I entered the theater to see Beauty and the Beast with high hopes. The first theater we went to that day was sold-out, and the hype surrounding the movie was enormous. It’s hard to find anyone that doesn’t love the 1991 animated version, so the 2017 live-action version featuring the beloved Emma Watson as Belle had to be even better, right? Wrong. 

What the 1991 version has that the 2017 version does not is warmth and connection. Don’t get me wrong. The 2017 version is aesthetically magnificent. The costumes and sets are exquisite, and it seems that every detail is accounted for. At first glance, Emma Watson is the perfect real-life Belle. She is simultaneously bookish, passionate, and beautiful—but I felt disconnected from her— and the other actors.

The magic of Disney is the investment you feel in the stories. Disney makes you sympathize with mermaids and lions by making you see parts of yourself in those characters. During this film, I watched actors put on a grand show that left me feeling empty. Its musical lyrics meant very little. 

It is after movies like this that I am forced to wonder: do directors underestimate the intelligence of movie-goers? Sure, most audiences aren’t filled with trained critics, but people know when “movie-magic” is there—and—when it isn’t.

Beauty and the Beast is one of the first Disney films in a long list that are being remade into live-action versions. 

But Beauty missed the mark. If Disney hopes to get it right, its next films have to be less cold and pay better homage to the classic stories they retell.