With Disney’s live-action remake of “Beauty & the Beast,” I must acknowledge how personal bias plays into my problems with the movie.

The studio’s animated take on the fairy tale premiered in 1991, and at the time I was just a little kid enamored with all things Disney. The movie was a critical smash, earning a Best Picture Oscar nomination and adoration from an entire generation of those lucky enough to be kids during Disney’s second animation renaissance. To this day, it’s one of my favorite movies, and if you think that’s odd for a grown man to admit, then, well… sorry ladies, I’m already married. Any direct remake of the 1991 film was going to seem unnecessary to me, in probably the same way some feel about something like “King Kong.” No matter the talent involved, no matter the technical wizardry, you just aren’t going to recapture the same magic.

Further, I haven’t warmed to any of Disney’s live-action updates of their animated hits. Both “Alice in Wonderland” movies are ugly and inert, the “Cinderella” update faded from my mind five minutes after I finished it, and last year’s critical and box office hit, “The Jungle Book,” seemed like, to me, a movie too in love with its own nostalgia.

With all that in mind it shouldn’t come as a surprise that I didn’t enjoy the new “Beauty & the Beast.” Perhaps I set myself up to dislike it. Or maybe it just isn’t very good.

Most of the movie’s high points are pulled directly from the script and visuals of the 1991 film. Director Bill Condon (“Dreamgirls”) has done a magnificent job turning a cartoon world into a believable live-action realm, and the costumes and set design bring a lovely theatrical feel to the production. There’s still something magical about utilizing sprawling, detailed sets to stage a big song-and-dance musical.

The same can’t be said about the film’s use of CGI — mostly in the creation of the titular beast (Dan Stevens, in a voice and motion capture role). Despite the latest technology, and the ability to add the tiniest of human-like details to his furry face, it never comes across as a convincing character on the screen. It just looks like Emma Watson (as Belle) dancing with a cartoon.

Watson is a natural choice for Belle — she’s got the tenacity that’s so essential to the character. Unfortunately, Condon and his team don’t allow the actress to sing naturally — her voice rings of autotune and overproduction. In fact, all the singing in the film sounds too crisp — a common problem in modern musicals. While it’s possible that Watson isn’t the strongest singer in the world, and Disney didn’t want their iconic Belle to sound anything but perfect, I’d much rather hear Watson’s voice rather than a computer-enhanced version of her.

Nevertheless, the terrific original songs still pack a punch, though Emma Thompson’s rendition of the titular song lacks the soul of Angela Lansbury’s version in the 1991 film.

In order to extend the runtime, the movie adds several new songs, written by composer Alan Menken (who collaborated with the late Howard Ashman on the original songs) and songwriter Tim Rice. While it’s nice to see the film lean into its genre and add more music, the new material isn’t particularly strong. The songs, as well as the additional story content intended to materialize the characters of Belle and the Beast and their growing romance, don’t really amount to enough to justify an extra 30 minutes on the runtime.

Look, most of “Beauty & the Beast” is fine. The actors show effort (in particular Luke Evans as the dastardly Gaston and Josh Gad as his enamored sidekick LeFou), and Condon at least respects the content he’s been tasked with recycling. It’s still “Beauty & the Beast,” but is that enough? Being “fine” isn’t a compelling enough reason to exist, and without a real point-of-view or a drastic shift of tone or narrative, it feels like a cash grab.

In a way, this new film is a variation on what Disney used to do with its animated hits on home video — it would release the movie, then take it off shelves and lock it in the “vault.” A few years later it would open the vault to sell the same buyers a better format or a fancy set of bonus features. “Beauty & the Beast” has the plus-sized running time and all the fancy wizardry of a “special edition” re-release, but it isn’t special in any way that counts. It’s just repackaged.

•••

Tyler Wilson can be reached at twilson@cdapress.com.