Beauty and the Beast
(Rated A)
Cast: Emma Watson, Dan Stevens, Luke Evans, Kevin Kline
Genre: Fantasy/Romance
Dwight's Rating: 3 Stars

The jury's still out on whether this is a good thing we should all get behind, or a further sign that there are few new and fresh ideas left in the world today.
Nevertheless, Disney continues its roll out of "live-action" versions of some of their most popular animated films.
Most recently we had "Alice in Wonderland" in 2010, which, at best, was only "inspired" by the animated tale, as it took quite a few liberties with that story. On the other hand, 2015's "Cinderella" was more in line with its animated forebear, as was last year's amazing "The Jungle Book".
While these movies are based on flicks from the 1950s and '60s, the era known as the "Disney Renaissance" had been hitherto unscathed. That famous period was ushered in by the "The Little Mermaid" in 1989, and marked a revival of Disney Animation, producing some memorable and box office-shattering classics.
The studio followed up on the success of "The Little Mermaid" with monster-hit "Beauty and the Beast", and even bigger box office performances for "Aladdin" and the grand daddy of them all, "The Lion King". At the same, there was also the launch of Pixar, which would produce the first computer-animated films for Disney, and change animated movies forever.
But for the traditionally animated musicals for which this Renaissance era is noted, "Beauty and the Beast" was arguably the high water mark. It earned six Academy Award nominations and made history as the first animated film to be up for the Best Picture award! And, of course, that eponymous hit song took home the Oscar for Best Original Song.
Disney appears to be hoping to mine that success into this burgeoning new category of "live-action" semi-animated films. As with the 1991 version, Belle (played by a real-life Emma Watson) a bright, beautiful and independent young woman, is taken prisoner by a beast (Dan Stevens) in its castle. Despite her fears, she befriends the castle's enchanted staff and learns to look beyond the beast's hideous exterior, allowing her to recognize the kind heart and soul of the true prince that hides on the inside.
I got to re-watch that 1991 classic last year for the first time since I saw it shortly after its original release. While I know a great many people say their favorite Disney movie from this era is "The Lion King" or "The Little Mermaid", I've always thought (and still do) that "Beauty and the Beast" was the best of these films.
It was a stunning achievement at the time, and still holds up well today. Sure, compared to contemporary animation standards, it looks like a painting from the 1800s. But "painting" is the key word here. While not as complex as today's computer animation, it is still beautiful, in a quaint way. This, combined with that timeless score and spectacular Broadway quality songs, like "Be Our Guest", has made this an unforgettable masterpiece.
So, to say a lot was riding on this "remake" is an understatement.
Well, the live-action version is definitely classic Disney. It sticks mainly to the original film, updating it ever-so-slightly with some subtle 21st century sensibilities. But those cheery messages about never giving up on finding true love, and about accepting people for who they are -- no matter their faults -- are all still there.
Some aspects are still a little cheesy, and a little out of sync with some modern views, but Belle is, as always, a renaissance woman -- perhaps the most modern of all of the Disney heroines of this era.
The film drags a little in the middle, and Belle's openness to accept her captor seems to enter warp speed at one point. It seems odd to even mention "chemistry" here, but some parts feel a little forced with Belle and the Beast. Poor "Harry Potter" alumna Emma Watson having to cozy up to and interact with what would become a computer animated bovine with hooves and horns probably didn't help that situation.
Otherwise, Watson is excellent, dispelling any doubts that she was not perfectly cast in the role. In fact, the entire cast shines, particularly Luke Evans as pompous braggart Gaston, and Josh Gad as his sidekick LeFou.
This is still a largely "animated" film, and the voice cast is filled with some acting A-listers. You may not immediately recognize all the voices, but stay for the credits and be pleasantly surprised.
If you're familiar with the previous version, once you hear those classic songs, you'll feel right at home. And if you haven't ever seen it, these songs are just as catchy as they were in the '90s; at least one of them will be stuck in your head hours after you leave the theater.
In some scenes, however, when you reflect on the silliness before your eyes, you'll want to remember that this is a 'Disney' musical -- it ain't "Grease" or "Chicago". (Ironically "Beauty and the Beast" director Bill Condon wrote the Oscar nominated screenplay for "Chicago"). But just look over to the side, and I'm sure you'll see the kids enjoying it.
So, the new "Beauty and the Beast" looks great, sounds great, is funny at times, dark and daring at others, and overall quite pleasant. But to what end?
What is the point of doing a live-action version of a beloved animated film? Is it better than the animated version? Is it supposed to be? For some, this will render the animated version obsolete. It is painfully clear that a live-action film like this couldn't even have been dreamed about in the early '90s. The computer-animated sequences here make what was state-of-the-art back in 1991, look like the doodles in a child's school notebook.
One wonders if Disney hasn't unwittingly turned the animated version into a museum piece destined to a life on Turner Classic Movies.
Perhaps only the most nostalgic among us will venture near it henceforth. While indeed some of the magic from the older edition didn't translate to this film, the grandeur of these modern and spectacular visuals may be enough for most to overlook its less weighty emotional impact.
So, should we prepare ourselves for live-action versions of "Aladdin" or "The Little Mermaid" next? Will we have to redefine what is meant by "live-action" when Belle spends most of the movie talking to an animated teacup or candelabra? Is it too far-fetched to believe someone is probably thinking "live-action" versions of "Bambi" or "The Lion King" would be good ideas?
Some members of the jury would probably say it's too early to be worrying about that, and that for now we should see this embrace of the technology du jour as a good thing, and simply go along for the ride.

o Dwight Strachan is the host/producer of " Morning Blend" on Guardian Radio. He is a television producer and writer, and an avid TV history and film buff. Email dwight@nasguard.com and follow him on twitter @morningblend969.

Click here to read more at The Nassau Guardian