the tale. It was a very refreshing note to end on.
The 1962 adaptation follows Eduardo (played by Mark Damon), a handsome young prince who is cursed to turn into a hideous beast every night when the sun goes down. However, when the sun rises each morning, he always returns to his natural handsome form (yes, he is somewhat similar to Princess Fiona from Shrek). Prince Eduardo and his chancellor, Orsini (played by Eduard Franz) are the only ones who know about this terrble curse. However, when Eduardo's fiance, Althea (the Beauty of this story, played by Joyce Taylor) arrives at his castle to prepare for their wedding, can Eduardo's curse remain a secret? Meanwhile, Eduardo's sinister uncle Bruno is after Eduardo's crown, and will stop at nothing to try and remove his nephew from his royal position...
This is the only adaptation I know of that has the Beast character alternating between being a Prince and Beast throughout, and it was quite enjoyable to watch. In his human form, you can see Eduardo is a good man, truly trying to be a good leader and embracing this form. When he becomes the Beast however, there's such shame from this character. It didn't seem to be explained why this curse was placed on him, but the impact of it is very strong. Except for one other person who knows about it, he's very isolated. The fact that he's a very sociable and respectable man by day seems to enhance his loneliness, as he continually has to push people away when he is naturally drawn to the company of others.
Something else that was different here than in other adaptations was the relationship between the Beauty and the Beast: Althea and Eduardo. At the start of the film, they already know each other, are in love and are preparing to marry soon. These two actually have a really good relationship. As it goes with most versions of this story, Althea sees Eduardo in his Beast form, not knowing about it before their engagement. While her first response is shock, she soon comes around and is a key part in trying to help free Eduardo from his curse, and saves his life. While it's a shame we don't get to see how these two fell in love, it is nice to see that they are good for each other (a little too perfect in fact, but hey, it is a fairytale).
With all the men in tights and some hammy acting, this Beauty and the Beast was one of the more enjoyable adaptations I've watched. Not perfect, but appreciated.
Would I recommend this version? Yes
Rating: 6/10
The adaptation that best highlights the problem of making the beast beautiful:
The Beautiful Beast (2013)
The Beautiful Beast follows Isabelle Elliot (played by Shona Kay). Isabelle is a beautiful but spoilt and vain socialite, whose glamorous and outrageous lifestyle is paid for by her uncle. One day, on a spontaneous ski trip in Switzerland, Isabelle gets lost in the woods after an argument with her long suffering best friend Catherine (Melanie Gardner), and ends up injured, upon arriving at a lodge owned by Jeremy (played by Brad Johnson). Jeremy is the handsome ex-doctor who is completely isolated from the world, apart from a delivery man who brings him supplies once a month. Jeremy's very unhappy with Isabelle crashing into his life, not just because he has chosen a solitary life for himself, but because of her constant ungrateful and rude behaviour towards him. However, due to her injuries, Isabelle is stuck with Jeremy until the delivery man can pick her up. Until then, can these two learn to get past their differences to live together, and maybe even begin to like each other?
This film to me is really what Belle and the Beast: A Christian Love Story would have been, if that film had been semi-decent. The Beautiful Beast is fine: a perfectly average Hallmark type film with a couple of sweet moments and the odd bad acting moment here and there. It just isn't a Beauty and the Beast retelling.
The synopsis of this film claims that this film is a Beauty and the Beast a retelling with a twist, as it portrays the beauty character as the beast. That concept may sound fine, but you can look at a good deal of male leads on this list and see that this has already been done. Isabelle is supposed to be a horrible, spoilt person but beautiful on the outside, with her character arc being centred around acquiring inner beauty (as well as falling in love). In that case, doesn't that make something like the 2008 film Wild Child a Beauty and the Beast adaptation too? It's just such a vague, overly done concept, you can't claim it as a retelling of this classic specifically.
To further my point, if this truly is a Beauty and the Beast retelling, then Jeremy's role in it is very confused. Traditionally, he would be in the beast role, however, because both he and the beast character are good looking people, he would be expected to take on the Beauty role, being attractive in personality too. This would make him similar to Vanessa Hudgens character in Beastly. However, Jeremy isn't like that. This character generally has good intentions, and is definitely nicer than Isabelle. However, he loses his temper with Isabelle more than once, but often as an overreaction to something. Additionally, he was fired from practising medicine for a pretty serious reason, and while he's a better man than he presumably was then, doesn't that make him "A Beautiful Beast" too, as he overcame the bad parts of himself and became good?
Jeremy is also very religious, and is shown to pray and read the Bible in this film. That's fine, however, it's a little worrying if this trait alone is what makes him a especially "beautiful" in his personality.
The Beast character simply shouldn't be beautiful, not after his transformation (if there is one) into a Beast anyway. Apart from taking away the great possibilities of costume and makeup design for that character, being a monster gives both of the characters something to overcome. For the Beast, he has to be a good enough person to make those around him believe he is beautiful on the inside, and for Beauty, it should be a chance to prove her gorgeous spirit, as she looks past someone's exterior and tries to get them to be a better person.
This film also made me realise how disappointing it is that we have never seen the Beast as an ugly woman, and Beauty as a good looking man. It would be such an interesting dynamic.
If anything, Catherine, who is Isabelle's friend, should have been the Beast in this film. She's not a conventionally attractive women, but she's a good person who stands by Isabelle longer than most people would. They have a sincere friendship, and Isabelle should have been more influenced by her. Additionally, romantic or not, it would be nice to see a same-sex Beauty and Beast duo.
Would I recommend this version? No.
Rating: 4/10
Most chick-flick version of the story:
The Beautician and the Beast (1997)
I had such fun with this film, although I must confess that I struggle to truly call it a Beauty and the Beast retelling. However, the word "beast" is openly used about our main male character more than once, we do see a positive change in his character as the running time progresses, and there is a delightful parody of Disney cartoons at the films start. Really, this feels more like a retelling of The King and I if anything.
The film follows Joy, played by Fran Drescher, a kind, outgoing beautician. After she is reported in the paper for saving animals from a fire in a science lab, she is mistaken for a heroic science teacher, and she is hired to tutor the four children of the Russian President, Boris Pochenko (Timothy Dalton). Joy turns everyone's lives upside down, as she infects everyone around her with her charm and optimism.
Fran Drescher as Joy is delightful, and she proves herself to be wonderful with comedic material here. While I'm already a fan of Dalton's, (which may make me somewhat biased in reviewing his performance here), this seems to be one of his lightest roles, and you can tell he is loving every second of it. A highlight of this film is when Dalton, a former James Bond, says in a thick Russian accent "Talk to the hand". Watch the trailer, you'll appreciate it too.
Honestly, I don't really have a valid reason for including this image, I just love it
There are a couple of nineties jokes that feel a little outdated, and the story and characters don't offer anything particularly new. It's funny, light and a surprising treat though. Additionally, it's the only retelling I've seen where I don't mind that the Beast isn't a literal monster of some form.
Would I recommend this version? I recommend this film, but cannot openly credit it as a Beauty and the Beast retelling.
Rating: 7/10
