As its title suggests, “Beauty and the Beast: A Latter-Day Tale” takes its inspiration from the classic story of the same name and gives it a modern—and LDS—twist.  Like the LDS version of Pride & Prejudice released in 2003, B&B successfully meshes the already strong (albeit familiar) source material with its own sense of style and spirituality to create a low-key, but surprisingly effective film.  Not that any plot developments will surprise you, of course, but you won’t be constantly thinking of the classic 1991 Disney adaptation either.

Summer Naomi Smart—who here stakes her claim along with Erin Chambers and Heather Beers to be the reigning Queen of Mormon Cinema—is Belle, who through unfortunate circumstances involving her father, becomes obligated to offer service at the home of “The Beast”—a local man named Eric who, while rich, is bitter and mean-spirited towards all he comes into contact with.

This version of B&B takes a ‘reality-based’ angle to the story by not having “The Beast” be a man in animal-like makeup (perhaps under a magical curse or something) nor horribly scarred and disfigured even, but rather someone who’s just not very nice.  (We have to suspend our disbelief a little bit, as in real life such a man would probably not get a nickname like “The Beast” as the story requires, but that’s okay—it’s part of the movie and we just go with it.)

Unlike "Pride & Prejudice", which deemphasized the religious aspect almost to the point of being invisible, "Beauty & the Beast" is a little more direct in introducing some religious discussion into the flow of the story in terms of love, death, and God’s plan of happiness for us.  Even so, the spiritual elements are kept simple (arguably too simple, perhaps)—and, other than avoiding alcohol, are also somewhat general and religiously vague in doctrine.  Nonetheless, it is effective, as good writing, acting and general pacing allow Beauty & The Beast to involve us into its basic story about forgiveness, charity, and passing judgment on others.

I’m especially glad that B&B is free of many of the ‘amateur hour’ problems that plague other LDS releases—both Belle and Eric approach their parts professionally and play well against each other.  The part of “The Beast” is especially tricky because you have to be credible in the ‘mean’ section of the movie, and then credible afterward as you transform to a somewhat softer personality.  Not an easy task—especially without ‘beastly’ makeup to add to the effect--but it’s done well here.

I’d love to nitpick “Beauty & The Beast” to death as I often do with low budget LDS films (not that I’m trying to be mean…it’s just so easy sometimes), but the fact is this is one of the better Church films I’ve seen recently—simple yet effective from start to finish.  If you can find it on DVD, give it a chance...

Final Grade: A-

Additional Comments and Analysis (possible spoilers):

(1)  Now the question remains: will director Brian Brough start pumping out cheap direct-to-DVD sequels to his "Beauty & The Beast" just like Disney did?

(2)  Not having “The Beast” actually look anything like a ‘beast’ arguably cheapens the story a little bit since Belle does not have to learn to look beyond the outward appearance to find someone worth loving inside.  (As it is, “The Beast” is generally quite handsome already, which undoubtedly makes it much easier for Belle once he starts to soften)   Of course, the Disney version undercuts this element of the premise as well, as just as Belle learns to love a beastly looking creature, he gets magically transformed into someone handsome anyway.  (I had female friends tell me, though, they were 'underwhelmed' by the transformed prince and would have preferred Gaston anyway.  Uh, okay...)  "Shrek", to its credit, at least came up with a somewhat original and non-cop-out way of addressing this issue at its conclusion.

(3)  The basic premise which puts Belle and “The Beast” together deserves some discussion:  Belle’s dad is fixing the fireplace at Eric’s mansion and breaks an expensive vase.  Eric threatens to call his boss and have him fired, and then agrees not to once Belle commits to be his unpaid personal assistant to work off the debt.

Now, Eric is not actually Belle’s dad’s boss—if Belle’s dad were to get fired because he broke a vase in Eric’s house, isn’t that his boss’s “fault” instead of Eric’s?  After all, it’s not like Eric is lying about the vase—Belle’s dad really did break it, and if that’s the sort of thing that’s a fireable offense (according to his boss) then, well, isn’t that just how it is?  (Maybe he'd be better off looking for work elsewhere, anyway...)  It’s not clear that Belle’s dad has a real ethical case to stand on against Eric reporting the incident should he choose to do so...

(4)  Taking on inherently familiar source material such as "Beauty and the Beast" or "Pride & Prejudice" is simultaneously both a safe and a risky choice:  you sacrifice originality and any sense of unpredictability, but at the same time have a predefined structure on which to add your own ideas and vision without reinventing the wheel.

I can read P&P any number of times and its still a good book, thus it should still be fundamentally good even in LDS movie form, or Bollywood movie form, or ‘normal’ form.    Good literary material is good material, regardless of whether one has seen the same basic story any number of times before.

It’s true that Hollywood in particular seems to love remakes of existing material perhaps (taking a cynical view) due to lack of new ideas, yet for future LDS filmmakers it’s something else to consider:  it's okay to use something solid as a foundation to build off of, instead of always needing to come up with something spectacular from scratch on your own.

(5)  Why Casting Matters--Reason #368:  I’m sure I’m not the only one who thought, from the moment he appeared on the screen that Craig (this movie’s “Gaston” character) looked kind of creepy, even before he started acting creepy.  Sometimes getting the right person cast into a role is half the battle…