You must create a Free Account
in order to STREAM or DOWNLOAD this video
Beauty and the Beast

Beauty and the Beast

Be our guest.Mar. 16, 2017 USA129 Min.PG
Your rating: 0
9 1,184 votes

Video trailer

Director

Bill Condon
Director

Cast

Synopsis

A live-action adaptation of Disney’s version of the classic ‘Beauty and the Beast’ tale of a cursed prince and a beautiful young woman who helps him break the spell.

Beauty and the Beast
Beauty and the Beast
Beauty and the Beast
Beauty and the Beast
Beauty and the Beast
Beauty and the Beast
Beauty and the Beast
Beauty and the Beast
Beauty and the Beast
Beauty and the Beast
Original titleBeauty and the Beast
IMDb Rating7.6 114,123 votes
TMDb Rating6.8 2804 votes

(668) comments

  • deepakyadavhpMarch 1, 2017Reply

    Quite Average

    When you take on a classic like Beauty and the Beast for a live action
    movie which was also nominated for the Best Picture by the Academy you
    HAVE to make sure that the spirit of the original remains intact even
    if you can’t make it as good. I know that one has to tweak a few little
    things to make it appropriate not just for the new generation but also
    as a live action movie though without making it look cheesy or over the
    top… which quite sadly was not the case with this one… it was
    directed by an Oscar winning director (who also directed a twilight
    movie which sucks) and a studio that has recently produced better than
    the original adaptation of the jungle book which I really love… so
    one wonders what must have gone wrong… that I think we will find out
    later but for now if I have to say something positive about this movie
    it would be its visual effects which were quite gorgeous if not
    entirely believable, the design of the CGI characters which were a
    reminiscence of the original ones, Belle played by Emma Watson though
    not as great as I wanted her to be, seems to have done her job. And
    even if the songs didn’t flow as greatly with the story as it did
    before, you could still enjoy them. The choreography, set design and
    the costumes also stole the show along with the Humour because of its
    talented cast even if it seemed a little cheesy at places, it managed
    to make me laugh (especially Gaston) hence making it a better movie
    than it really was… I will give it a 7/10…

    P.S.- You may enjoy it because of the nostalgia factor.

  • olivia siegenthalerMarch 3, 2017Reply

    Overstuffed and lacks the charm of the original

    I was really looking forward to this film. Not only has Disney recently
    made excellent live-action versions of their animated masterpieces
    (Jungle Book, Cinderella), but the cast alone (Emma Watson, Ian
    McKellen, Kevin Kline) already seemed to make this one a sure hit.
    Well, not so much as it turns out.

    Some of the animation is fantastic, but because characters like
    Cogsworth (the clock), Lumière (the candelabra) and Chip (the little
    tea cup) now look ”realistic”, they lose a lot of their animated
    predecessors’ charm and actually even look kind of creepy at times. And
    ironically – unlike in the animated original – in this new realistic
    version they only have very limited facial expressions (which is a
    creative decision I can’t for the life of me understand).

    Even when it works: there can be too much of a good thing. The film is
    overstuffed with lush production design and cgi (which is often weirdly
    artificial looking though) but sadly lacking in charm and genuine
    emotion. If this were a music album, I’d say it is ”over-produced” and
    in need of more soul and swing. The great voice talent in some cases
    actually seems wasted, because it drowns in a sea of visual effects
    that numbs all senses. The most crucial thing that didn’t work for me,
    though, is the Beast. He just never looks convincing. The eyes somehow
    don’t look like real eyes and they’re always slightly off.

    On the positive side, I really liked Gaston, and the actor who played
    him, Luke Evans, actually gave the perhaps most energized performance
    of all. Kevin Kline as Belle’s father has little to do but to look
    fatherly and old, but he makes the most of his part. Speaking of Belle,
    now that I’ve seen the film, I think her role was miscast. I think
    someone like Rachel McAdams would actually have been a more natural,
    lively and perhaps a bit more feisty Belle than Emma Watson.

    If you love the original, you might want to give this one a pass, it’s
    really not that good (although at least the songs were OK). Also, I’d
    think twice before bringing small children; without cute animated
    faces, all those ”realistic” looking creatures and devices can be
    rather frightening for a child.

  • wilhelm-schneider1001March 3, 2017Reply

    Underwhelming – some lovely scenes but the CGI face of Beast is a constant distraction

    Up front: I’m probably not the right audience for this film. I only
    went because I was invited, and I wouldn’t have gone to check this one
    out otherwise.

    Firstly, some of the production values are really beautiful and
    reminded me of the animated classic in a good way. Also, the voice cast
    for the clock and the kitchen devices are great.

    Secondly, the actors, well… this may sound kind of harsh, but I’ve
    never seen Emma Watson act so stiff in a movie. Her performance is
    wooden, which is pretty bad considering she’s supposed to be the heart
    of the film. Also, she probably won’t start a singing career anytime
    soon.

    Thirdly (and most importantly), Beast. That’s where they really dropped
    the ball. Giving him a lifeless CGI face was an unforgivable mistake,
    and it’s such a constant distraction that I could never really get into
    the movie.

    Overall, I’m afraid I wouldn’t recommend this movie, at least not to
    adults. I’m sure most kids would enjoy it though, and it’s not really a
    bad film: just a very mediocre one. 6 stars out of 10.

  • Quint1965March 3, 2017Reply

    The corporate version of Beauty And The Beast: Disney at it’s most generic and dull

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • Joshua Cimarric-PenczekMarch 4, 2017Reply

    A meandering and dull mess. One of the biggest disappointments in recent years.

    Sure, I’m a huge film snob who (on the surface) only likes artsy-fartsy
    foreign films from before the 60’s, but that hasn’t stopped me from
    loving Disney’s Beauty & The Beast; in fact, it’s probably my favorite
    American animated film and is easily Disney’s finest work. It’s
    beautiful, it’s breathtaking, it’s warm, it’s hilarious, it’s
    captivating, and, in Disney fashion, it’s magical. When I learned that
    Disney would be remaking their classic films, B&TB was undeniably the
    best wrapped package. How could they go wrong?

    Oh man, they went wrong.

    First thing’s first: this film is so flat. The directing was dull and
    uninteresting throughout the entire film and it honestly felt like one
    of the Twilight sequels…and then I looked it up and found out that,
    yes, director Bill Condon was the man behind Breaking Dawn parts 1 & 2.
    Every shot looks bored and uninterested, which contrasts heavily with
    the original animated film that was constantly popping with vibrancy.
    The script too is boring because it’s almost a complete remake of the
    original, though I guess most people won’t mind that.

    Next: the CGI is horrid. Although I didn’t care for The Jungle Book
    from last year, I could at least admit that the CGI was breathtaking.
    The same cant be said for this film. Characters like Lumière,
    Cogsworth, Mrs Potts, and most of the cursed appliances have very
    strange, lifeless faces that are pretty off putting to be looking at
    for such a long time. All of the sets too look artificial and fake,
    especially the town towards the beginning. However, the biggest
    offender is easily and infuriatingly the character that mattered most:
    The Beast. The CGI on the Beast’s face is so distracting that it
    completely takes you out of the film. His eyes are completely devoid of
    soul, and his mouth is a gaping video game black hole of fiction. Klaus
    Kinski looked much better in the Faerie Tale Theatre episode of Beauty
    & The Beast, and that was a 1984 TV show episode. But do you know why
    it looked better? Because it was an actual face with actual eyes, not
    some video game computerized synthetic monstrosity. When will studios
    learn that practical effects will always top CGI?

    Finally: wasted casting. Emma Watson is beautiful, but she’s no Belle.
    She is completely devoid of the warmth and humanity that made the
    animated Belle so beloved. Instead, she is cold and heartless
    throughout most of the film. Kevin Kline is 100% wasted and does
    nothing except look old. Ian McKellan, Ewan McGregor, Emma Thompson,
    and even Dan Stevens as the Beast are very expendable and could’ve been
    played by anyone else. The only good characters are Gaston and LeFou,
    mostly because they are fun and played by actors who breathe new life
    into their original shapes. If anything, this film should’ve been about
    Gaston and LeFou, but that would never happen because that would mean
    Disney couldn’t cater to blind nostalgic 90’s kids.

    Overall, this film is a complete bore. It could’ve been better if even
    the special effects were good, but the CGI in particular is horrendous.
    I’m all for Disney remaking their nostalgia- catering 90’s films, but
    they need to be interesting. This film, sadly, is not. Even the
    Christmas sequel is better than this film because it’s at least
    something.

  • Fan-of-Rare- MoviesMarch 4, 2017Reply

    A Missed Opportunity

    Come on Disney: what were you thinking?! You’ve got one of the most
    beloved films in your entire catalogue; the first animated film ever
    that was nominated for a best picture Oscar – and you give the new
    version of that film to the director of ‘Twilight’ parts 3 and 4? Has
    anyone of your executives even seen Bill Condon’s ‘Twilight’ films or
    did you just look at all the money they made during their opening
    weekend? Just so you know: those films are atrocious. There are porn
    films who look better and have better plots (seriously).

    Now the good news is, ‘Beauty and the Beast’ is nowhere near as bad as
    the Twilight films, but it DOES bear a striking visual resemblance to
    those teen shlock movies. And that’s what I don’t get: if you have the
    chance to make a film that will make 1.5 billion dollars (given the
    reviews are good) – wouldn’t you want to make sure to make the best
    looking film possible? But over large stretches this film has the
    mediocre looking CGI of a cheap Lionsgate fantasy film and the nuanced
    color-grading of a bowl of M&Ms.

    Emma Watson isn’t half bad as Belle, but her acting feels forced in a
    way you can practically read the directions she gets from her director
    on her face (”now act SURPRISED” – ”now show us a sense of WONDER” –
    ”now look SAD”). Great actors like Kevin Kline are simply wasted
    because they have nothing to do besides just being there and have a
    certain look. The one actor who makes something of his role is,
    naturally, the one who plays the baddie; Luke Evans at least looks like
    he’s having fun.

    But all that is still not the worst. What sank the film for me was
    Beast. It’s mind-boggling to me how a gigantic company like Disney lets
    a film open if the most important CGI effects obviously don’t look
    convincing yet. Beast’s face never looks real and that’s just not
    acceptable. It’s been almost 10 years since we got a completely
    convincing CGI ”beast” face with Peter Jackson’s King Kong, complete
    with alive looking eyes and natural facial expressions. Since then we
    got films like ‘Dawn of the Planet of the Apes’ and ‘Jungle Book’ that
    looked even better and more realistic. So what happened? What did they
    spend the 200 million budget on?

    I’m sorry to say it, but this film represents a huge missed opportunity
    for Disney.

  • sherrymovieloverMarch 5, 2017Reply

    Pure Magic- wonderful movie

    This movie is pure magic. Cast, production designs, direction, acting
    and cinematography is on point.This live action makes you believe that
    fairy tales can be real. It stays true to original and builds on it. It
    is much more layered and sophisticated. However,i have to agree some
    things feel extra in this version. New songs are really good but are
    not better than original ones.Emma Watson proves herself to be a live
    action Disney princess.The transformation is complete.She is a
    wonderful heroine and role model for everyone.She gives this role
    everything she has. I have never seen her doing this great before.Her
    performance is absolutely perfect. This should be a career defining
    role for her. Her singing was good and much less auto-tuned. Acting
    wise, she was a solid choice. Overall, the CGI on objects was great.
    All voice actors have done wonderful job. Kevin Kline is such a gift to
    this film. He has a tiny little song which i think he nails. THE bond
    between belle and her father is just loving and charming. The only
    drawback is that the beast looks unfinished and fake at times but Dan
    Stevens has done a wonderful job. His song ‘Evermore” is great and
    very emotional. The ballroom scene is spectacular. The transformation
    scene is well handled . As for LeFou, it was mistake for Disney to make
    a big deal about him being their first ever gay character because it is
    barely acknowledged in the film. There are two gay moments in the movie
    which are barely noticeable and are just for laughs, neither one
    involves Gaston. This movie just acknowledges that LGBT people exist
    and leFou happens to be one of them. Nothing more than this. Luke Evans
    as Gaston has done an incredible job and he is a lot more evil in this
    version. Beauty and the beast is a perfect movie and maintains the
    charm of original animated movie. It is really sad that some people are
    trying to assassinate this wonderful movie. Everybody should go and see
    this movie.

  • GrigoryGirlMarch 5, 2017Reply

    Just OK….

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • hjglewisMarch 5, 2017Reply

    Incredible!

    Bill Condon’s adaptation of Beauty and the Beast is nothing short of
    amazing. Being a fan of the original Beauty and The Beast I was a
    little nervous going in to the cinema. I really wanted them to get the
    film right, and they did! The score is genius, the costume design is
    superb, the production design is great, the direction is amazing. This
    film was so visually stunning and I couldn’t of hoped for better!

  • Isabelle MladenMarch 6, 2017Reply

    Emma Watson Manages to be Luminous in an Already Vibrant Film

    I’m utterly shocked by the negative backlash that this film has been
    getting from critics and the public because it’s truly a joy to watch.
    Bill Condon has done a wonderful job bringing the beloved animated
    flick to life with a stellar cast, exceptional musical numbers, and
    jaw-dropping sets and visuals (the ballroom scene had me in tears).
    Also, Steven Chbosky and Even Spiliotopolous deserve credit as well as
    they were able to conceive a screenplay that kept enough familiarity
    with the original to give the audience some good-old nostalgia while
    adding enough new details and subtle elements to keep the audience
    invested in what’s going to happen next.

    The cast really carry the movie as well, with Luke Evans (Gaston), Dan
    Stevens (the Beast), and Josh Gad (LeFou) entertaining the hell out of
    me–Stevens is practically playing a completely different character,
    and his performance creates a new and charming Beast (and damn, can he
    sing!). Evans is absolutely perfect as Gaston, and although I don’t
    love his singing voice for the character, he nailed every single line
    he was given. Now, regarding the situation with LeFou; I really don’t
    understand why Bill Condon went ahead and made a big deal about Josh
    Gad’s character being gay because it’s barely present in the film.
    Beauty and the Beast is now not likely to preform as well as it could
    possibly have with foreign markets in addition to a bunch of local
    conservatives throwing temper-tantrums (spamming the film with negative
    ”reviews”) for nothing; you blink and you’ll miss that ”exclusively gay
    moment”. As for Gad himself, his LeFou is charming and hilarious in his
    own right–he’s certainly an extra viewing bonus. Kevin Kline is truly
    a gift to the film; he does not play a small part and he has one little
    song that he absolutely nails. The father-daughter bond between him and
    Belle is truly spectacular. As for the rest cursed objects, I thought
    they voiced their characters fine enough, but they weren’t what was
    driving the film.

    Don’t let anyone tell you otherwise, this is Emma Watson’s movie. And
    boy, does she crush it as Belle. I can assume it was tough for her to
    watch Emma Stone take home Best Actress for La La Land, but don’t
    worry, Emma, because you’ve knocked it out of the park here. Watson’s
    Belle is strong, independent, passionate, vigilant, and every other
    adjective you could add to describe the perfect modern female heroine
    in Disney- princess form. She is also adorably awkward at times,
    something understandable since she’s lived as an outcast in her village
    her whole life. The added backstory and quirks really make this
    character all the more three- dimensional and they incorporate into the
    movie beautifully. Emma really sells every one of her scenes, and her
    Harry Potter days have seemed to have helped her out regarding working
    with visual effects and acting off of nothing. I doubt the film would
    be half as good if they had gotten anyone else to play Belle– just
    note that about 95% of the people claiming that she was wooden in the
    film are either biased trolls, or more likely, people who haven’t even
    seen the film yet.

    As for complaints about the movie, I have very few. Personally, it took
    me about 10 minutes to truly get into it because it was such a strange
    sensation to watch my childhood be portrayed by other people, plus all
    of the songs felt like really weird covers of the original songs until
    I really warmed to the new atmosphere. Also, they would introduce
    fascinating details about the Beast that they never really seemed to do
    anything with. Lastly, the third act is somewhat a competition between
    the loud and over-the-top music numbers and the climatic state of the
    plot for your attention. Although both are extremely entertaining, at
    times the third act felt a little unfocused. However, I can assure you,
    that the ending scene were Beast transforms is spectacular, both
    Stevens and Watson do a terrific job expressing the same emotions
    created 26 years ago.

    All in all, this is a wonderful movie. All the critics are kind of
    saying the same thing: ”if the original is so great, why remake it?”
    and ”it’s just a remake, nothing more”. Why does this film not deserve
    credit for being a faithful yet fresh retelling of the tale as old as
    time? In fact, it even improves upon some aspects of the original, such
    as how Belle and Beast fall in love (just wait a couple weeks and see
    the film and you’ll understand how). I have the answer: people simply
    don’t want to like this movie. The original is so amazing and beloved
    by practically the entire planet that Disney having the audacity to
    come and revamp so many people’s childhoods for the sake of money is,
    for many, very offensive–even if the movie’s actually really, really
    good.

  • Hold_the_doorMarch 6, 2017Reply

    A Faithful & Fresh Adaptation

    Disney’s concept of translating their classic animated hits into live
    action blockbusters started quite messy, but since then, they seem to
    do it very well. I think they have got the knack.

    Beauty and the Beast is largely similar to the animated movie, which is
    basically what someone would want and expect from a remake. However, it
    adds more depth to its story and characters, it makes the film’s
    message stronger. It touches our heartstrings and gives us a wave of
    nostalgia, while at the same time, it manages to improve – somehow – on
    the animated film. Even if at the end, the original is better.

    Visually the film is stunning. Amazing colours, costumes, the visual
    effects and sets are all very well done. It’s an artistic masterpiece.
    The same thing can be said about its breathtaking music. The soundtrack
    is simply perfect.

    That’s of course because of the very talented people working on it.
    From the cast, who gives some incredible performances, to the director,
    the composer etc.

    Overall I consider Beauty and the Beast a strong awards contender. It
    could get nominations in several categories. Its only flaw is probably
    that it’s just a bit too long, which is why some people might find it
    overstuffed.

  • Sergio ScoutMarch 6, 2017Reply

    Average OK.

    I was hoping for something more for this movie. However the acting was:
    OK, the script was: OK, the visual effects and everything surrounding
    it is …again OK.

    It is a good re-edited version of Disnesys beauty and the beast cartoon
    movie but it wasn’t as good as it could be. Nevertheless it is a good
    film you can watch with the children or with your girlfriend.

    For me it was just an average movie, nothing spectacular or different,
    just an old Disney movie in a new dress so to speak.

  • umerfurcMarch 6, 2017Reply

    Beauty and the beast are American romantic fantastic films directed by Bill Condon, written by Stephen Chbosky and Evan Spiliotopoulos

    The film is Disney’s 1991 animated film of the same name of a live
    adaptation. Also itself is adapted to Jenny – Mary Leprince de Beaumont
    fairy tale. The movie star is a choir, including Emma Watson, Dan
    Stevens, Luke Evans, Kevin Klein, Josh Garde, Ivan McGregor, Stanley
    Turch, Odra MacDonald, Gucci Mbata Primitive, McLaren and also Emma
    Thompson. In the movie, Bell was capture by a terrible beast in his
    magic castle. You can also check review of this movie on
    http://reviewstopmovies.com/2017/02/28/beauty-and-the-beast/

  • shawneofthedeadMarch 7, 2017Reply

    A good, though far from great, adaptation of this tale as old as time.

    Adapting Gabrielle-Suzanne Barbot de Villeneuve’s original French story
    about a beauty and her beast is no easy task. In the wrong hands, this
    romance between a girl and her captor could easily come across as
    creepy – Stockholm Syndrome parading as a fairy tale. Disney managed to
    pull it off in 1991: its sublime animated version, with its tender
    heart and gorgeous music, has rightly become a classic. 25 years later,
    has the studio managed to capture lightning in a bottle again, this
    time in live-action format?

    Well… not quite. To be fair, this brand-new incarnation of Beauty And
    The Beast, directed by Bill Condon, has a great deal going for it. It
    makes a good case for updating the tale with more modern sensibilities.
    The film is beautifully performed and designed, and there’s plenty of
    fun (and nostalgia) awaiting fans of its animated predecessor. But it
    never feels quite as effortless or natural in telling its story. While
    there is magic here, it’s tough to shake the feeling that it’s
    engineered, not organic – that it grazes rather than grabs the heart.

    The film centres on Belle (Emma Watson), a bookish, resourceful young
    lady who’s never really fit into her little French village. She hankers
    for adventure – but gets more than she bargained for when her father
    (Kevin Kline) stumbles into a forgotten castle and becomes a prisoner
    there. After trading places with her dad, Belle gets to know the
    inhabitants of the castle: a surly, fearsome Beast (Dan Stevens) and a
    host of living household appliances and furniture, all of them living
    in fear that they will never be free of the curse that has robbed them
    of their humanity.

    On its own merits, Beauty And The Beast is a decent effort. Condon’s
    film is the Hollywood blockbuster at its most efficient, from its
    photo-real fantasy castles to splashy musical numbers teeming with life
    and colour. The screenplay, by Stephen Chbosky and Evan Spiliotopoulos,
    is a canny adaptation of familiar material, particularly when it comes
    to adding layers to its characters. Belle has more agency in ways big
    and small – she’s the one in control even when she (voluntarily)
    becomes the Beast’s prisoner and, in a small but important scene, she
    shares the gift of independent thinking by teaching a village girl how
    to read.

    Similarly, the many relationships in the film are given welcome depth.
    Belle and the Beast find common ground in books and feeling
    out-of-place, even in the places they call home. We’re furnished with
    hints as to why the household servants – including suave candlestick
    Lumiere (Ewan McGregor), jittery clock Cogsworth (Ian McKellen) and
    motherly kettle Mrs. Potts (Emma Thompson) – are more invested in
    breaking the curse that befell them. LeFou’s (Josh Gad) devotion to the
    pompous Gaston (Luke Evans) goes, quite logically, from subtext to
    text, though in a way that hardly warrants the firestorm of controversy
    that has erupted in conservative circles over Disney’s ‘gay agenda’.

    That said, other aspects of this remake yield more mixed results. The
    Beast’s very real, very human eyes provide emotional connection and
    depth in a way that animation can’t fully approximate. But burying
    Stevens beneath layers of CGI and prosthetics also means that the Beast
    can occasionally come across as a stiff, oversized teddy bear, lacking
    the fluidity of expression of his animated counterpart. The same goes
    for the household servants: ironically, efforts to make them more
    ‘realistic’ end up bleeding them of life and personality.

    It’s the same story with the film’s music. Some of Alan Menken and
    Howard Ashman’s iconic original numbers are thoughtfully re- imagined:
    ‘Be Our Guest’ is a joyous explosion of camp colour, featuring welcome
    nods to movies like Cabaret and Singin’ In The Rain; and ‘Gaston’
    morphs into a lively bar-storming number that practically demands
    applause at the end.

    But the new songs, penned by Menken and Tim Rice, are more nice than
    necessary. ‘How Does A Moment Last Forever’ is lovely but lacks impact.
    ‘Evermore’ – a new anthem for the Beast – will no doubt become a
    cabaret standard but is badly served in the context of the film: it
    feels overwrought and a bit silly, lessening rather than heightening
    the dramatic tension at that particular moment.

    Performances across the board are good, as you would expect from a cast
    of this calibre – though it’s hard not to wish for accomplished
    performers like Thompson, McKellen and Broadway legend Audra McDonald
    (playing the part of an operatic, narcoleptic wardrobe) to be better
    served by both script and special effects. Watson, who has proved a
    better advocate than actor in recent years, is a perfectly credible
    (though hardly riveting) Belle. Stevens does a decent job with a
    challenging part, while Evans convincingly conjures up both swagger and
    menace.

    It’s evident in every frame that everyone involved in Beauty And The
    Beast worked mightily hard to prove that transforming one of Disney’s
    most iconic movies into a live-action extravaganza is worth the effort.
    They don’t always pull it off: the film gets about as many things wrong
    as it does right, and it most certainly doesn’t surpass the animated
    classic in quality. But it tells a familiar tale well enough – enough,
    one suspects, to win over fans old and new.

  • laketacovingtonMarch 7, 2017Reply

    It was Beautiful for Tale as Old as Time!

    I’m looking forward to it for the film since I was 5 years old for 25
    years ago and now, 25 years later, this film is gonna be a best film
    ever! My favorite movie is my movie is the excellence characters and
    excellence songs; including three new songs I wanted to hear that!!!!
    It’s gonna be the best movie ever and #1 box office hit!!!!!!!!! It was
    wonderful for CGI for enchanted friends and the Beast for the acting
    and singing the songs; especially Belle! Emma Watson is a greatest
    acting and great singing, too! Dan Stevens is awesome acting for the
    character Beast! Rest of the cast seems amazing ever known for their
    own best as wonderful perform!!!!!!! Bill Condon is doing a wonderful
    job as a directing for the Beauty and the Beast for the whole film
    about 25 years later!!!!! I can’t hardly wait to see the movie and hear
    the wonderful songs!!!!!!

  • gregory-l-delisleMarch 7, 2017Reply

    People on this site are only haters

    Seriously, how can this movie have a rating of 6,1/10 when the movie
    have good reviews everywhere. Homophobes and Emma Watson haters are
    here to make the score bad.

    That being said, this movie is simply incredible. The music, the
    costumes and the production design are Oscar worthy. The visual effects
    are stunning, but the CGI is not perfect. It’s my only complaint for
    the movie.

    Emma Watson is the perfect Belle and a very good model for young girls.
    Her Belle is a strong independent woman but fall in love like everyone
    else. Dan is a very good singer and his Beast is even better than the
    original.

    All the supporting cast is PERFECT. Top notch. I have nothing bad to
    say about it.

    This movie will make billions. It’s simply heartbreaking and magical at
    the same time. I’m sure the score will go up when the movie will open
    in cinemas.

    Simply the best Disney live action movie ever. Period.

  • manueltimberMarch 9, 2017Reply

    Great, but I miss 2 songs…

    A great and magical movie, but it’s a shame, that ”Human Again” & ”If I
    Can’t Love Her” from the stage-version are not in the movie…

    Therefore only 9 out of 10 stars. With these 2 songs it would be 10
    stars and even more, if more would be possible. But with these 2 songs
    missing, I can’t give the full points.

  • Ziggy ZorroMarch 10, 2017Reply

    What a wonderful musical

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • David Ferguson ([email protected])March 13, 2017Reply

    A bit dark, yet worthy

    Greetings again from the darkness. An entire generation still enjoys
    their childhood animated movie memories thanks to Disney’s The Little
    Mermaid (1989), Beauty and the Beast (1991) and The Lion King (1994).
    We are now a quarter-century later and Disney is looking to re-create
    the magic (and hopefully cash in) with Live Action versions of all
    three …as it did with Cinderella (2015) and last year’s The Jungle Book
    (sensing a trend?). Up now is director Bill Condon’s mixture of live
    action, CGI and music for Beauty and the Beast.

    The 18th century story (1740) by Gabrielle-Suzanne Barbot de Villeneuve
    was re-written and shortened by Jeanne-Marie Leprince de Beaumont after
    Barbot’s death. Director Jean Cocteau’s 1946 French film version looks
    to have been a key influence for this updated ‘Beast’, while the 2014
    version with Vincent Cassel will probably now be rendered forgotten.
    Screenwriters Stephen Chbosky (The Perks of Being a Wallflower) and
    Evan Spiliotopoulos (The Huntsman: Winter’s War) team with Oscar winner
    Condon, whose musical movie resume includes Chicago and Dreamgirls, to
    inject some contemporary aspects to Belle’s personality, as well as a
    bit more backstory for quite a few characters … all while staying true
    to the 1991 version.

    Emma Watson proves a nice choice for Belle as she has what it takes to
    be nice yet tough, while still being an oddball within her own
    community. Belle is a bookworm who dares to help other girls to read,
    while also being the brains behind her father’s (Kevin Kline) work. She
    realizes her neighbors view her as a curiosity – and there is even a
    song to prove it! Ms. Watson brings strength, independence, and courage
    to the role. These traits and others are on full display even before
    her first encounter with the beast.

    Dan Stevens (”Downton Abbey”) is the beneficiary of an extended
    backstory for the Prince, which includes a large dance and musical
    production at the castle, leading to his being cursed for having no
    love in his heart. Most of the scenes with Beast utilize CGI for the
    face and head. This effect worked for me as I found the look
    fascinating and able to fulfill the necessary emotions, though the
    non-beast Prince would be considered the weakest link in this fairy
    tale chain.

    Since the comparisons to the 1991 version are inevitable, and certainly
    a matter of personal opinion, Luke Evans made a wonderfully pompous
    Gaston, while Josh Gad was quite humorous as LeFou, Gaston’s loyal
    sidekick who is also the center of the misplaced controversy (not
    worthy of discussion here). The staff – both live versions and special
    effects – includes Ewan McGregor as Lumiere, Ian McKellan as Cogsworth,
    Emma Thompson as Mrs. Potts, Audra McDonald as Madame Garderobe,
    Stanley Tucci as Maestro Cadenza and Gugu Mbatha-Raw as Plumette. Each
    bring their own touch to the roles, with Ms. McDonald being a
    particular standout, and Ms. Thompson having the most thankless job as
    replacement for Angela Lansbury.

    While I found this version quite enjoyable and well done, it’s a bit
    confusing why the decision was made to go so dark and foreboding. It’s
    not young kid friendly at all, and seems as if the target audience is
    millennials who were raised on the 1991 version. This was done at the
    expense of inviting a new generation to explore the story and
    characters. Parents should probably avoid taking any kids under age 10
    or 11, and the film easily could have received a PG-13 rating. 8-time
    Oscar winner Alan Menken returns to score the film (he did the 1991
    version as well), plus he wrote new songs with Tim Rice and there are
    some original lyrics by Howard Ashman. With only one viewing, it’s
    doubtful any of the new songs will be instant classics, but ”Be Our
    Guest” is a definite crowd-pleaser (again).

    Of course, it’s an impossible task to please everyone when you mess
    with the classics, but overall, it’s a nice twist for fans of the 1991
    animated version. Likely a missed opportunity to bring new youngsters
    into the fantastical BATB world, it does show that the animated to live
    action transformation can be well done … and that’s a relief with The
    Lion King and The Little Mermaid on the way. Dear Disney – don’t mess
    ’em up!

  • Asif Khan (asifahsankhan)March 13, 2017Reply

    Happily, gone wrong it has NOT! (Well. . . Kinda’)

    Imagine if Disney announced a new live action remake of Fantasia and
    decided to keep Mickey Mouse in it. Try to envision how the photo-
    realistic CGI might look. Not a hand-drawn Mickey swanning around with
    a bucket-carrying broomstick, but an actual mouse the size of a person
    wearing a sorcerer’s costume and walking on its hind legs. Also a
    broomstick that has arms and hands and walks on its, er, hind straw.

    Would this hybrid human-rodent and its transmogrified cleaning tool
    look just as magical in live action as they did in the 1940 classic?
    You wouldn’t bet your house on it; the mental image required to picture
    such a visualisation is weird and preposterous. If Big Mouse executives
    decided to give the project a go-ahead one question would linger at the
    core of it: why bother?

    And so now, you think this film will end up as Disney’s revamped and
    bizarrely note-for-note ”Beauty and the Beast” just as American
    filmmaker Gus van Sant treated British Cinema, Sir Alfred Hitchcock and
    his sacred thriller ”Psycho” as if it were a blueprint for his much
    maligned shot-by-shot pathetic 1998 remake.

    Condon’s movie may not have a giant rodent or personified straw broom,
    but there are comparable alternatives – from the titular
    bear/boar/buffalo-like creature to a range of magical household things,
    including singing and dancing furniture. There are times when it will
    certainly seem not conformable; but not in fact enough to make anybody
    come out of the cinema with a firm belief that talking teacups belong
    only in cartoons or acid trips. In fact, those who predicted this
    wouldn’t hold a talking candle to the animated original are in for a
    bit of a pickle and will be pleasantly surprised. The tale may be as
    old as time, but it’s retold with freshness, charm and flair.

    Happily, gone wrong it has not. (Well. . . Kinda’)

    There are a few minor fumbles, but you’re likely to walk away with a
    lightened step, a broad smile and at least one song-worm in your ear.

    The story remains rock solid: essentially a sweet two-hand-er (well,
    one hand, one paw) in which two bookworms fall in love, helped along by
    an assortment of sentient household items. Everything hangs upon the
    casting of those two roles, but Condon has picked his leads well. Dan
    Stevens appears in human form during a new prologue, in which his vain
    prince is coped-up, caked in David Bowie eye make-up and surrounded by
    simpering female admirers, before an enchantress appears and zaps him
    with a frankly unreasonable curse. From then on, he’s in full Beast
    mode, with a sub-woofer voice and giant horns, resembling the cooler,
    better-dressed brother of the Faun from Pan’s Labyrinth. The CGI used
    to purify furry Stevens is variable in quality, but as Beast storms
    around his dank keep’s exquisitely designed turrets, the performance is
    consistently strong. As much as he bellows, the wounded soul beneath
    the bombast is always clear.

    As for Beauty, Emma Watson immediately charms in her big opening
    number, in which the heroine suffers a village-worth’s of idiots
    sharing (what should be) their inner monologues through song. Watson
    faces one difficult sequence after another — memorable vocalised songs,
    tussles with talking wardrobes, emotional exchanges with a grouchy
    Heffalump — but finds just the right combination of innocence and grit.
    Plus, she doesn’t sound like Fran Drescher, which is an immediate
    advantage.

    Emma Watson is as wonderful as she is, tough, lionhearted character,
    rich in self-confidence and sass, with an inspiring disdain for the
    many injustices of a cruel patriarchal world.

    Condon’s set pieces are old school, picture book, rococo, on-the-
    studio-lot style edifices, appealing in a very decent and honestly a
    cartoon lover sort of way. Works for a lot of you, kids!

  • Drew HarmonMarch 13, 2017Reply

    Watch it for the nostalgia. Nothing else will make it worthwhile.

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • bkrauser-81-311064March 14, 2017Reply

    A Beast of Manufactured Nostalgia

    Disney continues its unprecedented line of rebooted, re-imagined, and
    refurbished live-action remakes with the new fangled Beauty and the
    Beast. And much like last year’s Jungle Book (2015) and Pete’s Dragon
    (2015) this one injects just as much chemical perfection into its
    innards as a robot arm would bestow a Twinkie. It’s not a necessary
    movie per se. But its unabashed zeal and fidelity to the source
    material (the Disney-fied 1991 film not the Jeanne-Marie Leprince de
    Beaumont tome) has a certain giddiness to it; a certain manufactured
    innocence.

    I’m sure we’re all well versed by now on the self-described ”Tale as
    Old as Time.” A precocious Belle (Watson) falls in love with a surly
    Beast (Stevens) whose secret heart of gold is hidden underneath layers
    of loneliness, sadness and fur. There’s an enchanted castle, a witch’s
    curse, singing silverware, inexplicable walks through wintry forests
    without a coat – its basic fairy tale stuff really. Difference this
    time is Disney has carefully and lovingly set its story on its perch
    like butterfly taxidermy in frame. Most everything you remember from
    Beauty and the Beast (1991) is in this film, and everything you don’t
    remember is just a tiny bit better.

    What parts you may ask? Well arguably the best thing about Beauty and
    the Beast is the way it quietly updates the gender politics of the
    material and does so without feeling pushy or preachy. Much ado was
    made of the ultimately benign gay character that nearly everyone failed
    to notice the first (and second) bi-racial kiss in a Disney film. As
    for Belle, Paige O’Hara certainly had her moment as the progressive
    page-turning princess but Emma Watson’s take on the character comes
    with a dream of traveling to the great white somewhere and (sort of)
    accomplishes it. Speaking of which, Watson positively runs away with
    this role; dawning natural sincerity while belting out gorgeous
    melodies like she’s not even trying.

    Do you remember Gaston? In the animated version, the vain
    hunter-in-chief of Belle’s little town had all the charm of a
    nefarious, dark-haired Johnny Bravo. Here however Luke Evans’s
    meat-headed take on the popular villain pops with campy fun. His
    interactions with LeFou (Gad), up to and including the song ”Gaston,”
    are easily the best parts of the movie.

    Yet while these minor improvements are sure to win over the nostalgic,
    the case against Beauty and the Beast proves much more interesting, at
    least from a filmic perspective. First let’s start with the added songs
    provided by B&B originator Alan Menken and replacement lyricist Tim
    Rice. While the songs do their best to slink underneath the film’s
    major melodies, their lack of Howard Ashman’s lyrical wordplay and
    effortless charm clash like burlap underneath layers of purple satin.

    Additionally Bill Condon’s persnickety attention to detail works for
    the mechanics of the film to the detriment of the narrative. Every cut,
    every structural progression, feels stiflingly familiar, and can’t help
    but make everything look paler when compared to the original.
    Considering the way the film was shot and cut, the middling filler
    looks presentable while the big scenes all seem overwhelmed by clutter.
    This is most evident in ”Be Our Guest,” when Lumiere (McGregor) our
    photo-realistic French candelabra fills the screen with gauche CGI
    chaos. It is at that moment I realized; the best part of the 1991
    version is the worst part about this one.

    Yet despite, its various faults, I can’t help but admire this posh
    little remake. It’s a begrudging admiration, like the kind of
    ambivalence I increasingly feel towards Marvel movies. Only unlike
    Marvel, which tricks you into thinking you haven’t seen all this
    before, Disney live-action remakes all but announce you’ve seen this
    all before, only you shouldn’t care. It looks like we’ll have to wait a
    little bit longer before killing this beast.

  • Muhd HazeemMarch 14, 2017Reply

    It’s was better than i was expected

    At first i was very skeptical about the movie because all of the
    reviews but after I saw the movie I must say that I’m impressed. It was
    beautifully made and i can’t think other person that can fit belle
    other than Emma Watson. If you like the original you must see this one
    because It’s very good and it even better than original, in my opinion.

  • Austin OswaldMarch 14, 2017Reply

    A Beauty of a Film

    ”Beauty and the Beast” is a wondrous film that can never be
    touched…well…unless Disney is the one doing the refurbishments.
    This classic ”tale as old as time” was brilliantly reimagined with all
    of the same pomp and circumstance as the original. The production
    design and costuming perfectly captured the dark ominous moods while
    simultaneously highlighting the sheer elegance of the picture. A piece
    of this elegance was brought about by the film’s effervescent and at
    times, gripping score provided by the composer of the original film’s
    score, Alan Menken. The familiarity of the film in its score and story
    was astonishing and probably the only thing I could see anybody having
    a grievance about. However, the picture did provide some much needed
    backstory that was glossed over in the 1991 version of the film. With
    that, Disney did a commendable job at adapting several aspects of the
    story while still maintaining the nostalgia for the film we all know
    and love. Finally, I must mention that the casting for this film was
    phenomenal. With Emma Thompson as Mrs. Potts, Ian McKellen and Ewan
    McGregor as Cogsworth and Lumière, Dan Stevens as Beast, and Emma
    Watson as Belle, the talent was truly immeasurable. I know that some
    fans of the beloved animated film were a bit skeptical of Emma Watson
    in the role of Belle as she had no musical theatre experience prior to
    playing this cherished Disney Princess. Nevertheless, I can assure
    those fans that she did an outstanding job as Belle. While Watson’s
    vocals did seem a bit fine-tuned, she still managed to bring a higher
    level of emotion and meaning to Belle’s voice. She boldly characterized
    the true meaning of feminism all while subtly hinting at Belle’s
    down-to-earth nature. With that, I must say that this film was, without
    a doubt, transcendent of our modern era. The picture gave life to a new
    generation of family entertainment, yet it still managed to charm us
    with its nostalgic vibes. For me, this film lived up to the glory of
    its predecessor and may have even surpassed it. From now on, when I
    think of the story of ”Beauty and the Beast,” I will think of this
    enchanting masterpiece.

  • tutofernandezMarch 15, 2017Reply

    Beautiful and magical remake

    It was a very beautiful movie. Each element was perfect. They kept the
    magic of the original and created even more magical elements with this
    remake.

    The scenarios and costumes were marvelous. The music was splendid. The
    colors and the environment that was created was exquisite.

    The acting could be a little better, but over all it was really good.
    The cast reflected the essence of each original character and added
    some new funny and good characteristics.

    So Disney lovers very recommended!

  • MegMarch 16, 2017Reply

    What a major masterpiece!!

    Just left the theater. I have to say that the movie was an absolute
    masterpiece!! I am an absolute die-hard beauty and the beast fan. The
    movie was so amazing, it had you laughing, crying, and falling in love
    the whole time! I definitely thought it wouldn’t hold a candle to my
    beloved classic but it definitely surprised me! I couldn’t be any
    happier with how it turned out! It gave my all time favorite fairy tale
    the ultimate justice it deserves! It went above and beyond my
    expectations! Absolutely fabulous! I can’t wait to watch it again!

  • AlondroMarch 16, 2017Reply

    Did we really need this?

    OK, let’s get the gay thing out of the way first: it was horribly
    forced and awkward.

    Remember ”Victor Victoria”? Anyone? For the few that remember what a
    GOOD movie is like, everyone in that film BELONGED in that film.

    The gay character here is present because political correctness and
    diversity. That’s all.

    A lesson to all: when you shove something into a decidedly
    non-political movie for the sake of your ideology even when it should
    be clear it doesn’t fit, you ruin it. This goes for ‘Christian’ and any
    other philosophies as well. PAY ATTENTION TO YOUR STORY. Nothing else
    matters.

    As for the rest… it’s just… there. Despite being ‘live-action’ it
    feels flatter than the 2D animated original. The story goes through the
    motions and achieves nothing more. I’d rather watch the animated
    version again.

    I fear this is also going to be the case with the retold ”Lion King”
    Disney is planning. As with this movie, I feel most people are going to
    look at these over-expensive CGI effect fests and conclude as I do:
    other than nostalgia-driven cash grabs, what’s the point?

  • GomezAddams666March 16, 2017Reply

    Tale as Old as Time? Not by a long shot.

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • edward-davies-907-790480March 16, 2017Reply

    It…is….AWESOME!!!

    Just watched the film and it was amazing. I love the cast, the updated
    story, and of course, the songs.

    Emma Watson was absolute perfection as Belle, and she can sing. Dan
    Stevens rocks it as the Beast, and he can sing surprisingly good, just
    like Emma Watson. The entire cast was excellent as well, including Luke
    Evans and Josh Gad.

    Be Our Guest was one of my highlights of the film. The choreography in
    the song was stunning. I loved every second of it.

    I personally think this film is even better than the original. No
    offense to the original film. I loved every second of it.

  • afatedcircleMarch 16, 2017Reply

    don’t fall for the reviews

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • WekkMarch 16, 2017Reply

    Outstanding

    I really don’t understand where the negative reviews are coming from.
    Its the most visually beautiful film I’ve ever seen. The casting was
    great and I couldn’t take my eyes off the screen. For those of you who
    may be swayed by meta scores less than 8 (like myself), lets take it
    with a grain of salt. I’ve noticed a common theme of comparing this
    version with the original, which i think is unfair. I watched the
    original for the first time a few weeks ago. Forgive me, but i was not
    awed. I cant help but wonder if at least some of the low scores are
    based not on the superiority of the original, but the superiority of
    that time in these folks’ lives — nostalgia. Just a thought. Beautiful
    film. Im not a 3-D fan, but it really was amazing for this.

  • michael-traversinoMarch 16, 2017Reply

    I wanted to like the live action version

    I really wanted to like the live action version of Beauty and the
    Beast. I was obsessed with the animated version growing up as a kid. I
    went to see it in theaters on New Year’s 1991. My main complaint is
    that I believe Belle was miscast. I like Emma Watson, but I think the
    character of Belle would have been portrayed better by someone who is
    less known, or who is not mostly known from playing one character.

    Another thing I didn’t like is that the film is supposed to be live
    action but everything about the film is so over produced that nothing
    seems real.

    The parts that were added or changed that moved away from the original
    were boring and didn’t convey the spirit that the original had.

    It’s hard to make some aspects of the film live action (Chip, Mrs.
    Potts, etc.) however Lumiere and Cogsworth were downright creepy.

  • rbrbMarch 16, 2017Reply

    Classy Disney Presentation of a Classic Tale

    In a fairy tale village there is a ‘beauty’ of a girl who is chased for
    marriage but to no avail by a nasty villain with his right hand ‘man’
    in tow..

    Whilst in a castle, a prince of sorts who failed to show compassion was
    turned into a ‘beast’ and made to live a life of misery unless true
    love can release him from his torment.

    The girls’ father plays a pivotal role in bringing the beauty and the
    beast together….but will the villain prevent a happy conclusion?

    This movie has a lot of charm, being part musical, part pantomime, with
    enough action, dance, comedy, costume elegance and positive political
    correctness to make it successful.

    The show stoppers are the magnificent special effect ensemble of
    personified ”props” such as clock, tea cup, candelabra and wardrobe
    that provide the character and charisma needed in this film.

    All in all this picture gives us a Disney infused high class fantasy,
    worthy of a merit able 7 and a half, rounded up, hence: 8/10.

  • Ryan HallMarch 16, 2017Reply

    An amazing remake that could be better than the original!

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • rgkarimMarch 16, 2017Reply

    Visuals Are a Beauty, The Charm Is A Bit More Beast

    It’s finally here, the live action telling of a beloved story that
    Disney made memorable years ago. Yes, I’m talking about Beauty and The
    Beast my friends, and tonight I’m here to share my thoughts. Now let’s
    get this laid down now, I’m going to look at it as its own movie and do
    my best to minimize the masterpiece. So please don’t cast aside the
    review if I tread on any ground. With that said, let’s get started to
    see if the modern retelling has what it takes to stand out in the
    world.

    Summary: You may hear others say the movie is spot on with the 1991
    telling. Not entirely true, but this rendition keeps about 80% of the
    Tale as Old as Time to please the classic fans, while adding some
    tangents to give it a twist. To quote a friend, ”the new spins are
    built around the fans from the 90s generation to entertain”. It works
    for the most part, adding depth to the characters and giving the
    emotional kick older audience members will appreciate. And while
    sticking to the story is good start, the next magical step is how well
    they brought it to life in the visuals. Beauty and The Beasts charming
    country side and castles, are brought out in spectacular detail via
    breathtaking scenery shots and detail oriented settings that are worthy
    of recognition. Next dress our characters in wonderful costumes fitting
    of the landscape, with special emphasis on the traditional Belle Dress
    and Beast coat that remains timeless, and you again get more magic.
    Finally add in the animation, realistic, fluid, and somewhat mirroring
    the classic style most fell in love with, and you have a great
    combination. Of note, there are times when things get trippy, or not
    done quite as well, but overall solid around. All in all, Disney’s
    abilities to blend these elements together are impressive, and this
    reviewer gives them their well-deserved props.

    In terms of casting, there is a mixed response to the cast assembled.
    Again, they are not the originals (which I did miss), but that doesn’t
    mean they aren’t bad just the same. Emma Watson is charming, smart, and
    courageous (all elements we have seen just without the wand), which
    works for the protagonist. Dan Stevens I guess does well for the few
    scenes he isn’t covered in CGI fir, but in his monstrous form delivers
    his lines with surprising depth. But it is Lumiere and Cogsworth who
    stole the show for me. I worried, I’d be robbed of their relationship,
    but that wasn’t the case. Ewen McGreggor and Ian McKellan stepped up
    the role, delivering their well- written lines that had me laughing in
    delight. The rest did well, but I need to move on, so let’s just say
    for the most part, this movie’s casting was well-done.

    Summary: The music, a staple of Beauty and The Beast that is almost as
    timeless as the story. This rendition has put their own spin on it,
    while trying to keep the backbone of the original. Most numbers work,
    albeit obviously auto-tuned, with their own whim, but the song Gaston
    was a number I did not enjoy for everything it lacked. Ironically the
    original tunes I found to be better composed, packed with emotion and
    not seeming a diluted version, but its weakness came in how they seemed
    randomly thrown in (yes in an effort to add more emotional develop to
    the cast). Overall the changes aren’t terrible, they just didn’t have
    the same bite as the classics did, unless you count shock factor from
    either some cheesiness/trippiness).

    Other changes that I didn’t quite like were Le Fou’s changes. Le Fou is
    supposed to be his name sake, the fool who is comedic relief as the
    joke, before getting his just desserts. Josh Gadd’s rendition wasn’t so
    much a fool, as a smart alec, clingy, admirer who made slick comments
    and kept his idol at bay. Again, the deeper development is appreciated,
    but this drastic change kind of meant his name should have been changed
    as well, perhaps to Petit Malin? Changes aside, the acting is capable
    of bringing the characters to life, but there are moments where things
    are a little forced. Some of the Beasts Temper tantrums, a few of
    Belle’s stoic speeches, and Gaston’s attempts to be devious, all of
    these hit their overacted moments at times. And while this made me
    laugh, there were a few conventional moments that were a bit cheesy (as
    stated by some in the movie). Most of these coincidental moments are
    ignorable, but one scene in particular was an anticlimactic finish at
    the end where something just happened to break at the right time.

    All of these moments alone aren’t too bad, but many of the changes
    brought into this film brought it more into the adult/realistic and
    took away from the fun, whimsical nature of the movie. The design of
    the characters, the emotional subplots, even the music were lacking
    that element of childlike fun that made the movie so memorable for me.
    Doesn’t mean it isn’t still entertaining, I just really missed that
    element.

    The VERDICT:

    With the big shoes the original left, this telling did a decent job
    appealing to many. It is a well- developed remake of the story, with a
    wonderful cast and setting to bring it to life and capture your heart.
    While the music didn’t quite reach the same heights, and some changes
    took away the energy, this film certainly has much of the magic that
    rose promised years ago. Go in there with a clear mind and try not to
    compare, and you’ll be fine. I recommend this for a theater visit (as
    if I could stop you) and hope you enjoy.

    My scores are: Family/Fantasy/Musical: 8.5 Movie Overall: 7.0

  • snpereraMarch 16, 2017Reply

    A magical experience!

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • MockeryDMarch 16, 2017Reply

    Beauty and the Beast Lacks the Beauty

    I just want to say that if people like Emma Waston, that’s fine but if
    you’re a huge fan of hers, I suggest you don’t read this review.

    Now I love the original animated Beauty and the Beast so I knew this
    movie wouldn’t live up to the original. With that being said, this new
    movie does have some merits. The CGI in this movie is rather good and
    the scenery is beautiful. I also love what they did with the castle. In
    a way, the castle feels alive too and I thought that was a great twist.
    The costumes are also really gorgeous.

    As for acting, everyone delivers a great performance save for one
    actress who I’ll get to in a minute. Luke Evans was stellar as Gaston.
    You can tell he was enjoying himself and was amazing. Josh Gad of
    course was funny as always. Ewan McGregor did a rather good job as
    Lumiere and Ian McKellan was a pretty decent Cogsworth. You also have
    Stanley Tucci, Gugu Mbatha-Raw, Audra McDonald and Emma Thompson also
    giving it their all. Now as for the Beast, he was decent. I haven’t
    seen Dan Stevens in anything but this and I thought he did an okay job.
    He could have been better but I thought he was fine.

    But the worst part of this movie is Emma Watson.

    Again, if you like Emma that is fine but she was not the right choice
    of Belle. Not only do they not even try to make her look like Belle but
    she doesn’t feel like Belle. She tries to deliver classic Belle lines
    but it sounds like she doesn’t trust the lines. She feels so awkward
    and stiff. Every line feels beyond forced and nothing about it feels
    organic. And the biggest issue is her singing voice. I know Emma isn’t
    a trained singer but even so, that doesn’t really change the fact that
    she cannot hold a tune. She’s boring, bland and just all around dull.

    If you are dying to see this movie, I say go for it but I really think
    you’re better waiting for the DVD.

  • Dave McClain ([email protected])March 16, 2017Reply

    ”Beauty and the Beast” is a faithful, entertaining and… beautiful live-action rendition of the beloved Disney animated classic.

    Most people are aware that Disney’s 2017 musical fantasy ”Beauty and
    the Beast” (PG, 2:09) is a live-action remake of the studio’s 1991
    animated classic, but what is not as well known is just how successful
    that 1991 version was – or how long the story has been around.
    According to Wikipedia, university researchers in Europe have traced
    the story’s origins back 4,000 years! A little more recently, it’s
    likely that the tale (which seems like it just may be nearly as old as
    time) was influenced by the true story of Petrus Gonsalvus, a 16th
    century Spaniard who suffered from Hypertrichosis (extreme hair
    growth), but married a Parisian woman, fathered seven children (four of
    whom inherited his disease) and lived among the French nobility.
    Regardless of its original source, the story was first published in
    France in 1740 and, over the next three centuries, was revised,
    rewritten and adapted, both in print and then as performance art,
    including about a dozen television shows and about the same number of
    feature films. Probably the most famous cinematic version was Disney’s
    1991 animated musical which won Oscars for its score and its title song
    (and was nominated for Best Picture – the very first animated feature
    so honored) and made almost half a billion dollars worldwide. That 1991
    film incorporates several elements and plot points from the story’s
    early published versions. The 2017 version does the same – and serves
    as a very faithful live-action re-telling of the 1991 classic, with few
    significant differences.

    Emma Watson plays Belle (the character simply referred to as Beauty in
    most of the earlier versions of the story), a beautiful, kind,
    intelligent and independent young woman living in the fictional French
    village of Villeneuve (named after the author who first published the
    story). Belle lives with her eccentric and devoted widowed father,
    Maurice (Kevin Kline), who is the only one who understands Belle and
    accepts her for who she is. While her fellow villagers dismiss her as
    ”odd” for always reading books and dreaming about life and adventures
    beyond Villeneuve, she is nevertheless being pursued romantically by
    arrogant former soldier Gaston (Luke Evans), who sees Belle’s beauty as
    at least approaching his own. (To say that Gaston’s narcissistic is
    like saying Donald Trump is kind of proud of his accomplishments.) And
    not that Gaston’s ego needs any boosting, but constantly at his side is
    LeFou (Josh Gad), who basically serves as Gaston’s hype man… and who
    seems jealous of all the local maidens competing for Gaston’s
    attention. Regardless, Gaston wants Belle and Belle wants… nothing to
    do with Gaston.

    Meanwhile, the other character in the film’s title is wasting away in a
    long-forgotten castle deep in the woods outside of Villeneuve. Beast
    (Dan Stevens) is a former prince who is now a unique fusion of several
    different wild animals, due to a curse he received from a local
    enchantress because of his extreme self-centeredness. Trapped in the
    same curse are his former castle staff, who now exist as
    anthropomorphic household objects including a candelabra named Lumière
    (voiced by Ewan McGregor), a clock called Cogsworth (Ian McKellan), a
    tea pot (Emma Thompson), a harpsicord (Stanley Tucci), a dresser (Audra
    McDonald) and a feather duster (Gugu Mbatha-Raw). The only way that any
    (all) of them can be released from the curse is if Beast falls in love
    and is loved in return, before a rose that was given to Beast as a
    symbol of the curse loses its last petal. Considering that Beast has
    grown bitter and mean and no one even knows that he exists, the
    long-term prospects for this cursed castle… don’t look good.

    Of course, all that changes when these two worlds inevitably collide.
    (After all, movies simply called ”Beast”, or ”Beauty And” don’t sound
    very interesting, do they?) When Maurice gets lost in the woods on the
    way back from his annual trip to market, he ends up at Beast’s castle,
    where he takes a rose to bring to Belle and is promptly imprisoned in
    Beast’s dungeon. When Maurice’s faithful horse returns to Villeneuve
    and Belle hops on, she also discovers Beast’s castle. She insists on
    taking her father’s place in the dungeon, so Beast throws him out and
    holds Belle captive. As Maurice struggles to get Gaston (or any of the
    villagers) to help him rescue Belle (or even to believe his story of a
    beast living in a castle deep in the woods), Beast’s staff insists that
    Belle… be their guest, and they work to convince Beast to be nice
    enough to her that she might turn out to be the one to break the curse…
    before it’s too late.

    ”Beauty and the Beast” is a faithful, entertaining and… beautiful
    live-action rendition of the beloved Disney animated classic. The 2017
    version keeps the time-honored songs from the 1991 film and adds a few
    new ones. With the advances in CGI since 1991, director Bill Condon and
    his team are able to replicate and update the look of the animated
    version. In addition, the great voice work wonderfully complements the
    vibrant visuals, while the characters’ diversity (in terms of race and
    sexual orientation) also represents an update of sorts. The result of
    all this is a remake that is every bit as magical and fun as the
    original. There is little here that’s fresh or new, but there’s a lot
    to appreciate and enjoy. ”A-”

  • Mea Reye OsorioMarch 16, 2017Reply

    Not to find of Emma Watson

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • I_ThiagoNicollasMarch 16, 2017Reply

    Beauty and the Beast

    Visually a beautiful film, with great art direction. Soundtrack… I
    have no words to describe … The old songs really gave me an intense
    nostalgic feeling and I really love the new songs.

    A cast with big names, which guaranteed not only good performances, but
    also new perspectives on the characters. Ewan McGregor as the Lumiere
    was good and fun.

    Emma Watson and Dan Stevens, very good in their roles, the dynamics
    between the two protagonists was good.

    Emma Thompson… wonderful. Luke Evans did a great job, especially in
    the musical sequences. Kevin Kline who plays the father of the
    beautiful, gave new perspective to his character who had changes from
    the animated classic to this new movie.

    I love it.

  • Nhi DoMarch 16, 2017Reply

    Exceptional!

    I’m quite surprised that Beauty and the Beast didn’t receive higher
    rates. I just left the cinema, and remembered exactly why I used to
    love Disney so much as a kid, and why I still love them! Everything
    about this movie is so MAGICAL. I loved how they created the beast,
    sang the songs, acting, Emma Watson is truly a natural beauty and
    perfect for the role! 10 out 10!

  • Travis FrancoMarch 16, 2017Reply

    careful spoiler ahead!! Great movie just the like original

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • nbmartinoMarch 16, 2017Reply

    Watered down, dull retelling of a timeless classic with questionable choices

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • jesssetaMarch 16, 2017Reply

    Flat and kitschy

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • trublu215March 16, 2017Reply

    When All is Said and Done, Everyone Deserves a Better Film Than This.

    The highly anticipated release of the live action remake of Beauty and
    the Beast had all the ingredients of a future classic. With the
    animated film approaching it’s 25th anniversary, the hunger for
    something like this is unfathomable. Yet, when the lights go on and the
    credits roll, I was left feeling like I was swindled. The Bill Condon
    film looks and sounds beautiful but the film is very thin in live
    action form. Emma Watson is woefully underselling as Belle and Dan
    Stevens does the best he can under the CGI-laden Beast. There are many
    issues with the film at the heart of it but one thing sticks out like a
    sore thumb: the complete and utter lack of originality.

    The film does nothing in the way of introducing anything new to the age
    old story. The film is literally almost a shot for shot remake of the
    animated film. While die hard Beauty and the Beast fans along with
    their kids will probably enjoy the film, those looking for an extra
    layer will leave sorely disappointed. Despite this, the film does offer
    some explosive moments of action that are extremely well choreographed
    along with Josh Gad’s wonderful performance as the comic relief that,
    despite his performance being marred with controversy, ends up being
    one of the stand-outs of the group. Then there are the musical numbers
    and these renditions are just as magical as it was in the 1992 animated
    film. They’re infectious little numbers that are bound to be hummed for
    days after seeing the film. Despite these very positive attributes, the
    film just misses the mark and never rises to be more than just another
    remake.

    Overall, I was very disappointed by Beauty and The Beast. I thought
    Bill Condon’s best work is left to be desired, the two leads are very
    much so miscast, and the film offers nothing new in the way of a
    remake. However, if these things don’t bother you, it is still a good
    family movie that can entertain for a solid 2 hours but will do very
    little outside of that. Is it worth going to see in the theater? No but
    if you have kids, chances are you’re going to be dragged to it anyway
    so just try and enjoy it for what it’s worth.

  • Derek KronenbergerMarch 16, 2017Reply

    Absolutely amazing film

    I have absolutely no idea what these other salty critics have against
    this movie, but don’t listen to any of them. This movie was stunning.
    The animation put into this movie was astounding and they did a
    wonderful job. The singing was great and the story was fantastic. They
    picked a perfect cast for this movie! People were clapping after some
    songs in the theatre and then again afterwards. Go see this movie and I
    know you won’t regret it!

  • phantom_pixieMarch 16, 2017Reply

    Water and CGI does not an instant classic make

    As a fan of the original Disney film (Personally I feel it’s their
    masterpiece) I was taken aback to the fact that a new version was in
    the making. Still excited I had high hopes for the film. Most of was
    shattered in the first 10 minutes. Campy acting with badly performed
    singing starts off a long journey holding hands with some of the worst
    CGI Hollywood have managed to but to screen in ages.

    A film that is over 50% GCI, should focus on making that part
    believable, unfortunately for this film, it’s far from that. It looks
    like the original film was ripped apart frame by frame and the
    beautiful hand-painted drawings have been replaced with digital
    caricatures. Besides CGI that is bad, it’s mostly creepy. As the little
    teacup boy will give me nightmares for several nights to come. Emma
    Watson plays the same character as she always does, with very little
    acting effort and very little conviction as Belle. Although I can see
    why she was cast in the film based on merits, she is far from the right
    choice for the role. Dan Stevens does alright under as some motion
    captured dead-eyed Beast, but his performance feels flat as well. Luke
    Evans makes for a great pompous Gaston, but a character that has little
    depth doesn’t really make for a great viewing experience. Josh Gad is a
    great comic relief just like the original movie’s LeFou. Other than
    that, none of the cast stands out enough for me to remember them. Human
    or CHI creature. I was just bored through out the whole experience. And
    for a project costing $160 000 000, I can see why the PR department is
    pushing it so hard because they really need to get some cash back on
    this pile of wet stinky CGI-fur!

    All and all, I might be bias from really loving Disney’s first
    adaptation. That for me marks the high-point of all their work,
    perfectly combining the skills of their animators along with some CGI
    in a majestic blend. This film however is more like the bucket you wash
    off your paintbrush in, it has all the same colors, but muddled with
    water and to thin to make a captivating story from. The film is quite
    frankly not worth your time, you would be better off watching the
    original one more time.

  • Niki KefalaMarch 16, 2017Reply

    Grace and beauty

    Disney’s ”Beauty and the Beast” is a re-telling of the studio’s
    animated classic which refashions the classic characters from the tale
    for a contemporary audience, staying true to the original music while
    updating the score with several new songs. There’s an emotional
    authenticity in director Bill Condon’s live-action film that helps you
    rediscover Disney’s beloved 1991 animated movie that is also performed
    with exquisite timing and grace by the outstanding cast. But the
    problem here, I think, is weirdly simple. This Beauty as well-
    designed, entertaining and romantic it is, it made me want to revisit
    the original.

  • kevschwallerMarch 16, 2017Reply

    Much better than the original

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • Jason JacksonMarch 16, 2017Reply

    Worth every penny!

    I do not write reviews based on technical aspects. I go see movies to
    take me from the norm of life. This movie did exactly that for me. It
    was excellent in every sense. The actors brought the characters to life
    better than I could have imagined. People, in my opinion, tend to
    forget what movies are meant to do. Just enjoy them. This movie was
    graceful, enchanting and for goodness sake, the gay part was not that
    big a deal.

  • HeatherMarch 16, 2017Reply

    Magical From Start To Finish

    Having grown up with the animated Beauty and the Beast, I could not
    wait to see this live-action version. Not only was I not disappointed,
    but the movie exceeded any expectations I had going in. The movie is
    magical from start to finish, full of familiar characters, songs,
    stories, and places. It introduces us to plenty of new characters,
    songs, stories, and places but does so in a way that respects and
    enhances all that was original. The blend of old and new is wonderfully
    done. The humor sprinkled throughout was a fun touch. The musical
    numbers were amazing, especially ”Be Our Guest”.

    Some reviewers have pointed out flaws in the CGI and Emma Watson’s
    portrayal of Belle. I looked for and did not spot any obvious or
    distracting CGI elements. The characters looked realistic but still had
    a sense of whimsy to them. Emma was stunning as Belle. Everything from
    her singing voice to the intelligence and strong will she showed
    through the character was fantastic.

    I would highly recommend this movie for anyone who is a fan of the
    original movie and can go into this one with an open mind. It does
    contain some scary moments and mild violence though, so I would caution
    parents of young children to research it or see it first.

  • LaLaLandSucksMarch 16, 2017Reply

    An Autotuned Mess

    This adaptation is a disgrace to the original. Watson’s voice is auto-
    tuned to death and the Beast CGI wasn’t good. Each time the Beast
    popped up, he was very off putting. Watson’s line deliveries are poor
    and doesn’t do the animated princess justice. She also seems a bit too
    young for the role. She is a total miscast. Despite the Beast’s CGI, at
    least his performance was very good as both the Beast and Prince
    compared to Watson. Emma Thompson’s rendition of Tale as Old as Time
    does not beat the animated tea cup, but at least she was not auto tuned
    to death. There are very few moments of originality as it is a frame by
    frame copy to the animated film. It’s very uninspiring and unnecessary.

    0/10.

  • andrbdeeaMarch 17, 2017Reply

    Go if you want to relive your childhood

    I finally had to change to go back to my childhood with this one.

    Many complain the CGI doesn’t look realistic. Well how much more
    realistic do you want a teacup to look?

    I avoided spoilers these last weeks, besides Evans and Watson I did not
    know who else was playing and what a surprise I got. Recently went to
    see T2 Trainspotting where McGregor was amazing. So seeing him in this
    one weee hoo. McGregor with a French accent does not disappoint one
    bit.

    Still don’t get why it was banned in some parts of the world because of
    the gay moments. Gad stole the show on so many occasions and made the
    character so likable.

    I for one loved the movie. I felt an emotional connection with the
    story. It may have been because of it being my first animated movie
    when I was a kid, it may have been the great acting or the 3D
    experience.

    The thing is, I enjoyed it and I definitely recommend it to all those
    that want to relive a little bit their childhood.

  • AdrenalinDragonMarch 17, 2017Reply

    Just stick with the original ’90s Disney movie

    I don’t know about you guys, but I was left thinking ”What was the
    bloody point?” and came out feeling underwhelmed as everything felt
    weaker compared to the 1991 original. Emma Watson is not very good as
    Belle, and they didn’t change it enough to make it stand out like The
    Jungle Book or Pete’s Dragon remake. Disney felt really lazy here,
    sadly. I hope we see more effort in the future rather than just 90% the
    exact same movie.

    4.5/10

  • mmneauxMarch 17, 2017Reply

    ”How does a moment last forever?”

    Of that I can remember, no movie has pulled my heart strings so much as
    Beauty and the Beast did… The drama, the suspense… truly a
    wonderful production. The music score and songs were fantastic and
    perfectly conveyed the tone of each scene perfectly. The ”Beast” was
    amazingly animated and was probably my favorite character because you
    could actually feel the transformation of his feelings

    Do yourself a favor and GO WATCH THIS MOVIE!!!

  • JE33 yanMarch 17, 2017Reply

    Details DO Matter

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • Shayelaine22March 17, 2017Reply

    Lovely!

    Beautifully done film! No complaints from me. Where there a few flaws?
    Yes, but I am one that can overlook that. I enjoyed all the actors. The
    stand outs for me where Luke Evans, Josh Gad, and Kevin Kline.
    Definitely a fun family film and I look forward to Disney’s other live
    action movies.

  • primarygcMarch 17, 2017Reply

    It is wonderful!

    It may not be the original Disney animated version, but it was still
    MAGICAL! I caught myself with a smile of pure delight several different
    times during the movie. I’m nearly 69 so I just sat back and enjoyed
    it. I think those who didn’t like it are just the type who never like
    any change or remakes,

  • collegedude3 ([email protected])March 17, 2017Reply

    Could Emma Watson be more beautiful??? <3

    I am a guy and admit I only saw this movie because I think Emma Watson
    is the cutest and most beautiful thing and she looked more beautiful in
    this movie than any movie I have seen her to date or ever-after all her
    name is Belle-meaning beautiful in French-and I would have been
    disappointed if any actress played Belle other than Emma; therefore,
    Emma playing Belle seemed felicitous. I could be wrong, but I think
    this is her first movie she has been in where she is really considered
    the main character.

    I am not going to give anything away since I really cannot. I vaguely
    remember the original 1991 movie that I saw decades ago; but from what
    I do, the movie does a pretty good job of emulating the original 1991
    animated version, while adding its own flair.

    A few people I have seen on TV this morning criticized Emma Watson’s
    singing in the movie, but I thought she sounded perfect-then again,
    maybe I am biased because I have adored her since the Harry Potter
    Films and have seen all her other movies since.

    I thought all of the parts were played perfectly and the film was an
    overall joy to watch, and didn’t feel silly watching this on opening
    day as a grown man surrounded by mostly very little kids with their
    parents. I think most of the parents who brought their children
    probably wanted to see it more than their children.

    If any event, I think this movie will go down in history, despite the
    critics and look forward to getting this on DVD when it comes out. I
    was a little confused about the part where they flashback about Belle’s
    mother and Belle as a baby and what really happened. Perhaps, it was
    because I was startled by Emma’s beauty. I also did not understand the
    magical powers of the woman who released Belle’s father, as that is
    never clearly explained and maybe wasn’t supposed to be.

    The film was great. Emma was beautiful as Belle. Perfect adaptation.
    Emma was beautiful, especially in those dresses. The film was the
    perfect length. Emma was even stunning in the very beginning before she
    wore those dresses in the village-maybe even more beautiful than in the
    dresses, as she has the most beautiful face. This is a great movie for
    the whole family, especially if you have kids and gives off a warm
    feeling and nostalgic feeling of when you saw the original as a kid or
    adult.

    By the way did I happen to mention how unbelievably beautiful and cute
    Emma Watson was in the movie? 10/10. Three thumbs way up!!!!

  • Aurora Knight (knight-aurora1)March 17, 2017Reply

    I felt loved while seeing Beauty and the Beast

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • Andrea PaneMarch 17, 2017Reply

    Directorial Letdown for film with many strong elements

    A solid B. Which is slightly disappointing considering the original
    film is an A+ classic nominated for Best Picture at the Oscars. Much of
    the script was reworked and rewritten for this new version, many of
    what I feel are the most powerful and memorable bits of dialogue were
    reworded and lost their power in the process. On the other hand, this
    film added a lot of background action and backstory to nearly all the
    characters (even adding a few new characters) which brought a lot of
    life to the production, certainly helping to flesh out the Beast and
    his servants in particular, though even Gaston, Maurice, and Belle got
    more to work with.

    To my surprise, none of the performances stuck out as bad. Though
    Watson looked a little tentative during the earlier musical numbers,
    she delivered a fine performance through to the end of the film (though
    I found myself hoping she’d be more feisty like her animated
    counterpart). Dan Stevens as the Beast was a revelation, adding humor
    and depth to the character. While I thought when listening to the
    soundtrack that most of the new songs were dreadful, the new
    showstopper ”Evermore” was beautifully executed by Stevens and became
    one of the most effective moments of the movie. Luke Evans made a
    marvelous Gaston, Josh Gad created a shockingly multilayered LeFou, and
    Ewan McGregor was pitch perfect as Lumiere. The funniest moments of the
    film easily went to Gad, Stevens and Ian McKellen, who played
    Cogsworth.

    My biggest complaint is the noticeable absence of the joyous, brilliant
    ”Human Again” number written for the original film, cut, added to the
    subsequent Broadway production, then re-edited back into the film.
    Instead, it was replaced by a rather sad sounding song called ”Days in
    the Sun” with effectively the same theme.

    Overall, my problem was neither with the actors or the design (which
    was stellar; I could have gazed at the detail on the set for days), but
    with the writing and directing. Whose idea was it to make Audra
    McDonald do an Italian accent, making all the wardrobe’s lines clunky
    and unfunny? Most of the new songs don’t hold a candle to songs written
    for the original film or the Broadway production. Belle and Maurice’s
    new backstory felt oddly placed and a tad contrived. Given all this new
    material, it would have been fun to see director Bill Condon take some
    risks, but they never came. Even the way certain scenes were shot
    seemed uninspired. I enjoyed a great deal of the new material, I loved
    the life it breathed into the supporting characters, but they should
    have either gone all the way with it or not done it at all. Most
    distracting is that the Beast was done digitally rather than with
    makeup – it took you right out of the famous supposed-to-be-stunning
    dance scene. Stevens was on set acting with dots on his face, offering
    eyelines, and delivering a great performance. It’s a shame they felt
    they couldn’t do it practically.

  • DCHybrid02March 17, 2017Reply

    It actually impressed me

    I’ll start by saying this. ”Beauty and the Beast” is one of my favorite
    Disney movies ever. Probably only second to Mulan. Of course, I always
    enjoy the singing, but what I enjoyed most were the characters,
    especially Cogsworth, Lumiere, and Mrs. Potts. I loved the dynamic
    between them and the Beast. And concerning the Beast, I was always
    impressed with Robbie Benson’s ability to go from gruff and feral to
    sweet and gentle.

    When I went to see this movie, I was cautiously optimistic; I didn’t
    want one of my favorite childhood movies to be ruined. It was actually
    better than I was expecting it to be. It will never be the 1991 movie,
    but I still managed to get a lot out of the film.

    My biggest qualm with this movie was Emma Watson. I love her to death,
    but I can’t say that I enjoyed her singing too much. I was perfectly
    happy with the acting, but I think it would’ve been better to dub the
    singing parts with an actual singer or to have just cast a better
    singer. The quality of her singing versus that of others was starkly
    apparent. Other than that, I loved seeing her again.

    The movie’s also missing that back-and-forth banter between Lumiere and
    Cogsworth. There’s some of it in there, but it’s not nearly as funny as
    it was in the animated movie.

    Now for the good stuff. I’m so glad that they brought Alan Menken back
    because he did it again! Even 20 years later, he manages to make such
    terrific songs. It’s amazing! I’m pretty fond of the old songs, but the
    new ones are simply to good to ignore.

    A lot of the stuff from the 1991 movie is in this one. There are also
    some new scenes that sort of give you a little more insight into
    certain characters. Lefou is certainly more respectable here than he is
    in the animated movie and seems much less deserving of his name.

    I thought the CGI was pretty good with maybe the possible exception of
    the Beast. He didn’t look horrible, but I wish he’d looked different.
    Certain features of his looked odd at times. Like his legs. They looked
    a little too big to me. But the CGI in ”Be Our Guest”? That was
    amazing! A very entertaining show!

    I’m glad that I saw this. I was having doubts, even while sitting in
    the movie theater, but I was very happy with what I’d seen when I left.

  • aniseprakashMarch 17, 2017Reply

    One of the best live action fairy tales ever

    Why did Emma miss the musical romance La La Land for Beauty and the
    Beast was the worried question thrown at her by her fans. But after
    watching the live action movie (Beauty and the Beast) the question has
    become pointless.

    Beauty and Beast is a near perfect movie in all the aspects. Bill
    Condon’s directorial keeps the audience spell bound at times. The
    visuals are fresh and colorful. The costumes, the CGI, the castle adds
    extra color to the already mesmerizing visuals.

    The background score and the songs compliments the story. Alan Menken’s
    work has traveled along the nerves of the movie and lives in our
    hearts. Apt song selections and placements are perfect.

    Experiencing something you have already experienced (At least in
    animation) might bore, but Bill Condon has mastered the art. His
    direction never lets down the audience. He has worked hard in each and
    every detail which is a huge plus for the movie.

    Cast performance:

    Emma Watson as Belle would make everyone fall for her. It is the
    perfect character for her, instead she is the perfect pick for the
    character. She is charming as ever, the costumes brighten her beauty.
    Though the little alteration to her character might not impress few,
    she still emerges our favorite.

    Dan Stevens as the Beast does his job to perfection. The visual effects
    might shade his expressions his acting saves for it. A perfect beast
    and a lover.

    The voice by Ewan McGregor, Ian McKellen, Emma Thompson, and Stanley
    Tucci for the antiques in the castle were excellent. An adorable
    addition to the already strong cast.

    What works:

    * Visuals and CGI effects * Songs and Music * Bill Condon’s direction *
    Emma’s charm * Dan Steven’s acting

    What didn’t work:

    * Emma’s character alteration (A mild one though) * The first Gay
    moment in Disney (Might be because of the controversies)

    On the whole it’s a never miss movie. Watch it for Emma, Visuals,
    special effects, music and Bill Condon’s direction.

  • B_LightMarch 17, 2017Reply

    A Seriously Magical Disney Film

    -Beauty and the Beast-

    Status: APPROVED

    Disney’s animated classic takes on a new form, with a widened mythology
    and an all-star cast. A young prince, imprisoned in the form of a
    beast, can be freed only by true love. What may be his only opportunity
    arrives when he meets Belle, the only human girl to ever visit the
    castle since it was enchanted.

    What I liked:

    •If this movie wasn’t the most magical Disney movie ever created, I
    wanna know what is

    •Beautiful set and beautiful cinematography

    •Good acting from its cast

    •Actually improves upon the original. That’s right, this is better than
    the original from the 90’s

    •Singing is good

    •The CGI isn’t distracting like I thought it would be.

    •Great family film

    •Had a smile on my face through the whole runtime

    •Adds to the story

    •Overall, just such a fantastic movie. I couldn’t imagine how Disney
    could ever top this live- action remake

    •The 3-D is engaging, even 2-D is probably equally engaging

    What I didn’t like:

    •This didn’t affect the way I see the movie, but something odd happened
    at the very end that was kinda off…it was only like 3 seconds so it
    doesn’t really matter

    Consensus:

    This movie was all around such an amazing experience. I expected the
    movie maybe to be a bar below the original or at least matching it, but
    I didn’t expect to like this version even more than the already beloved
    original! I’m delighted to say that everything that this movie does is
    great. Emma Watson really does make Belle come to life on screen. It
    has a great cast, the movie itself has such a magic feel to it, and it
    approves upon its amazing source material. I seriously could not
    recommend this enough, go with your family and SEE THIS FILM. You will
    not regret it.

  • TheMovonkaMarch 17, 2017Reply

    Disney, the professional

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • nchareonsupMarch 17, 2017Reply

    Definitely lives up to the classic!

    Coming from someone who grew up on Disney movies and who’s favorite
    classic Disney movie has and always will be Beauty and the Beast,this
    movie absolutely lived up to my expectations and more.

    Emma Watson did such an amazing job as Belle. The rest of the cast were
    just as perfect for their roles from Luke Evans as Gaston, to Emma
    Thompson as Mrs. Pots, etc.

    Although there were minor differences in the story line, it didn’t take
    away from the important parts of the movie. I didn’t even mind the new
    addition of songs that were not part of the classic as it helped tie
    everything together so well.

    I also enjoyed that they dove a little deeper into both Belle and
    Beast’s background story and showed much more of how their friendship
    grew and eventually transitioned into romance.

    All in all, I believed it achieved its goal in staying true to the
    classic while also giving us a new perspective from a live action
    version. I can’t wait to watch it again!

    Job well done!

  • tasrinrMarch 17, 2017Reply

    One of the best Disney movie ever!!!

    This is my first time writing review for a movie after just finished
    watching it. It is the best Disney movie for me I guess. After a long
    time I really enjoyed watching a movie in theater. Great movie, love
    the songs, the acting, and everything about the movie so beautiful. The
    casting are so perfect and the prince and belle is just so amazing. I
    am sure gonna watch it again. Do not follow the negative reviews, I was
    kind of confused about the movie before going to the theater,but since
    I am a big Disney fan I watched it and it just made my day. Everyone in
    the theater enjoyed the movie I can tell, the movie will take you to a
    fairy tale. So do not miss this one.

  • Gordon-11March 17, 2017Reply

    What a fantastical and heartwarming tale

    This film tells the story of an arrogant and selfish prince, who is
    condemned to be a monster by a witch. To break the spell, he has to
    find true love.

    I was captivated by the amazing computer graphics of ”Beauty and the
    Beast” right from the start. How the teacup, candelabra, wardrobe and
    other household items come alive is spectacular. Belle looks stunning,
    and her character is simply beautiful inside out. This is augmented by
    Emma Watson’s clean, intelligent and sophisticated image. The story is
    full of love, and it makes my heart melt. The first dinner at the
    castle scene is spectacular, it’s very festive and grand. The ending
    drives me to tears. It’s such a fantastical and heartwarming tale.

    I didn’t think i would like this film so much!

  • JenMarch 17, 2017Reply

    Ignore the incorrect ”parent review”. Movie was a nice homage.

    There was absolutely none such ”disturbing homosexual scene” that the
    Parent Review warns of. If you watched the original Disney version you
    are already aware of the hinted attraction that exists. But rest
    assured the same insinuation exists that will go over most kids heads.
    The alarmist incorrect warning here is merely that, alarmist and
    incorrect.

    As for the movie content itself it was fantastic unless you were hoping
    for an absolute carbon copy with no changes to actors or content or
    song. If you were expecting a clone, you will not be happy.

    Thankfully I was looking forward to an homage with enough original
    tweaks to make it interesting while being familiar but also a little
    new. I wasn’t disappointed. The actors were great choices for each role
    and while there was plenty of CGI, the images weren’t corny and it’s
    amazing to see what nearly 20 years of cgi advancement can do while
    staying true to the era.

  • PhantomonumMarch 17, 2017Reply

    Animated movie flawlessly incarnated on the big screen!

    First of all I want to say that the Beauty and the beast is one of my
    favorite Disney animated movies and I don’t know how many times I have
    watched it as a kid.

    So, that being said, I may sound a little bias when I say that it is
    the best Disney animated movie adaptation I have ever seen! This is the
    animated movie flawlessly incarnated on the big screen.

    -Both stage and voice acting was good. Emma and Luke did a good job of
    leading heroine and villain. I also really enjoyed Ewan McGregor’s
    Lumière.

    -Art director and designers did an amazing job of masterfully bringing
    the animated world to life.

    -And what Choreographers did was incredible! Those dance and song
    scenes, combined with the set design… I am lost for words!

    -Pacing and story is exactly as it was in the original animated movie,
    with a couple of new scenes where director took the liberty of saying a
    few words of his own, to leave his mark. But nothing much that would
    affect the main story, on the contrary it adds to it.

    -Lots of people complained about cgi, but believe me it is NOT bad.
    Sure there were couple of iffy moments, but overall it was done
    beautifully. I’d prefer cgi Beast to Edward 2.0 and Edward 3.0 any day!

    I apologize if the review is so overly positive, but I couldn’t help
    myself when I loved every moment of it. So here is the bottom line, If
    you loved the Disney animated movie, I guarantee you’re gonna love
    this, because it is basically the same, the story, the songs, the
    characters… Everything! The only difference you’ll see is that it
    looks more real. I basically sat though the whole movie with a dumb
    smile on my face. If you haven’t seen the animated movie before, you’ll
    ‘probably’ still gonna love it, as one of my friends who didn’t know
    about it, really loved it! and if for some reason you didn’t like the
    original, i don’t know, you’ll probably still not gonna like it..?

    Anyway, If people do say bad stuff about it do not listen, just go and
    see for yourself, you won’t regret it!

  • Rolando HerreraMarch 17, 2017Reply

    Don’t Miss Out, and Watch It

    Don’t be misled by other reviews on this page. This is a great movie.

    It had substance and added multiple layers to the original Disney
    telling of the story.

    And the music is phenomenal. Alan Menken does it again, adding original
    music to the great repertoire of music that the original had.

    If you want to watch what will be known as one of the great movies of
    2017 then see this telling of the Beauty and the Beast.

    DO NOT PAY ANY MIND TO THE NEGATIVE REVIEWS.

  • bozieforsochiMarch 17, 2017Reply

    Really fun and extremely charming!

    Going into this movie, I had low expectations. I’d seen poor reviews,
    and I also kind of hate the idea of remaking animated films for no
    reason other than to make them live action, as if that’s supposed to
    make them better some how. This movie pleasantly surprised me!

    Beauty and the Beast is a fun, charming movie, that is a blast in many
    ways. The film very easy on the eyes! Every shot is colourful and
    beautifully crafted. The acting is also excellent. Dan Stevens is
    excellent. You can see him if you look closely at The Beast, but not so
    clearly that it pulls you out of the film. His performance is suitably
    over the top in anger, but also very charming. Emma Watson was fine,
    but to be honest, she was basically just playing Hermione, and I didn’t
    get much of a character from her. She likes books, and she’s feisty.
    That’s basically all I got. For me, the one saving grace for her
    character, is you can see how much fun Emma Watson is having. I’ve
    heard interviews in which she’s expressed how much she’s always loved
    Belle as a character, and it shows.

    The stand out for me was Lumieré, voiced by Ewan McGregor. He was
    hilarious, and over the top, and always fun! He lit up the screen (no
    pun intended) every time he showed up!

    The only real gripes I have with the film are some questionable CGI
    with the Wolves and with a couple of The Beast’s scenes, and some
    pacing issues. The film flows really well, to such an extent that in
    some scenes, the camera will dolly away from the character it’s
    focusing on, and will pan across the countryside, and track to another,
    far away, with out cutting. This works really well, but a couple times,
    the film will just fade to black, and it’s quite jarring. It happens
    like 3 or 4 times, but it’s really noticeable, and took me out of the
    experience. Also, they added some stuff to the story that I don’t want
    to spoil, but I don’t think it worked on any level, story wise, or
    logically.

    Overall, it’s a fun movie! I would recommend it to any fan of the
    original, but those who didn’t like the animated classic, or who hate
    musicals might be better off staying away!

    84/100

  • Trevor Pacelli ([email protected])March 17, 2017Reply

    Some Improvements Are Not Worth Making

    It’s been a tale as old as time, a song as old as rhyme Beauty and the
    Beast. It was one of the animated instant classics to trigger the
    Disney Renaissance of the 1990s, defined an entire generation of Disney
    fans, set off some of the most iconic songs ever to grace the screen,
    was honored in several lists by the American Film Institute, was
    preserved in the National Film Registry the second year it was eligible
    (which is a huge deal), and was the first animated film in history to
    receive an Academy Award nomination for Best Picture. ​ So no pressure
    or anything in remaking it, right?

    Many of us were worried that this remake would just be a line-for- line
    remake of the original, but thankfully it’s not. Several updates to the
    story are actually a strong improvement to fill in the problems with
    the original. The whole village’s memory of the castle is erased by the
    enchantress, a contrast made much more blaring by a cursed eternal
    winter in the castle’s borders even while summer goes on in the
    village.

    Belle’s father Maurice also has a more complex subplot that actively
    engages both Gaston and LeFou, and he is motivated by his collection of
    homemade paintings and inventions used to memorialize his family
    legacy. This includes a backstory on Belle’s mother, even if it adds
    virtually nothing to the plot.

    Other minor details are added to motivate Belle further, such as
    teaching a younger village girl to read, only to be condemned by others
    in the village. The parents will also enjoy this little detail: Gaston
    is a former war hero, which gives his musical number a whole new
    flavor. They also would find this new take on the Beast somewhat
    compelling: he doesn’t even try to treat Belle decently as she first
    comes into the castle. He just keeps her in the prison, only to be
    moved into an appropriate bedroom without his consent or knowledge.

    There are plenty of other small plot holes from the original that are
    explained here, as the characters make it blatantly clear. What I mean
    is, it is done like this: one character asks a question we all asked
    about the original, then another character simply answers the question.
    Then the plot moves on as if nothing happened. So no high-class writing
    to be found here.

    Although when taking the whole sum of the product into consideration,
    the elements that remain the same compared to the original fall way,
    way short. The director of this live action adaptation, Bill Condon,
    who directed Dreamgirls and wrote the screenplay for Chicago, would
    presumably know all about how to do a musical properly. Although his
    skill is screaming to get out this time around, as nothing commands our
    sorrow for his reimagining of the beloved characters. With the
    exception of ”Be Our Guest,” none of the musical numbers or recreated
    scenes match the energy or creativity of its animated counterpart. I’m
    not just referring to the fact that most to everyone’s singing voices
    are hard on the ears, but mainly to the fact that everything is rushed,
    especially the scene in the West Wing.

    If you think that you would feel charmed and nostalgic while watching
    this, sorry—not happening. Maybe it works as a plot expansion of a
    previously established story, but as a standalone you couldn’t help but
    see the flaws. Belle even looks at the Beast more like she’s scowling
    than like she’s captivated by him. Then with Gaston, he doesn’t feel
    like a jerk at all, as in his first meeting with Belle, he doesn’t
    chuck her book into the mud- but actually hands her flowers! Flowers!
    From the guy we’re supposed to hate! It’s little details like this that
    will halt any true joy or tears. But what else would you expect when a
    remake is produced by a studio that cares more about social correctness
    than casting actual French actors for a film set in France?

    Speaking of which, you may all be wondering at this point, ”what about
    the exclusively gay moment with LeFou? Should I worry about it harming
    my kids?” Well, I can tell you this: You have absolutely nothing to
    worry about. It’s a two second moment at the very end that is just as
    subtle as it is super easy to toss onto the cutting room floor. In
    fact, Josh Gad puts in just the right dose of humor and charm in his
    interpretation of LeFou, and he actually can sing pretty darn well! So
    you’ll end up loving his character by the end, whether or not you agree
    with the homosexual lifestyle.

    Although if you ask me, this remake was never needed to be made. Yes,
    it did satisfy many of the problems that people have complained about
    for twenty-five years about the beloved animated classic, but it’s not
    like this predictable fantasy is doing anything new or risky. If
    anything, it’s just going to remind us of how much more moving and
    charming the original is, and we can sleep easy at night now knowing
    that some plot holes were filled without the animated film having to
    explain it for us.

    Let’s just hope that the live action remake of Aladdin is not a total
    waste of everything.

  • rannynmMarch 17, 2017Reply

    A Whimsical Yet Captivating Take on the Disney Classic

    Beauty and the Beast, directed by Bill Condon is a whimsical yet
    captivating film that I highly adored watching. This live action film
    has made my ”Top 10 List” due to its incredible singing performances,
    marvelous set designs and accuracy of the original Disney story. As a
    Disney fanatic myself, I absolutely love that this film has the power
    to take me back to my younger days.

    Daughter of a wise and humble merchant (Kevin Kline), Belle (Emma
    Watson) is a bright and independent young lady who will be taken as a
    prisoner by a monstrous beast (Dan Stevens) in place of her elderly,
    caring father. As prisoner of the Beast in his cold dark castle, Belle
    soon builds a strong bond with the talking enchanted objects of the
    castle. Who will help break the lasting ”forever curse” by bringing the
    Beast and Belle closer? Belle learns to look past the frightening
    physical appearance of the Beast and looks upon his caring gentle soul.
    But, will this be enough to break the lasting forever curse upon the
    castle and the Beast?

    Incorporated as a live action film from Disney’s original animated
    film, Beauty and the Beast, the whole cast delivers exquisite
    performances portraying each unique and iconic character. The caring,
    yet brave Belle is played by the talented actress Emma Watson. Watson
    has appeared in numerous films including the Harry Potter films, My
    Week with Marilyn and The Perks of Being a Wallflower. Dan Stevens,
    known from Legion TV Series deftly portrays the terrifying Beast, a
    difficult character to play due to its temper.

    From the songs, to the set designs, this film has it all. I truly
    appreciate and love that they took the 1991 Disney classic and turned
    it into a live action film. This is something that has not been seen
    before and was well directed by Bill Condon (Mr. Holmes, The Twilight
    Saga: Breaking Dawn – Part 1 and 2, Dreamgirls). Being a huge Disney
    princess fan, I am highly pleased with the accuracy of this live action
    version. The costumes, songs, characters and plot are all very
    accurate. It made me feel as if I was in a Disney story book.

    One of favorite things about this film and the story of Beauty and the
    Beast itself, is the message it depicts – that of looking past the
    physical and looking within. This is a moral that every viewer can
    learn from. The film is very successful in massaging this message and
    the audience will easily relate to the moral as the film unfolds before
    their eyes.

    This enchanted, unbelievable film deserves 5 out of 5. I highly
    recommend it to families, young children and Disney fanatics. Kids and
    adults both will enjoy watching it and singing along with the iconic
    songs.

    Reviewed by Maria G., KIDS FIRST! Film Critic.

  • Mark DurforMarch 17, 2017Reply

    Beauty and the Beast comes to life

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • REPetzoldtMarch 17, 2017Reply

    Even better than the original. Complainers are off base.

    About the only thing about this version that was not as good as the old
    one is Beauty and the Beast in the closing credits. It was so excellent
    to see actual humans rather than animation performing the parts. Emma
    Watson was surprisingly strong acting and singing the part of Belle.
    The beast played by Dan Stevens was more humorous but less comical and
    more believable than the animated one. All the performances were quite
    good. Sure Emma Thompson was not quite as wonderful as Angela Lansbury,
    but was still very good. Luke Evans played an excellently despicable
    Gaston. I liked all the directorial choices and every change made from
    the original was an improvement. Masterful job Disney in updating this
    classic.

  • subxerogravityMarch 17, 2017Reply

    Man, that was good! I did not see that coming!

    So ready to hate this movie as the animated version was a treasure of
    my childhood. Let met tell you, it’s the very same movie. I know a lot
    of people don’t like animated movies so it’s like they translated that
    version like they would translate French to English, but the magic,
    lost nothing in the translation.

    The magic that made that animated movie soooo good is in this version.
    It’s an amazing feat that they were able to do that. That’s how they
    make it work so spectacularly.

    I will say there were some awesome performances by the live action cast
    members, especially Josh Gad who played LeFou. It was worth the ticket
    price just to see this dude make you laugh throughout the film. A
    stellar performance. It’s The only thing that does not make this a
    carbon copy of the animated one.

    Plus the the art direction was great. The sets and the costumes were
    fantastic. So I got to say the film works and is a rare occasion that a
    remake was worth doing.

    Never as good as the first but enjoyable to watch.

  • Sarah WatsonMarch 17, 2017Reply

    Good overall, but something seems a bit off

    As far as Disney’s live action remakes go, I’d honestly have to say
    that this is my favourite one so far. I went into the cinema with
    pretty low expectations – I remembered how the 2015 remake of
    Cinderella had played out: it was an okay film, but it was just okay,
    and it didn’t really do the original animated film much justice. That
    was what I was expecting with Beauty and the Beast.

    It turned out a lot better than I thought it would. I really like how
    the Beast’s character has been built up more in this version – they
    actually gave him a backstory, which was something that I had always
    felt was lacking in the original animated film. And a few plot holes
    from the original story are filled (i.e. how come nobody knows that
    there’s a huge castle in the forest next to the village, why does
    nobody remember the prince, etc.). And the idea that the servants in
    the castle could have had family in the village was something that
    honestly never even occurred to me whilst watching the animated film.
    In the original movie, the Beast’s castle just seems so displaced from
    the rest of the village, it is honestly very difficult to remember that
    it isn’t that far away from Belle’s hometown. That definitely is not
    the case in the remake.

    However, something just seemed very… off. And when I got halfway
    through the movie, I realized what it was. I didn’t feel like I was
    watching Emma Watson playing Belle. I felt like I was watching Emma
    Watson playing Emma Watson.

    Perhaps it is just because I am so used to seeing her in roles similar
    to Hermione in Harry Potter, but even her performance in Noah reminded
    me of her portrayal of Belle here…

    I would still recommend seeing this if you are a fan of the animated
    movie, or even if you’re just a fan of the fairy-tale (or just
    fairy-tales in general). It is a very visually beautiful movie. But if
    you’re expecting something that is completely true to the original
    film, you may leave disappointed. A few things have been added in – the
    basic plot stays the same, but it is not a perfect copy of the animated
    movie.

  • AdultAudienceMemberMarch 17, 2017Reply

    High school play with CGI thrown in.

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • Sam BahriMarch 17, 2017Reply

    Outstanding Movie for a Tale as Old as Time

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • gogarrettMarch 17, 2017Reply

    Very nice remake of 1991 animated classic

    The biggest impression from seeing this remake was ”Wow, it’s just like
    the 1991 animated movie!” The biggest changes are that both Beauty and
    the Beast are given back stories about their parents, you glean more
    about the enchantress that cast the spell, and there are a few
    character changes that are very slight, including a Wardrobe with a
    more amazing singing voice than Jo Ann Worley who has an unlikely
    hookup with the Cadenza played by-over-the top Stanley Tucci. Most of
    the music is the same, with different voices of course. It’s all very
    nice, but leaves you yearning for the original singers nonetheless,
    especially Angela Lansbury as Mrs. Potts and Jerry Obach as Lumiere.
    Emma Thompson makes a fine Mrs Potts, but it is hard to replace Angela
    Lansbury.

    Kevin Kline inevitably made the part of Maurice, Belle’s father, more
    engaging and memorable. Kudos to Luke Evans Gaston and Josh Gad’s
    LeFou. They really let loose to actually become their animated
    over-the-top counterparts. The twist on LeFou’s character at the end
    made perfect sense!

    There are a couple songs I don’t remember from the original, perhaps
    because they are less memorable altogether? At the end is a powerful
    rendition of ”Evermore” where I was thinking that the Beast, played by
    Dan Stevens, has a much better singing voice than I thought. Then the
    credits rolled by and I saw that song was by Josh Grogan. Very, very
    nice!

    Go see this movie. Then you will also want to watch the 1991 version
    again I bet.

  • Rahyar TaghipoorMarch 17, 2017Reply

    hear warming at times

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • Katy BuffingtonMarch 17, 2017Reply

    99% in love

    Beauty and the Beast was better 100 times better than I thought it
    would be. The score was fantastic, the plot holes were filled, the cgi
    was amazing, and every moment of the movie was enjoyable. To me this
    movie represents everything that a movie- musical should be.

    The only downside was the music directors auto tuned Emma a bit to much
    and made parts of her songs sound digital.

  • jimMarch 17, 2017Reply

    Dear miss Watsons

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • powermandanMarch 17, 2017Reply

    Did You Really Expect It To Be As Good As 1991’s Version?

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • Alexander_BlanchettMarch 17, 2017Reply

    Great rebirth of childhood memories

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • madinehartMarch 17, 2017Reply

    Amazing!

    I thought the movie was very well done. I agree, Gaston was my
    favorite. He did a great job. As for the gay under tone…..whatever!
    Most movies have it. It was so subtle you really had to look for it.
    Similar to but less than Sweet Home Alabama. Think about this…if Olaf
    wasn’t a snowman in Frozen it would have been the same here. No big
    deal! Emma Watson was a fantastic choice for Belle. I thought it
    impossible to break the Hermione character and she impressed me!! The
    perfect Belle!! The only bad I can say….Beasts solo??? There was a
    point but eh???? I didn’t care for it. Some graphics in later scenes
    looked fake and that is the only bad I can say!! Loved this movie and
    going back Sunday to see it again!!!

  • rcjsheetsMarch 17, 2017Reply

    A really good film overall

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • Nour AttarMarch 17, 2017Reply

    beast wasn’t hot enough

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • cruise01March 17, 2017Reply

    Beautifully done for a live action remake.

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • house_elf_cutieMarch 17, 2017Reply

    Excellent Film and Must See!

    Don’t be discouraged by what other people have said about this movie
    being bad. If you want to see exactly the original film, then by all
    means, do not watch this movie. However, if you want to see a story
    that is close to the original but added a little more layers, some
    tweaks every now and then, of course then, I highly recommend this
    movie. Some people spoke about the CGI on the beast, but I still think
    they did an overall fantastic job and it didn’t bother me one bit. I
    love Emma Watson. Her acting towards the end got kind of iffy, but she
    did her part adequately. Dan Stevens is just as charming as ever,
    especially as the beast. Luke Evans takes the cake for acting as Gaston
    but BEING Gaston, which made me think the role was best suited for him.
    I love this adaptation and I will definitely see it again.

  • sargis_yMarch 17, 2017Reply

    Don’t bother stick with the original cartoon

    My Childhood destroyed just re-watch the cartoon, don’t bother don’t
    waste a dollar. Poor acting poor everything. I don’t even want to waste
    another minute explaining why and how horrible. Just means i’ll need to
    relive it !!!! A little tip to Disney, you don’t need to pick someone
    whom is well known i.e. Emma Whatfor.

  • adog2001March 17, 2017Reply

    I Actually Loved This Remake. I Thought It Was A Lot Like The Original

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • ([email protected])March 17, 2017Reply

    Beautiful! BUT…Consistently Tries to Validate Itself…Ultimately an Unnecessary Remake

    Prepare yourself for ”a tale as old as time” that is ultimately better
    told through its animated counterpart. Director Bill Condon’s
    live-action remake of Beauty and the Beast, the first animated film
    nominated for Best Picture at the (1992) Academy Awards, is an
    extravagant display of visual effects and digital imagery necessary to
    animate a live-action motion picture. Essentially, he took an animated
    movie, made it live-action, just to make it animated again. Sure, this
    new version of the ”song as old as rhyme” can certainly stand on its
    own and is demonstrably well-directed, but 2017’s Beauty and the Beast
    largely comes across as unnecessary. In terms of the storytelling (or
    diegesis), the film’s effort to nearly shot-for-shot translate the most
    memorable parts of the film from animation to live-action pays off
    nicely! It’s when the film tries to be different that it falls short in
    its delivery. You may find yourself exhausted and over-stimulated by
    the constant waves of computer-animated figures in a live-action world.
    Oh yeah, you’ll likely miss hearing the legendary Angela Lansbury as
    the iconic Mrs. Potts.

    Can this film stand on its own? Sure. There is no question in that.
    Moreover, is it enjoyable and magical? That, it is. But when most of
    the campaign, leading up to the highly anticipated release, was
    primarily built upon how similar the live-action film would be to its
    animated counterpart, therein a problem arises. Because most people
    going into the movie will have seen the animated version, Broadway
    show, or even the show at Disney’s Hollywood Studios (which, in full
    disclosure, is a show that I worked when I was a Cast Member at Walt
    Disney World), you are predisposed to looking for and eagerly awaiting
    the nostalgic references and memories. And there is nothing wrong with
    that. In fact, I was looking forward to reliving the experience of when
    I first saw the animated movie. For the most part, if you are like me,
    then you will be pleased with the live-action translation–truly.
    However, it’s when the live-action version departs from or adds in
    material not found or referenced in the animated classic that you may
    be disappointed or simply ask ”why?” You may find yourself wondering
    why was a live-action remake even necessary?

    One of the most memorable elements of Disney’s Beauty and the Beast
    (1991) is the music! Still to this day, millions of people love hearing
    the classic music and lyrics by Alan Menken and Howard Ashman. Both the
    Beauty and the Beast and Be Our Guest can be heard as part of other
    shows at Walt Disney World and of course are included in the stage show
    at Hollywood Studios. Fortunately, the most iconic songs from the
    animated version are largely untouched; however, with a couple of the
    songs, there are breaks for diegetic dancing, fighting, or other
    material that essentially interrupts the organic flow of the music from
    the buildup to the climax and denouement. Furthermore, here’s something
    quite interesting and odd: the song ”Human Again” was written for but
    deleted when it originally hit theatres in 1991. It was, however, added
    back in for the Broadway show and in the 2010 (and Diamond Edition)
    re-release of the movie. Although it was seen as important enough to
    include in the Broadway show and add back into the animated version, it
    is conspicuously missing from the live-action remake.

    Okay, now for the white elephant in the room: Josh Gad’s Lefou. Unless
    you have been completely disconnected from social media and the news,
    you’ve undoubtedly heard or read about the first ever Disney ”gay
    moment” in this film. Suffice it to say, the whole thing has been blown
    way out of proportion. In fact, more attention is likely being paid to
    Lefou now than had the story never grown to the size of Gaston’s ego.
    For the most part, the subtext and subtitles of Lefou’s are largely
    just that–subtle–unless you are looking for them. But, in doing that,
    you may miss some of the more important and impressive parts of the
    movie. Moreover, there is nothing in Lefou’s actions that come across
    as offensive or obnoxious. Before audiences begin accusing Disney of
    pushing their ideals on those eager to attend this film, it is likely
    that the entertainment and media giant is simply delivering what
    audiences already expect or want. As a film and media professor, I can
    tell you that by in large, media simply delivers what audiences and
    investors are telling them to produce–not the other way around. Looking
    back at the animated film, it is pretty obvious that Lefou has a thing
    for Gaston anyway. Although most of the hints at his sexual orientation
    are more-or-less winks or nods at the audience (winks or nods that you
    have to be looking for), there is a moment that is a trifle more
    obvious at the end of the film. Diegetically, there is nothing bizarre
    about Lefou’s behavior and it suits his character well.

    Prepare to be whisked away to an enchanted castle in a remote part of
    France. So remote is this province in France, that most everyone speaks
    with a British accent. Bill Condon’s film will take you back to when
    you first saw this magical tale of falling in love with someone based
    upon what’s on the inside and not allowing a beastly outward appearance
    to detract from the gentle soul. Relive the music that you may still
    listen to in the car or eagerly look forward to when visiting the
    Disney Parks and Resorts. Ultimately, this film may not capture the
    magic of the original for you, but there is a lot to enjoy! Looking for
    a great date movie this weekend, then this is definitely it! Hopefully
    a side effect of this film may remind producers and audiences that some
    stories are better suited for an animated motion picture.

  • swillikyMarch 17, 2017Reply

    A gorgeous adaptation of the animated film

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • mr_bickle_the_pickleMarch 17, 2017Reply

    A very pleasant experience

    If you loved the original animated film or if you love the Broadway
    production, then I think you’ll end up enjoying this production as
    well. One thing I really liked is that this film provided some more
    backstory on the curse and filled in some spots the original never made
    clear. The cast is also very good and they fit their roles well. The
    singing is also good. Emma’s voice isn’t as strong as the others but it
    was nice anyway. And of course the costumes were beautiful (although
    not as outstanding as Cinderella was). But the production design was
    gorgeous and would be a shame if it didn’t get an academy award
    nomination next year.

    With a couple of minor changes, it does pretty much follow the route as
    the animated movie practically beat for beat. Although one change I
    thought was kind of unnecessary/silly was making the Belle the
    inventor. Its not like it added anything to the story or having Maurice
    be an artist add anything different but they also barely even focused
    on it. They show her make one thing and its never referenced again. Not
    even in Beast’s castle is she seen working on something. At least in
    the animated movie, it served a purpose by making the townspeople
    already think of Maurice as kind of kooky (and therefore unbelievable
    when he comes back to tell them of the beast). Plus, one of his
    inventions actually helps Belle escape from the basement. Here, it
    literally doesn’t add anything.

    I saw it in a theater with a bunch of kids present and I heard giggles
    of delight from them, so I think it will be a hit with them. Overall, I
    enjoyed it.

  • greenkoala-04895March 17, 2017Reply

    A great movie but wasn’t as good as I thought

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • Michael FairbanksMarch 17, 2017Reply

    Tale as Trite as Time

    Even as somebody who has still yet to see the original 1991 Beauty and
    the Beast, something seems fishy to me about Bill Condon’s brand new
    flesh and blood version. From the very first scene where our arrogant
    prince (Dan Stevens) rejects the wrong witch and gets transformed into
    a beast something rings inauthentic. It is as if this movie murdered
    the original and is now wearing its skin, parading out in public as it
    tries to convince everybody that it’s still the person they remember.
    It’s all a bit scummy, really.

    Stop me if you’ve heard this one. Belle (Emma Watson) is the black
    sheep bookworm of a small French village dreaming of bigger things.
    When her father (Kevin Kline) goes missing, she discovers they he’s
    been captured by the aforementioned beast and sacrifices herself so
    that he can return home. Under the care of the beast and his group of
    enchanted household applian – –

    wait…you have heard this one? OK, I’ll stop.

    The lifeblood of Beauty and the Beast ultimately lies in whether or not
    the romance between Belle and her hairy liege ends up working. It’s a
    relationship that’s been so normalized by pop culture but on paper,
    it’s pretty strange stuff. That’s exactly how it comes across in this
    version, strange. The beast’s transition from rabid rage machine to
    kindly bookkeep feels entirely too rapid. We never see why Belle could
    think of him as any more than a friend and a reluctant one at that,
    considering that he, you know, kidnapped her. It certainly doesn’t help
    that Watson is as dull as dishwater here. While she’s certainly proved
    herself a more than capable actress in her post-Harry Potter career,
    she seems terrified to inject her Belle with any personality that isn’t
    written on the page. As such, she has little to no chemistry with
    Stevens, who only fares a little bit better. While he certainly has the
    screen presence and the deep, resonant voice that the beast requires,
    his performance gets buried under an atrocious CGI design that never
    feels the least bit intimidating. He looks like he’d be more at home in
    Land of the Lost than $160 million dollar movie.

    Fortunately, the supporting cast is much stronger. Luke Evans is having
    the time of his life as the bravado fueled Gaston, who is only
    bolstered by genuinely hilarious interplay with Josh Gad’s LeFou. When
    these two are on screen, we see hints of the boisterous musical
    extravaganza this movie could have been if it wasn’t so concerned with
    being somber whenever Belle and the Beast are on screen. Ewan McGregor
    and Ian McKellen are also quite a bit of fun as Cogsworth and Lumiere,
    even if McGregor is constantly fighting against an atrocious French
    accent. Although, it’s hard to fault him for trying, which is more than
    I can say for the rest of the cast. Seriously, if French actors are on
    the Hollywood blacklist, can we just set the next ”French” musical in
    England?

    Bill Condon (Dreamgirls) certainly knows his way around a musical. The
    numbers here are elaborately choreographed and well sung for the most
    part. Each song establishes its own unique aesthetic, from Gaston’s
    bouncy barroom to Be Our Guest’s Bollywood esque light-show. Condon’s
    camera captures most of the action in wide takes, even if some of the
    editing is a little fast. However, the pacing of the musical numbers is
    thrown off with the addition of four new songs, all of which are rather
    melancholy and bland.

    Unfortunately for Condon, this may be the ugliest looking big budget
    movie on the market. The character design, in particular, is borderline
    terrifying at times. They possess none of the vibrance and charm of the
    original animated versions, proving that some characters just don’t
    translate to live action. Watching a real life candlestick with a face
    bounce around the screen is consistently off-putting, establishing a
    constant sense of disconnection from the characters even when the
    writing occasionally brings some charm out of them.

    While Beauty and the Beast is slavishly devoted to the film it is
    trying to emulate, it still feels like a tonally confused mess. It
    bounces back and forth from a dour romance to an enjoyable romp and
    ultimately undercuts both. While there is certainly potential for these
    Disney live action remakes to be worthwhile, they’re going to need to
    veer more in the direction of Jon Favreau’s adaption of The Jungle
    Book. That film was bold enough to create its own version of the story
    while still recapturing the essence of the original. Meanwhile,
    Condon’s film is limply crafted and terrified of taking risks. It’s a
    tale as trite as time.

  • Dtsar5March 17, 2017Reply

    Beautiful!

    I thought the movie was fantastic! The singing was beautiful. The sets
    were big and enchanting. (The village was very similar to how I
    remembered it from the animated movie.) And the costumes were lovely.
    Emma Watson was absolutely darling as Belle – with her feisty and
    sympathetic expressions. I loved the addition of a few scenes and
    songs. I came out of the theater feeling like I’d seen the animated
    film, only more magical. And that’s what I was hoping for with this
    movie release!

  • Charity MulderMarch 17, 2017Reply

    Loved it

    I am astonished that so many people have given this bad reviews when
    its literally only been out since last night. Come on people. I
    actually saw the movie and it was magical and amazing. The music (other
    than on the one by Arianna Grande and John Legend) was astonishing. The
    script was very well crafted. I loved that they showed that time was
    really passing. It truly felt like the Beast and Beauty fell in love
    rather than Cinderella and the Prince (insta love). I’ve seen a lot of
    people saying the CGI was badly done, but I beg to differ. There was no
    part of that movie that was badly done concerning CGI. Dan Stevens
    played a very good beast and I was not disappointed when he turned back
    into a man (unlike the original cartoon). There were a lot of people
    saying they were going to avoid this film because of rumors of a ”gay
    scene” which is absurd partly because there wasn’t one. Please watch
    the movie before writing reviews next time. Thanks. I recommend seeing
    it!

  • SamanthaMarch 17, 2017Reply

    Beautiful and Mesmerising

    As a child, I absolutely adored the original version of this movie and
    was very excited to see this at the cinema when I heard that it was
    going to be coming out. It was my favorite growing up and because of
    this, I was a little nervous as to whether or not it was going to be
    done in the right way. I was not disappointed.

    Emma Watson was stunning as Belle, and I can’t imagine any other
    actress nailing the role as she did. So many memories were brought back
    whilst watching her at the beginning of the film with that classic blue
    dress she wore around the village! I was transported back into my
    childhood with her and thoroughly enjoyed watching her on screen. In
    particular, I thought that the actor that played Gaston was also
    excellent.

    The story-line stays faithful to the original with a few good
    surprises! As a whole, it was done so beautifully, I really just cannot
    praise it enough. The costumes, the singing, the choice of cast, the
    animation of the castle’s furniture – perfect.

    If you loved the original, please ignore the negative comments/reviews
    you have read here and just go and see it for yourself! It is truly an
    amazing experience and like I said above, especially if you were a big
    fan as a child – you will enjoy it just as much now.

  • Sophia MeloMangaeraMarch 17, 2017Reply

    It was good for the audience this movie is meant to be…

    Beauty and the Beast is, was and always will be my favorite off all
    Disney movies (concidering the princess theme). This movie was good,
    not perfect but good. I read many posts about how bad this movie was
    but lets not forget that a movie is not only its actors but all in
    union. Acting 7.5 ,Music 9.5 ,Singing 7, Directing 7, Costumes 10+,
    Sets 10+ My final verdict is 7.

    I liked it but yet just in moments I felt that I was going to be
    thrilled like the original one I did not, but this movie was not the
    original one. It was a remake,a remake to dazzle the new generations
    not us, it was created to have as a main audience children not 25+
    people and it was good enough to do that.Also do not forget that in
    this one Disney decided to give a proper representation of the time
    line that these event happened and to say the truth that was not one of
    the most beautiful eras considering clothing,hair etc. also the put
    information about to many questions had been left unanswered all these
    years(something new of the most

    of us and unfamiliar). Emma’s singing and the era that the story took
    place were the thinks that thought me off. In general the movie is
    perfect remake of the original considering the story and the musical
    essence of the music.

    It was good movie better than any other I have seen the last hole
    year.I would like to see this over and over again than seeing Batman Vs
    Superman or Suicide Squade again….. Enjoy!!

    P.S. And remember some thinks will never be as good as the originals or
    like the first time….:D

  • toosweetrussMarch 17, 2017Reply

    great movie

    I went into the film not expecting much. I was quickly taken in how
    well this movie was done. Emma Watson is superb as Belle. The music was
    good the effects where very good. The rest of the cast was brilliant as
    well. I would highly recommend this movie to anyone especially if you
    have teenage daughters as I do. Tale as old as time Beauty and the
    Beast.

  • ecca-69274March 17, 2017Reply

    Okay so I don’t ever do reviews. But I couldn’t keep my mouth shut with this one.

    Here you have one of Disney’s most well loved and most successful
    masterpieces. To a lot of people, THE most loved.

    So how can you go wrong with this one, right Disney?

    That’s what I thought at first. Then they announced the two main leads;
    Emma Watson as Belle, and Dan Stevens as the Beast. Come again? How on
    earth could Disney have got this so wrong? Who the heck was in charge
    of casting?

    For the two main stars of the show, Belle and the Beast, you need
    STRONG leads. Emma Watson just got lucky being cast in Harry Potter. Is
    she one of the most talented actresses out there? No. Can she give us
    the same emotion Belle shows that we all grew up loving? No. Can she
    sing? Apparently not, because all I heard was this terrible auto-tuned
    voice in every song she sang. And it wasn’t subtle either. What the
    heck Disney! Just because Emma grew up in Paris didn’t make her ‘the
    perfect Belle.’

    Dan Stevens. I liked him in Downton Abbey. However, I would never in a
    million years thought to myself; ”He’d make a great live-action Beast.”
    Never! And oh gosh, his tacky CGI animation was just as bad as Emma’s
    awful auto tuned voice. A big, CGI goat-man.

    Also, age difference much? The kiss that they finally shared at the end
    was awkward, almost cringy, because Emma Watson looks like a teenage
    girl, kissing her nearly-middle aged school teacher or something. It
    was just weird.

    How could you screw this up Disney? You had the money! Just, why?! The
    two main characters did nothing for me. I liked Belle’s costumes more
    than I liked Belle. What does that say? Her clothes had more emotion?

    Why was Belle viewed as ‘odd’ in her village full of weird characters?
    Bonjour was waaay too over the top.

    Tale As Old As Time was too cockney. It may as well have been Mrs
    Lovett from Sweeney Todd singing it.

    Also, Be Our Guest? How could you screw up Be Our Guest for crying out
    loud? Well Disney did that too. Great job guys.

    Gaston. Is it only me who thought that the Villain stole the show?
    Because Luke Evens did for me. He was awesome. When they had first cast
    Luke Evens, I had a lot of doubts, but as I watched him on screen,
    actually SINGING (he can sing) and dancing and having fun with his
    role, I was sorry for ever doubting him. He and Josh Gad breathed life
    into the songs we already loved from the original. I loved their
    (slightly one sided) bromance.

    I was hoping LaFou would be more ‘animated’ like he was in the
    original, because I thought Josh Gad was perfect for this role, but I
    still enjoyed him as a more real, toned down version.

    Best things about this movie: The costumes. (I chocked up when I saw
    that yellow dress.) The score. (NOT the singing.) The cinematography.
    (Minus all the unnecessary CGI) The choreography. Gaston and LeFou.
    Lumière’s cute relationship with Plumette.

    Okay I’m done. It’s gonna take at least a week for me to get over this.
    Maybe I’ll watch the original this weekend.

  • Savannah GarnerMarch 17, 2017Reply

    MAGICAL. Don’t believe otherwise.

    Not to quote a certain overcooked potato, but anyone rating this movie
    less than 8/10 is fake news. I grew up loving Beauty and the Beast, and
    sitting in that theater at 27, this version was one of the most amazing
    movie-going experiences I’ve ever had. Exceptional cast, more
    fleshed-out than the original while still staying true to the story,
    and even more magical. I couldn’t look away the whole time. It really
    felt like being a kid again and seeing it for the first time with just
    the right amount of nostalgia, humor, and action. I teared up at least
    a dozen times and was in full-on tears by the end. It was perfect. I
    will probably watch it in theaters again, will definitely buy it when
    it’s on bluray. See it in theaters if you can. Immersive and beautiful.

  • themadmoviemanMarch 17, 2017Reply

    A beautifully traditional fairytale, and a triumphant return to the Disney of old

    This is such a nice film. Taking Disney back to their roots of what
    makes a good fairytale blockbuster, it’s a fantastically vibrant,
    entertaining and traditional movie that’ll have you smiling from start
    to finish. It’s very similar to the original film, but as far as
    remakes go, Disney have done a fantastic job again, making Beauty And
    The Beast an absolutely wonderful watch.

    I know that there’s so much adoration for the 1991 animation, but I’ve
    never been its biggest fan. As nice as it is, it didn’t always have
    that same Disney magic that I really love, so I wasn’t going into this
    with my nostalgia goggles on, nor with any particularly high
    expectations.

    That said, I had a great time with this movie. Above all, its
    traditional feel makes it a properly enchanting watch, bringing back
    the classic Disney magic of the 1950s and 90s that we haven’t really
    seen anywhere on the big screen since.

    Unlike 2016’s The Jungle Book and 2014’s Maleficent, Beauty And The
    Beast doesn’t hold back when mirroring its predecessor, but it doesn’t
    make one bit of difference, simply because it’s such a pleasant and
    magical film.

    On the one hand, fans of the original will get a wonderful burst of
    nostalgia with the return of classic characters and musical numbers,
    but also, the classic vibes of the film will make you remember why you
    love all those old Disney movies. You may think that the fairytale
    formula has been beaten into the ground, but watching this film, with
    its hugely traditional feel, felt very refreshing.

    There’s nothing about this film that tries to be clever and different
    to what we know can make such an enjoyable watch. With no dark
    revisionism, no switching of roles, and no hesitation to burst into
    song whenever it feels like it, Beauty And The Beast feels like the
    Disney movie of old that’s been missing for so many years, and that
    pleasant, colourful and fun-loving classic vibe is exactly what makes
    it such a wonderful watch that will easily have you smiling ear to ear
    by the end.

    Along with the excellent direction and writing that allow for the film
    to be such a triumphant return to the classic Disney way, the
    performances here are excellent, with a delightful turn from Emma
    Watson as Belle, a whole host of hilarious A-listers as the furniture
    at the Beast’s castle, Josh Gad’s funniest role since Frozen as Le Fou,
    and a fantastically villainous performance from Luke Evans as the
    dashingly evil Gaston.

    And on top of those performances are some stunning visuals. Although
    the CGI of the Beast isn’t quite on the level of The Jungle Book, the
    castle exterior is amazingly created, whilst the real-life production
    design places you as firmly in a magical version of rural France as the
    animated film, and the exquisite costume design adds even more to the
    enchanting feel of it all.

    I have to say that I was really surprised by how much I enjoyed this
    film, particularly given how close it is to the original, but that
    doesn’t mean it’s completely problem-free. For one, as good as a lot of
    the musical numbers are, they do occasionally feel a little out of the
    blue. It’s not a huge issue, but the way that the songs are brought
    into scenes is a little off from time to time, not to mention the fact
    that the film’s second half is a lot more jam- packed with music than
    the first.

    Another issue with the music comes in the form of some unfortunate
    meddling with Emma Watson’s voice. She may not be the greatest singer
    in the world, but what’s most disappointing is that her singing
    sequences are heavily autotuned, and it’s very distracting,
    particularly in comparison to either hiring another singer or just
    letting her sing naturally.

    Finally, the Beast is a little bit of a disappointment. For me, the
    animation managed to capture the character’s inner turmoil a lot
    better, and as such make his transformation through the film even
    stronger. Whilst it’s not bad here, and Dan Stevens’ performance is
    fine, I felt that the CGI Beast wasn’t quite the emotional presence
    that I wanted him to be.

    Overall, however, I had a wonderful time with Beauty And The Beast. A
    surprising improvement on the original in my book, but most of all a
    beautiful return to the classic Disney style, with a pleasant, vibrant,
    and wonderfully traditional vibe from start to finish.

  • Ed-ShullivanMarch 17, 2017Reply

    Walt would be ”OH” so very proud of this live version…so where is all this hate coming from?

    As any parent should be proud of their children so is father Maurice
    (Kevin Kline) of his only child, his daughter Belle (Emma Watson) who
    could never imagine herself swooning over the town’s handsome and
    one-dimensional Ox named Gaston who was played by Luke Evans quite
    well. Gaston is really in love with himself and he realizes if he wants
    to have little Gaston’s to continue bearing his name then he wants to
    marry the smartest, prettiest and the only woman in the town who he
    just cannot convince to marry him, and that young lady happens to be
    Belle.

    I am not a big fan of musicals and as an example I was most displeased
    to have to sit through the 2014 Disney live version of Into the Woods.
    Once Emma Watson commenced singing her opening song Ms. Shullivan
    grabbed my arm just a little bit tighter and I just knew this was going
    to be another Disney classic…and it is!

    There are so many first class performers in this film such as Ewan
    McGregor who plays Luminere the candelabra, Ian McKellan who plays
    Cogsworth the mantle clock, the classy Emma Thompson who is no stranger
    to appearing in Disney films so she plays Mrs. Potts and by default
    Belle’s conscience while she resides in the Beast’s castle. Other great
    performances were on display by Audra McDonald who plays Madame
    Garderobe, and I cannot forget Stanley Tucci who plays Maestro Cadenza
    and of course Gaston’s flunky sidekick the gay LeFou played perfectly
    by Josh Gad.

    Some countries apparently are uncomfortable with LeFou being a bit more
    interested in Gaston than he should be but let’s face it, this is the
    year 2017, and so any film should embrace actors/actresses that reflect
    today’s society. In fact if I would have been asked for my opinion by
    the producers for any suggestions, without hesitation although I truly
    believe the six (6) foot Luke Evans performance as Gaston was
    excellent, I would have suggested an alternate name to play Gaston. Or
    at least give the six (6) foot four (4) inch retired NFL Hall of Fame
    defensive end, the gap tooth super handsome Michael Strahan to be
    provided an opportunity to test for the role of Gaston. Strahan would
    have been great and he would also have allowed a new generation of
    young children to see that Disney films have evolved to be inclusive
    when selecting starring roles.

    Okay so for those naysayers who want to compare this version of Beauty
    and the Beast to earlier versions, and compare actual Disney
    characters, or actors/actresses, or the songs style and/or the singers
    who sing them, I suggest you just close your eyes and please just try
    to imagine yourself as a very younger version of your own self. If you
    do this and then fast forward to your adult self you will wake up to
    see that we are in the year 2017, and that good producers attempt to be
    more inclusive if the story allows for it and in most cases Disney
    films such as this great Disney Classic, Beauty and the Beast does. So
    I loved seeing the diversity in the ballroom scene, I loved Emma Watson
    and Luke Wilson’s gradual affection for each other, I loved Josh Gad’s
    closing scene where he finds his mate, and although I am still not
    convinced that CGI is an essential part, or for that matter 3-D film
    versions when I see the younger crowd mesmerized by this film, then I
    can accept it…and maybe some of you naysayers should be a bit more
    open minded.

    I know this live version of Beauty and the Beast will do extremely well
    at both the box office and when it is eventually released in the retail
    stores on DVD/Blu Ray format, or streaming one day on NetFlix, or some
    other new format, such as when humans eventually live on another
    planet. Walt Disney himself had this kind of endless imagination where
    others did not and I just know he would have been very proud of all the
    performances of this cast, the cinematography and of course the musical
    score.

    FOOTNOTE: Mrs. Shullivan and I did like the 1991 animated version, but
    we are in agreement on this next point…we enjoyed this 2017 live
    version a lot more!!!

    I rate this Disney Classic a perfect 10 out of 10. It is definitely a
    keeper.

  • Lee Perry HuttonMarch 17, 2017Reply

    Light the Child Like Fires of your past!

    I VERY rarely ever give out a 10 of 10 rating… I also even more
    rarely write a review on a movie, but after watching this spectacular
    movie I had to share my humble opinion with the world.

    If you were a fan of the original you will adore this movie. My best
    friend brought to my attention something that helped me understand why
    everyone should give any remake of a classic a chance. After a while
    you’ve seen the classic so much, that you may stop watching it…it
    could be because your brain has it memorized and you can just play it
    over and over again in your head and not have to watch it, but more
    likely it may be because you just get tired of seeing it so much so you
    enjoy it on rare occasions (May 4th when I watch all the Star Wars
    movies)…BUT a remake either spices it up OR it makes you take the
    original out and WANT to watch it again…THIS MOVIE DOES BOTH!!! The
    music, the songs, the characters, the addition of back story….all of
    it instilled that magical feeling of wonderment that the original movie
    did so well at doing when I was only 10 years old (excluding the back
    story part because the original didn’t do that as well). There was also
    a few new songs to now learn.

    The costumes, make-up, and visuals had that wonderful flare of France
    to match the period and location of where the story was set to take
    place. There was also a lot of clever hidden jokes to keep the adults
    chuckling, the kids asking, and the adults saying ”Ill tell you when
    you’re older” knowing good and damn well that you aren’t going to tell
    them anything. LOL (I’m older now, though) 🙂 So, in conclusion if you
    are a fan of the original go see it you’ll appreciate that they changed
    very little and the parts they might have changed (which I didn’t
    notice much) just added a magical flare to the movie.

    If you never saw the original, go see this movie you’ll love it!!! It
    stands alone as a great story.

    If you saw the original, but you are not a fan of remakes…just give
    it a shot! As a slightly skeptical fan of remakes, I personally enjoyed
    it VERY MUCH!

  • gingr_rogrsMarch 17, 2017Reply

    Beautiful and not beastly!

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • mirwellMarch 17, 2017Reply

    Disney’s got it’s magic back

    I do understand the other critics, especially the ‘bad’ CGI comments,
    but I wanted to provide another perspective on this for you.

    Cultural context: Yes, this movie requires you to see the original –
    but if you are open to a new approach and a deeper story, you might
    never wanna go back to the original again after you’ve seen this movie.

    The story is enhanced in almost every aspect: Plot holes have been
    closed, motivations and a lot of background are added for all relevant
    characters. The casting is superb in every detail, the acting is
    emotive. The direction takes a lot more time to explore feelings than
    the original did.

    Among the deeper story elements – without giving anything away – is an
    enhanced role for the enchantress. By not knowing how much she is
    involved, events seem less coincidental and more – well, enchanted. It
    adds the kind of literal magic the original movie lacked. Just an
    example: Does the tree really fall by accident or is there something
    else involved?

    Here is also where the CGI adds in. Yes, there are some problems with
    it: Sometimes you can tell that Emma Watson had no one to play to on
    set, sometimes the backgrounds look not well keyed out. And the beast
    as well as the wolves, is close to the uncanny valley. BUT I think this
    is one of the movies strong suits: You can never really focus on the
    beast, never really grasp it – just like it should be if you are
    involved in the story. If it would have been rendered more plastic, it
    could have looked flat and so real you loose empathy. With the wolves I
    almost felt they would be transformed humans as well.

    So in my opinion, the CGI just adds to illustrate the story.

    The new songs by Alan Menken are amazing, the auto-tune and editing on
    the singing is hidden well (except for the beginning) and the
    orchestration is much more subtle and dynamic than the original. Going
    back for Menken and Rice to work on this for the third time in their
    lives has payed off.

    I’d advise you to – if you are going to see the movie for yourself –
    keep an open mind and remember the sense of wonder you could feel as a
    child. Because if you let this happen, you will be enchanted as well.

  • glitterflame89March 17, 2017Reply

    Exquisite Adaptation

    Disney really got one right in this case. The artistry is beautiful,
    the acting and casting is impeccable, and Disney was able to hit the
    important social lessons with just the right balance without being
    heavy-handed. It does the original animated film justice while adding
    more dimension to the story and further fleshing out the characters,
    ultimately without changing important details of the original. The
    music was also handled perfectly, adding new songs with the same flavor
    as the original while not remixing the original songs into awful
    parodies of themselves. This is the only film I have ever attended that
    got two rounds of applause after it ended. It is worth seeing on its
    own merit, and is also a fun nostalgic walk down memory lane for those
    of us who were young when the original came out (and the movie knows
    it, and gives more than a couple subtle nods to this).

  • drewmeister11March 17, 2017Reply

    Good, but ultimately pointless

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • steve beard ([email protected])March 17, 2017Reply

    If You Liked The Original….

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • Sansan LeMarch 17, 2017Reply

    A very good movie

    I am a fan of 1991 version but have to agree that this live action
    Beauty and the Beast is amazing. The CGI and visual effects are so
    good. Emma brought out a dreamy yet intelligent, fearless Belle. Dan
    Stevens did a very decent job with the Beast. They made the Beast with
    CGI but leave his eyes. So we have the Beast with human – and – so –
    emotional eyes which we hardly have in 1991 version.

    I totally in love with this movie. One thing I wish more is that maybe
    they should have given more room for the real actors when their
    characters came to life after breaking the spell.

  • elyse4287March 17, 2017Reply

    Even Better Than I Imagined!

    Very well done. I am surprised by some of the reviews on here knocking
    this film. It kept the spirit of the original but added some back story
    so we got to know the characters even better! The music was incredible.
    There is nothing bad to say about this film except it was pretty long
    BUT there were about 100 kids in the theater and I didn’t hear one
    single child the entire move so you know it had to have been good to
    keep the little ones’ attention the entire time.

  • caroline-skattenMarch 18, 2017Reply

    Takes your right back to your childhood, but…

    This movie was absolutely beautiful made! The songs and the costumes
    were stunning and sent you right back to your childhood. In all
    honestly, the only thing there drew the movie back was the casting of
    the prince. When he transformed into a human again the whole theater
    burst out laughing including the person I came with. Because well you
    expect a handsome kind faced prince, but that was left with an empty
    feeling of ”eh?”. Not that the actor was extremely ugly, but he had a
    very normal appearance, that he was a random guy from the grocery
    store, just the everyday guy. Which isn’t bad ofc, just very
    unexpected. I loved how Disney incorporated homosexual aspects in this
    movie with LeFou and another male. Kudos to Disney for doing that, it
    was very enjoyable also the fact that there are equal whites and blacks
    in the movie, was great to see and couldn’t help smiling when I saw it
    🙂

    But definitely go see it anyways, just be prepared that you won’t be
    wowed by the prince, apart from that this movie takes you right back to
    your childhood and is worth going seeing.

  • sara-dhgnMarch 18, 2017Reply

    SOOOOOOO boring

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • Andrew FinkMarch 18, 2017Reply

    Sub-Ten Sentence Reviews

    ”Beauty and the beast” reprises the Disney animated classic film as a
    real live version starring Emma Watson as Belle. Let me say this: it’s
    unprecedented, and I really didn’t expect it, but with a tastefully
    perfect re-imagination of the premise, an impressively realistic
    portrayal of the non- human characters in the movie, and an overall
    flawlessly adapted set design/musical arrangement, this movie is the
    best film that I’ve seen in recent memory. I gotta say, this was
    excellent. They perfectly captured the magic of the original, and this
    was, dare i say it, JUST as good as the original. If not better. Thus,
    i award this movie, for the first time ever in Sub-ten sentence
    reviews, ten muhs.

  • Reel Life ReviewsMarch 18, 2017Reply

    Best live-action so far

    Beauty & the Beast – We find ourselves with yet another live-action
    Disney remake. These have been hit or miss for me so far, with
    Maleficent being the worst example of their recent retellings. In
    watching the trailers for Beauty & the Beast, I was finding myself let
    down more and more with each one. If Maleficent was the CTRL + ALT +
    DLT of its original story, this was shaping up to be just a Copy/Paste.
    I had cooled on the idea of seeing it, but then I remembered- I review
    movies. 😉

    Right out of the gate the movie is every bit its predecessor, but it
    does eventually find opportunities to offer unique moments. After all
    is said and done it ends up being an excellent blend old and new.

    Of the old, it has word for word exchanges from the original, with even
    some of the same blocking. The characters transfer over seamlessly and
    it had the same grand moments with ‘Be Our Guest’ and the ballroom
    dance scene. I do have to say, however, that the dance from the
    original still takes the cake. The way the camera was sweeping around,
    in a cartoon mind you, was just something that had never been seen
    before.

    Of the new, we’re introduced to two more songs this time around. I
    thought the Beast’s new solo was incredible and I played it again when
    I got home. The movie of course is mostly live-action, but there are
    quite a few CGI-only scenes peppered in. I was impressed with all of
    the animations, except for the Beast himself. While the other elements
    seemed to have weight to them, his face felt very cartoonish and flat.
    With how the Jungle Book excelled in its animation, this felt like a
    bit of a step back.

    Obviously there was all the commotion about Lefou before the movie came
    out. I’m not sure why they felt it necessary to do a press release
    about it rather than just having the character be who he was, but it
    was of course fine. About as subtle as a hammer, but fine. And if you
    thought the original Lefou didn’t hold a torch for Gaston, you might
    want to watch it again.

    Beauty & the Beast has all the ‘feels’ of the original and then some.
    The music is a major part of that, but the fact that all of the actors
    showed up with their A-game contributed as well. But if you want to go
    see it and then try to tell me you didn’t like it- be my guest 🙂
    8.5/10.

  • shobanchittuproluMarch 18, 2017Reply

    Beauty and the Beast is the perfect live action adaptation of classic with Emma Watson’s flawless portrayal of Belle,foot tapping music and charming screenplay

    Beauty and The Beast (2017):
    Awwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww I wast just left in awe
    after watching this charming adaptation of 1991 classic film.If there
    are two adaptations of a charming tale,we would have a chance to select
    one as our favorite as any one of them may fall less than other.But
    that does not apply the same with Beauty and the Beast because both the
    animated one and present live action one are true classics and Emma
    Watson is a perfect Belle one would ever see.

    Plot: Belle (Emma Watson), the elfin beauty from a humble French
    village whose poor old dad (Kevin Kline) is imprisoned by a wicked
    beast who lives in a remote castle. This is in fact a once handsome
    prince (Dan Stevens), transformed into a monster by an enchantress as a
    punishment for his selfishness, while all his simpering courtiers were
    turned into household appliances such as candles and clocks. Belle
    offers to be his prisoner in her father’s place. Gradually the grumpy,
    soppy old Beast falls in love with her and she with him.

    Plus Points:

    1)Emma Watson: I can spend almost an entire day watching Emma Watson in
    that gorgeous yellow gown in the ball dance scene.Aaahh!!! How Lovely
    She Is! It is her charm which not only help the breakage of curse of
    the castle but also our busy work minded minds.Emma Watson is a demure,
    doll-like Belle, almost a figure who has stepped off the top of a music
    box; she never gives in to extravagant emotion, or retreats into
    depression, but maintains a kind of even-tempered dignified romantic
    solitude. .Her charming presence and her lovely voice is enchanting.No
    other actress would suite Belle like Emma Watson.From today.Emma Watson
    is not only the clever witch Hermione but also our enchanting Belle.One
    of her career best roles…..Love you Emma Watson

    2)VFX: Beauty and the Beast has amazing VFX.I got a great nostalgic
    feel watching the Great Castle and especially our entertaining talking
    clock Cogsworth ,candelabra Lumiere,kettle Mrs.Potts and her son
    Chip,everything is sol lively and lovely.And last but not least our
    terrifying Beast.He is so charming despite of his beastly look.

    3)Music: It’s the music that makes it particularly special, and
    appreciating that is entirely the point of the live-action remake. It’s
    hard to imagine a case for this film’s existence without the songs –
    without, say, that five-note ”Tale as Old as Time” motif,foot tapping
    Gaston,visual wonder ” Be our Guest” and many more..Even though they
    used all the tracks from the original,they still felt lovely.

    4)Direction: Bill Condon did a marvelous job by bringing the best live
    screen adaptation of the classic.Bill Condon’s direction and Tobias
    Schliessler’s cinematography must be applauded, especially for making
    this fairy tale enjoyable for people of all ages.

    5)Art and Costumes: Definitely deserves a nomination for Oscars..Such a
    lovely settings and costumes..Emma looked gorgeous in the yellow gown
    in the ballroom scene.

    6)3D: This has one of the best 3D for a Disney film.It has brilliant
    pop out effects when the Beast throws a snowball at Belle,Sorry! at
    audience and when the Chip throws the saucers at the intruders,Sorry!
    again right at the audience and there are lot of such moments..But
    disappointed a bit regarding the in screen depth.

    So,Beauty and the Beast is the perfect live action adaptation of
    classic with Emma Watson’s flawless portrayal of Belle,splendid VFX
    ,foot tapping music and charming screenplay..A Must watch for all

    My rating 10/10

  • miscellaneous411March 18, 2017Reply

    Pleasantly Surprised

    Even amidst concerns of political agendas and apprehensions about Emma
    Watson’s Belle, the magic of Disney’s Beauty and the Beast prevails in
    this truly enchanting fairy tale of fairy tales.

    Were there bits and pieces that didn’t quite feel right? Of course
    there were. The animated feature film on which this is based has been
    my most favorite animated film since its release in 1991. But, overall,
    the essence remained, and the storybook experience was even enhanced
    with lustrous visuals and the addition of three beautiful songs that I
    can’t wait to download. ”Days in the Sun” = so lovely 🙂

    As for Belle, I was a little disappointed with how she opened the film
    in what had become the best musical opener of any animated film to
    date. The Belle we instantly loved in the original Disney version was
    vibrant and, although peculiar, she was comfortable in her own skin,
    despite the whispers and stares in town. Emma Watson’s version seemed
    gloomy and overly self-conscious. But as the film progressed, I grew to
    appreciate this Belle, and, yes, I embraced her in the story.

    One last thing… be ready for it: the Be Our Guest number is so
    spectacular, you might wonder why you’re the only one in the theater
    applauding in a standing ovation at the end of it. Just sayin’ 😉

  • SearsinoMarch 18, 2017Reply

    A Mediocre Live Action Remake of a Disney Classic

    I will be the first person to acknowledge that remakes often can be a
    necessary part of this industry. But this entire project just didn’t
    sit well with me from the get-go. So let’s dive in, shall we?

    1) VOCALS:

    This was a musical, and as such being the case, it is inexcusable to
    have Watson as the lead for such a classic. She never had vocal
    coaching, and from the trailers alone this was clearly going to be CPU
    corrected throughout to compensate.

    As predicted, her voice has been largely manipulated in post. And
    considering that Walt Disney himself made such a big deal out of the
    musical production in all of his movies, I cannot understand the
    complete and total neglect of the soundtrack (again, something largely
    responsible for what made the original so magical).

    2) CGI:

    Take a moment and go look at some pictures of CGI work in Life of Pi.
    Then compare this to Beast’s face or any other animation in this
    remake. I would then like you to ask yourself the following:

    How could it be that Life of Pi managed to create imagery of far
    greater quality on a budget which was $40 million LESS than that which
    Disney was working with.

    3) PRODUCTION & SET DESIGN:

    I liken this aspect to someone making everything out of cardboard and
    then painting it in solid colors so as to exactly match the original.
    Again, I do not understand why the set looked so lifeless considering
    Disney has opted for a live-action remake. I couldn’t help but feel
    this was lacking any form of originality with which to carry the movie.

    4) CASTING:

    Lucy Bevan was the casting director for this one. Some of her more
    noteworthy credits include The Golden Compass, An Education, Nanny
    McPhee Returns, Maleficent, 300, and Cinderella. It is quite clear
    after taking a good look at her directorial resume just how hit-or-miss
    this person is when it comes to choosing the right people for the right
    roles.

    And once again, with such a strong backing for this film, I find myself
    left dumbfounded wondering why Disney would take such a gamble with
    arguably the greatest story to ever come out of the magic factory.

    ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS:

    This entire project just feels like it was overseen by an entirely new
    group of execs and with no other intent other than the money. I
    wouldn’t be so harsh, but this is Disney. An organization which prides
    itself on utilizing fantastic music, strong performances, astounding
    visuals, and detailed CGI. Yet every single one of those pillars has
    been overlooked.

    I have no inherent problems with Watson. She has proved capable in one
    of my favorites: The Perks of Being a Wallflower (2012). However, this
    role was not for her. This is one time where taking the risk (aka
    learning to sing for the part) was a mistake. A task far too great for
    her to overcome.

    If you are in your early teens, have young children, or are an avid fan
    of Harry Potter, then this Disney remake is for you. The excitement of
    seeing familiar characters on screen in real life will be excitement
    enough, bringing about a sense of nostalgia long sought after.

    Simply put, this isn’t how films were meant to be created. Shame on you
    Disney. It’s not OK for a company of such proportions to ignore
    standards spanning nearly a century, instead demonstrating such blatant
    disregard for the original.

    I give this 4 stars. There was nothing special about it. The problem
    was that Disney chose to reboot a film which was already an 8/10 and
    failed to bring about any hint of originality.

    Looking ahead, I really hope you don’t ruin Mulan and The Little
    Mermaid with similar mistakes. We are currently 0/1. I will remain
    optimistic, however, given the success of Cinderella. But for the love
    of all that is good, Disney! PLEASE pull it together in upcoming
    endeavors.

    A FINAL NOTE:

    For too long I have seen disingenuous reviews scattered throughout in
    the opening weeks of any larger budget film release. This is really
    starting to bother me IMDb! You guys should be able to create some sort
    of list or set of requirements that must be fulfilled in order to leave
    a review: for example, requiring users to have rated at least 500+
    films, contributing to at least 3 different parts of this community, or
    even just ensuring the account has no suspicious activity which would
    be indicative of illegitimate, over the top reviews.

    There are of course going to be opposing views out there, however I
    challenge those suspicious of unwarranted criticism like what I have
    offered here to go and inspect the profiles to see which ratings are
    associated with long-time active members. For this movie alone, nearly
    half of all ratings over 8/10 come from accounts which were made just
    weeks ago and whose activity consists of but one single rating for the
    film. These falsified reviews are taking away from the validity of
    overall IMDb ratings!

    Please, please, PLEASE do something about this 🙁

    —– 4/10 STARS ——– Review by Searsino —–

  • John BadionMarch 18, 2017Reply

    Worth Watching

    Beauty and The Beast is an excellent movie to watch with your family
    because not only it stays true to the original. But it stays true to
    the fans of the animated version and will spawn a new generation of
    fans in the time being. Otherwise Beauty and The Beast lives up to its
    expectations and will continue to be one of the best Disney movies out
    there.

  • doodledrawsMarch 18, 2017Reply

    The best remake of a movie ever!

    If I had to give a description of this movie in one word, I would have
    to say ”Everything”. How could I choose just one word? This movie had a
    perfect blend of effects and surprise, while remaining true to the
    beloved film we are all familiar with. I was originally skeptical of
    seeing it, due to the nature of remakes and them not being as wonderful
    as the original, but this movie surprised me. Not only did the movie
    blow my mind, the characters were all well cast and the attention of
    detail really made this movie 100 times better. This movie was so
    marvelous, I fail to see how any movie could ever compare to this. If
    you have not seen the original, this movie will far outshine the
    timeless classic it is made from. If you want to laugh, cry, sing, and
    cheer; This is definitely a movie you should watch.

  • cedricmapa-96108March 18, 2017Reply

    If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it

    This is the Bill Condon adaptation of the Disney animated classic from
    1991. Let me repeat that this is a live action adaption OF A CLASSIC! I
    have read many reviews complaining about its lack of originality but im
    here to say that why would we want to change a story that is so dear to
    many a heart. This movie is a fantastic viewing for children and adult
    alike. though i recognize that it is not perfect.

    The acting roles were also done masterfully but with some questions in
    my humble opinion. i thought everyone except emma watson as belle fit
    perfectly. ESPECIALLY GASTON! Luke evans stole the show for me. a big
    surprise was josh gad as lefou because it was brilliant. josh gad did a
    great job. all voice acting was superb and made it grand to be a guest
    for their show.

    this movie holds dear to the story while also adding depth to pretty
    much all the characters and even surprisingly giving depth to LeFou.
    Some songs have been added which definitely did add to the story
    beautifully. This movie feels very much like a musical due to the
    increase of songs within the movie so it does feel like they sing way
    more then in the animated.

    This movie was a very satisfying cinematic experience with breath
    taking visuals from the beast to the castle and everything in between.
    sets were absolutely gorgeous and every shot of this movie is a
    beautiful master piece. and equally as beautiful is the heart that is
    added through background stories mainly of beast and learning more
    about belles mother which we learn very little about in the animated.

    overall this movie was an awesome viewing for me being a whole life fan
    of the animated classic and i feel this only made it even better by
    adding more to love that fits so perfectly. it is a beautiful viewing
    so go see it.

  • quaman-67586March 18, 2017Reply

    Absolutely fantastic!

    Ignore the critics. This is a fantastic adaptation of the movie. Not
    sure why people are comparing CGI to the original animated film. They
    are two different technologies and two different looks altogether.
    People trying to be ”critics” just want to project like they are pros
    in reviewing movies. Emma Watson is the perfect Belle, I cannot imagine
    anyone else portraying her. I love her acting and singing. The rest of
    the cast are fantastic as well. Go see it, you won’t regret it.

  • shammaarb-47379March 18, 2017Reply

    A walk down memory lane, but nothing more.

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • esbphantomphanMarch 18, 2017Reply

    Absolutely beautiful!

    Beauty and the Beast has always been my favorite movie ever since I was
    little. I have been dying to see this movie, and I was not
    disappointed. I thought it was beautifully made, the characters are
    still charming and lovable (in regards to all the CGI). Disney did a
    wonderful job with this one.

  • tophermixMarch 18, 2017Reply

    Disney does it again.

    ”Beauty and the Beast” was stunning and gorgeous. Beautifully and
    artfully performed. Dazzlingly colorful and charming. Fresh and
    lighthearted. Wonderfully and magically enthralling. I laughed, I
    cried, I floated along with the music, I bawled and bawled as the
    spellbinding elegance and splendor took me to another place and time. I
    was 5 years old again enjoying the Wonderful World of Magic that is
    Disney, as if for the first time. I will gladly spend my money over and
    over to see that magic unfold. I willingly and happily concede Emma
    Watson to be Belle, for this generation of children, instead of
    Hermione. She has earned her place as a Disney princess and I applaud
    everyone who had a part in this piece of magic. Truly, Disney knows how
    to make us all children again.

  • icpemsbyMarch 18, 2017Reply

    Wholly, and entirely underwhelming

    The original was a part of my childhood so I was excited for this movie
    ever since I heard about it. I did have some concerns though. Concerns
    that were present in every minute of this movie. A disappointment but
    the thing that I was most surprised by was there was no heart. Good
    actors and very little chemistry hurt this movie. However it will still
    make a billion dollars so I’m sure Disney will be fine. Disney is
    kicking so much butt that even their bad movies destroy at the box
    office.

  • Marx_Bros_Fan86March 18, 2017Reply

    Entertaining enough, but lacking

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • Go StoresMarch 18, 2017Reply

    It is above my expectation!!

    OMG this movie is so AMAZING!! Well because I’m a big fan of BATB movie
    (animated one), so I have a big expectation to this movie. And the
    result? Yes I am very satisfied! Well from the beginning to the ending,
    I just can’t stop smiling while watching the movie. It just happened!
    Of course some part made me tear my eyes. The movie is above my
    expectation. I love the song, the stories, the actor/actress and
    everything!! Even I have a plan to watch it again.

    And don’t be bothered by people who just hate it and give ”1” score.
    Watch it and you will know! Good job Bill Condon !

  • IchaMarch 18, 2017Reply

    Thank you for ruining a great movie

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • Oliver Thatcher WatsonMarch 18, 2017Reply

    Simply Amazing

    This film is great in almost all aspects. Visually, musically,
    performance-wise, etc. This truly is a remarkable film. The acting is
    fantastic, the fact they sang the songs from the original 1991 film
    just shows how dedicated the people involved with this film is. And the
    songs are beautifully sung and produced. As well as the setup, and CGI
    of the household characters in the castle. And the story is absolutely
    fantastic and well shown in this film. I recommend this film to anyone
    who’s seen the original from 1991, as well as everyone else, as it’s
    not only beautifully produced and acted, but it’s also a great story
    that is shown in a simply amazing way. I was pleasantly surprised, and
    I think anyone who sees this film for the first time will be too.

  • Harry T. Yung ([email protected])March 18, 2017Reply

    From fairy tale to animation to musical to movie-of-musical

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • AlexVMarch 18, 2017Reply

    Leaves a lot to be desired

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • athenabrainMarch 18, 2017Reply

    A Soaring, Visual Feast!

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • Frederick ContrerasMarch 18, 2017Reply

    Most Beautiful Film ever

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • hootgibbyMarch 18, 2017Reply

    Wonderful! Spectacular! Awesome!

    I also agree that we should IGNORE all these Opening Negative Reviews!

    They were placed at the very beginning by folks that didn’t even see
    this Great Movie!

    For the entire 2 hours and nine minutes my film audience was taken in
    by this wonderful fairy tale!

    This 2017 Beauty and the Beast is a Winner!

    Emma Watson, Kevin Kline, and Dan Stevens were Superb !

  • MiaMarch 18, 2017Reply

    Visually appealing, amazing soundtrack, etc.

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • batbhaiMarch 18, 2017Reply

    Disney opens another chapter of family films

    I watched Beauty and the Beast in IMAX with Laser and it was nice. This
    resulted in bright images projected by dual projectors on the giant 42
    feet high, 65 feet wide screen of IMAX, completely using the whole
    screen without chopping the picture. Along with 12000 Watts IMAX
    proprietary sound system that was used very well for the sound editing!

    First of all, trailers are suppose to give you a teaser of the film,
    not tell you the plot, so don’t watch the trailer at all. Next, I will
    rate this better than Cinderella and well worth seeing in IMAX 3D,
    considering the 3D is much better than Kong: Skull Island. Emma Watson
    is perfect as Belle, I cannot imagine anyone else portraying her. I
    love her acting and singing and could not take my eyes off her. The
    cinematography is great, often springing right out of the animation and
    the colors are dazzling. There is a lot to like about this movie, but
    unfortunately it’s all the stuff we’ve seen before. My significant
    digit score: 6.8/10

    P.S. I definitely can’t wait to visit Disneyland!

  • aharmasMarch 18, 2017Reply

    musical magic

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • mohan59March 18, 2017Reply

    Visually stunning, otherwise underwhelming

    Although a film’s watch-ability may not be directly implied by its
    Academy Award nods, there is a reason why the 1991 version became the
    first animated feature film ever to be nominated for the Best Picture
    category. That version had everything: gorgeous animation, songs of
    warmth and affection, tremendous voice acting, and a story that was
    both traditional and far-ahead of its time. We all know how Belle,
    well-read as she is and dissatisfied with her laid-back village life,
    longs for adventure. Her father, the eccentric inventor Maurice, is a
    kind of a bumbling simpleton at first, but is indeed a caring parent
    and protective of his precocious daughter, whose talents are not lost
    on him. A village which at once becomes a mob on the mere whim of a
    deeply narcissistic, insecure person.

    With such an impression, I was hoping that the live-action version
    would take the film’s already-legendary status even further and make it
    an all-time classic. Alas, I have to admit I am disappointed. There are
    several things in this film that were not in the animated version: the
    lead protagonists’ backgrounds are more defined, there is a minor twist
    in the final act, Le Fou’s predicament is more deserving of empathy
    than the foolish sidekick he was in 1991 are the ones that come to
    mind.

    First up, the story. It stays largely faithful to the original (save
    for the twist I mentioned above). The humor works rather well, but is
    rather forced at times, leading to some awkward chemistry between the
    lead pair as well as between Gaston and Le Fou. In terms of
    progression, here is where I felt let down: Beast offering his gigantic
    library as a token of affection to Belle was a pivotal moment in the
    animated version, it made Belle realize that there is a softer side to
    her ferocious host. The title song also feels a bit flat; when Angela
    Lansbury sang with her heart, you could feel the quickening of the
    heartbeats, the racing of the pulses, and the irresistible magic of the
    moment when Belle and the Beast dance in the ballroom. As Belle finally
    trusts Beast by resting her head on his shoulder and the Beast is
    totally taken by surprise, his servants encourage him further,
    enhancing the timelessness of both the film and the song. Sadly, the
    live action has no such charm. The build-up is rushed, the song ends
    before you can realize what is happening, and Emma Thompson, as
    celebrated a thespian she is, tries her best but is unable to match
    Lansbury’s memorable rendition. I was also disappointed to not see
    ”Being Human” in this film, it was a song that demonstrated the
    servants’ aspirations and could have served to illustrate how their
    lives where before the curse took effect. And with just a touch over
    two hours, the film’s pace seems prolonged and ponderous.

    I am not sure if the lead pair is miscast. On their own, they are
    pretty efficient: Emma Watson is convincing in her portrayal of a
    forward-thinking Belle. Dan Stevens is left to bare his soul as a
    tortured fiend, which he does mostly well. But its when they are
    together that feels a bit underwhelming. Paige O’Hara and Robby
    Benson’s chemistry in 1991 was terrific and amazing, the former’s
    gentle civility perfectly contrasting the latter’s jarring cruelty and
    eventually transformed elegant nobility. It was refreshing to see Le
    Fou (played by the excellent Josh Gad) have a human side to him, which
    made his performance all the more relevant in these times. Luke Evans
    is equally superb, as the obnoxiously self- centered Gaston who
    manipulates people to his will. Kevin Kline deserves plaudits for his
    portrayal as well. However, I don’t think Ewan McGregor was that
    convincing as a French candelabra, to be honest. With an odd French
    accent, his banter-filled exchanges with Cogsworth lack the rapier wit
    of Jerry Orbach-David Ogden Stiers’ double team. The film does have
    some positives though: Le Fou’s characterization, the lead pair’s
    backstory (both mentioned above), and the stunningly exquisite
    production design. The detailing was intricate and dazzling, especially
    in the castle’s interiors and Belle’s ballroom gown.

    Overall, this film works, but in hindsight, I should have watched this
    without much expectation. So that would be recommendation.

  • Evangelie M.March 18, 2017Reply

    Neither Horrible nor Satisfying

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • JuliaMarch 18, 2017Reply

    LeFou Finds Prince Charming

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • Jathan Clark ([email protected])March 18, 2017Reply

    Attractive new Beauty still pales next to the original classic

    Disney’s new and improved ”Beauty and the Beast” has lots going for it.

    The beast’s voice (as rumbled by Dan Stevens) is perfect, as is Ewan
    MacGregor’s Lumiere and Ian McKellan’s Cogsworth. In fact, the whole
    cast is attractive, engaging and surprisingly musical (who knew Luke
    Evans could sing?). Speaking of music, the original songs are just as
    good as you remember. There’s even a few additional numbers that, while
    not spectacular, add color and depth to the story.

    Speaking of spectacle, the biggest Beauty in this version is the
    production value. As I watched, every new scene had another gorgeous
    set piece. The entire Disney stable was obviously working overtime and
    it shows. Every chandelier is wrought with golden filigree, every
    turret on the castle is weathered and majestic, every costume gleams
    with ribbons and needlework. Even the horns of the beast are works of
    art.

    I am also pleased to say that the story itself, is, aside from a few
    minor additions, essentially identical to the original. This really is
    the ‘tale as old as time’ and nothing new could improve it. The
    filmmakers made the right call here.

    With so many things going right for it, this new Beauty is
    unfortunately missing one very important thing:

    Belle.

    Emma Watson isn’t Belle. She just isn’t. Even if you haven’t seen the
    original it’s obvious that something is missing from our Disney
    Heroine. On the surface Watson has everything we need. She’s beautiful.
    She’s plucky. She can sing, she can dance – heck, she’s even
    comfortable on horseback.

    With all those boxes checked, you’d think the movie would soar – and
    there are moments when it lifts off. But multiple times I found myself
    pulled out of the experience by Watson’s disconnection. Unfortunately,
    she is only partially engaged with the character and so we cannot fall
    completely in love.

    Now, to be fair, I’ve heard critics say Watson is only marginally
    talented and I would disagree. Her version of Sam was the reason Perks
    of Being a Wallflower is a millennial classic – and let’s be honest,
    could you imagine anyone else as Hermione? No, I don’t think her talent
    is in question. I’m honestly not exactly sure what happened. It’s
    possible that acting against a digital actor was too difficult. It’s
    also possible that with a giant studio movie like this there were too
    many cooks in the kitchen. Regardless, Emma Watson’s uneven performance
    is the major weakness of the film.

    If you loved the original you’re obviously going to see this version –
    and you should. It’s beautiful, enjoyable and you’ll leave the theatre
    singing some of the best Disney music of all time. But I’m willing to
    bet you’ll also have a stronger urge to see the cartoon version, and
    perhaps that was the point of this remake all along. The 1991 Disney
    film remains one of the best movies ever made.

    Three stars (out of four)

  • Andi RobinsonMarch 18, 2017Reply

    Finally a Disney remake that is worthy of Disney

    I must confess that I am a huge Disney fan. I love the movies, well
    most of them. I love visiting Disneyland regardless of whether its
    Paris or Florida (Can’t comment on the others as I haven’t been to them
    but I imagine that they are magical too). But one thing that I have
    been critical of with Disney in recent years. Is the lack of
    imagination.

    Disney seem insistent on ruining the memories of my childhood by
    remaking all of their animated classics in to ”real world” movies. With
    the exception of Maleficent which gave the tale of Sleeping Beauty a
    new twist, I have been bitterly disappointed with the remakes. This was
    topped by the appalling Jungle Book.

    Yet I was excited about the remake of Beauty and the Beast, while also
    extremely apprehensive. The original is a classic and all of the hype
    surrounding this film couldn’t make me help but feel 2 things. First
    that I might be in danger of seeing the film in the trailers that when
    it gets to the movie that I will have seen it. The second was too many
    details were being released regarding it, such as it having a gay
    character and the first interracial kiss. Why should these things make
    headlines? However I went into the movie still excited about what
    Disney had done with it.

    I watched the movie in 3D and there was a few things that came out of
    the screen but seeing it in 2D wouldn’t have changed the viewing
    pleasure.

    What Disney have done with this film, is set the bar so high for future
    remakes, that I don’t think they will beat it. They treated the
    original respect, yet brought this movie up to date. The new songs that
    were introduced were beautiful and ”Evermore” brought me to tears in
    the cinema. The hype surrounding around a gay character wasn’t
    justified it was very subtle and tasteful that unless you was looking
    out for it I am not sure you would have noticed.

    The story also had a few little additions but this all added to the
    film rather then subtracted it. In fact I would go as far as to say
    that it made the characters and the story more believable. I left the
    cinema wanting to go back and see it again. This film was that good.

    The only criticism I would make is the sound mixing could have been
    better. There was a clear difference int he sound between when the
    actors were speaking and then the rerecording of their singing. The
    singing wasn’t bad at all but it was slightly distracting. My concern
    that Ewan McGregors annoying french accent would grate on me for the
    whole film slowly disappeared as the film progressed. Must confess that
    I did think Mrs Potts was played by Helana Bonham-Carter but it was in
    fact played by Emma Thompson.

    In summary the film was everything I hoped Disney would make and lived
    up to the magic that I expected. I have no problems recommending this
    film and giving it 10/10

  • Harvey PensonMarch 18, 2017Reply

    Disney can still work the magic even out of the animation studio, and 26 years later after a treasured classic.

    Bill Condon (Dreamgirls, The Fifth Estate, and Mr Holmes) re-invents
    the wonderfully powerful fantasy tale of Beauty and the Beast,
    continuing Disney’s mission to make live action versions of their
    classic films. Re-introducing the lovely story of love and beauty that
    we all treasure, Disney have created a fine piece of work that reminds
    us of our passion for the story.

    As we all know Belle (Emma Watson) is a intelligent girl a head of her
    time, who is snatched from her ordinary life, into the mysterious world
    of the Beast (Dan Stevens), when her farther is taken kidnapped by him
    and she takes his place. But as she discovers the secrets of the
    Beast’s castle and furniture she and the Beast find something that
    wasn’t there before. See what I did? In a visually magnificent
    presence, the story we love is moved pleasantly onto the live action
    screen in a colourful and enjoyable experience. Of course not replacing
    the original masterpiece, the film has its own merits as its own
    re-telling. These new live action films are not here to replace our
    memories but show them in the real world instead of animation. I hold
    that the same magic is equally qualified but with the advancements of
    technology in filmmaking, the magic that animation could only portray
    can be seen in real life form.

    Emma Watson is the perfect Belle, with no other actor coming to mind to
    replace her, with her lovely appearance and character fuelling and
    taking lead of her performance, Watson is an absolute pleasure. Dan
    Stevens apparently taking the role of the Beast but is too layered in
    CGI and voice adaptors to tell its him, but somehow making perfect
    sense when his flesh self is seen. Not forgetting the jewel of the
    story but the living furniture of Lumière (Ewan McGregor) Cogsworth
    (Ian McKellen), Mrs Potts (Emma Thompson), all shinning still amazingly
    all the household appliances that we’d love to own.

    Luke Evans steals the show as Gaston , really showing off his self
    centred, boasting character combined with the humorous match of Josh
    Glad as LeFou, who’s secret is clear but barley as shocking as claimed.

    What can be said about Beauty and the Beast (2017) is that a it is a
    very justified and fine reminder of why we love Beauty and the Beast
    (1991). Not to say that its not good on its own, on the contrary it is
    a very enjoyable delight with its majestic music sequences that
    captures the magic perfectly. But its just not the Disney classic.

    The film has added its own additions and side bits, which unfortunately
    bring very little to the film and could be removed with no difference
    but are still perfectly fine anyway. At times I couldn’t help but look
    at the film and think that’s it was very set piece-y and not as real as
    it would like to be. Personally I thought I was watching a theatre play
    at moments.

    The Beauty and the Beast song remains as indestructible as ever, but is
    challenged by Emma Thompson’s slightly over sold accent, but does not
    stir away from the magic. By the end of the film you re-discover the
    power and love of the story.

    At the end of the day, Beauty and the Beast is a wonderful experience
    that I’m sure will be enjoyed, but just won’t match the power of the
    original, and sometimes too loud in its scenery but none the less an
    absolute delight. 7.5

  • Davis PMarch 18, 2017Reply

    Incredible! Better than the original.

    2017’s live action remake of Disney’s beauty and the beast is by far
    better than the original 1991 film. First off, the visual effects and
    designs are absolutely breathtaking! The set designs are so eloquent
    and beautiful. Then the costumes, the period costumes are very true to
    the original and accurate. And the casting is one hundred percent
    perfect. Emma Watson is a great Belle, she looks a lot like her, speaks
    a lot like her, and represents the starring character very well. Dan
    Stevens is good beast, even though you don’t get to see him in human
    form till the very end. And throughout the rest of the film the CGI is
    so well done and the Beast looks great, doesn’t look fake at all. I
    enjoyed Kevin Kline as belles father very much, he just looks like the
    character when you first see him and when he talks you just know that
    was a perfect casting decision. I adored Emma Thompson as Miss Potts,
    her beautiful singing voice gave me chills, she lit up the screen.
    There could not have been a better casting choice for LaFou other than
    Josh Gadd, and if anyone was surprised by his character being gay then
    I seriously wonder if you have ever seen original film, I applaud
    Disney for promoting diversity and even giving his character a love
    interest at the end. Luke Evans as Gaston could not have been better!
    The writing is very similar to the original animation and it works very
    well. The musical numbers will blow you away and fill you with awe and
    wonder. Be my guest is absolutely wonderful. I honestly can’t say
    anything bad about this wonderful film. Take someone to BE YOUR GUEST
    and go see this! 10/10

  • Josh BartonMarch 18, 2017Reply

    Tale as old as time gets a worthy remake.

    Disney are full steam ahead with live action remakes of their beloved
    animated classics, with Pete’s Dragon and The Jungle Book getting the
    treatment last year. This year however sees Disney take the biggest
    risk yet with a live action remake of Beauty and the Beast, which is
    widely thought of as one of the studio’s best ever animated films and
    loved by so many of all ages around the world.

    Beauty and the Beast tells the tale of Belle (Emma Watson), a girl seen
    as strange by the rest of her fellow villagers but sought after by the
    arrogant Gaston (Luke Evans). When Belle learns of her father, Maurice
    (Kevin Kline), being held captive in a hidden castle, she takes his
    place, becoming the prisoner of Beast (Dan Stevens), a once handsome
    prince cursed by an enchantress for not seeing that true beauty lies
    within, before they fall in love with one another.

    As soon as Beauty and the Beast finished, I breathed a huge sigh of
    relief. Not because it had finished and I couldn’t wait to get out of
    there but because Disney had avoided tarnishing their animated classic
    and had actually made a very good film, much better than I was
    expecting anyway.

    Lavish in both its production and costume design, Beauty and the Beast
    very much looks the part of a live action Disney adaptation with
    gorgeous practical sets and colourful frocks aplenty. The visual
    effects, as expected these days, really are very good as well, bringing
    the film and its animated characters to life with great verve,
    particularly Lumiere, Cogsworth and Beast.

    The film has faced many people before release claiming it to be a
    pointless remake however, when they do as good a job as they do with
    this film then I fail to see where they are coming from. Bill Condon
    has made a film that clearly respects the animated version while adding
    new elements that don’t do the film any harm at all. This is a very fun
    film as well, thanks to some high energy musical numbers, Gaston and Be
    Our Guest being my personal favourites, while I’m very glad to say the
    John Legend and Ariana Grande version of Beauty and the Beast does not
    accompany one of the film’s most important moments, instead being
    rightfully sung by Mrs. Potts.

    Coming to the performances, Beauty and the Beast features a cast that
    all deliver commendable performances in both acting and singing
    departments. Emma Watson makes for a very good Belle, even if her over
    pronunciation of words does continue to irritate me and her singing
    really did take me by surprise. I was a bit skeptical to start with but
    as the film progressed, I felt more comfortable listening to her sing.
    Dan Stevens and Luke Evans can sing pretty damn well too, Evans doing
    it with suitable amounts of arrogance as Gaston. The real star of the
    show though is Ewan McGregor as Lumiere, who steals the show with a
    brilliant vocal performance that includes a brilliant rendition of Be
    Our Guest.

    So Beauty and the Beast is a very good time at the cinema that takes
    its place just behind The Jungle Book when it comes to the best live
    action Disney remakes. Oh, and the gay moment that was made into a big
    deal prior to its release, is nothing but a mountain out of a molehill.
    Bring on The Lion King and Mulan.

  • rachaelpeacheyMarch 18, 2017Reply

    Beautifully Done

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • ethanthorenMarch 18, 2017Reply

    Wonderful. The Animated Film Brought to Life

    ”Beauty and the Beast” wasn’t exactly risky. The original is beloved,
    and it never seemed to change aspects of the story like ”Maleficent.”
    (a film I’m not fond of for many reasons, one of them being the drastic
    departure from the source material). The story wasn’t the risk at all,
    if the trailers were to be believed. The question was more the cast. An
    incredibly talented cast, mind you; Emma Watson, Dan Stevens, Luke
    Evans, Josh Gad, Ian McKellen, Emma Thompson, and many more. But
    despite the talent, a part of me still worried that they wouldn’t be
    able to bring the story to life like in the 1991 classic. Emma Watson
    was the only one I had full faith in walking in, seeing as many of them
    would be voices alone and, up until Marvel’s ”Legion,” I had no idea
    who Dan Stevens was.

    Well, they proved me wrong almost instantly. Everyone present in every
    scene gives stellar performances, Gaston never feeling over the top
    (well, the character himself is over the top, in a way, but he never
    feels here more over the top than he should be), and special effects
    allowing the Beast to come to fruition in a spectacular way that looks
    almost frighteningly real.

    The first half hour or so captured the tale perfectly, and while I
    really liked it, it was nothing compared to what was to come. By the
    time the film ended, I had almost teared up more than once, and a huge
    smile was on my face during essentially every scene.

    The cinematography is gorgeous, often springing right out of the
    animation. Colors are vibrant, the aesthetic of every area real. From
    the Beast’s castle to Belle’s village, everything feels right and true,
    as if you could reach into the screen and experience it all.

    Many of the songs, like the story itself, carries over from the ’91
    version. However, there are some notable additions, and all are
    welcome.

    What was added to the plot was great, if almost–but not quite–
    inconsequential. It flows so exceptionally that it takes a moment to
    even register as new.

    Overall, do you love the original Disney film? Yes? See this. Did you
    never experience the original, but want to? See this. Do you like great
    films, especially when Disney’s magical touch is present? See this. How
    anyone could hate this is beyond me, and the overwhelmingly positive
    response is deserved without a doubt.

  • sala151183March 18, 2017Reply

    Disney did it again!

    I was very apprehensive about a couple of things prior to seeing Beauty
    & the Beast, the first was Emma Watson playing Belle and the other was
    Lafou also how the songs would flow but within 1-2 minutes of the film
    I was at ease and even brought tears to my eyes they captured it almost
    perfectly. Emma Watson Didn’t disappoint me nor did the Lafou character
    I even enjoyed both. The show stealers though for me were Gaston & The
    Beast portrayed by Luke Evans & Dan Stevens. I even thought 2hrs 10
    minutes ish was a long running time but it flowed along brilliantly and
    I was amazed at how beautifully the film was filmed from scene to
    scene. Better than the classic original? no! but almost a like for like
    remake into a live action animated film.

  • rejoyce318March 18, 2017Reply

    Charming Remake

    I’m no expert on CGI, but I do sing. This was my first 3D movie, which
    was mostly fun, but a bit overwhelming in the crowd scenes. We were
    fairly near the front of the theater thanks to having to
    advance-purchase seats, so that was likely a factor. As soon as I heard
    Audra McDonald’s voice, I was hooked. Emma Watson’s voice was fine,
    while Dan Stevens voice was one of the most pleasant surprises of the
    film. Kevin Kline added depth to Maurice’s gentle spirit, while Emma
    Thompson’s characterization was comforting. Luke Evans’ Gaston was less
    air-headed, and seemed more cruel than either the animated or live
    musical versions, so having Josh Gad as his side-kick was welcome comic
    relief. The showcase numbers (Be Our Guest, for example) were well
    done, and fun to experience. The more violent scenes are really not
    appropriate for the youngest Belles; however, third-graders (maybe
    second-grade) and older should be fine.

    Did it sparkle as much as the animated original? Perhaps not, but the
    live actors gave it depth and nuance. I enjoyed this version, and would
    see it again, even in 3D.

  • Nick CoppolaMarch 18, 2017Reply

    Beauty and the Beast: Remains faithful to the beloved classic

    This tale as old as time, song as old as rhyme beloved classic Beauty
    and the Beast was put into live-action directed by Bill Condon. The
    story follows the 1991 original material with a few minor changes prior
    not to confuse the viewers and some untold stories of their youth.

    An impressive take on storytelling although handled a bit slow-paced
    but I like how there were little changes that will not confuse the
    viewers. The movie offers a timely accurate setting and production, a
    nicely done retelling of Belle and Beast’s old-fashioned romance, a
    truly spectacular new set of music and score and an overall
    entertaining production. Emma Watson is an ideal as Belle and Dan
    Stevens is devilish handsome as the Beast and the rest of the cast were
    just as amazing as the leads. The whole direction was able to give us
    nostalgia, surprisingly magical and colorful musical performances and
    emotional take on some important stories. The live-action remake of the
    animated film is not better than the original, but it’s a fresh
    retelling because we’re introduced to new characters, new songs and
    some stories not told in the 1991 film. Still, it remains faithful to
    the beloved family classic film.

    Another thing, what I like about this movie is that it’s a Disney movie
    and it challenges any other movie whether Disney or not to feature
    interracial and gay romance. There was nothing explicit in the romance
    and it was just a short attraction.

    Also one thing, I think this is one the highlights of the film. I was
    blown away with Dan Stevens’ moving performance as the Beast as he sung
    way up high on the tower the song ”Evermore.” The song is important in
    the part of the Beast and in general the whole movie. This is where the
    spoiled, selfish and unkind prince finally learns to love and in more
    elaborate way. She inspires him and will always be part of everything
    he does. And that is the romance of the mean, coarse and unrefined
    Beast turned into sweet, gentle and kind and an odd young woman who
    likes to read and wants something more than a provincial life fall in
    love with one another.

    I give the movie 9 out of 10. It was spectacular and I think I’m going
    to see it again.

  • jn1356-1March 18, 2017Reply

    It’s not New York Metropolitan Opera vocal quality. AND I DON’T CARE!

    DISCLAIMER: I am head-over-heels in love with Emma Watson. I am
    predisposed to love anything she does because she does it.

    DISCLAIMER: I am head-over-heels in love with Alan Menken. If he writes
    the music, I’m there.

    DISCLAIMER: I love loving things. I hate hating things. It makes no
    sense to me to equate intelligence with the ability to find fault.
    Sometimes I see what they were going for and applaud the effort.
    Sometimes I see what they were going for and weep at how badly they
    missed it.

    That being said, I LOVED the new ”Beauty and the Beast”. I was wiping
    tears from the corners of my eyes frequently for sheer beauty.

    The original cartoon I loved. Even though there were holes in the plot
    you could drive a battleship through. They fixed all the plot holes! Go
    see it, if only for that!

    Okay, okay, Emma Watson isn’t a classically-trained coloratura soprano.
    She’s no Paige O’Hara vocally. For that matter, I missed Jerry Orbach
    when Ewen MacGregor was singing ”Be Our Guest” and I missed Angela
    Lansbury in Emma Thompson’s ”Beauty and the Beast”. I understand Orbach
    is no longer available and the supernatural Ms. Lansbury, in her 90’s,
    probably couldn’t do the song the justice she did a quarter of a
    century ago. Guess what. I DON’T CARE! They did justice to the songs.
    They didn’t do brilliance with the songs. I don’t care.

    Emma has a divinely expressive face that carries her emotions perfectly
    for the big screen. Her Belle was glorious.

    Is it possible to miscast Kevin Kline? He is brilliant. And his Maurice
    is delicious. His singing, still not New York Metropolitan Opera
    quality, carries the song.

    Luke Evans does just the lightest touch of camp in playing Gaston. I
    reveled in it! Once again, not the vocal quality of Richard White, and
    I did miss that amazing bass. But the baritone/tenor carried it off.

    Now, let’s get to Josh Gad.

    Bill Condon did the lightest hat tip to the Gender Community with Josh
    Gad’s Lefou. If you blink, you might miss it. If you’re terrified your
    little ones might get gay cooties on them and grow up ”perverts”, by
    all means skip this show. But you’d probably better not let them watch
    any television, listen to any music, or attend any movies, because the
    portrayals there are not teensy hat-tips. They are full-body bows and
    curtsies.

    Now for the real star of the show: The music.

    Alan Menken is a living miracle. He does things with a musical score
    and songs that blow me through the wall! All the new songs are
    brilliant! Beast’s song of pain over Belle is stunning. THOSE vocals
    are magnificent! I’ve always loved the opening number of ”Beauty and
    the Beast”. It is full-blown grand opera, and makes me wish Alan Menken
    would write a sure-enough opera.

    This movie dazzled me visually, musically, and emotionally. Yes, there
    are some things that seemed to me flaws. Guess what. I don’t care! You
    have my highest recommendation.

  • Josey JoMarch 18, 2017Reply

    What’s with all the negativity – this is classic Disney!!!

    I really don’t understand all the negativity being aimed at this film.
    For me, this was Disney at it’s best – whisking me away with great
    story, memorable tunes and that Disney magic.

    Both my boyfriend and I left the cinema with huge grins and buzzing
    about what we had just seen – it took me back to my childhood when the
    only way to see Disney films was at the cinema and I revisited the
    magic I used to feel walking out after seeing The Jungle Book amongst
    others.

    Be Our Guest is an amazing spectacle, the musical numbers are
    extravagant and I loved the extra plot included throughout the film –
    for me made it a more rounded story. If I was picky, I was expecting
    Beast to be a bit bigger and more intimidating, but that may have
    scared the younger audience.

    If you want an exact replica of the animation, then you will be
    disappointed. But if you are after a film where you can lose yourself
    for just over 2 hours, get fully wrapped up in a classic story and both
    laugh and cry, then this is it. I loved the subtle humour. Well worth
    seeing in 3D and will be a definite purchase when eventually released
    on Blu-ray.

  • Shelley LeggeMarch 18, 2017Reply

    Magical!

    I absolutely loved this adaption of Beauty and the Beast, and I simply
    can’t understand all the negativity?

    This ties up so many questions I had after watching the animated
    version, and is just simply spectacular. I recommend anybody planning
    on watching this to just go in with an open-mind.

    Emma Watson is a gorgeous Belle, and I especially loved Josh Gad as Le
    Fou.

  • JeffreyRackhamMarch 18, 2017Reply

    Magical, but had a lot to live up to.

    ”Beauty and the Beast” was a fantastic movie altogether although it had
    a lot to live up to. The original version of the film captured the
    hearts of millions and is arguably hard to top. This movie would need
    to meet or exceed the magic of the original and I felt it only met it.

    The music is amazing – of course! – especially with the new songs
    written for the film. The actors do their best to portray their beloved
    counterparts while bringing a fresh revival to each. Most importantly,
    this movie just gives you more. The story is new and the visuals are
    exquisite. This movie does lack, however. Disney could have done more
    for the story to make it unique. The story in itself felt rushed at
    times – like we don’t already know the essentials! – and so it made it
    feel just a bit less magical.

    Even though I feel Disney went above and beyond to help answer
    questions and give us more to the story that was lacking from the
    original, we leave with different questions that I wish could have been
    explained. Now, as for the live-action portrayal in general, Cinderella
    was better – granted, it set the standard for these remakes – because
    there was no standard other than having Disney not mess up a classic.
    Here, everything was on the line, and Disney did admirably, but overall
    just couldn’t quite make a perfect 10/10 movie for this Disney
    enthusiast.

  • Geri O'SullivanMarch 18, 2017Reply

    Cinema burst into applause (ignore the salty people)

    I have no idea at all what is wrong with all of the salty people
    writing reviews on this. I went to see it tonight, and I thought it was
    a wonderful movie, the animated character’s had great voice actors. The
    Beast didn’t look terrible like other people on this site are saying.
    They didn’t create a super scary looking Beast that would terrify
    children. They kept him as close to the original as possible. That
    might have meant that he didn’t look quite as realistic as a horrible
    beast might look. This isn’t a horror movie folks, it’s a charming
    family film. The acting was believable enough to make me tear up at a
    couple of points, so again, there was nothing wrong with the acting.

    The packed movie theater burst into applause as soon as the credits
    started rolling. People were saying ”wasn’t it lovely” as they were
    leaving. Therefore, people were actually enjoying it.

    I give it a 9 out of 10 because I felt that the opening song kinda
    dragged on a bit and lacked feeling. The rest of the film was great
    though! I want to see it again!

  • TheLittleSongbirdMarch 18, 2017Reply

    Gorgeously produced, but without the magic, joy, charm, soul or emotional power

    1991’s ‘Beauty and the Beast’ is not just my favourite animated film,
    speaking as a huge animation fan and who loves most of Disney’s films,
    but also one of my favourite films.

    Expectations were very much mixed going to see this live-action
    retelling, having thoroughly enjoyed 2015’s ‘Cinderella’ and 2016’s
    ‘The Jungle Book’ (which were visually gorgeous and combined old and
    new while retaining the spirits of their animated counterparts). Also
    being familiar with Bill Condon’s previous work, and finding him a
    generally promising director and writer. ‘Gods and Monsters’ is amazing
    and one of my favourites, ‘Kinsey’ was interesting and ‘Dreamgirls’ was
    elevated by the soundtrack and the cast was quite decent, before he
    dropped the ball with the last two ‘Twilight’ films which were not good
    films at all through no real fault of Condon but with a good deal of
    everything else.

    At the same time, some of the casting was dubious (Emma Watson is not
    as bad an actress as many say but to me she just wasn’t my idea of
    Belle, though the likes of Ian McKellen and Emma Thompson promised a
    lot) and considering that the 1991 film is such a masterpiece in every
    area (to me the animated ‘Cinderella’ and ‘The Jungle Book’ are great
    films but nothing compared to ‘Beauty and the Beast’) comparisons were
    always going to be inevitable. Not comparing was always going to be
    hard when it was such a staple of my, and many others’, childhood.
    Really questioned the point of it too. Seeing it for myself with no
    prejudice, and writing this review reading as few reviews as possible,
    this retelling is not a patch on the 1991 film, it doesn’t disgrace it
    but what worked so well before is missing. On its own terms, it’s also
    very problematic. Just for the record, in no way is it awful, but my
    feelings were exactly the same as initial expectations, mixed.

    Starting with the great things, most of ‘Beauty and the Beast’ (2017)
    looks amazing. The set design is colourful and incredibly lavish, with
    equally gorgeous costumes (especially Belle’s yellow ball gown which is
    even nicer than the dress Watson wore in ‘Harry Potter and the Goblet
    of Fire’) and everything is exquisitely photographed. The original
    songs, some of Disney’s finest ever, from the 1991 film are maintained,
    and as masterful as ever, while the instrumental score is rousing,
    layered and beautiful.

    Of the renditions of the songs, the best one is the Busby
    Berkeley-inspired jaw-dropping extravaganza ”Be Our Guest”. ”Gaston” is
    also enormous fun, and hurrah for one of the best song lyrics ever
    being kept ”I use antlers in all my decorating” and while Thompson’s
    performance of ”Beauty and the Beast” is nothing compared to the iconic
    one of Angela Lansbury in one of the greatest scenes in all animation
    it is still poignant.

    The supporting cast do fare better than the leads, with Luke Evans
    being the standout, performing Gaston with gusto and menace. Josh Gad
    is great fun as LeFou, and regarding the controversy for me it has been
    blown out of proportion and nowhere near as explicit as seemingly
    implied, it’s actually pretty subtle and will go over the heads of
    younger audiences. Ewan McGregor is clearly enjoying himself as
    Lumiere, despite sporting a dodgy accent (though a French accent is not
    easy), while McKellen is a wonderfully stuffy Cogsworth, Stanley Tucci
    is a great addition and Thompson a sincere Mrs Potts. Chip is very cute
    too, and Lumiere and Plumette’s chemistry is sweet and amusing without
    being creepy.

    However, am of the opinion that Watson and Dan Stevens are miscast.
    Watson is far too earnest for Belle and a lot of her line delivery is
    both forced and phoned in. Stevens often looks stiff and uncomfortable
    as Beast, being very cheaply made up, and his eyes look dead. Beast was
    a fascinating character before but has been stripped of his complexity
    and soul. The chemistry between them, something that would have made or
    broken the film, isn’t there. Audra MacDonald overdoes it in the role
    of the wardrobe and Kevin Kline tries his best but his Maurice is
    largely wasted.

    Special effects and such are a mixed bag. Some of it fares well but
    some of it looks pretty dreadful, especially Chip, the wolves and
    Beast. One admires the fact that ‘Beauty and the Beast’ tries to remain
    faithful to the animated film, but one can’t help feeling that it was
    too faithful and that the spirit generally was lost in translation.
    There is not much new, though trying with additional songs that are so
    lacking compared to the original songs (”Evermore” is forgettable and
    completely lacks impact) and cramming in numerous back-stories that
    mostly bloats the film and like a rich pudding being over-egged. Belle
    and Maurice’s subplot feels like padding and eats up too much time.

    Not all the original song renditions work, with ”Belle” lacking joy and
    being pedestrian in staging, ”Something There” being similarly
    indifferent and underpowered in singing. The climax, so powerful before
    with a tense final fight and Beast’s death scene and transformation
    even now reducing me to floods of tears every time, this time round
    feels like a lukewarm anti-climax. The beautifully crafted script
    before is both dull and overdone here, the story lacks magic, joy,
    charm, soul and emotional power that only appears sporadically and the
    pacing suffers from the film trying to do too much.

    In summary, ‘Beauty and the Beast’ (2017) looks gorgeous with a strong
    supporting cast and a few song renditions that come off well but
    suffers from being over-stuffed, miscast leads and feeling very bland
    in spirit. 5/10 Bethany Cox

  • speedcanaryMarch 18, 2017Reply

    An Absolute Delight!

    I’m rating this so highly (10 stars!) because I feel it is deserving of
    the highest praise. To see so many reviewers berating this film is
    quite a shock. I don’t see anything controversial about the tale as old
    as time. In fact, I see lessons that people of all ages can learn from.
    Not to judge others based on their appearances is one of those lessons
    of note.

    I wish to commend the cast and crew at bringing this to screen in such
    a grand and epic way. The music is beyond wonderful. I love Audra
    McDonald’s singing, and I would love to hear even more. My favorite
    musical number was ”Be Our Guest!” That was an absolute spectacle and a
    dream to behold.

    Emma was the perfect Belle. If I were in casting, she is the actress
    that would have been my number 1 pick. She is the main reason why I
    wanted to see this film. She sings quite nicely, and I wasn’t expecting
    that. In fact, I didn’t expect this movie to be so musical. I really do
    not remember much from the original 1991 animated film. I know I saw it
    when it came out (I was a young one).

    I was very surprised to see so many adults, especially baby
    boomer/retired age in the theater too. There were more adults than
    children! I wonder what drew them?

    I highly recommend this movie if you are a fan of Disney, of musicals,
    of the original animated film, or Emma Watson. It was an nice
    refreshing breath of air and break away from our current political
    climate.

  • generationofswineMarch 18, 2017Reply

    An Honest Review

    If it were in a theater rather than a cinema, it would have been great.

    But the fact is we saw this before when it was called Beauty & the
    Beast.

    The songs we all heard before. Rather than an animated background you
    have a computer animated background but we have still seen it before.

    We sit down and pay to watch a movie we already saw turn live action
    and follow the same plot, the same game, as the movie we fell in love
    with oh so many years ago.

    We are living in an era for that, but we still want it to change at
    least a little.

    Like all remakes it is dull and boring and utterly mindless. Like all
    remakes it makes changes that are unnecessary and irritating and in
    some cases, fairly insulting to the fans of the original: Belle, not
    her father, is the eccentric town inventor and that would, maybe, work
    if he wasn’t supposed get locked up for being, well, the eccentric town
    inventor with a story about a Beast.

    Take away the establishment of one character that is sort of necessary
    to the plot and give it to another where it is less important to
    advance the story and do it only because, well, it’s a remake, you have
    to find at least one way to really insult the fans…

    And changes like this are the only way to do it because, otherwise, you
    have the EXACT same movie you saw before with little changes made to
    really just drag the monotony out as much as you can.

    I hate remakes, but the fact that it IS THE SAME MOVIE just makes it so
    much more monotonous to watch than your average remake.

  • Artemis AthanasakiMarch 18, 2017Reply

    I’d watch it again

    It was a beautiful movie, great colours, a fairly good cast and
    beautiful meaning. I think Beauty and the Beast, are among the most
    beloved movies of Disney, and they did a fairly good work in this
    remake. Firsty Watson’s appearance was great, she had the role and she
    gave a good performance. As for the rest of the cast, it was obvious
    that it was well worked, nothing astonishing, but good enough. During
    the movie I couldn’t help but notice the colours. They changed
    beautifully as the mood changed, without it being very abrupt, or ugly.
    The thing about the movie is the music, it felt like there were a lot
    of music parts that could have been cut, at some points the movie was
    getting quite boring because of them and it lost its point. I know part
    of Disney is the music and I expected a lot of it, but it really was
    too much. There weren’t enough dialogues, and I really don’t get why
    isn’t it called a musical. To me this movie is a good one and I would
    watch it again. Not for the performances, nor for the music. I would
    watch it again because it really is a true beauty.

  • Al.1291March 18, 2017Reply

    Where the H*** are all these negative reviews coming from?

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • PowderhornMarch 18, 2017Reply

    An Outstanding Piece of Work!

    Beauty & the Beast stands, in my opinion, as one of Disney great
    triumphs. Further, Emma Watson is purely magnificent and steals the
    show! Gaston also adds wonder and wit. Most of the main characters act
    splendidly, making the movie a joy to view. This movie pulls you in and
    makes you a part of it!

    Overall, I give this movie a nine. A ten is not deserved for some
    slightly odd CGI regarding the Beast. Other than that, the movie
    enchants me, and I will see again and again.

    As for the critics that complain about the ”gay” scenes. Bah! There’s
    hardly a thing there. You might not even notice if you weren’t looking.
    Kids certainly won’t know to what the very subtle innuendos
    tangentially point. Indeed, you’d be silly not to see this work of art
    for the purportedly ”gay scenes.”

    GO SEE THIS MOVIE! Belle and Gaston alone make it worthy of a shot!

  • hollymelon-29615March 18, 2017Reply

    Disney, would you please do the same trick you did with Moana when casting your live-action films?

    I might be one of the very few people out there who don’t like, and
    have never liked, the original Beauty and the Beast movie. I never got
    beyond the creepiness of the premise that an apparently smart,
    rebellious girl falls in love with a ghastly bad-tempered hairy bull
    who almost starves her dad to death and keeps her prisoner in his big
    old castle, which is not as bad as a basement, but doesn’t stray too
    far. I don’t think it’s a good story for children, or for anyone for
    that matter (a much better version of the story is presented in George
    Lukas’ animated movie Strange Magic, but since everybody hates Lukas
    now, everybody seems to hate that film too). With that said, the
    visuals in the film were finely executed, the cups and kettles were
    amusing, and the soundtrack was simply beautiful.

    The new film doesn’t have even those things. In fact, the trailer was
    enough to show that Beast belongs to some of the worst CGI characters
    out there in this day and age, and Emma Watson looks nothing like
    quirky, lively Belle. And oh boy, what’s about this fashion with
    forcing famous but tone-deaf actors to sing? They could hire someone
    else to do vocals for them. Because if you make a film that expensive,
    and especially a remake of a classical musical, you could at least
    ensure the soundtrack is digestible.

    Or they could simply find someone who can both fit the role AND sing,
    and not someone overpaid, overrated, and almost ten years older than
    the prototype. I believe it could have been great if they’d look for
    new talents for the live action remakes the same way they looked for a
    girl to voice the title character in Moana. They found a perfect match
    – a talented new thing with awesome vocal chops, a real embodiment of
    the character who actually did her best to excel in the role.

    But hey, poor Emma isn’t by far the only reason the movie is awful. The
    new Cinderella remake, also a pretty bland and useless effort, at least
    looked stunning, a true fairy-tale come to life. Here we got a
    cardboard town, a fake monster, and a set of cutlery so creepy they’d
    fit much better in one of the worse Tim Burton’s movies. Why remaking a
    film shot-by-shot when you ruin every shot?

    The verdict – a creepy tale told in a creepy and sloppy fashion with
    the sole purpose to get your hard-earned cash our of your pockets,
    giving nothing in return. Take your kids elsewhere.

  • khanz-35314March 18, 2017Reply

    Wow

    Omg!! This film is amazing!!! So underrated it’s the best Disney film
    since years!!! Belle is such a young empowering woman and the beast
    tells us to never judge anyone by looks. But the film is so visually
    stunning, and even though I’m a massive Marvel fan, ”Logan” was great
    but ”Beauty and the Beast” is just so unique, charming and so cute!!! I
    adore the character LeFou being gay because it can boost self-esteem
    for the LGBT community and the fact he kissed Gaston?? Wow. I really
    enjoyed the film!! I mean I would give it 10 but the CGI sort of ruins
    it. It was rather weak. I can’t wait for more live-action Disney films
    because this is the best film after the Sheshawnk Redemption.

  • annvdbMarch 18, 2017Reply

    Beautiful movie

    10 out of 10 from me… I thought it was incredibly beautiful and I can
    fault nothing. Loved it from start to end and the beast song was my
    favorite. I cried several times 🙂

    The cgi was beautiful, the whole setting. How they showed some of the
    backstory to Belle and the Beast and how they became like that + why
    the servants also got transformed and punished.

  • brankovranjkovicMarch 18, 2017Reply

    The Message is ‘Beauty is Only Skin Deep’

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • sara2618March 18, 2017Reply

    Beautiful way to capture the story!

    Although the story wasn’t exactly the same as the classic cartoon, it
    was still by far amazing and was a great capture of the story/remained
    fairly close. I really enjoyed how they shared some tales of the
    Beast’s past and really gave an insight as to how he grew up,etc. The
    animation was amazing and the songs were wonderful/I enjoyed the new
    ones as well! The costumes were awesome as well, will be looking for
    some to wear myself! It was def worth the long wait to see the film and
    was by far the best live action Disney film I have seen yet! Major
    props to all of the cast and crew! Bravo!! <3

  • lisafordeayMarch 18, 2017Reply

    If you loved the 1991 classic then be my guest,sit back and enjoy this lavish fairy tale.

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • hotrina89March 19, 2017Reply

    Great movie but the cast could have been better

    This film could have easily been an 8.5 but unfortunately this could
    not be. Emma Watson was not the best actor for sweet, friendly,
    enthusiastic Belle. From the beginning of the movie Belle seemed so….
    distant, cold, dull, boring. She was nothing like Belle from the
    animated classic at all. Emma Watson was definitely not for this role
    and its very disappointing. And oh my goodness— Emma’s singing and
    the drastic attempt to fix her singing with effects. That was horrible!
    I noticed that the sound was… off during singing. How easy is it to
    find a Belle that has an upbeat attitude, is pretty and sings really
    well? These days they rather cast famous actors for the role, rather
    than the best actor for the role— to make more money. The film
    suffers for this.

    Other than the Emma Watson disappointment (since shes the main
    character) the graphics could have been better. The beast looked too
    fake. I know that they could have made it more believable.

    Overall, I loved the movie because it reminded me of the good old days.

    P.S. I think the Prince looked better as the beast. Lol. Seriously.

  • patrickjames85March 19, 2017Reply

    This live action retelling exceeded my expectations & gave a classic new life!

    As a fan of most Disney films & someone who grew up with the original
    Beauty & The Beast, I was already going in knowing that I would most
    likely enjoy the movie. The film did have a lot to live up too as in my
    opinion it’s really the first live action remake of a Disney movie that
    already has a massive fan base, Cinderella & The Jungle Book had a bit
    more room to breathe. I wasn’t sure about Emma Watson, the CGI or the
    idea of any tampering with a classic but all of that was quickly
    demolished as I watched the film in its glory! I really can’t think of
    anything substantial that went wrong with this. It was carefully
    crafted to lay down an almost word for word, scene by scene remake
    while also breaking new ground & beefing up the story to make it fresh!
    I wasn’t sure if I would like any new developments, songs, plot twists,
    etc.. but everything really worked & it worked well! Emma Watson & the
    entire cast nails their interpretations & the music is on point & amped
    up to give it a more dramatic flare! The imagery in the film is often
    breathtaking & the CGI work is crafted wonderfully!

    I am sure there are going to be many people that will pick this film
    apart to within an inch of sanity, let them!! It’s their miserable
    loss. This is a perfect movie for fans who grew up with the original &
    new audiences alike! It’s really one of the most enjoyable times at the
    movie theater I’ve had in quite awhile!

    GO SEE IT while it’s on the big screen!! You really won’t regret it! I
    was very impressed & so we’re the group of friends I seen it with!

    Also, for those who enjoy 3-D, I did see it in 3-D format & that is
    also another A+! The 3-D is beautiful & feels natural, not just a film
    turned into 3-D for 3-D’s sake! The 3-D experience here really did take
    you into the world of Beauty & The Beast!

  • vaishnavdhote-58440March 19, 2017Reply

    Added to my list of worst movies ever watched..

    I am giving 5/10 because of its good picturization,otherwise I would
    have given this 2/10.CGI effect in movie is really very poor.Beast in
    the movie is really very boring character and doesn’t look real.I mean
    this is 2017 and many movies like Planet Apes ,Life of pie has shown
    the world how far CGI effect has improved and yet Disney has not done
    justice with this movie.Plot is not much strong.

    Repeated songs in movie seems boring ,personally I am not the big fan
    of musical dramas.I love Emma Watson,she is really adorable in the
    movie but the beast has ruined the movie and faded her performance .End
    is also not so good and was very predictable.

    Other characters rather than Emma and beast are complete mess . I have
    added this movie to my list of worst movies ever watched and will never
    had glimpse of this movie in future. Sorry guys about my negative
    review,and if I hurt anyone’s feeling.

  • alma-42March 19, 2017Reply

    Keeping true to the animated classic, and the fact that art is a receptacle of cultural units, resulted in an anti-gay, pro-ISIS, materialistic film!

    Believe me, I was as surprised as you are.

    1. The depiction of LGBT characters merely for comic relief, and quite
    distastefully in that;

    2. promoting punishing others (and their relatives) for not sharing our
    beliefs IN THEIR OWN HOME (the Enchantress’ punishment of the Prince)
    is practically what ISIS do in Syria;

    3. conflating kidnapping and Stockholm Syndrome with love; and

    4. justifying the practice of brainwashing.

    All these disturbing themes and elements are what we find in this film,
    which might have been alright for children in an older time, but is
    certainly dissonant in our age and time.

    On a more cinematic note, Emma Watson appears more like a CG doll. It
    is as if she was meant to come across as non-human. Her expressions,
    her smirk, added to her clear and perfect singing voice, all contribute
    to a non-human impression.

    The film is a nice nostalgic material, but its outdatedness and the now
    disturbing messages it has make up for a very dissonant and conflicting
    viewing experience.

  • n_peart_2112March 19, 2017Reply

    It Was Everything I Hoped It Would Be!

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • bastille-852-731547March 19, 2017Reply

    A Satisfying Remake

    Disney’s highly anticipated remake of the ‘tale as old as time’ has
    arrived, and while not perfect, it certainly packs in cutting-edge
    special effects and extravagance that can please audiences of all ages.
    The film’s plot is very similar to that of the original version.
    However, the CGI effects are often very realistic. There are, however,
    some exceptions, as the character designs of the Beast and some of the
    ‘object’ characters (such as Cogsworth and Lumiere) could have been
    done better. That said, from its lavish set pieces to realistic-looking
    CGI wolves, the film overall is visually enthralling.

    The music in the film is excellent, and the scenes where such music can
    be found are choreographed perfectly. ”Be Our Guest” and the climatic
    action scene where Gaston’s mob storms the castle are easily the two
    best scenes in the movie. The performances are slightly hit-or-miss,
    however. The acting could have been slightly improved, as Emma Watson
    gives a solid but unspectacular performance as Belle. Still, however,
    Disney does a very good job overall of adapting this story for modern
    audiences using live action and delivers an entertaining end result.
    Recommended. 7/10

  • KalKenobi83March 19, 2017Reply

    Not As Good as the 1991 Original

    Watched Beauty and The Beast Featuring Emma Watson(The Colony) as
    Belle, Dan Stevens(Downtown Abbey ) as The Beast also starring Luke
    Evans(Furious 7) as Gatson, Ewan McGregor(Star Wars) as Lumiere , Sir
    Ian McKellen (X-Men Days Of Future Past) as Cogsworth, Emma
    Thompson(Brave) as Mrs.Potts , Nathan Mack(Babylon) as Chip, Kevin
    Kline(The Hunchback Of Notre Dame) as Maurice, Josh Gad(Frozen) as
    Lefou I still prefer the 1991 Original as for the controversy it was
    downplayed very well though I hope its the last of it and please no
    stormpilot and also think they could’ve chosen a much better belle, But
    I did like the beast though played excellent by Dan Stevens.Amazing
    Costume Design By Jacqueline Durran(Pan), score by Alan Menken(The
    Little Mermaid), Cinematography By Tobias A Schliesser(Patriots Day )
    Direction by Bill Condon(Mr.Holmes) Not As Good as the 1991 Original
    7/10

  • sastorytellerfilmsMarch 19, 2017Reply

    **RARE and BEAUTIFUL** A truly remarkable homage to the classic and incredibly moving

    One of the best Disney remakes to come along in the last decade. The
    effects were astonishingly light and shadow accurate. Emma Watson is an
    absolute miracle and makes the music come alive with her great voice
    and range. Blew my mind to read some of her performances were recorded
    LIVE and kept in the film. The beast was animated perfectly and his
    emotions and reactions captured perfectly for every moment. Brilliant
    cast, production, effects, and music. Everything a masterpiece should
    be plus a few new pieces of classic music additions. Disney has nailed
    this one in every sense of the word with heart driven effects detail
    worthy on a lord of the rings level. Cinematic greatness that doesn’t
    work very often.

  • williamsiswantoMarch 19, 2017Reply

    Love It!

    I have watched the original animated Beauty And The Beast many many
    times butt still, the movie is super entertaining and just exciting.
    Butt there is a couple of cons, one of which is every 5 minutes there’s
    gonna be a song. Overall the movie is brilliand, 9/10 would watch
    again.

  • Torres89013March 19, 2017Reply

    Avoid extreme expectations and keep nostalgia in check.

    As hard as it was, I set my expectations on neutral before watching
    this tonight. This movie is not just for the fans of the original
    animated feature. It’s also for the current generation, as well as the
    minority of fans loyal to the original story. This means that not all
    expectations will be met for every fan.

    This review takes that into account.

    Let’s start with what works as a film:

    1. Character development. The characters (not just Belle and beast) are
    given depth in unexpected ways that actually add on to the fairy tale
    aspect of the story, as well as making them relatable. The biggest
    examples are Maurice, Gaston, Mrs.Potts. Certain character trait
    expansions work really well ( like Chip being extremely energetic).

    2. Set design.This film is beautiful and it has the Gothic architecture
    to prove it. ( however, there is a dark side to this)

    3. musical numbers. The comments about the auto tune need to be left
    aside. It’s clearly not stopping anytime soon. Now that. I’ve gotten
    that out of the way, most of the numbers are AMAZING! The visuals blend
    perfectly in Be Our Guest and Gastón is just a blast.

    Now, what doesn’t work

    1. The editing. There are beautiful sets and shots that were cut so
    abruptly, it bothered me. I’m a fan of long shots and atmospheric build
    ups. I wanted certain moments and architectural structures to resonate
    a little longer.

    2. Some of the writing. There are certain scenes that don’t hold up
    from the original because of added material and unique tonal shifts.
    This at times does make an actor give a poor delivery or say a line
    that doesn’t make sense. I think this is one of the main points that
    will throw people off as I believe it will affect the perception of the
    performances on camera.

    At the end of the day, I was smiling at the end of this picture. I
    advise people to leave the nostalgia of the original masterpiece to
    view a new interpretation of a classic film.

  • cmastepMarch 19, 2017Reply

    A Joy to behold

    While I have deep respect for anyone’s honest opinion of movies, I have
    to say I rarely ”review” a movie for technical acumen. I think about
    the only movie I’ve ever done that with was Star Trek 5 in which one of
    my best friends and I felt like Siskel and Ebert at the back of the
    theater picking the thing to pieces.

    Granted, that movie was easy to do that to. This movie was an absolute
    joy to behold! I’ve heard talk of distractions etc with the Beast in
    their effort to keep a touch of humanity to his otherwise inhuman face,
    but I just didn’t care. It was joyous. Ewan McGreggor nearly steals the
    movie as LeFluer, and Emma Watson is a delight.

    Probably above all, the nonsense of Lefoo (sp?) is nonsense! Yes he was
    clearly gay in the movie, but I did not care one iota. Go see it, and
    don’t try to judge, try to enjoy. Probably the easiest thing you’ll do.

  • Muriela DannyMarch 19, 2017Reply

    I Do Not Get It

    All these good reviews, all the praise, my local magazine reviewed it
    in glowing terms and watching it last night (and I even dragged my very
    unwilling boyfriend too) it felt like a copy. Yes, I know you are
    laughing it is already a remake and yet another Beauty And The Beat,
    but this is so similar to the one from the 90s we have all watched that
    you will be sitting there asking ‘what is the point?’ Still, pretty
    sure Disney doesn’t care they got two tickets out of us, but if you
    read this it is nothing new or different and the inclusion of a
    so-called gay character is so irrelevant to the story and so ungay that
    it makes no difference. If you have seen the multiple other Beauty And
    The Beasts out there (animated or not) you have seen this. Disney must
    be really hard up for cash. Do anything else, go out for dinner, cook
    for your man, let him take you in front of the window, read a book,
    update your keek or just unwind… you’d be ahead.

  • kampanagroupMarch 19, 2017Reply

    Above average movie, leads/songs are great, just doesn’t feel as ”magical” as the 1991 classic

    ***WARNING: This review may contain spoilers***

    The movie is nice but doesn’t feel magical. Don’t get me wrong. I like
    the movie. Here’s what I think worked and didn’t.

    WHAT DID WORK: 1) I like the additions of backstory to the Beast’s and
    Belle’s mother stories. 2) The new songs were good. Belle’s solo, the
    Beast’s solo (showing him as a kid looking at his mother), and when the
    Beast was up on the tower after he released Belle to go back to her
    father 3) The more life-like movements of the candelabra and the clock
    4) The Beast being Belle’s ”book” equal instead of being uneducated in
    the 1991 film 5) Emma Watson, Dan Stevens, and Luke Evans are good
    leads 6) The part where all the servants in their ”cursed state”
    (dresser, candelabra, Mrs. Potts, Chip, the piano, and especially the
    leg rest / dog become immobilized (and practically dead) was truly
    emotional and done very well. 7) I actually liked the end credits (no
    surprise scene at end) 8) Nice to hear Celine Dion sing during the end
    credits (but I’m partial to her voice)

    WHAT DIDN’T WORK: 1) They did a Brandy Cinderella-type version with
    town folk being white and black and multi-cultured…which made it look
    like a modern movie set instead of a fairy tale 2) Bad CGI for the
    wolves and the Beast’s face 3) The Village people reuniting with the
    ”new” reformed castle at the end and realizing there are some
    relationships that were crisscrossed with each other 4)Emma Watson’s
    songs were partially auto-tuned 5)Biggest disappointment for me was the
    ”Beauty and the Beast”-song and the dance. That was the scene that
    ”made” the 1991 movie, but the way the whole scene was filmed did not
    make it seem magical. I was waiting for the scene where Beast escorts
    Belle into the dance floor (which was imitated in the movie
    ”Enchanted”–but nothing like that here. Unfortunately, it was
    regrettable and more people are talking about Emma Watson’s yellow
    dress than this scene.

    There are more things that worked and more things that didn’t work, but
    these are some to give you an idea.

  • Thomas DrufkeMarch 19, 2017Reply

    That Was Magical

    Out of all the Disney live action remakes in the works, perhaps none
    more sacred to film fans than Beauty and the Beast. Dissecting and
    critiquing every set photo, clip, and trailer to pieces, there was a
    ton of pressure on Bill Condon’s remake. With that said, it’s hard to
    imagine a more fitting re-imagining of the classic tale than the one we
    were given.

    Let’s talk about this cast. This may be the most perfectly cast film
    I’ve seen in quite some time. Starting with Emma Watson as the beloved
    princess, Belle. Lily James certainly had some pressure taking on
    Cinderella, but to today’s audience, Belle is the more popular
    character. Watson wasn’t going to please everyone, but she captures
    Belle’s wonder, intelligence, curiosity, passion, and of course,
    beauty. Pair her with a great performance by Dan Stevens as the
    co-lead, and you have your classic romance.

    Luke Evans as Gaston, Josh Gad as LeFou, Kevin Kline as Maurice, Ewan
    McGregor as Lumière, Ian McKellan as Cogsworth, and Emma Thompson as
    Mrs. Potts? Come on now, casting that impeccably just isn’t normal.
    They don’t just look like their animated counterparts from the 1991
    version, they completely embody every aspect of what made us love them
    in the first place. McGregor and McKellan have a hilarious back and
    forth, as do Gad and Evans, and Kline & Thompson will break your heart
    as respected parents.

    As for the music, which probably provided the most hesitation from avid
    fans. Would they change things too much? Too little? Would the new
    songs actually add anything of value? I wasn’t bothered by any of the
    new music, but none of them particularly stood out either. But they
    nailed all of the new renditions of the classic Alan Menken hits. I
    don’t know that anyone can top Angela Lansbury’s Beauty and the
    Beast/Tale as Old as Time, but Emma Thompson gives it her best effort.
    The ”Be Our Guest” scene? Yep, it’s just as ridiculously fun as the
    original.

    The additional time spent fleshing out the Beast and Belle’s individual
    backstories felt necessary and not excessive. Really, the only thing
    that needed working on in this movie was Beast’s CGI. There were
    moments of really noticeable effects work, especially in the ballroom
    dance sequence. Unfortunately, that’s one of the most important scenes
    in the film, you’d think that would be something they spent a little
    more time on. In the same vein, not all of the green screen was
    polished either. I love how colorful and wondrous the production design
    and sets are, but that can only do so much. But if the CGI is all I’m
    complaining about, then I think the filmmakers did alright.

    I watched the 1991 version a lot as a kid, so this was a remake that
    was near and dear to my heart and pretty much my entire generation.
    With the exception of a few CGI filled scenes, I think this ranks up
    there with the best of Disney Live Action remakes. It’s not often I get
    swept up with emotion at the climax of a kids movie, but I just
    couldn’t help myself with this one. The cinematography, the
    performances, and that legendary music all came together at the end.
    This was nothing short of a magical time at the theaters.

    +Perfect cast

    +Glorious music

    +Felt the Disney magic once again

    +Subtle additions were beneficial

    -Beast CGI was worse than I originally thought

    9.3/10

  • jgeorge4March 19, 2017Reply

    Pretty Tough to Assign a Grade

    Let’s stipulate to the fact that the animated version of Beauty and the
    Beast (and subsequent live musical productions)are absolute
    masterpieces. Beauty and the Beast may just be the greatest musical of
    all time.

    So, let’s also stipulate to the fact that the 2017 movie production is
    also pretty good. You can’t take an established masterpiece, apply a
    Disney-sized budget and an all-star cast, and come out with a bad
    movie. The question is, did they come away with a great movie?
    Mmm…not really.

    Is there anything about this extravagant production that improved upon
    the animated version? Well, there’s new songs that are…um…pretty
    weak. There’s the new version of LeFou, and he’s umm…umm…there’s
    the reimagined Maurice who is terribly miscast, drab, and lifeless.
    There’s the new, not-especially-appealing, time-travel Paris schtick.
    And umm…did we mention LeFou loves Gaston? Amazing, huh?

    So there you have it. It’s live-action Beauty and the Beast on the big
    screen. It frequently looks wonderful, it’s got the great songs that
    you love, Lumiere is terrific, but a great movie?

    There must be more than this provincial life.

  • Tink7-170-163497March 19, 2017Reply

    Emma Watson???? What were they thinking?

    I really don’t get the attraction to Emma Watson. She’s not pretty and
    not a very good actress.

    And why does Hollyweird insist on ramming their homosexual agenda down
    our throats? ”Methinks thou dost protest too much!” The more you try to
    bully people to see things your way, the more we won’t believe you.
    Family movies are not the place for you to try and convince people your
    views are OK.

    Kevin Kline is a great actor and I was happy there was one good actor
    in this movie.

    As usual, the beast looks better with the makeup on.

  • maryanncostelloMarch 19, 2017Reply

    Flat

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • Charity DunnMarch 19, 2017Reply

    A frustrating under-delivery

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • zacvolteasMarch 19, 2017Reply

    This movie lived up to every expectation

    Bonjour, Hello! I have been waiting 2 years to see this film and I am
    happy to say it was worth it. I will admit though the first 15 minutes
    are a little slow but after that, every minute is amazingly
    entertaining and hilarious. The blend between the original and the new
    film works perfectly to create a new Disney classic, there’s a reason
    why it’s the film with the highest opening weekend ever in March. Emma
    Watson also does a perfect job at playing Belle capturing the true
    nature of her character. Overall this is a fun filled film for the
    whole family, it’s a must see.

  • sak007March 19, 2017Reply

    Do yourself a favor and see this movie twice

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • ctshultsMarch 19, 2017Reply

    Disappointed…

    Frankly, I was disappointed. I don’t like musicals in general, but I
    had high hopes for this one. Not so much….Belle fell pretty flat for
    me, flat voice, flat acting…she constantly reminded me of Hermione.
    The knick-knack characters were much more charming and had better
    dialogue. The beast was well done…his face was expressive, showed a
    lot of emotion. Until he turned into Dan Stevens. I’m glad I saw it,
    but this was not a memorable experience for me.

  • Neil-M09March 19, 2017Reply

    The best thing about the movie are the costumes and listening Ewan McGregor sing again, after 16 years

    These 2 things besides Emma Thompson are the only good things. The rest
    of the movie is, if I remember well, identical to the animated version,
    but with less charm.

    The performance of Emma Watson is a bit bad, at the level of those
    performances in children’s birthday. Luke Evans as Gaston is lousy, has
    no other adjective and the way Josh Gad as LeFou play a gay character
    is too cliché.

    The rest is CGI and bad funny scenes. Conclusion…go to see it, only
    if you are invited and someone pay your ticket.

  • seref96March 19, 2017Reply

    An amazing retelling of a beloved story with great acting

    First of all I have to say I liked this movie more than the original.
    With all the additional background stories, character developments, new
    songs, it was perfect for me. Those additions made the Belle & Beast’s
    love story more believable.

    Emma Watson’s portrayal of Belle was great. I loved how she managed to
    do the character more human, which is something I didn’t see in the
    previous live-action princesses like Lily James (she was good, but she
    was too much two dimensional for my taste), without Watson I don’t
    think it would be as good. Josh Gad, Luke Evans, Kevin Kline, Dan
    Stevens all deserve a shot, they were marvelous. Even the actors who
    were there most of the time with just their voices managed to do these
    loved characters their own. Especially Ewan Mcgregor, he was an amazing
    Lumiere. Production design, costumes, cinematography, visual effects
    were all spectacular. For the new songs, my favorite was ”Evermore” (
    The one thing that bothers me about the criticism of the new songs is
    that ,the same critics who LOVED the La La Land songs, say that the new
    songs are forgettable, all I can say about this; those three songs are
    better than the whole La La Land soundtrack)

    There are so many unnecessary criticism, all I can say about it, don’t
    listen, and go enjoy the movie. I believe most of you will leave the
    cinema with a big smile like I did.

  • larrymeersMarch 19, 2017Reply

    An exact copy of the classic original

    Ever since Disney made a live action remake of the jungle book, they
    have been making remakes of our childhood films,and hope to continue
    doing that. And then you have this movie. We all know the story, A
    beautiful girl stumbles across a castle with talking house hold items
    and a beast, but soon enough they grow to love each other. I really
    liked all the people in this movie, they did a good job at playing
    their roles, whether they were a mild mannered tea cup, or a hairy
    creature. The special effects were good, and most of the musical
    numbers were great. However all the people and the music does not make
    up for the same exact story as the animated classic. I enjoyed The
    Jungle Book and Pete’s Dragon because all though they had some of the
    same elements, they boosted enough new elements and a new plot to keep
    the story going. While this movie doesn’t do that at all. I expected
    some things do be different but it gave me the same characters, same
    plot, and mostly the same musical numbers. Hell they even had the same
    dialogue. So in the end, Beauty and the Beast may have some enjoyable
    moments, but that is not enough to keep us engaged when all it is an
    exact copy of the classic original. C- or 5/10. Face it the only reason
    they made this film was to put more money into Disney’s pockets.

  • HelenMarch 19, 2017Reply

    A definite score of 10, 3D is a must!

    I found many of the top reviews too cruel on their critics when the
    film was just released on its first day. Having read them before seeing
    the film with my own eyes, I was truly nervous and worried that it will
    be a disappointment, yet despite all that I still went and it turned
    out to be most fulfilling and satisfying. Now I am back from the cinema
    giving it a 10, well it is not perfect, but it deserve a little
    compliment and you can not deny some of the beautiful replicate on the
    old scenes which clearly shows the efforts that the team has put in,
    and I am not very picky when it comes to actors, I found them singing
    quite well too considering they are not professionals. During the 2 and
    half hours. I could not help but held a big smile on my face for over
    half of the time, it is like a dream come true, with all the most
    lovely songs and scenes and childhood memories. I was less than 10
    years old when I first saw the cartoon version and now at age of 30, I
    could be in the cinema with my husband, holding his hand and watch it
    together, it was such a wonderful moment, I want to give a big THANKS
    to Disney for making all these happen, thank you for all your stories
    and songs that makes the world with more love and brightness. I hope
    when I have children they will love your work as much as I do.

    Finally I strongly recommend the 3D version, it brings everything more
    alive and fancy and exhilarating!

  • eabendartMarch 19, 2017Reply

    Great, but could have used some more work.

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • Shahrukh Shahbaz MalikMarch 19, 2017Reply

    Disney did not disappoint…

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • thierry_boivinMarch 19, 2017Reply

    Really good family movie!

    Went to see this movie at Disney Springs on opening night. Was
    pleasantly surprised how good it was. I like that they stayed close to
    the cartoon and reused some of the songs. Our whole family liked it.

    I’m puzzled by reviewers that rated this movie below a 7. Everyone’s
    entitled to their opinion but I don’t see how this movie is below a 7.

  • RenCatReviewsMarch 19, 2017Reply

    Fine if superfluous.

    Recently Disney has become fixated on remaking, rebooting, or re-
    imaging their older films. This film is the third live action remake of
    one of Disney’s classic animated films. So this is a remake of an
    animated adaptation of a french fairy tale (working title). If you
    haven’t seen the classic animated film or just don’t remember it the
    story goes as follows: Lady falls in love with monster. Of course
    there’s underlying theme’s and messages to take away but that’s
    basically the story. It’s simple and easy to understand. This is
    probably the greatest strength of the animated film. The story isn’t
    over burdened by much else, it’s just a love story with whimsical
    characters and house hold appliances that sing.

    It’s in these details where this remake falls short. While it’s
    essentially a shot for shot remake of the original there are a few
    things added. And every single thing added to this that didn’t exist in
    the original feel so out of place and overly convoluted that it’s hard
    to take them seriously. There’s an entire subplot added to this film
    where Belle is attempting to find out how her mother died.

    It only comes up a few times and it’s not really even written into the
    story. We have the original story and, all of a sudden, Belle discovers
    that her mom and dad lived in a windmill in Paris. Like, why? Why is
    this even included in the story? It doesn’t add any depth to her or her
    father. It basically is just there to say that her dad loves her, which
    I think we can all reasonably infer already.

    There are various other added scenes and all of them feel roughly the
    same as this one. They all come from nowhere, add nothing, and then are
    completely forgotten about because they serve absolutely no purpose.
    This is where remakes become frustrating. On one hand, you want to see
    something new but if you go in a completely new direction people
    complain. And if you make a shot for shot remake, people complain.

    There’s this tiny gray area in between these two extremes where a
    remake is almost acceptable. Look at ‘The Force Awakens’ for reference.
    While that film was essentially just a remake of ‘A New Hope’ there
    were new characters, a new threat, new environments, and new ideas
    being presented. ‘Beauty and the Beast’ falls just shy of being a shot
    for the shot remake by simply adding a new song or two and a few
    scenes.

    It feels like the same movie but with the deleted scenes added in.
    That’s both the biggest flaw and greatest accomplishment of this film.
    It’s obnoxious to watch a worse version of the same movie but where
    this movie works best is in the scenes that are pulled straight from
    the cartoon. Seeing this massive budget bring to life the jaw- dropping
    castle and characters was really neat.

    As much as I dislike Disney movies they do know how to utilize a
    budget. The sets, costumes, makeup, and CG all look spectacular. There
    were many scenes where I was left in awe of how good this movie looked
    and how much effort was seemingly put into making it look that good.
    And this is where all my respect for the film goes. They did an
    absolutely brilliant job bringing the cartoon to life.

    But that’s, unfortunately, all this film is good for. It doesn’t have
    an identity of its own. It wants to be the original but also wants to
    be its own thing and ends up being neither. There are some beautiful
    sets, costumes, and inspired recreations of the classics songs yet the
    film falters in nearly every other way. Its story is clouded by
    illogical and overly convoluted subplots that just sort of dead end and
    add nothing. While I am still strongly against remaking classic films,
    I can say that out of the three live action cartoon remakes we have
    gotten this is the best, but not by much. Just, make new things,
    please.

  • rockman182March 19, 2017Reply

    Beauty and the Beast (2017)

    Ever since I heard about the news about a live action adaptation of
    this Disney classic I was over the moon. I was even more excited to
    hear Emma Watson was going to play Belle. I’m a big fan of her and will
    watch any of her work. There was still a bit of cautiousness about this
    adaptation. The animated musical is my favorite Disney film of all time
    and it was completely possible to be disappointed because of it not
    holding up to the 1991 version. Now having seen it I must say this film
    was great. If you are a fan of the animated film I think you wont be
    let down by this very faithful re-imagining.

    I’ll start with the negatives if they can even be called that. I think
    the CGI Beast looked odd and off at times, especially around the face.
    Dan Stevens is completely unrecognizable but still some of the Beast
    scenes have a slight hindrance of looking computerized. Some of the
    same could be said with the facial expressions on Mrs. Potts and Chip.
    This qualm is really minimal though, it must be hard bringing a talking
    beast and talking teacup to life so this is barely a criticism. The
    film is quite long, the animated classic is basically spread out with
    even more songs and scenes between Belle and The Beast. Its not really
    bad as it doesn’t really take away from the fantastical experience. The
    Beauty and the Beast main theme was kind of disappointing. Emma
    Thompson did a nice job but the song doesn’t compare to the Angela
    Lansbury version which is supreme. Lastly, the castle design should
    have followed the animated version more closely, in my opinion.

    The production and set design is fabulous. I’m sure a lot of the scenes
    were computerized however it all looks great. The scene of Belle
    singing up on to the hills early on in the film looks magnificent. The
    castle and costume design is on point. The costumes especially bring
    the animated characters to life. There is so much going on on screen
    and your eyes are captivated by it all. I’m talking especially about
    the ”Be Our Guest” song, its absolutely spectacular. The music is also
    great and for the most part faithfully re-recorded and completely
    respects the songs in the Disney classic.

    People were complaining about Emma Watson portraying Belle. I think she
    may put a lot of the critics to rest now. She handles the Belle
    character with grace, beauty, and a strong willing persuasion. Every
    scene I felt like the animated Belle came to life. Dan Stevens and Ewan
    McGregor voice (and motion capture I guess) were great. Luke Evans was
    an MVP as the brash, cocky, and downright jerky Gaston. The cast all
    did a great job of bringing their counterparts to life. I was hesitant
    about Bill Condon helming the film but now am glad that he did.

    This was a very faithful live update to the animated film from 1991.
    There are more songs and space for characters to grow and
    cinematography to pop but its all very respectful to its predecessor.
    Overall, if you are a die-hard fan of the animated version I think you
    will love it. Its a wonderful new addition (and perhaps the strongest
    one yet) to the live action Disney remake trend. Its a bright and
    profitable future if these first crop of films are any indication of
    whats to come.

    8.5/10

  • nvmanatee323March 19, 2017Reply

    Beauty and The Beast…what is lost cannot be found.

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • InsaneunoMarch 19, 2017Reply

    Unpopular opinion: This is better than the original

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • TheJediWay9March 19, 2017Reply

    Despite Some Pacing Issues And A Few Technical Flaws, ”Beauty And The Beast” Is Still A Magnificent, Magical Journey Boosted By Strong Performances From Its Lead Actors

    ”Beauty And The Beast” is Disney’s fourth live-action remake of a
    classic animated film, is directed by Bill Condon, and star Emma Watson
    as Belle, a bookworm who goes a castle holding a beast who has been
    coursed and they start to fall in love with each while Gaston (Luke
    Evans) has other plans.

    I was really looking forward to this film after seeing ”The Jungle
    Book,” and seeing how well Disney pulled off that magic, and thankfully
    it worked in this film. Not as good as the animated classic, but a very
    strong-live action remake.

    Emma Watson does a very good job as Belle. I can see this as a career
    revival for Emma. Looking at her films between Harry Potter and this, I
    think a lot of people didn’t really know where her acting career was
    going. And goddamn can she sing. Her voice is magnificent. Who knew she
    could belt those high notes. A movie like this has to have good
    chemistry from its two leads. if it doesn’t, this movie would have
    failed, but luckily, she and Dan Stevens make a great team and their
    chemistry together is really realized in a lot of the bonding scenes in
    this film.

    Let’s talk about Luke Evans as Gaston for a moment. Luke Evans proves
    why he is one of the best actors working today. Gaston was villainous,
    he was evil, downright unlikeable, like a classic Disney villain or any
    movie villain for that matter should be, and it really helped that he
    was portrayed by someone like Luke Evans. Evans gives it his all and
    the supporting cast does as well, as not one single one of them has a
    bad singing voice.

    Some of the songs were extended, which I liked. The ”Gaston” song was
    extended for this movie to show just how evil the dude really is, and I
    appreciated that. All of the classics from the original animated film
    are in here like ”Belle,” ”Be Our Guest,” ”Beauty And The Beast,”
    ”Gaston,” and ”Kill the Beast.” My only problem with so many songs and
    an added 40 minutes on the runtime compared to the original is that at
    times it feels like this film can be a bit slow. You feel like you’re a
    lot further into this film than you really are and you realize that
    sometimes a couple of the songs drag.

    There also some times that the CGI with the Beast bothered me. It
    didn’t look very smooth in these scenes when it was mostly flawless for
    the rest of the film. I’ve talked to other people about this and they
    say they didn’t notice it, but for some reason I did, and it stuck out
    so I had to talk about a technical flaw I saw.

    This vision is well realized. The world this film portrays portrays it
    in a way that is believable. You believe this place actually exists and
    is fantasy world that people like Belle could live in. I really liked
    this movie, and am looking forward to many more Disney live-action
    remakes.

    I am going to give ”Beauty And The Beast” an 8.5/10.

    You can find my video review of ”Beauty And The Beast” on YouTube
    here:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMtb_uXG9c4

  • jquinlan19March 19, 2017Reply

    Visually beautiful, very engaging, excellent overall.

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • Strega GrangerMarch 19, 2017Reply

    Tale as old as time

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • airspirit83March 19, 2017Reply

    A truly amazing version of a true classic

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • danielrobertgriffinMarch 19, 2017Reply

    Many misses

    The director hit the targets he was aiming for, it’s disappointing that
    a quality film was not on the list. It seems the movie just assumes
    that you will care about the characters. I found very little to like in
    the character development. The times where the creators thought he was
    driving home a successful point the scene stinks of silly politics and
    I heard giggles throughout the theater. A bright spot was beast’s sad
    solo which was a great (albeit unintended) comic touch. I am pretty
    confused about the higher ratings online. As a lifelong Disney fan I
    really can’t think of a more poorly made Disney movie. To be fair the
    visuals were absolutely stunning, visually this was a real treat. I
    very much appreciated the that the set was stylized to perfection. It’s
    very ironic that there is such a tip of the hat to reading when the
    illiterate are perhaps the only ones that will truly appreciate this
    poorly timed mess. The one save for the loss of my evening is that I
    did now have expose my 4 year old girl to this mess.

  • lordshaktiMarch 19, 2017Reply

    fan’s dream come true

    Ever since i saw the first teaser,i was dying to see this childhood
    favourite animation movie come alive as a liveaction Hollywood
    adaptation.As any other DisneyFairytale fan,my expectations were way
    too high with this one.Although i was not very pleased with their
    casting (EmmaWatson and Luke evans specially),i had no shortage of
    desperation to finally witness the epic eternal love story produced in
    today’s advanced filmmaking facilities. And i am happy to say that i
    didn’t get disappointed this time.This movie has met all my
    expectations and exceeded in some aspects.3D effects are extremely
    aesthetic and quiet a feast to eyes.the CG work of particles,fur,cloth
    etc is of sheer brilliance (as i would expect with Disney,it was
    perfectly balanced and neither photorealistic nor cartoonish..) There
    is nothing to say about the story etc as we all know it since our
    childhoods.Disney didn’t waste runtime on establishing the plot and
    only focused on its grand ”portrayal”.Which is a good thing (And
    exactly where Junglebook,Snowwhite n maleficient failed) There is this
    ”Be our guest” sequence which is breathtaking beautiful. It just
    mesmerises for few seconds. Belle is dressed in a magical yellow gown
    and beast comes up so elegantly there. Cogsworth,lumiere and chip
    (living objects of the palace) are animated very cutely.I’d not compare
    their expressions with the 1991 2D masterpiece though,inner child in me
    loved them all! 3D effects and complimenting cinematography makes you
    go awestruck quiet regularly till the end. The only thing which could
    have been wayy better is the ”music”. It wasn’t something unpleasant
    ,but this being a ”musical”,needed freshness and not too stretched
    singing solos and repetitive same old ensemble BGM we have heard
    countless times elsewhere. All in all,i am very happy with this movie
    and i can say that it will stay in my collection for years! This isn’t
    the first time when Disney did a classic remake,this is indeed the
    first time when Disney made me fall in love again!

  • Chuck SearsMarch 19, 2017Reply

    Outstanding remake

    When my wife and I got married, our theme was Beauty and the Beast. I
    sang the title song during the ceremony. Needless to say, we really
    love the 1991 animated version and we were somewhat cautious about
    seeing this remake.

    Our fears were totally unfounded. This was awesome – Disney at its
    best. The talented and lovely Emma Watson is just perfect as Belle and
    the Beast is….well, very beastly! Gaston is still a colossal jerk and
    the ballroom scene when Mrs. Potts sings Beauty and the Beast had us
    both in tears.

    We are going to go see this movie again, probably a couple of times
    more!

  • suessisMarch 19, 2017Reply

    A Wonderful Adaption

    I have been wondering while listening to the reviews of this latest
    version of Disney’s Beauty and the Beast how many of the critics
    panning it are Millennials who were kids when this came out and have
    been spoiled by the era of CGI. I was an adult when that film came out
    but loved it anyway. The 1991 version was a leap forward in Animation
    with its use of computer produced art and the more intimate
    storytelling that was only seen before in moments of The Little
    Mermaid.

    When they said Disney had turned it into Broadway Musical I wasn’t
    surprised because that is essentially what this is. It’s a
    Menken/Ashman (with some help from Tim Rice) musical of which the 1991
    film was simply one version. Menken and Ashman both treated it that way
    and the film was all that better for it. If you look at it from that
    perspective the why of redoing it can be answered. Like any other well-
    loved musical doing it again with a different cast and director will
    always be something people will want to do. I think it’s time to see
    this for a new generation.

    This is a visually stunning film. The CGI of the Beast was only
    distracting in the beginning but once you got connected to the
    performance that Dan Stevens gives it no longer matters. Like the 1991
    version the colors in this film are vivid and bold. The set decoration
    and costuming are lavish and beautiful. The character design of the
    household objects is amazingly detailed. The film hearkens back in some
    ways to musical extravaganzas of the 50s and the 60. The ”Belle”
    sequence reminded me of the film version of the Oliver musical. The
    ”Gaston” sequence had moments that reminded me of Seven Brides for
    Seven Brothers and when Emma Watson sings ”Belle (Reprise)” reminded me
    of Sound of Music. The end titles even had nod to the same genre.

    The musical numbers were very well done particularly the rendition of
    the ”Gaston”. Of the new musical numbers ”Evermore” and ”How Does a
    Moment Last Forever” were beautiful and fit well into the new version.
    Emma Watson did a very good job as Belle. While her voice is not
    Broadway quality is sweet and charming. I think Autotune has been
    imagined on it because the media has told people it was there in the
    trailers. Dan Stevens as the Beast is very powerful and manages to give
    Beast life under all the CGI. The supporting cast (especially Luke
    Evans, Josh Gad, Ewan McGregor, and Emma Thompson) are all very good.
    The cast doing the voice parts also infuse life into their characters
    with their vocal performances. Despite his concerns about his French
    accent McGregor did a brilliant job with his role. Emma Thompson gave a
    pleasant rendition of ”Beauty and the Beast”.

    While the film is reverent to the 1991 film it should be taken as its
    own entity. I highly recommend this film for family viewing. It is a
    beautiful, joyful experience.

  • bob-the-movie-manMarch 19, 2017Reply

    Tail as old as Kline.

    If you are lucky enough to have children you will know that each child
    tends to have ”their” Disney feature: for my second daughter (then 4)
    that film would be ”Beauty and the Beast”. With a VHS video tape worn
    down to the substrate, this is a film I know every line of dialogue to
    (”I’m especially good at expectorating”). So seeing this movie was
    always going to be a wander down Nostalgia Avenue and a left turn into
    Emotion Crescent, regardless of how good a film it was. And so it
    proved.

    Taking no chances with a beloved formula, most of the film is an almost
    exact frame-for-frame recreation of the original, with the odd
    diversion which, in the main, is to slot in new songs by original
    composer Alan Menken with Tim Rice lyrics. For, unlike ”La La Land”
    this is a proper musical lover’s musical with songs dropping in
    regularly throughout the running time.

    Which brings us to Emma Watson’s Belle. I’ve seen review comments that
    she ‘dials it in’ with a humourless and soulless portrayal of the
    iconic bookworm. I can’t fathom what film those people were watching! I
    found Watson to be utterly mesmerising, confident and delightful with a
    fine (though possibly auto-tuned) singing voice. Her ‘Sound of Music’
    moment (you’ll know the one) brought tears to my eyes. There are
    moments when her acting is highly reminiscent of Hermione Grainger, but
    this is about as crass a criticism as saying that Harrison Ford has
    done his ”Knock it Off” snarl again.

    I even felt that the somewhat dodgy bestiality/Stockholm-syndrome
    thing, inherent in the plot, was deftly handled by her. Curiously (and
    I feel guilty for even thinking this) the only part I felt slightly
    icky about was the age difference evident in the final kiss between
    Watson (now 27) and the transformed beast played by Dan Stevens
    (”Downton Abbey”) only 8 years her senior. I think the problem here is
    that it is still difficult for me to decouple the modern feminist woman
    that is Watson from the picture of the young Hogwarts schoolgirl. (I
    know this is terrible typecasting, and definitely my bad, but that’s
    the way it is).

    Stevens himself is fine as the cursed prince, albeit that most of his
    scenes are behind the CGI-created wet-rug that is the beast. Similarly,
    most of the supporting stars (Ewan McGregor as Lumière, Ian McKellen as
    Cogsworth, Emma Thompson as Mrs Potts and an almost unrecognisable
    Stanley Tucci as the maestro Cadenza) are similarly confined to voice
    parts for the majority of the film. Kevin Kline is great as the
    supremely huggable Maurice. But the performances that really shine
    though are those of Luke Evans (”The Girl on the Train”) as the
    odiously boorish Gaston and Josh Gad (Olaf in ”Frozen”) as his
    hilariously adoring sidekick LeFou. Much has been made of the gay
    Disney angle to this element of the story, most of which is arrant
    homophobic nonsense since the scenes are pretty innocuous. In fact the
    most adventurous ‘non-heterosexual’ aspect of the film, and a scene
    that raises by far the biggest laugh, relates to a completely different
    character.

    Most of the songs delivered in the film are OK without surpassing the
    versions in the original. Only Dan Steven’s dramatic new song
    ”Evermore”- as one of the few really new ‘full-length’ songs in the
    film – has ‘Oscar nomination’ written all over it. However, the film
    eschews the ‘live-filming’ approach to song production featured in
    recent musicals like ”La La Land” and ”Les Miserables”, with some
    degree of lip-sync evident. Whilst I understand that ‘imperfection’ is
    not a ”Disney thing”, I found that lack of risk- taking a bit of a
    disappointment.

    In terms of the special effects, by today’s ”Jungle Book” standards,
    they are mediocre at best. I wondered at first if some of the dodgy
    green-screen work was delivered that way to make it seem more
    ”cartoony”, but I doubt that – – why bother? More irritatingly, the
    animated chattels in the castle, especially the candlestick Lumière,
    are seriously unconvincing. Mrs Potts, the teapot, and her son Chip,
    the cup, are rendered as flat and two-dimensional. There should have
    been no shortage of money to thrown at the effects with a reported
    budget of $160 million. Where has the Disney magic gone?

    The film also seems to be rendered primarily for a 3D showing (I saw it
    in 2D). I say this because some of the panning shots (notably one
    around the library) to me just ended up as an unimpressive blur of
    mediocrity. Most odd.

    The director is Bill Condon responsible for the modestly well-
    respected but low-key ”Dreamgirls” and ”Mr Holmes” but also the much
    derided ”Breaking Dawn” end to the ”Twilight” series. As such this
    seems to have been quite a risk that Disney took with such a high
    profile property, and I would have been intrigued to see what a more
    innovative director like Chazelle or Iñárritu would have done with it.

    However, despite my reservations it is bound to be a MONSTER hit in
    every sense of the word, and kids aged 5 to 10 will, I predict,
    absolutely adore it (be warned that kids under 5 may be seriously
    scared by some of the darker scenes, especially the two wolf- attacks).
    For a younger age group, I would rate it as an easy 10*. As an adult
    viewer, given that I have viewed it through the rosy tint of my
    nostalgia-glasses (unfortunately you cannot hire these at the cinema if
    you haven’t brought your own!), this was an enjoyable watch. Despite my
    (more than expected!) slew of criticisms above my rating is still a
    generous 8.

    (For the graphical version of this review, and to comment on it, please
    visit bob-the-movie-man.com).

  • kobeandreiMarch 19, 2017Reply

    Do yourself a favor and just watch the animated version again

    It’s incredible how lifeless this live-action adaptation (with real,
    breathing humans) is compared to the 1991 animated version. The efforts
    to make the love story more believable were appreciated, but still fell
    way short and the effort was barely there in terms of writing and
    acting. The visuals were unimpressive at the least to downright ugly in
    some. (A simple example would be the rose, just sadly trapped in glass,
    not even glowing. Lifeless.) The musical pieces were bland, nothing
    really special, like the commitment was just halfway, just something
    they had to do. (Be Our Guest was especially disappointing: badly
    designed, choreographed and directed that really, you would beg to just
    watch the animated version again instead.) I would’ve cut some of those
    additional songs as well. The singing, except for 6-time Tony Award
    winner Audra McDonald, was mediocre. Autotune was definitely used for a
    lot of them, but you can especially tell with lead Emma Watson. The
    acting was also all over the place. Out of the actors we see on screen,
    only Luke Evans really commits to his role, his best moments being in
    the first half of the movie. Dan Stevens’ performance is hard to
    decipher, since his voice was heavily edited for Beast, and his face is
    completely CGI. Also eye roll-worthy were the fake French accents some
    voice actors had to use while others retain their own English accents,
    and Mrs. Potts voiced by Emma Thompson had a cockney accent. Remember
    that everyone is in France anyway. Either hire French actors or just
    drop the ‘accent’ entirely. This movie was nothing but a complete cash
    grab for Disney, and the box office numbers will unfortunately let them
    keep making movies this empty.

  • maralvimmmMarch 19, 2017Reply

    Stunning movie, I was ecstatic

    What a wonderful, charming film, we see the same story, but in a
    totally charming way. I saw and I was dazzled, I remembered the story
    of drawing of Disney and it seemed magic the scenarios are something of
    very refinement and show of effects !!!

    Well, I loved everything, scenarios, musics and performances, I found
    it exciting this movie that we know the color story, but that came with
    new clothes, and it was wonderful! Congratulations to beautiful Emma
    Watson, could not be another actress, she really is Bela, she is
    beautiful too !!!

  • christopherloeffler8-997-50402March 19, 2017Reply

    Beauty & the Kevin Kline

    Okay.

    I’m a huge fan of Kevin Kline.

    With that being said, he was the star of this film. He held it all
    together and if he wasn’t present in the cast the movie would have
    fallen apart completely.

    I haven’t seen the movie yet but guys, it’s Kevin Kline. I mean, he was
    in Wild Wild West AND No Strings Attached. Go see this movie. Pay $14
    at AMC to see it IMAX 3D. I know I will. For Kevin.

    Thanks, guys.

  • kittenkarsMarch 19, 2017Reply

    Beauty and the Beast Review: A Magical Masterpiece.

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • NerdHuman123March 19, 2017Reply

    Awesome remake with Disney magic and spellbinding visuals. Don’t believe the bad reviews.

    Disney’s live-action remake of the much loved classic animated film
    Beauty and the Beast lives up to the hype, and is just as good as, or
    possibly even better than the animated version. The story is the same,
    with enough new things in it to add something fresh. Most of the songs
    from the animated version are in the film, and sound quite similar to
    those in the animated version. All this makes viewers nostalgic for the
    old film. The acting is what one would expect from such a huge cast.
    Luke Evans as Gaston and Josh Gad as LeFou are especially spectacular,
    as they add humor to their already well developed characters. As I
    already mentioned, the songs and the music are great, and live up to
    Disney standards. The cinematography is also great, with long sweeping
    shots during the musical sequences. The shots of the setting and of the
    castle are also amazing. What really impressed me about this movie
    though is the costumes, the sets, the castle, and the general look of
    the film. Wow wow wow applause clap clap clap!!! No description of mine
    can do justice to the amazing design and the spectacular use of CGI. I
    was worried about what the beast and the objects in the castle might
    look like in a live-action movie, but Disney did a very good job of not
    just making it work, but making it amazing. Another thing about this
    version of Beauty and the Beast that I loved was that there’s a
    homosexual character! In a Disney princess movie with a lot of clichés
    in it, it’s awesome to see some diversity.

    Disney’s remake of Beauty and the Beast will make fans of the animated
    classic nostalgic. It will delight a new generation of children. I
    wouldn’t recommend bringing really young children to see it though, as
    there is some violence and things that may spoil your child’s
    innocence. The movie is very enjoyable for teens and adults as well.
    However, if you don’t like the animated classic, you will not enjoy
    this movie. If you don’t like classic fairy tales featuring princes and
    castles, don’t see this movie. If you hate musicals, don’t see this
    movie. See this movie for the Disney charm, the nostalgia for the
    animated version, the music, and the amazing visuals. I would highly
    recommend seeing Beauty and the Beast in the cinema, possibly in 3D.

  • crystal martinezMarch 19, 2017Reply

    One major part in the original was not exaggerated enough!

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • reidrgMarch 19, 2017Reply

    Has the magic deserted this retold Disney classic?

    Where fortune favors the brave, this live-action adaptation of a
    storied classic fails to venture into uncharted territory, instead
    feeling as though the storyteller is hastily and mechanically executing
    a sequence of scenes per shareholders’ best interests. Throughout the
    course of this film was bereft a certain magical sensation better
    evoked by the original animated telling of the ‘tale as old as time’.
    Nothing stands out as being particularly inspiring in this new Beauty
    and the Beast. No risks are taken. The greatest value is enjoyed in the
    CGI artistry which indeed is dazzling, yet feels manufactured in order
    to mask what little depth lies in the storytelling and characters.
    Thankfully, this version does nothing to taint the well-deserved
    acclaim garnered by it’s predecessor, which will continue to be
    cherished by many and to many (including myself) will remain the
    obvious preference of the two pictures.

  • Ryan LynchMarch 19, 2017Reply

    No idea how reviews are as good as they are.

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • hannah132016March 19, 2017Reply

    Amazing Best Movie Of 2017

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • Lexa LexMarch 19, 2017Reply

    Literally, animated film come to life

    For a typical girl like me who’s a hopeless romantic, the movie is
    absolutely ”amazing”. It is literally a come-to-life version of the
    legendary animated film. Despite the other reviews, all of the actors’
    acting wasn’t that bad, although I must say it’s short of superb, they
    could have done better.

    On the low side, I didn’t like Belle’s yellow dress, (not that my
    opinion matters haha) but, the one in the animated film looked better,
    Emma’s looked like a layers of cake, in my opinion, she could’ve worn
    like a real ball gown that swings with every turn, and that scatters
    glitters, haha.

    Overall, the movie’s special effects, voice over and overall impact is
    beautiful. xoxo

  • akoaytao1234March 19, 2017Reply

    Hermoine and her Beast

    Beauty and the Beast is live action adaptation of the beloved 90’s
    animation of the same name. It follows the nerdy Belle as she leaps off
    her small provincial town to be trapped in the mysterious world of the
    Beast. I would not lie, this film really leaves a lot of things to be
    talked about as it really is quite a mixed bag of positives and
    negatives.

    To start off my discussion, the first half of the film is very
    confusing. It felt like a lot of exposition needed to firmly root the
    relationships within this updated film were left out. I could not help
    but be lost at times when some ‘different-from-the- original’ moments
    happens every now and then. Also, it negatively affected the setup of
    some scenes further down the film. In addition, the first half of the
    film was oddly centered in showcasing the film’s special effects and
    uncomfortably darker than expected.

    Secondly, a lot of acting in this film left me with very mixed
    feelings. Emma Watson just did not do it for me as Belle. Though the
    modern interpretation of Belle is interesting to say the least , Watson
    does not have enough charisma to carry her character. Also, while I do
    not see anything bad staying true to the original, I was really
    bothered by some awful voice acting in this film. If they cannot make a
    good impression of the original , then maybe change it up. I cannot
    stop cringing every time I hear awful voice impression every now and
    then.

    Lastly, the effects in this film is shockingly wonky. Given that this
    is a huge production, I am kinda disappointed how the CGI characters is
    very stilted and hindered some of the framing in this film, especially
    those scenes including Mrs.Potts. Also, those CGI pan shots are
    migraine hazards, gosh. Those scenes were the worst.

    On the positive side, when the Beast and Belle started to appear
    together and the romance portion of the film starts to pick up,
    everything just suddenly worked for the better. The mood, the story and
    the changes are just better than the first half. Also, I kinda find the
    lightening of the overall mood of the film greatly lift the film from
    its intensely stiff first half.

    Acting wise, Luke Evans and Olaf takes this film. They were both stayed
    true to the original yet their expressed it as their very own. They
    pretty much stole the show every time they are on the screen. In
    addition, Ewan Mcgrewor and Ian Mckellen were amazing in their
    respective voice role as Lumiere, and Cogsworth.

    Overall, Disney’s live-action film update to the much beloved animated
    film is a mix high highs and low lows but in the end, the film stayed
    true to what the original intended to be and it kinda worked. I might
    not say it is better than the original (which, take note, also did not
    do it for me) but it is an admirable try and surely an enjoyable
    watch[3/5]

  • aey82March 19, 2017Reply

    Magical!!

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • kasutirochanMarch 19, 2017Reply

    Nostalgia factor is key.

    I thought the movie was fine. However, there were so many things that
    this new adaptation missed.

    And among the things missed, was the feisty, sassy, charismatic Belle
    that I’d known and loved. There was a warm girl with a big heart, and
    she was fully present in the original movie. In this remake, starring
    Emma Watson, Belle was much colder. Belle didn’t capture your heart.
    There was a detached feeling. Emma Watson is a perfectly good actress,
    but she wasn’t Belle, she was not Belle at all.

    The CGI on the Beast was horrible, but I learned to grow used to it as
    the movie progressed. I really didn’t become fully immersed into the
    movie until it was almost over.

    By far, my favorite actors in the movie would have to be the two
    playing Gaston and Lefou. They breathed new life into their characters,
    they made things interesting. I very much enjoyed them whenever they
    were on screen, but that must have been the only positive contribution
    made here.

    What’s that saying? ”If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”? The only benefit
    I found in this was the waves of nostalgia I received from hearing all
    of the classic musical numbers and seeing the iconic yellow dress as
    Belle and the Beast waltzed across their ballroom. I still love, love,
    LOVE, this story. I love Beauty and the Beast and the strange sadness
    and longing for old Disney films that it inspires within me. I couldn’t
    help comparing the 2017 version to the 1991 version, and feeling
    slightly disappointed (at times), throughout the movie.

    This film was just a cash grabber. I’m sure we’ve got many live action
    movies coming up in the next couple years. We’ll probably be seeing a
    real-life Mulan, Aladdin, etc., etc., in the next few years. I
    re-watched the original movie at home, and really felt that there was
    so much more that could’ve been done for the remake. The Beast just
    wasn’t as temperamental, or lovable, as the original. Belle wasn’t the
    kindest or most accepting, either. I didn’t hate Gaston as much in this
    adaptation either, when –frankly– I should have, even if just a
    little.

  • tealballoonMarch 19, 2017Reply

    Not bad, but not as great as expected. Deceiving trailer.

    Firstly I have to say it, have we been watching the same movie? Emma
    Watson just wasn’t able to pull off Belle, she did her best but I
    didn’t buy it. Her smile never feels sincere or have much warmth in it,
    her default expression always seems angry, which is also out of her
    control but not the right fit for Belle. As others have stated she
    isn’t at the peak of her craft yet. Some of the humour takes away from
    the mystique of the film. The other actors did well and the CGI was
    incredible. The commercial sort of made the movie out to be less of a
    musical but that wasn’t the case. There is tons of singing in the film,
    which I felt was deceiving as I thought there would only be maybe 2
    songs in it, it wasn’t overdone but I just anticipated a big change.
    The last 15 minutes of the film is very entertaining but as a whole the
    film won’t be among the top Disney films ever made. Still a decent film
    and easy on the eyes. The visuals are the biggest winner and main
    reason to watch more than once.

  • patomartinezfgoMarch 19, 2017Reply

    If it ain’t broken, don’t remake it

    Beauty in the Beast is the remake of the Disney classic of the same
    name. The original Disney film is a classic, but will this film hold
    up?

    In my opinion, no. And here is why: This movie has some astounding CGI
    and a great production design. The film also contains mostly great
    performances. Still, these aesthetic aspects cannot make a movie an
    instant classic.

    There is no reason for a remake other than making money. This film is
    shot-to-shot the original movie with some extra songs and some (rather
    controversial) change to a character in the story that had no reason to
    be there other than create buzz for the film.

    Think of this movie like the ”Psycho” remake by Vince Vaughn except not
    that bad. It is exactly like the original only that in this case, we
    get to see it played by actors.

    If this movie had some reason for existing, I would give it a better
    grade; because all the characters and the story are still very
    memorable and good, but the original is the one responsible for that,
    not the remake.

  • anniefannie1234March 19, 2017Reply

    This Is a Wonderful Movie…a future classic….

    I just saw Beauty in 3D…I saw it with an 8 year old ….I think I
    liked it more than she did!! It was beautifully done….fabulous
    cinematography….wonderful acting….the actor that played Gaston was
    purr-fect…Kevin Kline did an excellent job as the father and Emma
    Watson has grown into a classic beauty and was totally believable as
    Belle…I saw the national touring show when it came to The Ahmanson in
    LA..I saw the cartoon…this is its own creation. Its a wonderful movie
    for adults..I thought it was very adult…and Bravo and Brava to the
    production team and entire cast. You will love it!! Is everything La La
    Land was not!!

  • paraduxMarch 19, 2017Reply

    Disney simply cannot resist mucking about

    The first thing you need to understand is that, according to some
    scholars, every story is at its essence a love story. Even, for
    example, some the male-oriented actioners can be perceived as a tale
    where the hero is in love … with himself.

    Second, the original Belle Et La Bete is an 18th century French tale
    with antecedents, they say, in older literature going back 4000 years.
    (Wikipedia) Since it is a French tale, it is only fitting that the
    French were the first to film it, in the 1940s, with Cocteau at the
    helm. One of my all time favorite films.

    Now to the Disney machine. Disney has done this story before. Disney,
    being Disney, simply cannot resist the temptation to set the story to
    music. Seriously. If there is a third world war, and 100 years from
    now, Disney does a film about that, it will no doubt be a musical too.

    The story was changed significantly. Add the musical interludes and you
    are really dealing with a variant or ”fork” of the tale but not the
    real one. It is significant that even the critics who love the film
    cannot help but notice that chunks of it are ”awkward.” Watson is a
    delight. Can never tire of seeing her light up the screen. The movie
    however is deeply flawed, and odd.

    See the French original. Or see the Kristin Kruek TV knockoff. Both
    are, overall, better and more focused productions.

  • klehmanzMarch 19, 2017Reply

    It has its faults but OMG

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • ziga321March 19, 2017Reply

    Concerning much of the comments made here..

    About Emma Watson really horrible play, everybody said that its for
    directors and producers to put blame on. Nobody say she is just a bad
    actress or that she just needs to put some time on characters she is
    going to play. The problem I hear is it’s directors and producers to
    blame, but that is just great manipulation since No one can add bring
    life to that lifeless horrible play of her I can tell.. Moreover both
    Luke Evans as ‘Gaston’ and Dan Stevens as ‘the Beast’ played their
    character well, or at least better then Emma Watson her Belle. That’s
    to say outside of Hollywood it is Expected for characters to bring life
    to their to add their own originality and to try to understand their
    characters, but not by Harry Potter and Emma Watson fans, which in my
    eyes is just stupid and doublefaced..

  • stephanieMarch 19, 2017Reply

    Worth the wait

    With one of the first Beauty and the Beast being one of my favourite
    films this didn’t disappoint! A great live action version with some
    amazing musical numbers! Ignore the bad reviews if you loved the first
    one you will love this! I went to see this twice in one weekend as I
    couldn’t wait to see this film again!

  • Markus Emilio RobinsonMarch 19, 2017Reply

    Save some money. Watch the animated version.

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • pal05052003March 19, 2017Reply

    A village girl is imprisoned in a castle with a beast and fall in love

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • E.W. GerdesMarch 19, 2017Reply

    Promises Enchantment, But Lacks Depth

    ‘Beauty and the Beast’ was never my favorite Disney movie, probably
    because I was your stereotypical male child who craved action scenes
    and the like.

    As I continue to get older and look for more ways to appreciate movies,
    I find myself agreeing more and more that remakes and reboots are
    slowly poisoning cinema as we know it. However, I do believe there is a
    *right* way to remake a movie, and turning beloved Disney cartoons into
    live action adaptations so that an older audience can still appreciate
    their favorite childhood stories is most definitely the right way. It
    worked exceptionally well with the 2016 ‘The Jungle Book’ (my favorite
    Disney cartoon as a kid), and I was hoping it would work just as well
    with ‘Beauty and the Beast’.

    For certain, the film looks amazing. The set-pieces and scenery is
    extraordinary, and placing the angelic Emma Watson in the middle of it
    all was perhaps the best casting decision they could have made (dare I
    say this is the most gorgeous she’s ever looked?). Her singing is very
    good and she’s instantly charming as Belle; no doubt she is the best
    part of the film. Aside from her and Kevin Kline as Maurice, and maybe
    Luke Evans as Gaston, the film’s cast failed to live up to my
    expectations. Of course, it’s a problem when literally *anybody* could
    have played the Beast (who, unfortunately, is the worst out of all the
    animated characters. There was no emotion from the character because of
    how noticeably CG he was; nothing like the animals in ‘The Jungle
    Book’). What then happens is that on one side of the screen, you have a
    heartfelt performance from Watson, but on the other side you find she
    is falling in love with nothing but a video game character.

    The directing is an interesting thing to consider, because the film, as
    you may have heard, is nearly a shot-for-shot remake of the original,
    whereas ‘The Jungle Book’ strayed from the source material here and
    there. I don’t consider this a good nor a bad thing; it simply keeps me
    from saying too much about Bill Condon’s directing. He proved that he
    could mimic a shot perfectly, but since the film doesn’t display much
    more talent than that, I hesitate to compliment or criticize it.

    ‘Beauty and the Beast’, was in the end, a disappointment. It promises
    to enchant you, but really it is just showy. The beauty of its leading
    actress and the world she is singing in can only take the film so far.
    Even for me, an audience member who is admittedly abnormally good at
    re-watching movies and still enjoying them just as much as before, I
    don’t see myself revisiting the movie and not getting bored.

    Too bad it could not have been more. It looks fantastic, there’s just
    nothing underneath. 5.5/10

  • Anna LjungholmMarch 19, 2017Reply

    Stick with the original

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • Robert Setlock, IIIMarch 20, 2017Reply

    ‘Beauty and the Beast’: Another Pointless Remake

    There’s really one key question you have to ask yourself when remaking
    a classic: how are you making this different than before? how are you
    contributing to the mythos of this story? At best, it’s unwise to
    create a remake without an original vision; it will surely suffer when
    compared to the original. Remember Gus Van Sant’s misguided
    shot-for-shot remake of ”Psycho”?

    2017’s ”Beauty and the Beast” isn’t nearly as ill-advised, but it’s in
    the same vain. Disney has been remaking their animated classics into
    live action films over the past few years, primarily due to the success
    of 2010’s ”Alice in Wonderland”. However, with the exception of Jon
    Favreau’s spectacular ”The Jungle Book”, the whole endeavor has been
    grossly underwhelming. Sadly, ”Beauty and the Beast” is not an
    exception.

    That’s not to say the movie is bad per se. It’s well made with some
    incredibly talented actors in the mix (Kevin Kline, Ewan Mcgregor,
    Stanley Tucci, Emma Thompson, and Ian Mckellan all in supporting roles)
    solidly mixing drama with gentle goofiness. The animation on Beast is
    iffy, but in general, the computer effects are well done. The movie is
    overlong, but the pacing balances out this issue for the most part.
    Honestly, in a vacuum, this would be a very good movie.

    However, this movie doesn’t exist in the vacuum. The 1991 animated
    classic is essentially the same movie. Sure, this version includes some
    more backstory for the supporting cast, but it’s nothing that’s
    necessary. Some of the changes are good and some are bad. In the end,
    the changes are a wash to the movie’s overall quality.

    As for the stuff they didn’t change, it’s near identical to the
    original. It’s to the point where they almost certainly just cut and
    pasted pages of 1991’s script into this movie. As an example of the
    changes, there’s a key point in this movie where things play out as
    they did in 1991, however, some details are altered such that the end
    product doesn’t make sense.

    All the classic songs make a return in decent covers by the new cast.
    However, they also add new songs. If you’ve just emerged from a cave
    after 30 years, there’s an easy way to tell which are the classic songs
    and which are new: the classic songs are the good ones.

    Fact is, while this is a solid movie on it’s own, it’s impossible to
    recommend when in-essence this movie already exists. If you’re a huge
    Beauty and the Beast fan and await with bated-breath any incarnation of
    this story, then wait no more, you’ll probably have fun with this. The
    rest of us should save our money and rent the 1991 movie.

  • hannahmpMarch 20, 2017Reply

    Never Underestimate the Power of Disney

    THIS FILM IS AMAZING!!!! Emma Watson is surprisingly amazing as Belle,
    the musical numbers are brilliant and above all the new music is so
    captivating the audience was cheering in between the numbers. Gaston is
    great, LeFou is great, Mrs. Potts is great, Cogsworth is Great, Belle
    is Great, The Beast is Great, the Story is Great, the Library is great,
    the ballroom is pulchritudinous, the costumes are great! I LOVED IT

  • usako_ilkeMarch 20, 2017Reply

    More than everything I ever hoped for

    Beauty and the Beast is one of the first movies I’ve ever watched. So,
    it has very special place in my heart and probably the reason why I
    love musicals so much. And this live-action remake was fantastic. At
    first, I thought it was going to be the same as ’91 version. But no, it
    was more than that and in a positive way. I would like to thank from
    director to gaffer, from lead roles to small ones and even to catering.
    Thank you to those who helped to make it possible.

  • scottingramMarch 20, 2017Reply

    Beauty And The Beast Film Review

    The new Disney film Beauty And The Beast which is a live version of the
    Disney animated film of Beauty And The Beast from 1991 starring Emma
    Watson, Dan Stevens, Luke Evans, Ewan McGregor, Ian McKellen, Stanley
    Tucci, Emma Thompson, Kevin Kline, Josh Gad, Audra McDonald, Gugu
    Mbatha-Raw. In the new live version of Beauty And The Beast Disney’s
    animated classic gets a sumptuous live-action reboot with Emma Watson
    and Dan Stevens in the lead roles. Belle (French born actress to
    English parents Emma Watson – Harry Potter films, Noah) is a bookish
    young woman and keen inventor who goes in search of her father Maurice
    (American actor Kevin Kline – Wild Wild West, Last Vegas) when he
    disappears after visiting a mysterious castle in the forest in the
    middle of nowhere. When she gets there, she is shocked to learn that he
    is the prisoner of the monstrous Beast (English actor Dan Stevens – UK
    TV Series Downton Abbey, The Guest) and volunteers to take his place.
    Initially terrified of her captive, she soon learns about how he was
    transformed from a handsome prince into his current state by a magical
    curse, and a tender love story soon develops. Twilight director Bill
    Condon promises to bring a lavish sense of magic to this all-star
    remake of the celebrated 1991 animation. Anchored by Watson and
    Stevens, the movie also features Welsh actor Luke Evans (Fast & Furious
    6, Dracula Untold) as Gaston, Scottish actor Ewan McGregor (Shallow
    Grave, Trainspotting films) as Lumière which is the French for light,
    English actor Ian McKellen (X-Men films, The Lord Of The Rings films)
    as Cogsworth, English actress Emma Thompson (Nanny McPhee films, Men In
    Black 3 and the sister of English actress Sophie Thompson who played
    the evil Stella in the UK TV Series EastEnders from 2006 – 2077) as Mrs
    Potts, American actor Josh Gad (The Wedding Ringer, Pixels) as LeFou,
    English actress Hattie Morahan (Mr. Holmes, Alice Through The Looking
    Glass) as Agathe / Enchantress, English actress Haydn Gwynne (UK Comedy
    TV Series The Windsors, Hunky Dory) as Cothilde, English actor Gerard
    Horan (Cinderella 2015, My Week With Marilyn) as Jean the Potter,
    English actor Ray Fearon (UK TV Series Coronation Street, The Hooligan
    Factory) as Père Robert with Père being the French for dad or father,
    Nathan Mack as Chip, German actress Audra McDonald (Ricki And The
    Flash, Rampart) as Madame Garderobe with Madame being the French for
    Mrs, American actor Stanley Tucci (The Hunger Games films, Captain
    America: The First Avenger) as Maestro Cadenza, English actress Gugu
    Mbatha-Raw (Concussion, Free State Of Jones) as Plumette, English actor
    Clive Rowe (Manderlay, Shoot The Messenger) as Cuisinier, Thomas Padden
    (UK TV Series The Crown) as Chapeau, Gizmo as Froufrou, D.J. Bailey as
    Vagrant, English actor Adrian Schiller (Suffragette, The Danish Girl)
    as Monsieur D’arque with Monsieur being the French for Mr, Zoe Rainey
    as Belle’s Mother, English actor Jolyon Coy (UK TV Series Mr Selfridge,
    The Deep Blue Sea) as Young Maurice and Alexis Loizon as Stanley.
    Beauty And The Beast was filmed in England in London the capital of
    England and the county of Surrey. Overall Beauty And The Beast is a
    good Disney film filled with dancing, singing, good effects, stunning
    spectacular scenes, some funny scenes, some action, some minor violence
    nothing too serious or really violent, animals like beats, horses,
    werewolves, hens, chickens, dancers, bakers, working class people,
    rain, snow, sunshine, dark forests, an impressive looking castle where
    the beast and his friends live, colourful things that make you go wow
    this is amazing, love, passion, loyalty, friendship, family,
    togetherness, magic, talking objects or things, outstanding
    performances from Emma Watson, Dan Stevens, Luke Evans and Kevin Kline
    and many other things throughout the film. So I will give Beauty And
    The Beast an overall rating of 3 out of 5 stars and I will say Beauty
    And The Beast is worth seeing if you like other Disney films like the
    live version of Cinderella from 2015, Maleficent, Cinderella the
    animated Disney version from 1951, Beauty And The Beast the animated
    Disney version from 1991, Sleeping Beauty, Into The Woods amongst
    others. So if you get the chance to see Beauty And The Beast in the
    cinema then you should go and see it sooner than later but in my
    opinion the new version of Beauty And The Beast is not as good as the
    original Beauty And The Beast the Disney animated version from 1991
    which is good but please still go and see the new live version of the
    film and see if you like it or not and you will like it if you go to
    see it in the cinema.

  • yonatanrediet ([email protected])March 20, 2017Reply

    Unexpected scene

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • agallardo1980March 20, 2017Reply

    Just OK, but a bit slow

    The story of the movie is fine, but it becomes too slow because it has
    too much many songs. For those who like musicals it’s great, but in my
    opinion, it’s a bit slow. I really liked some of the actors working on
    this film and the script is also good. Regarding the age rating, as
    indicated the film is recommended for all audiences, especially for
    children.

  • jadepietroMarch 20, 2017Reply

    In Search of the Real Beauty

    (RATING: ☆☆☆½ out of 5 )

    GRADE: B-

    THIS FILM IS RECOMMENDED.

    IN BRIEF: A second-hand knock-off that rarely touches the original’s
    beauty but still entertains.

    JIM’S REVIEW: The Hollywood Remake. A strange breed of movie it is. It
    is not a sequel adding more to an already told tale. It’s more like a
    parasite leeching onto someone else’s ideas and crediting themselves
    with all of the glory. Those who loved the original will look upon this
    new attempt with disdain, those who disliked the predecessor will
    question the filmmaker’s motives. Is it pure folly or a creative need
    to improve upon the mistakes of others? Most recent remakes seem to be
    financial quests for more $$$, cashing in on the known product and its
    glowing reputation. Whatever the reason, all are hoping the film will
    be rediscovered by a new audience and make a profitable return.

    Which brings us to the latest entry, Disney’s Beauty and the Beast
    (2017). Now the studio has pulled from its vaults one of the most
    honored movies of all times, a near-perfect masterwork and the only
    animated film ever to be nominated for a Best Picture Oscar. (Perhaps
    we should drop to our knees and give thanks that they do not own the
    rights to Citizen Kane, Raging Bull, Some Like It Hot, or many other
    film classics.)

    Beauty and the Beast (1991) has such a high pedigree and creates a
    daunting challenge to covert into a live action remake, even with all
    of the CGI state-of-the-art technology and artisans on board for this
    project.

    Which leaves us to wonder: Can one ever perfect the already
    perfect…Is there room for improvement upon such a skillful work of
    art? Director Bill Condon was at the helm of this project and the
    answer to his end result is decidedly a mixed blessing.

    Let me begin by saying that is much to admire in this re-imagining. Yet
    for every step forward, the film awkwardly takes two steps back: the
    nice mix of live action and CGI is more than serviceable yet hardly
    magical, the ensemble is well cast with some notable exceptions,
    production values are generally strong although proportions of the
    re-animated animated objects are inconsistent and vary in size from one
    scene to the next, and the glorious score by the talented team of Alan
    Menken and the late Howard Ashman remains relatively intact, with some
    additional new tunes added which do little to impress. (Except for one
    standard Broadway 11 o’clock number, Evermore, the additional tunes
    with lyrics by Tim Rice, are lackluster.)

    Also, on the minus side: Backstories have been written for some of the
    characters, but they serve more as filler and do little to advance the
    plot. The screenplay by Stephen Chbosky and Evan Spilotopoulos has the
    basic plot handled successfully, but too many sub-plots muck up the
    works. The dialog has an overabundance of anachronisms than become
    almost as jarring in their dated pop culture references as Josh Gad’s
    odd interpretation in the role of a minor sidekick character, La Fou,
    which becomes a major misstep in such a sweet story. The actor chooses
    to perpetuate the gay effeminate stereotype in his overt ”nance”
    mannerisms that is humorless and borderline offensive. He almost ruins
    the film as he takes this fairy tale far too literally and
    figuratively, as does Bill Condon’s direction.

    His direction seems haphazard and in need of restraint. Mr. Condon
    often goes for the obvious slapstick and crass moments rather than
    enhancing the subtle charm and class of this classic love story. No
    more is this apparent than in his treatment of the film’s big
    production number, Be Our Guest. (In the original animated version, the
    film is aglow with vibrant colors and stunning hand-drawn details that
    make for a delightful movie-going experience. Here, the moment is
    excessive, becoming a dizzying whirl of garish shapes and hyper-active
    movement that blurs the details of its imagery. Other musical sequences
    lack proper staging with scenes that overwhelm the proceedings.
    However, Mr. Condon does get the essential title number right in both
    setting a romantic mood and filling the screen with sumptuous
    detailing.

    Some of the actors are spot-on, while other are just spotty. Emma
    Watson as Belle, is fine in her acting, but her singing is wispy and
    thin. (Paging Marni Nixon!) Ms. Watson does share a lovely chemistry
    with Dan Steven’s Beast and the actor is very convincing in his angst
    under layers of make-up and special effects. Kevin Kline as Belle’s
    father is a treat as is Luke Evans, playing a leaner and meaner Gaston.
    He captures the menace and vanity of this perfect foil. More
    voice-overs than real supporting turns are provided by Emma Thompson,
    Ewan McGregor, and Ian McKellen, while Gugu Mbatha-Raw, Stanley Lucci,
    and Audra McDonald try to bring some degree of interest into their
    fussy characterizations. And let’s not even discuss the mincing of the
    aforementioned Mr. Gads any further…awful.

    That said, Beauty and the Beast (2017) still entertains and is a lovely
    diversion in its tale of unconditional love. The celebrated music score
    is a lovely homage to the Broadway musicals of yore and its romantic
    story still enchants. I suppose, if one has never seen the superior
    1991 film, I’m sure that what is on screen is all the more captivating.

    Russia said, ”Nyet” to this remake due to censorship issues with
    homophobia. I said, ”Meh” to this remake due to purely aesthetic
    reasons. This film, while no beast, is certainly no beauty either.
    Rent, or better yet, buy the original animated version and bask in its
    rare beauty. Sometimes tales as old as time really are…to say the
    least.

  • (gsygsy)March 20, 2017Reply

    Lacking

    Ah, these time-honoured classic stories, such easy money for the
    studios. Well, maybe not that easy. Although this one has had
    megadollars thrown at it, it never gets off the ground. Emma Watson in
    the lead is, I think, attempting feistiness, but although it may be a
    part of her in spirit, it doesn’t communicate itself to an audience
    from the screen. Nor is Dan Stevens’ easy charm up to the demands of
    the prince-beast, not helped by the bestial side being entirely CGI
    instead of motion-capture: a strange decision.

    The extra songs by Alan Mencken and Tim Rice don’t add anything much to
    the score of the 1991 animated film. Emma Thompson’s rendition of the
    title number does, however, match Angela Lansbury’s original, both in
    warmth and sparkle. I’m sad to say that it’s pretty much the only
    example of something in this new version rising to such a comparison.

    The production design is brilliant and sumptuous but, at the mercy of
    the choice of 18th century France as the movie’s chosen period,
    sometimes feels crowded in the frame, over-busy, fussy. The costumes
    somehow rise above this limitation, especially in the finale.

    Of the other performers, Ewan McGregor and Audra McDonald shine out,
    but Luke Evans, as vain, villainous Gaston, gives dynamic, high-octane
    value, wiping the floor with both Ms Watson and Mr Stevens.

    I’ve no doubt it’ll make its budget back in gazillions, but, unlike the
    studio’s revamped Jungle Book, this is decidedly second-hand.

  • Jason MilburnMarch 20, 2017Reply

    Did Original Justice, Despite Poor Direction

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • SmallvilleWattsMarch 20, 2017Reply

    One word – Enchanting

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • Mariana MontoyaMarch 20, 2017Reply

    The real risk was visual

    The Disney’s bet about creating the remake of such an epic story was
    visionary and as it comes, risky. Its just predicable the huge amount
    of critics from the classic fans. In my opinion the real goal of the
    production is in visual terms, in fact, the visual effects sometimes
    are just good enough, the real problem is that good enough isn’t enough
    for the magnitude of this film. Specially in the village, for me its
    such evident the chrome used that it seems intentional from the
    director, make it look like a tale, three point over a simple
    animation. The castle and the unreal characters works, it force you to
    forget about picky unbelievable details of the village and push you in
    the whole fantastic and magic story, where we can’t resists when we are
    in front of such a splendorous tale. The perform of Emma Watson its not
    far from the action range we all already know of her, but lets be
    clear, what is the big difference between Bella and Hermione, they both
    are perfect, pretty, intelligent, weirdo girls, the perfect essence for
    Emma interpretation. Beast its a good Beast, I rescue the visual
    effects and his look, it is just as good as it must have to be. In
    other terms, the art, music and story development its satisfactory, I
    enjoy this film, having clear from it begging the purpose of Disney and
    that its not a master piece.

  • abisioMarch 20, 2017Reply

    Another inferior remake of a very good movie

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • c2007March 20, 2017Reply

    Boring

    This movie is very overrated and the reason why the film is popular
    because of its promotion. Emma Watson performance is really boring as
    hell and her voice is not that good. I suggest you to watch the
    original version (1991). Dan Stevens and Luke Evans performance is
    pretty good tho. Overall, its the worst Disney film i’ve ever watched.

  • monstermayhem32March 20, 2017Reply

    A classic retelling of a popular classic

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • (owjowett)March 20, 2017Reply

    Beautiful Retelling of a Classic

    The only reason I did not give this film a 10 was because it does not
    surpass the original. This film is brilliant on so many levels. Kevin
    Kline, Emma Watson, Josh Gad, and Dan Stevens bring so much more depth
    to their characters and enhance the story we already love. Alan Menken
    adds some beautiful new pieces that add more emotion to the story. The
    few complaints I had with the movie were minor and didn’t affect the
    real experience of the movie. Overall this is a great retelling of a
    classic with some modern twists.

  • jasoncarson-03477March 20, 2017Reply

    Loved it! Entertaining from beginning to end!

    I really don’t understand all these negative reviews. I thought it was
    thoroughly entertaining, I thought all the cast members were perfect, I
    laughed, I cried, I was on the edge of my seat; and when I got home I
    couldn’t wait to discuss it with other people who had seen it too. I’ve
    downloaded the soundtrack and I can’t wait to own it on DVD. See it for
    yourself before you decide. Don’t let the ridiculous negative comments
    on this site ruin the film for you.

  • sebastianha96March 20, 2017Reply

    Disney doesn’t care for their audience anymore

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • nurbanutastepeMarch 20, 2017Reply

    there are too many song.

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • sara2520March 20, 2017Reply

    Eh?

    If you saw the animated version, then you have seen this movie. It’s
    the same as the animated movie only live action. There was absolutely
    no reason for this movie to be made besides as an easy cash cow for
    Disney cashing in on the nostalgia of fans of the original. This movie
    brings nothing extra to the table.It took no chances and pandered to
    feminists and LGBT members when it wasn’t necessary. There was no need
    to make a big deal of the blink and you miss it gay scene. There was
    also no need to make Gaston’s sidekick gay or in love with Gaston. As
    far as the ballroom scene, it wasn’t as mesmerizing as the original.
    I’m not a fan of Beauty and the Beauty. It’s not my favorite Disney
    movie, but I must admit the ballroom scene was a masterpiece by itself
    and the best part of the original. I think the movie should have taken
    a chance and used the concept of the moral of the story and use it in a
    new twist like the numerous adaptions of the Cinderella movies do from
    the cheesier ones to the better ones like Ever After or Ella
    Enchanted.I checked it out. I loved the ending especially the clock’s
    reaction, which caused me to actually laugh. I really wish they did not
    CGI Dan Stevens’ Beast. So it wasn’t a bad movie, but you can’t mess
    with perfection. Love or hate it, the original was a masterpiece and
    this one does not compare.

  • Dick GraysonMarch 20, 2017Reply

    Tale as old as 2017

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • sfgebel3March 20, 2017Reply

    Just as Magical, But 3 Major Criticisms

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • Lee Eisenberg ([email protected])March 20, 2017Reply

    Hermione meets Gandalf (and Obi-Wan)

    OK, so we all know the story. While watching ”Beauty and the Beast”, I
    kept picturing Emma Watson (as Belle) doing some magic trick that her
    most famous character would’ve done; Ian McKellen (as Cogsworth) saying
    something about the One Ring; and Ewan McGregor (as Lumiere) trying to
    use the Force. Yeah, that’s the kind of person that I am.

    As to the controversy of LeFou turning out to be gay, what I ask is why
    some people are OK with a story that’s basically a glamorization of
    Stockholm syndrome but aren’t OK with a gay guy. Never mind that these
    same people will read their children the Bible (which contains rape,
    incest and murder). These people announced their plans to boycott the
    movie, but I doubt that’ll harm Disney’s bottom line.

    And as for the director and the rest of the cast. Bill Condon
    previously directed ”Gods and Monsters” (about James Whale, the openly
    gay director of 1931’s ”Frankenstein”), ”Kinsey” (about Alfred Kinsey,
    the author of books about humans’ sexual tendencies) and ”Dreamgirls”
    (a fictionalized account of the Supremes). The rest of the cast
    includes Kevin Kline (my favorite actor), Josh Gad (Olaf in ”Frozen”),
    Stanley Tucci, Emma Thompson, Audra McDonald and Gugu Mbatha-Raw.

    So, better movies will probably come out this year.

  • Dutch GreenMarch 20, 2017Reply

    Emma Watson Failed

    Emma Watson played quite horrible… I didn’t say she is just a bad
    actress or something like that, but I’ve the idea she didn’t put much
    time on characters she is gonna play. She has pretty looks
    viid.me/qQJp2O but that’s it. On the contrary, Luke Evans and Dan
    Stevens played their character good!Sorry Emma Watson fans…

  • Daniel MartinezMarch 20, 2017Reply

    Phenomenal

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • richardgwebsterMarch 20, 2017Reply

    Not impressed

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • Movie ParadiseMarch 20, 2017Reply

    Has Its Shortcomings, But Is Still a Faithful Adaptation

    The overall look of this movie is fantastic. Everything from the
    production design, to the costumes, to the character design is
    flawless. Director Bill Condon did a masterful job working with all the
    different departments in order to capture the look of the original
    film. That may sound like an easy feat, but it really isn’t. Not only
    did they have to capture the look of it, but they had to capture the
    feel of it as well, which they did in spades! I was immediately whisked
    away into the world of the animated film, which is a high compliment. I
    think a lot of the technical aspects of the film are what really
    shines. The CGI works, for the most part. I’ll talk about the Beast in
    a minute, but I thought the CGI for Lumiere, Cogsworth, Mrs. Potts, and
    all the other appliances were top-notch. Not only did they look great
    on their own, but they blended well with the real world. Nothing stood
    out as looking fake when they interacted with Belle, which is more than
    I can say than with the Beast. But I’ll get into that later. The songs
    were also perfectly recaptured. From the choreography to the
    cinematography, these scenes were flawless. All the songs, from ”Belle”
    to ”Gaston” to ”Be Our Guest”, were excellently realized, and
    effectively translated into live action. You can tell Condon put a lot
    of time and care into making sure they worked, and he absolutely
    succeeded in doing so…

  • latemodelrayMarch 20, 2017Reply

    Went with high hopes left with utter disgust

    The movie is bad. My now grown kids went with the wife and I. Kids wife
    and I loved the cartoon version some 25 plus years back. This movie
    don’t compare in any way. Kids are also life long Harry Potter fans and
    thought they loved Emma Watson they went truly wishing to love this
    movie they left feeling there money was stolen and swearing off Disney.
    I felt I was stuck on a 2 hour lecture about the greatness of being a
    liberal and found the movie sickening. Hey to each there own but I wish
    never wasted a penny on this movie and I am a life long cartoon and kid
    movie fan

  • leahchangMarch 20, 2017Reply

    Amazing

    It is truly amazing! 所有人都在影片结束之后鼓掌了,而且看完了后面的片花,大家迟迟不
    愿意离去。视觉特效和原创音乐都太精彩了。somebody argues that the film lacks of
    innovation.However,I think it is quite wise that they didn’t change the
    story which is already perfect. Actually, I am stunned by Emma for her
    true love. everything is perfect.

  • BkDcMarch 20, 2017Reply

    No comparison to the original

    Emma Watson should not have been cast as Belle, first of all she is far
    from being a beauty she is average looking not to mention she has no
    singing experience. Emmy Rossum who is both a beauty and a fantastic
    singer should have been cast as Belle, she actually looks like her. The
    casting is ridiculous, her voice is sub par and does no credit to the
    original movie, im going to pretend this remake doesn’t exist, the
    casting of Gaston was also absurd….not to mention the adding of
    strange dialogue that is not even in the original movie, the whole
    casting was ridiculous but Emma Watson does no credit to Belle and is
    one of the biggest casting mistakes ever made! my favourite fairy tale
    but not movie.

  • Ben R.March 20, 2017Reply

    Disney Agenda/NASA

    I brought my 8 year old daughter to watch this because she wanted to. I
    was surprised at how Disney threw in ”Gay” men. This is not what Disney
    should be teaching young children. I have nothing against ”gay” but the
    way Hollywood and the rest of society is pushing the agenda, its
    becoming almost like an epidemic.

    I definitely didn’t want my children to see ”gay” in ”The Beauty and
    The Beast”. It was the last thing on my mind until the scenes started
    happening. I don’t watch TV at all any longer, its been around 5 years
    now. The news, and all the major broadcasting companies push this
    ideology onto the viewing public for a reason.

    As far as the movie goes I’m not into Walt Disney very much and never
    have been. My kid sort of liked it. It’s child’s movie and should be
    rated by children like the rest of the Disney films.

  • KristenStewartForeverMarch 20, 2017Reply

    Perfect! Wonderful film!

    This film was spot on. Practically perfect in every way. I loved it
    entirely. The casting is spot on. I don’t think anyone did a bad Job.

    Emma Watson was spot on. Her singing is perfect and no, it is NOT
    auto-tuned. She said so herself. She said many people were betting her
    singing was auto-tuned, well, it wasn’t. It was all her. People need to
    leave her performance alone. She was perfect in every way. Nothing
    wrong with her. She’s actually my favorite Belle having seen on screen.
    More so than Paige O’Hara.

    I only had three very minor problems.

    #1: I missed the Broadway songs. I feel they should have included them
    into the film. Especially Human Again and If I Can’t Love Her.

    #2: I hated they changed the Feather Duster and Wardrobe’s names. I
    prefer the names Babette and Madame De La Grande Bouche.

    #3: I feel they rushed the story a bit. It was pretty speedy.

    But other than that, it’s beautiful. I loved what they did with Lefou.
    Lumiere was my favorite of the males (No wonder as he is my dream role
    for the musical and has always been my favorite character). Belle was
    my favorite of the female.

    If people love the classic film, they will love this one. Maaaaaybe not
    more, and maaaaaaybe not as much. But you will definitely adore it.

    Emma Watson has definitely come far since playing Hermione in Harry
    Potter. She is a spot on Belle. Pure perfect. And people need to stop
    bashing her. Her singing is perfect.

  • amythiessenMarch 20, 2017Reply

    As boring and emotionless as twilight

    Was lifeless, characters had no emotion or personality , found myself
    rooting for gaston, he was the only cool one. Modern autotuned garbage.
    CGI was awful and way overdone. Nothing like the original. Songs were
    long and annoying. Dialogue felt rushed like they tried to cram all the
    stuff from the original into it but ran out of time.

  • ErikaMarch 20, 2017Reply

    Could’ve been amazing

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • hereshopinMarch 20, 2017Reply

    Decide for yourself

    I can’t help but wonder if there are ulterior motives behind some of
    the negative reviews here. I’m not saying that everybody will love it
    but I question whether many of the over the top negative reviewers
    actually saw the movie.

    The characters were everything I imagined they would be brought to
    life. Luke Evans was particularly excellent as Gaston. The sets, the
    costumes, the music….it all fit perfectly.

    We didn’t go to this movie expecting deep character development,
    intense dialogue and/or state of the art CGI effects. We had our
    imaginations and this movie to inspire them. Imagination has no
    threshold. It’s too bad so few people have one or use theirs anymore.

    Don’t panic about the so called gay scene. If you look down for a
    second or blink, you will likely miss it.

  • lisa_michelle-83657March 20, 2017Reply

    Enchanting

    I had read so many bad reviews of this film that it almost put me off
    going to see it. I am so glad I did go. This is a dazzling, vibrant
    musical Spectacular with all the characters from the original movie
    brought wonderfully to life. But I thought it was better than the
    original film as it allowed me to see even more into Belle and the
    beast’s world. Plz go n see this film. Other people’s opinions are not
    always the same as your own.

  • HeatherMarch 20, 2017Reply

    Wow! Great movie!

    I was very skeptical about seeing this film, not because of anything in
    particular, but because I felt as though everyone was hyping it up
    because Emma Watson was playing Belle. But, I have to say it was a
    phenomenal movie! I felt as though I was watching it for the first time
    as a child all over again. I knew exactly what happens yet I was on the
    edge of my seat. Emma played a beautiful and strong Belle and she sang
    beautifully as well, she has a lovely voice. I was very impressed with
    all the characters given tat most of them were pretty much animated.
    They really brought these characters to life, amazing movie!

  • jon.h.ochiai ([email protected])March 20, 2017Reply

    Still the tale as old as time and true…

    Emma Watson is a star. ”Beauty and the Beast” may be flawed in its
    excess, and is more touching and human than the animated original. Emma
    Watson is radiant, beautiful, and inspired. This live action
    reinvention of ”Beauty and the Beast” remains the ”tale as old as
    time”.

    Watson’s Belle is rescued from killer wolves by the brave Beast played
    by the tormented and noble Dan Stevens, but he is wounded and bleeding
    from the attack. He fights with great strength and rage. The Beast
    unexpectedly sacrifices for Belle, and lies on the ground of the wintry
    forest. Belle turns about to leave and escape her imprisonment.
    Gentleness melts her visage as she turns back to rescue him in return.
    ”Beauty and the Beast” enrolled me then.

    The wondrous souls of Watson and Stevens reinvent ”Beauty and the
    Beast”. Through astounding make-up and CGI effects, Steven’s Beast is
    the towering horned majestic lion. His Beast embodies both joy and
    suffering in his gentle blue eyes. Stevens accomplishes the nearly
    impossible. He is a handsome man, and his Beast becomes beautiful as he
    allows us to see his soul and forsaken dreams. Watson is natural beauty
    with freckles on her nose. Her Belle’s innocence discovers the truth in
    others, be it the Beast or the ghastly Gaston. Watson and Stevens are
    beautifully sublime.

    With the largely familiar story-line and great songs by Alan Menken and
    Hal Ashman of the original 1991 animated movie, Director Bill Condon’s
    recreation is about loss, destiny, and falling in love. His spectacular
    vision creates the haunting images of the wintry forest and the Beast’s
    austere castle. This is a musical, and Condon wonderfully orchestrates
    the song and dance. He does homage to ”The Sound of Music” with Belle
    singing on the hills of her village.

    Watson and Stevens make us believe in Belle and Beast’s love story.
    There may be one too many dance numbers or introspective character
    musical solos. Fortunately, they are not too distracting. Screenwriters
    Stephen Chbosky and Evan Spiliotopoulos invent the poignant back
    stories of Belle’s and the Beast’s deceased Mothers humanizing this
    fairy tale. This is timeless tale of true love and forgiveness.

    The story opens as the narcissist Prince, played by believable Stevens,
    callously dismisses the gifted rose from an old woman visiting his
    castle. This was his test. The old woman reveals herself as the
    Enchantress, played by stunning Hattie Morahan. She casts a spell upon
    the Prince transforming him into the Beast and his servants into living
    furniture. He shall remain the Beast until he can fall in love with
    someone, who loves him back. The Prince must do so before all the
    petals on the rose fall; otherwise, the curse is forever.

    Belle’s opening song expresses her uniqueness. She is the independent
    spirit, who loves books, and has great dreams. They do not include
    braggart Gaston played by talented Luke Evans, who wants to marry
    Belle. She tells him, ”I will never marry you.” Belle cares for her
    watchmaker Father Maurice played by kind Kevin Kline. Belle’s Mother
    died years ago and she was Maurice’s love story. He tells Belle of her
    Mom, ”Your Mother was fearless.” Belle is like her.

    One night Maurice becomes lost and trespasses the Beast’s castle. Beast
    imprisons him until Belle bravely takes her Father’s place. Beast’s
    servants wonder if Belle is the one, who will break the wicked spell?

    As enemies Belle and the Beast aren’t so different. They both love
    Shakespeare. The Beast reads ”Guinevere and Lancelot”, which Belle
    labels, ”Still a romance.” He too, is a dreamer who loves books. He
    shares his vast library with Belle.

    Belle discovers the servants’ loyalty to the Beast. The young prince
    was very much like his loving Mother. After she died, his Father’s
    cruelty hardened his extraordinary spirit. Belle begins to see his
    noble wounded heart. The Beast doubts she will end his curse, telling
    his servants, ”Look at me!” I know that resolve. He too is falling in
    love with Belle.

    Condon’s ballroom dance with the Beast and Belle in golden gown is
    nostalgic, new, and touching. Emma Thompson as the teapot Mrs. Potts
    beautifully sings the theme, ”Beauty and the Beast”. Beast frees Belle
    when tragedy arises. She promises to come back. Candelabra Lumiere,
    voiced by Ewan McGregor, asks Beast about the spell and Belle. He says,
    ”I let her go.” Mr. Potts says, ”Because he loves her.”

    The miscalculation of the movie is villain Gaston. He is the arrogant
    stupid narcissist without nuance. We cheer for Belle and Beast against
    Gaston, often because nothing redeems him. Belle and Beast emerge as
    heroes in this conflict. Hearing Beast say to Belle ”You came back.”—
    is so touching.

    ”Beauty and the Beast” has a wonderful human quality and spirit. It
    reminds of the old and recreates as new. Emma Watson is amazing in this
    ”tale as old as time”. Take a chance on ”Beauty and the Beast”.

  • sunchick116-872-583383March 20, 2017Reply

    It hurts me to write this.

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • Anurag-ShettyMarch 20, 2017Reply

    A faithful yet fresh adaptation, of the beloved animated classic.

    Beauty and the Beast is a live action adaptation of the 1991 Disney
    animated film of the same name. Belle(Emma Watson) decides to take her
    father’s place & be held captive by a man who has been cursed to remain
    a beast, until he finds true love. Soon, Belle realizes that Beast(Dan
    Stevens) is not as monstrous as she thinks he is.

    Beauty and the Beast is a mind blowing movie. Director Bill Condon &
    script writers Stephen Chbosky & Evan Spiliotopoulos have remained
    faithful to the animated Beauty and the Beast(1991), while adding many
    new & refreshing aspects to the story. I love the fact that Belle is
    given a detailed backstory in this adaptation. Also, one or two things
    that didn’t make sense in the animated film, have been rectified in the
    live action movie. This film is a feast for the eyes. All the songs
    performed by the actors themselves, are colorful, entertaining &
    visually appealing. The whole movie, especially the song ‘Be Our Guest’
    & the ballroom dance scene will evoke a sense of nostalgia for fans of
    the animated original. The action set pieces are engaging. The entire
    film becomes an even better experience because of the 3D. There are so
    many scenes where objects in the movie, fly right at your face. The
    visual effects are excellent. The songs composed by Alan Menken are
    unforgettable. All the actors have sung beautifully. The production
    design by Sarah Greenwood is amazing. Greenwood has recreated all the
    beautiful locations from Beauty and the Beast(1991). The cast portray
    their characters, effortlessly. Emma Watson is the star of the show, as
    Belle. Watson delivers a spectacular performance & makes the famous &
    beloved character of Belle, her own. Dan Stevens is wonderful as Beast.
    Stevens’ motion captured performance is commendable, considering he had
    to walk on stilts during his performance, to appear much taller as
    Beast. Emma Watson & Dan Stevens share this warm & electrifying
    chemistry, in all their scenes together. Luke Evans is outstanding as
    Gaston. Josh Gad is brilliant as LeFou. Kevin Kline is great as
    Maurice. Hattie Morahan is impressive as Agathe/Enchantress. Ewan
    McGregor, Ian McKellen, Emma Thompson, Nathan Mack, Audra McDonald,
    Stanley Tucci & Gugu Mbatha-Raw are superb as Lumiere, Cogsworth, Mrs.
    Potts, Chip, Madame Garderobe, Maestro Cadenza & Plumette,
    respectively. Beauty and the Beast is a must watch for the entire
    family. Go, have a whale of a time!

  • poisondragonMarch 20, 2017Reply

    The way a reboot/live action should be made

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • mbf-00945March 20, 2017Reply

    Another Review

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • TracieMarch 20, 2017Reply

    A tale as old as time

    I’m not quite sure what film all these negative reviews were watching,
    as this film was amazing.

    Beauty and the beast was my childhood. My favorite Disney movie. I was
    worried it would be ruined by being re-made. I think it was cast
    perfectly, esp Luke Evans. It’s the type of film you can fall into and
    relive your childhood but in the present day.

    Everything was done perfectly and created with care. I loved it.

    Highly recommended

  • Holt SatterfieldMarch 20, 2017Reply

    How did they NOT make this the best film ever?

    Loved the animated version; in fact, would be in my top 25. Loved the
    stage version.

    But then this live-action film happened. Disappointing. Cloogy. Forced
    emotion in parts. I’m supposed to accept the love blossoming between
    these two… and I did in the animated version; couldn’t in this one…
    but to be honest, it choked me up anyway (though the tears started even
    prior to the moments, so I’m thinking I was working from the remembered
    story.)

    But perhaps the most damaging… besides the forced plot points and
    emotion, was the horrific computer graphics on the Beast. With all the
    great graphics in other films, why did they settle for this?

    Agree with others, should have been another director, perhaps other
    screenwriters (or just lift the animated version verbatim). It’s not a
    waste of time… so I give it a 7. But watch the animated version if
    you have a choice. I’ll need to do just that to get back my fondness
    for the story.

  • willowgoldencatMarch 20, 2017Reply

    Beautiful, but lacking of soul

    I love the 1991 original, so I was expecting a stunning live-action/CGI
    reproduction and a magical 3D/IMAX experience. Basically, this film met
    my expectations. It is beautiful, especially the library scenes and the
    yellow dress. Lumiere the Candelabra and those CG wolves are also more
    expressive than their animated version.

    However, as the core character Belle, Emma Watson really didn’t do a
    good job. Actually, I quite like Hermione Granger in Harry Potter
    films, but I am very surprised at how awful she acts in Beauty and the
    beast. Her performance almost had no emotions and made this film
    lacking of soul. It was far sub-standard for a professional.

  • Figgy66-915-598470March 20, 2017Reply

    Pure escapism

    20 March 2017 Film of choice at the Plaza Dorchester tonight – Beauty
    and the Beast. If I was only allowed to use one word to describe this
    film I guess it would be spectacular, but I’m glad there are more words
    available as I want to use a lot of them. This film was sumptuous,
    extravagant, romantic, dark, joyful, and spectacular. Emma Watson was
    the perfect casting for Belle as she radiated naivety, beauty and the
    compassion we come to expect of this character. Dan Stevens played the
    beast and brought a tenderness to the part. Luke Evans shone as Gaston
    oozing stupidity, boorishness and an evil sly malevolence when he
    didn’t get his own way. This live action version of the Disney
    animation excelled in what it does best, bringing the stories of our
    imagination alive on the screen. There were moments of joy, moments of
    sorrow, moments that made us laugh and that made us cry, and although
    we all know the story, I find myself still willing the good guys to win
    as the film comes to its glorious conclusion. Although I knew who most
    of the cast were, it was still a wonderful moment when the true
    characters of the household objects were revealed. I must applaud the
    costume department and the people in charge of the set, I feel I could
    watch this film every week for year and look behind the characters to
    see something new every time. A truly magnificent piece of cinema
    suitable for the whole family is it a watch and definitely going to be
    part of my DVD collection. I urge you all to go and see it.

  • samanthathomas90March 20, 2017Reply

    Absolutely Magical!

    I never usually write reviews but this film deserves one and seeing all
    the negative comments and reviews really annoys me as there is nothing
    bad to say about this film in any way! Emma Watson was perfect as
    Belle, as was Dan Stevens as the beast and together they had great
    chemistry. Every song just got better and the story was more or less
    exactly the same as the 1991 original. And the dance scene stole it for
    me, just WOW. Don’t understand how it can be said its average or even
    terrible. Best Disney adaptation for me

  • phantasmdaMarch 20, 2017Reply

    Ruined by the female lead

    This had all the hallmarks of a great live action fantasy epic.
    Brilliant visuals and great effects, a half decent story with some
    interesting characters, and of course, it’s Disney. What could possibly
    go wrong?

    2 words, Emma Watson.

    I know Ms Watson has legions of fans who’ll watch anything she is in
    just because of her Harry Potter connections but almost everything I
    see her in, she ruins. She has the acting range of a wooden block, her
    delivery is so stilted here, that it completely takes you out of the
    film and her facial expressions never seem to change. Seriously, she
    could have been wearing a mask in this and you wouldn’t have been able
    to tell any difference, she just stares blankly and looks disinterested
    for the whole film. She’s awful as Belle and her dialogue delivery is
    cringe inducing. I lost count of the amount of times I rolled my eyes
    when she tried to convey any emotion, it was embarrassing.

    Now, I’m not trying to simply beat up Emma Watson because I dislike
    her, it isn’t that at all, but when someone in a film is so bad they
    make the film almost impossible to enjoy, it really needs to be pointed
    out.

    This could have been a great fantasy epic but I myself couldn’t wait
    for it to end. Shame really, had they have cast an actress with a
    morsal of talent or acting skill, this could have been really good.

    Stick to the original animated film, it’s far better.

    No doubt it will still make tons of cash though.

  • Amby MarieMarch 21, 2017Reply

    Met my expectations…and that’s not a good thing

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • stilloopless1March 21, 2017Reply

    Tale Still Wonderful as Time

    I’m not sure why there’s so much haterade surrounding this film, but
    here’s my take…

    Following the awful mess that constituted the live action version of
    Cinderella in 2015, I’ve been anxious for Disney to redeem themselves.
    What better place to do so than with one of my favorite fairy tales.
    So, with fingers crossed, I took them up on their invitation to be
    their guest at Beauty and the Beast . Redemption is a beautiful thing
    as is this thoroughly enjoyable tale as old as time.

    The casting is practically perfect.

    Lucy Bevan put together an ultimate check list for casting and checked
    off every actor/character pairing to near perfection. While I
    personally don’t think anyone can top Angela Lansbury as Mrs. Potts
    from the 1991 animated film, Emma Thompson is a very close second.
    Kevin Kline is shines as Maurice, less dotty and more three dimensional
    doting/loving father. Luke Evans brings the bombastic buffoonery Gaston
    to life and the pairing with Josh Gad’s LeFou is sensational. LeFou is
    as devoted as ever, but more thoughtful and considerate as well. Sir
    Ian McKellen is great as Cogsworth and Ewan McGrogor’s Lumiere is
    perfectly charming (I only wish these two and their friendly
    adversarial relationship were featured a bit more). Dan Haller’s Beast
    roars onto the screen does the character justice. Emma Watson simple
    radiates as Belle and has that great mixture of warmth, heart, and
    tenacity the character embodies.

    The music is as enjoyable as ever and has a new freshness with the
    addition of some new songs and scenes. Added backstory and additional
    story lines ground the film in reality and bring more depth and
    maturity, but there’s still a nice balance of fantasy and magic. The
    familiarity and nostalgia of this film is everywhere, but this new
    version made me smile (and sing along). Kudos Disney, for getting back
    into fighting form with this one and bringing back some great memories
    while creating new ones.

    I’m giving Beauty and the Beast a solid 8.5. But, don’t take my word
    for it though, be a guest and see it for yourself. I recommend 3D if
    you can.

  • dOctoRnMisSyMarch 21, 2017Reply

    Changes make it less feminist, sorry

    I am going to say it. For all Disney’s recent ”updates” they have not
    quite figured how to actually write a feminist love story. The older
    ones were better, and the strength of their females was allowed to
    speed for itself. The old 1991 film is much better in this area.

    In this one, it is stated that Belle will need to marry a man who can
    provide for her when her father dies, something that is not in the
    original film. This actually happened to female intellectuals of that
    era. They could be smart, but could never use their intelligence to
    help provide for their family. Nannerl Mozart was supposedly as
    talented as her brother Wolfgang, but had to quit performing once she
    married. So, Belle still has to marry a rich man to help her.

    There was that Maleficent film several years ago,where the three strong
    female characters, the fairies, where transformed into bumbling idiots.
    And in the original film, aurora’s parents showed true love by sending
    her away for 16 years, and not see her for her own safety. Which was
    probably extra difficult for them since she lived just outside the
    village.in the ”feminist” one, her mom dies and dad is a villain.

    Somehow, the newer ”feminist” updated films have seemed to make their
    female characters weaker. They can include songs in their films poking
    fun at true loves kiss and love at first sight and keep the princess
    single all they want to, but it means nothing’s if they can’t actually
    figure out how to make the princess wife, mom, provider, Queen, etc.

    And don’t get me started on how mean he is to bell up until she is
    attacked by the wolves. And none of the castle servants family can help
    them break the curse? Please! And be our guest was not nearly flashy
    enough. Gastons character seemed inconsistent, and monsieur d arque
    wasn’t creepy enough.

    The old songs felt crammed in there too. I have seen the Broadway show
    3 times.

  • 2001ASOfanMarch 21, 2017Reply

    Nice to look at, and listen to, but not engaging

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • Nick CotrufoMarch 21, 2017Reply

    A Well Put Together Tribute

    Of course we know that the original 90’s cartoon is supreme in every
    way, but that is not to say that this live action remake does not bring
    justice to our childhood.

    The effects of this movie are absolutely stunning, the music (both
    original and new) are excellent, and the changes that have been made
    are not obnoxious enough to ruin the film. In fact they even bring in
    elements of the original story!

    Beauty and the Beast is one of my favorite movies from my childhood and
    this was a pleasant remake. I enjoyed the many shot for shot scene’s as
    well as the backstories given to characters we had never seen before
    and ones we had grown to love.

    This retelling is wonderful and if I had to complain about anything it
    would have to be Emma Watson’s auto tuned voice, but other than that
    she did a fantastic job. No one else could have brought life to Belle
    the way she did.

    Do not sleep on this movie. You will regret it.

  • YourFamilyExpertMarch 21, 2017Reply

    Pales in comparison, but solid on its own

    WHAT’S BEAUTY AND THE BEAST ABOUT?

    Disney updates their 1991 animated classic about a bookish beauty who
    falls for a monstrous beast.

    IS IT ANY GOOD? (GRADE: B+)

    It won’t be nominated for Best Picture like the original, but what this
    new Beauty and the Beast does right makes up for its flaws. Lets get
    the latter out of the way. Emma Watson struggles a bit out of the gate;
    she seems to have a decent voice, but director Bill Condon (Dreamgirls)
    is unwilling for us to hear any flaws and she’s noticeably auto- tuned.
    Watson shines in subtler, more intimate moments of kindness and
    affection, so she’s great whenever she’s interacting with her father,
    falling for Beast, or bonding with the castle furniture/servants. She’s
    no Julie Andrews, however, and her solo musical monologing leaves
    something to be desired.

    The film also sticks a little too closely to the 1991 film, fearful to
    establish itself as something unique as did 2015’s fantastic
    Cinderella. Swaths of dialogue and musical cues are lifted wholesale
    and this version can only suffer in comparison to a bona fide classic.

    What works? Almost everything else. Like I said, Watson does fine work
    in many parts of the film. Even though this movie copies the original
    in many respects, it usually does a decent job of it. I found myself
    most enchanted, however whenever it went ”off book” and did something
    new, such as integrating less-familiar songs from the stage musical,
    offering some gorgeous brand-new tracks, patching up plot holes, and
    providing well-conceptualized backstories to both Belle and Beast that
    effectively deepen their bond and develop them as characters.

    The cast is excellent. Dan Steven’s Beast is magnetic; while the
    motion-capture animation is occasionally less-than convincing, the
    performance is nearly flawless and rich with emotion. Kevin Kline’s
    Maurice is less of a crackpot and more of a steady, loving father here;
    his relationship with Belle is very moving. Luke Evans proves an
    inspired choice for Gaston; not burly and moronic like his animated
    counterpart, here he’s more of an intelligent narcissist trying to keep
    his darker nature in check, making his ultimate failure all the more
    chilling.

    Josh Gad’s LaFou is much more sympathetic here than he was in the 1991
    film, loyal to Gaston but nagged by an ever-growing conscience. The
    castle servants were a highlight for me; when you have actors like Emma
    Thompson, Ian McKellin, Ewan McGregor, Audra McDonald, and Stanley
    Tucci you really can’t go wrong.

    Visually the film is a wonder. The music is generally fantastic. This
    new film is sure to delight fans of the story and win over a new
    generation. I’d not be surprised if repeat viewings cause me to warm to
    it even more. It only suffers in direct comparison to the original, but
    as a standalone it satisfies.

    IS IT OKAY FOR YOUR KIDS?

    Beauty and the Beast is rated PG. There are some intense and
    frightening moments in which wolves menace various people and attack
    Beast. Speaking of the titular love monster, he is frightening and
    intimidating in several scenes. A man punches another man unconscious
    and leaves him for dead. A character is shown to be dying of disease.
    Beast is shot by Gaston several times and hit in the head with a stone
    fixture. Characters drink alcohol in a tavern. Before being turned into
    Beast, the prince is shown leering over several maidens at a dance. As
    for the so-called ”gay controversy,” it’s much ado about nothing. LaFou
    is portrayed as effeminate. The opera singer chest of drawers attacks
    three men, dressing them in women’s clothing; two are mortified, one
    comically enjoys it. Later, while rotating dancing partners LaFou bumps
    into that man (who’s no longer dressed as a woman) and they smile at
    each other. That’s it.

    ANY WORTHWHILE MESSAGES

    Only through accountability, humility, and contrition can we change our
    natures. Do not judge based on outward appearance; rather, consider a
    person’s character. It’s never too late to do the right thing.

  • BriechenMarch 21, 2017Reply

    From a True Fan: A beautiful expansion on the original version

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • fluffy_cat-35337March 21, 2017Reply

    So much better than expected!

    Okay, seriously, I was expecting to really not like this, but I was
    smiling the whole way through. It was reminiscent of the original film,
    but added so much more in the way of backstory, and the new music was
    perfection.

    I honestly don’t understand why so many people are rating it badly. The
    original film is still the original and it will always be a classic!
    This version is thoroughly Disney and the music absolutely makes it. I
    felt like I was in the theatre watching a musical whilst in the cinema,
    the film had that feel about it, which I loved!

    Yes, I probably wouldn’t have picked Emma Watson as Belle, but the
    production design and score made up for that. Luke Evans, on the other
    hand, was phenomenal! Casting Josh Gad (already popular as Olaf) was a
    stroke of genius from Disney as well.

    I also thought it was so much more emotional than the original, but
    then maybe that’s just me?! The relationships between the characters
    were tremendous, and it was laugh out loud funny at times. Lumiere,
    Cogsworth, Mrs Potts etc were all wonderful, and the transformation
    scene was just as moving as the original (maybe more!).

    Everyone should go see it even if they have doubts because of what
    everyone else has been saying. Make up your own mind! I’m so glad I
    opted to go see it and didn’t listen to everyone else!

  • Rachel LuckMarch 21, 2017Reply

    A charming spin on a well loved tale

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • Rstein926March 21, 2017Reply

    The way the film should had been in 1991

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • KMarch 21, 2017Reply

    A beautiful adaptation of the tale as old as time

    I went into this film with low expectations. Beauty and the Beast was
    one of my favourite Disney films as a child and I really connected to
    the character of Belle (the brunette with brains).

    Fortunately, I was incredibly impressed. Although typically I find Emma
    Watson wooden and self-conscious as an actress, she did redeem herself
    as the film went on, with her sweetness and gusto. She’s the perfect
    Belle; a natural beauty. It was refreshing to see an actress portray
    Belle with no Hollywood tweaks, surgery or artifice. Watson was born to
    play the role and I cannot think of another popular actress who could
    be Belle.

    Luke Evans as Gaston – well, what can be said. He EMBODIED this role
    and brought life to the character. Lefou was also interpreted in a
    refreshing way.

    There were a few craws that stuck. It was obvious that Disney was
    trying to pander to the #oscarssowhite crowd by randomly peppering the
    cast with black actors and actresses. In other films, this would be
    fine, but Beauty and the Beast is a classic fairy tale, and it seemed
    obvious that black actors were added to appease the baying mob. No
    Asian, Latino or Native American actors for instance…I wonder why
    (sarcasm off). This tendency to shoehorn diversity into a project felt
    pandering and inappropriate and even took me slightly out of the film
    (yes, I know it’s a film with talking cutlery and a beast but still…)
    Yes, the beast was CGI’d but this didn’t bother me at all. I felt the
    beast and Emma had a believable connection as they slowly fell in love.

    All in all, I was moved by this magical story and feel reconnected to
    my inner child.

    A must watch for children (and big children) of all ages.

  • MaiaMarch 21, 2017Reply

    Spoiler free review of Beauty and the Beast. A beautiful film with incredible acting and mesmerizing visuals.

    Beauty and the Beast was an amazing movie. It was a great remake of the
    original animated version with extra added parts that only improved the
    story.

    I have to admit, I did not have the highest hopes for this movie. I
    found the trailers looked alright, and decided to go see it after a few
    of my friends told me how good it was. I was stunned at how good it
    was.

    I’ll start with the visuals. The visuals were stunning. It was such a
    beautiful movie to watch, from the animation to shots of the castle,
    forest, and village. The costume design was spot on, as well as hair
    and makeup.

    Next, the acting. Emma Watson was a perfect Belle. She was a strong
    female lead, smart, brave, and caring. She did such a good job of
    acting that I could only see her as Belle while I was watching the
    movie, despite having known her as Hermione for so long. Gaston was
    also spot on. He was the same arrogant character as we all remember. I
    thought that the Beast could have been a bit better at the start, but
    he improved throughout the film. I thought the other characters, such
    as LeFou and Maurice were very well done.

    Now, the story. This movie follows the original story, while adding
    some more in to make it a deeper, better story in my opinion. We are
    given some backstory on the Beast and Belle. I find the way the plot
    unfolds is more believable than in the original. The relationship
    between Belle and the Beast seems a lot more genuine.

    Finally, the music. I had my doubts about Emma Watson’s singing
    capabilities, but I was blown away with how beautiful her voice
    sounded. The dance numbers are fun, with great choreography. Be Our
    Guest has some of the most beautiful animation. The songs from the
    original are there, along with some new ones that all together make an
    incredible soundtrack.

    Overall, this was a beautiful movie and I suggest if you haven’t seen
    it yet, to rush to the nearest theater and watch it.

  • jaywensley2004March 21, 2017Reply

    Left me cold

    This romance failed at being romantic. Weak dialogue, too much focus on
    distractingly massive musical production numbers, a lack of chemistry
    between Belle and her CGI construct Beast, and a frantic pace created
    in editing, all contributed to a lack of affection or sense of
    connection to the characters or their relationship.

    The film is absolutely lovely to look at, but for me it was almost
    unbearable to watch. The verbal exchanges often made me cringe when
    they weren’t annoyingly banal. I think the script was dumbed-down to
    what the producers hoped would be comprehensible to a very preteen
    audience. But I suspect that all most children will notice is the
    spectacle and some clever CGI animated characters. Even a teenager
    probably won’t perceive any romance in the film.

    As for the music, it is of course, familiar…unfortunately. BECAUSE I
    am familiar with the brilliant performances in the original, animated
    version of ”Beauty and the Beast,” I had that superior soundtrack to
    compare with this version. Emma Watson’s vocals are credible, although
    they were often noticeably auto-tuned. And I would not expect to hear
    her performing in any animated production where the singing could be
    done by a superior voice. All the other numbers were at the level of a
    middling live theater cast with nothing standing out. Even the title
    song failed in it’s role as a ”show-stopper.”

    All in all, this live-action ”Beauty and the Beast” is the most
    disappointing, unsatisfying Disney film this Disney fanatic has every
    watched.

  • darknessstrongspellsMarch 21, 2017Reply

    Spectacular tale as old as time is Beautiful Done

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • Itsach Figueroa (itsachfigueroa68)March 21, 2017Reply

    Tales as old as time no so old i think

    First of all the movie was amazing the intro was better than I could
    expect. I went very considers that this movie could not make my
    expectation, but I left with much more than that. So many questions
    were answer and so many things that they were add for the good of the
    movie. Emma Watson and Dan Steven were great , I have no doubt that
    other people would thing that they were wrong cast but they make sense
    for me. The chemistry between those two was great and even one point of
    the movie I kind of hate Emma Watson for leaving the beast. Also
    musically speaking I would like to said that most people are expecting
    beautiful voices in this movie. True , and what I heard was beautiful I
    don’t care what people said about Emma and Dan couldn’t sing they sing
    great and wonderful, they were themselves and that what sale the movie
    for me the unique and own voice trying to make more real the tales as
    old as time. Dan song Evermore deserve more than just a price deserve a
    Oscar and I would be so mad if he doesn’t get at least for best song in
    the track. I think they took this outside the box and that was good for
    some people other would disagree because they fail in love with the
    original one but this one was what they want something new that would
    bring all ages to the cinema to enjoy and remember those years when
    were growing up an love to watch this movie. For me this movie is great
    and it would be part of my favorite movies from Disney.

  • Quietb-1March 21, 2017Reply

    Disney digs into the gold mine.

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • brendaMarch 21, 2017Reply

    My favorite Disney princess movie but…

    I just saw the movie and I honestly don’t know what to say.. I LOVE the
    original movie, my favorite songs and my favorite princess by far. That
    being said.. I’m not sure Emma Watson was the best Belle there was, I
    really love her but this movie assured me something I was fearing from
    her.. She doesn’t have various facial expressions!! Her performance to
    me was FLAT and that killed the movie for me.. I thought the beast had
    more facial changes than she did.. Her face was either smiling or
    serious or had a little tear trying to fall from her eyes and that’s
    it..not a lot of excitement or emotion of the feelings she was
    developing for the beast….. BUT I did like the movie, just don’t
    think Emma Watson it’s a great actress.

  • Edgar Allan PoohMarch 21, 2017Reply

    Hermione Granger courageously tackles her First Major Muggle Movie Role . . .

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • abigail-prohaskaMarch 21, 2017Reply

    Comparison with another version

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • olsjanetteMarch 21, 2017Reply

    nice casting

    I enjoyed the casting of this film very much. Kevin Kline was great as
    the father, and since most of the cast had live theater experience it
    felt more like a traditional musical. Not sure why there are such
    negative reviews. It is a sweet story that doesn’t need to be overdone.
    The costumes were lovely as well. Nice!

  • maria-41129March 21, 2017Reply

    Has it’s moments

    The scenery is beautiful and there are some really nice moments, so it
    is worth a watch.

    However as someone how loves the original I had a few issues with it,
    which really distracted me from the story: 1)The most interesting
    character in the whole story is Gaston, he is fun and good looking and
    plays the character so well you simply can’t hate him!! I feel he
    really saved this movie for me, other wise it would have been 3 stars
    but he is meant to be the baddie! 2)Yes Emma is beautiful and does look
    like I would imagine Belle, however her signing sounded really strained
    and unnatural and made me wish it would stop. 3) Mrs. Potts,
    Chip,Lumiere and Cogsworth – what happened to you!!! In the cartoon
    they are so charming now they just look odd, border line creepy.

  • evane_samMarch 21, 2017Reply

    Perfect through and through

    I absolutely loved it! Starting from the perfect casting to the songs
    (old and new).

    Emma Watson was perfect for the part of Belle, I couldn’t imagine
    anyone else doing the part justice. She brought a grace to Belle’s
    movements and character that reminded me of old Hollywood (Julie
    Andrews, Audrey Hepburn). Luke Evans as Gaston and Josh Gad as LeFou
    were pure perfection as well. I also found that Dan Stevens brought a
    lot of humanity and humor to the Beast and by the end of the movie I
    could see why she fell in love with him. I always found the cartoon was
    a bit rushed in this respect. It felt like they met and the next day
    they confessed their love and The End. The movie fixed this as well as
    several other plot holes that the original cartoon had in my opinion.
    The movie, probably benefiting from being longer than the cartoon, had
    a much better pace and thus could flesh out the characters more fully.

    During ”Be our guest” I realized that I was smiling from ear to ear and
    I did not find it overstuffed at all. Others mentioned that the new
    songs were not catchy like the old ones. I actually left the cinema
    humming Days in the sun and Evermore. I got the soundtrack and the
    second I got home and these two songs are practically on a loop since
    then.

    The only thing I did not like was one of the 3D effects. I saw the
    movie twice in IMAX 3D and the time they pan up to ceiling of Belle’s
    bedroom with all the gold leaves, that scene was completely blurry and
    I was forced to look away. Other than that the 3D effects were better
    than expected. It was probably the first time during a 3D movie where I
    flinched when seeing something coming towards me. Marvel movies never
    managed to get me 🙂

    I also loved the changes they made to Belle’s costumes. The small
    touches they added here and there were very notable and just perfect.

    All in all, I would recommend this movie to anyone and I would even pay
    to watch it for a 3rd, 4th, 5th time.

  • LiisMarch 21, 2017Reply

    so magical and wonderful

    I have to say my expectations were high and thankfully I didn’t have to
    disappoint. The movie was magical and beautiful and everything I hoped
    for. I got to laugh and cry and just feel amazing after the movie
    ended.

    I really recommend the new Beauty and the Beast to everyone who loves
    Disney movies as much as I do. This movie is definitely my new top 1
    Disney movie.

    As for the actors, everyone were perfect. Emma Watson and Dan Stevens
    had great chemistry and Luke Evans and Josh Gad were the perfect Gaston
    and LaFou.

    Go see this movie ASAP!

  • Manjyot MattooMarch 22, 2017Reply

    It is the number 1 Disney films

    It is so good that I think it should be

    the number 1 Disney films that are very good. It is very interesting
    and very fantasy.

    I recommend it for families, people who are very musical and people who
    like fantasies. It is very enjoyable too.

  • RforFilmMarch 22, 2017Reply

    The look and production of Beauty and the Beast lets everyone be their guest, but this tale as old as time is better animated

    When I was helping my parents move a couple of years ago, I came across
    a bunch of old photos, including an old Halloween picture of me dressed
    as Lumière when I was five. Yes, Beauty and the Beast was that
    wonderful animated movie that everyone has pretty much seen. It’s my
    all time favorite of the traditional fairy tale stories from Disney,
    and for good reason. The characters are perfect, the animation is
    perfect, the songs are perfect, and the story is perfect. It was also
    the first animated movie to receive a best picture nomination at the
    Oscars and has a long running Broadway show.

    It remains one of Disney’s most popular and profitable movies of all
    time, so it made sense that they would want to return to it. Given how
    Maleficent, Cinderella, and The Jungle Book live action remakes have
    done incredibly well, it seems that this tale as old as time would be
    eyed for that same fate. Whats difficult about adapting this story in
    this manner is figuring out what to expand. The other movies had a lot
    of areas from their stories to explore into, but how do you expand the
    world of Beauty and the Beast? …let’s see.

    Like in the animated movie, a vain prince turns away an ugly old woman
    from his castle, despite being warned about inner beauty. When he
    dismisses her again, she reveals herself an sorceress and transforms
    him into the Beast (played by Dan Stevens) and a curse is placed on the
    castle and everyone inside.

    Cut to twenty years later where a book obsessed young woman Belle
    (played by Emma Watson) makes the best of her life within her small
    french village. Former army captain and hunter Gaston (played by Luke
    Evans) eyes her as a wife, but she wants nothing to do with it.

    When Belles father Maurice (played by Kevin Kline) ends up locked up in
    the castle that he stumbled upon, Belle goes there to get him out.
    Though the Beast frightens her, she agrees to take her fathers place.
    This makes her a prisoner, but she gets a nice room. Helping them out
    is candlestick Lumière (played by Ewan McGregor), clock Cogsworth
    (played by Ian McKellen) and Teapot Mrs. Potts (played by Emma
    Thompson). A romance seems to bloom for Belle and the Beast, but Gaston
    and help from his friend Lefou (played by Josh Gad) are trying to stop
    it.

    It’s amazing just how close this movie follows the original Beauty and
    the Beast. Unfortunately, it follows it way too close. While it’s not
    completely shot-for-shot (like the Psycho remake), there are plenty of
    moments when it feels like the idea was to take many of the famous
    images from the animated movie and do it again. I guess I can say
    what’s different is the look. A lot of that has to do with the fact
    that it’s live action, but the production value is gorgeous. I’ll bet a
    million dollars that this wins a lot of the Oscars next year for
    costume, makeup, and production design.

    How does the cast stack up? They seem to do alright. The best newcomers
    are Kevin Kline and Josh Gad as they seemed to be the only ones to
    really bring something new to their characters. The rest like Ewan
    McGregor, Luke Evans and Ian McKellen do fine, but the worst has to be
    the films main character Belle, Emma Watson. Not only is it clear that
    they auto tuned her voice for the songs, but she still looks too much
    like a girl while I had pictured Belle as a woman (Olivia Wilde would
    have been my choice).

    I’ll give this five Lumière candlesticks out of ten. On it’s own, it’s
    okay to sometimes good. I can see a lot of people getting swept up in
    the world more then the characters. It’s just that I’ll always be
    comparing this to the superior animated movie. I see this as totally
    pointless, but my theater clapped at the end, so I’m sure it’ll make a
    lot of people happy at least. Your invited to be the movie’s guest, but
    I’ll decline the next invitation.

  • Sean Nasuti (seannasuti)March 22, 2017Reply

    A charming new take on a beloved classic.

    Well, most of the user reviews that I’ve seen on here for this film are
    mixed-to-negative so I decided to give it a positive review for a
    change of pace.

    Let me be clear; this isn’t going to replace the original film. The
    original ‘Beauty and the Beast’ is still very much the masterpiece that
    made it the first animated film ever to be nominated for Best Picture.
    Clearly, there were a lot of expectations towards this new film because
    of that prestigious pedigree. And, clearly, it was one of the riskiest
    ventures of Disney’s recent run of live-action remakes. And because
    this film is probably the closest to its original out of all the Disney
    remakes so far, the term ‘unnecessary’ is being thrown around a lot.
    Maybe it is, but that doesn’t really bother me in the slightest.

    Yes, this film has almost the exact same plot as its predecessor, but
    at the same time, there are some minor touches here and there that at
    least help it to differentiate itself from the original. At the very
    least, it’s not a 100% carbon copy of what we saw before. Plus, the
    film is undeniably well-made with gorgeous visuals and an equally
    gorgeous production design. The classic songs are handled excellently
    in live-action, the new songs are great additions, and the film’s
    impressively stacked ensemble cast is fantastic.

    In short, I know that there are people out there who aren’t too big on
    the remakes. That’s fine; no one’s forcing you to watch them. But, at
    the same time, these new films are not negatively impacting their
    original sources to the high levels that those who oppose them claim
    they are. At worst, they’d just end up being a mediocre remake that
    just makes their original counterpart even better by comparison. And
    yet, that hasn’t been the case with most of the recent Disney remakes.
    They don’t replace their original sources; they just serve as a nice
    little complement to them. This new take on ‘Beauty and the Beast’ is
    no exception. So, with that in mind, ignore all the negativity
    surrounding this film (particularly the completely overblown backlash
    towards a new aspect of the film that is so subtle, you probably
    wouldn’t have noticed it if everyone hadn’t made such a big deal about
    it) and just enjoy a heartwarming new take on one of Disney’s most
    beloved stories.

  • wmsfpMarch 22, 2017Reply

    Miscast of Belle

    Overall the film was decent, a bit boring at times. The acting was OK,
    but it failed to ever ”sweep you away” like the animated version did
    for years.

    The most frustrating part was Belle, or Emma. I don’t dislike her and I
    could care less about feminism. However, I do think a lead role that
    includes substantial signing should be able to…….SING!

    The horrible use of auto-tune was cringe worthy and her English accent
    was very thick for someone that was born in Paris and grew up in
    France….

    I though McGregor was great as Lumiere and hid his English accent well.
    Mrs. Potts and Cogsworth are supposed to be English, so that worked
    well.

  • iapage-375-928255March 22, 2017Reply

    Wonderful rendition!

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • nellyvxMarch 22, 2017Reply

    A wonderful adaptation

    I enjoyed this movie so much! I wanted to clap so many times,
    especially after the Be our guest musical moment, beast’s solo or the
    ending credits with Celine Dion’s new song in the background. It does
    justice to the original and more!

    Don’t read to much into the negative reviews, just go and see it and
    decide for your own!

  • Jason HardenMarch 22, 2017Reply

    Missed Opportunites

    Disney’s latest live action remake is a wonderful trip down memory
    lane, but it doesn’t really bring anything new to the table. It follows
    the animated feature line for line, but with extra scenes and songs to
    try and deepen the story a little. Those added details don’t really go
    anywhere though, which is an unfortunate missed opportunity when you
    have such fascinating source material to work with. Getting to see
    these timeless characters reenacted with today’s talent was also a lot
    of fun, and though they do look the part, their singing voices were
    tainted with heavy doses of autotuning, and some just lacked energy all
    together. It felt as if the filmmakers were holding themselves back
    from making a more fleshed out version of the animated feature, but it
    was still highly entertaining. The stunning visuals, all star cast, and
    added details and songs make the story feel new again for today’s
    audiences, but in the end, it reminds me why the first one was so
    brilliant to begin with.

  • electrorogueMarch 22, 2017Reply

    unremarkable, forgettable event overdone with no soul

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • TvfanMarch 22, 2017Reply

    I loved the movie

    I walked in to the theater to see beauty and the beast expecting a
    little bit different from the story i grew up with but here’s what I
    didn’t expect I didn’t expect to love it As much or more than the
    original movie i was taping my toes in the theater to every song Sang
    it was a good time and super fun at the movies and um the people who
    are not seeing the movie due to the.supposed gay moment.please I beg of
    you reconsider your decision and go see it I loved the lovely Emma
    Watson as Bell and also the gay moment seemed to be more during the
    Gaston song in my opinion yes lefo did dance with a man who is seemed
    to be transgender but the Gaston song was more intense however I am
    going to say that you should take the family to see the movie it’s
    clearly not to be missed

  • Arth JoshiMarch 22, 2017Reply

    what if she’s the one..

    Beauty And The Beast

    Beautiful, customary and a bit too long. The part which has to be look
    upon is screenplay, dialogues and d.o.p. but this is where the movie
    loses its track. The storyline is strong for obvious reasons but the
    film lacks to keep you invest in it. The movie lacks character
    development hence the viewer fails to put it’s heart in it. The music
    is good but some songs were irrelevant and the movie fails to surprise
    the viewers and hold on to the seat, even 129 minutes seems​ like ages.

    A typical musical movie with nothing new in it, think twice before
    spending your bucks.

  • rulisastraMarch 22, 2017Reply

    I love Dan Stevens

    Am I the only one who didn’t want Dan looked by other girls? Don’t get
    me wrong, i love and wish him more and more success.. I mean, this
    movie was spectacular and wonderful. and Dan made us laugh couple
    times.

    Dan’s eyes, OMG, i can’t resist!

    People said that they cried when they saw the film. But i didn’t. Why?
    because i was too stunned by it. by him.

    The song (Beauty and The Beast) was beautiful, i sang it over and over
    after saw the movie.

    SO, i give you 9. Since nothing and nobody is perfect. Good job!

    wish there’s a little bit twist or different plot from the original 🙁
    AND i can see Dan a little bit longer in the movie.

    FYI, i have Dan’s picture hang in my bedroom’s wall since he was
    Crawley. Look forward for your movies.

  • luxorrMarch 22, 2017Reply

    One of the worst Disney movies ever

    Bad movie for sure. Disney movies are most of the times one of the best
    I have ever seen, but not always this is true which is the case here.
    This movie was so boring so I was wandering what to do 1 hour and 50
    minutes, only the last 10 minutes of the movie is worth seeing. Budget
    160 millions dollars and the result is total disappointment. All this
    musical elements in the movie is just too much, it takes away the real
    feeling that this movie is supposed to bring to the viewers. Ema Watson
    clearly is worst choice for this role, she was looking like Beast’s
    daughter when standing next to him, she is just too young for this
    role. This movie should be rated not to be viewed by viewers over 16
    years of age. Overall very bad movie, it is a clear waste of time to
    see this movie, but we will forget Disney and will wait for them to get
    back on track this month of May.

  • secretzfanMarch 22, 2017Reply

    A nice try that can’t get up the hill its fighting against -slight spoiler

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • James De BelloMarch 22, 2017Reply

    8/10

    Belle (Emma Watson) is a…yeah probably no need for a plot synopsis
    since this is the tale as old as time and it would just bore the hell
    out of any reader. So lets just get to it. ”Beauty and the Beast” is
    the live action Disney remake that comes twenty six years after the
    gorgeous animated feature.

    I am more not only fine, but encourage the retelling of classical tales
    in any kind of medium. It has been done since the dawn of humanity and
    I see no problem in doing so as long as there is always something new
    to add to these stories and some fresh silver lining to find in our
    characters. Going into this I must admit that I was very frighted to be
    treated to a shot for shot remake that I would have enjoyed only
    because of charm and would have felt embarrassed about it.

    Whilst there is treading of familiar grounds, I was so pleasantly
    surprised to see what a great, touching and progressive modern take
    Disney was able to stamp on it. I am a big fan of the animated feature,
    the story is really universal and whilst this entry does not touch the
    emotional heights and the charm of the original, it offers a reminder
    of what a flawless piece of storytelling this is and it graces us with
    a good enough touch that managed to take me genuinely to enjoy and live
    this story one more time in a different way.

    Whilst the songs might be the same they are always so fantastically
    entertaining on their own, Bill Condon builds on that and assembles a
    series of flashy musical numbers that all live beautifully on screen.
    There is no fast cutting, the editing decisions in these pieces are
    always warranted and the filmmakers manage to strike a perfect balance
    of seeing everything unfold on screen and using the editing to enhance
    the music. There are also a couple on updated or new musical numbers
    and it was a great sign that they flowed with the picture fluently,
    they felt genuine and didn’t play as a forced new addition.

    Of course the real spearhead of this production is its incredible cast
    and what can one say that the list of names here cannot already do on
    its own. It is just pure glee, there isn’t one half of a bad casting
    decision, everybody not only fits their role, but does the perfect
    amount of updating and nuance to make you buy into them as soon as they
    appear on screen. Luke Evans was definitely the highlight for me, he
    brought Gaston to the screen in all of his ridiculousness and irony, it
    was a pleasure to see and was the high point of comedy of an already
    strongly funny film.

    Another magical strength of the film is its CGI. There are a couple of
    green screens that got under my skin because of their blatant
    notability, especially considering how excellent the rest of the VFX
    were. This was really state of the art work. I literally could not tell
    all of the animated characters were apart from the live action ones, it
    was completely seamless in a way that I think we’ve never seen done
    this good before. The question never came up, there was not a single
    false beat, they were absolutely perfect.

    However, what might be the very best part of this update is just how
    modern it is. No, not only because of a gay character, which still is
    such a brilliant addition because of how brilliantly they manage to
    weave it into the story and adapt it into a fairy tale character.
    There’s much more here, many genre conventions are broken, many
    male/female stereotypes are purposefully bent and turned on their
    heads, there is diversity and it so beautiful to see such an iconic
    story get an adaptation that is a better representation of the human
    race.

    Yes, there is no denying some of the ground treaded is very familiar
    and I am the first to say that there still is some space for change in
    this story, there still are a couple of plot point that can be updated
    and because of how modern the take overall is I felt like some events
    and minor character dynamics could have had a little polishing.
    Technically too the film has some moments of disjointed editing and it
    could have done with a little more cutting. Don’t mistake me, the two
    hours never drag, but they do feel kind of unnecessary by the end, a
    five to ten minute tightening could have done the job.

    I was initially a little cold on this film, but after realizing just
    how much I enjoyed it, how it actually got to me on an emotional level
    by the end and how charmed I was by the characters and their new
    iterations. I have to admit that I would be happily up to rewatching
    the film which was something I was doubting going in. I bumped up the
    score a little because of this, I hope that a further viewing confirms
    my feelings on this.

  • xgray-03873March 22, 2017Reply

    I Actually Thought This Was A Pretty Good Movie Remake.

    Honestly, there isn’t much to compare the live-action 2017 Disney
    remake to the 1991 animated version at all. But, I will say this, it
    actually does feel more like a live-action Broadway Musical, than it
    does as a ”shot-for-shot/note-for-note translation of the original”
    unlike Batman: The Killing Joke (2016), Psycho (1999), and the 2014
    remake of RoboCop. Now, with the characters, well..not much has
    changed. I mean, it’s exactly as it was in the 1991 version, but we’re
    basically given more backstories on Belle and the Beast’s parents, and
    their pasts, respectively. As well as some more interactions between
    the servants, Gaston and LeFou. Story-wise, pretty much the same. But,
    the musical score and the songs are amazing. My only gripes are, yes,
    the Beast’s design shouldn’t have been all CGI, but rather, just
    practical effects, puppetry and make- up. And Belle’s iconic princess
    dress in the movie…still needs more volume and honestly, they
    should’ve included the glove. And lastly, I don’t get what was the big
    deal about announcing that LeFou was gay in the movie. Who cares?! I
    still thought he was funny and the actor did a good job portraying the
    character.

    Overall, I’m not saying that the 2017 remake is ”better” than the
    original, not because of nostalgia, but because it actually does feel
    more another remake to a totally incarnation of the original 1991
    version aka..the Broadway musical adaptation. But, if you’re looking
    for something to appeal to your 1990’s nostalgia, then go watch the
    original 1991 version. You’re not really missing out on much and it’s
    still a timeless classic. the 2017 remake is just another version that
    will have it’s own growing fan-base, for the time being.

    But, through it all…I actually had fun watching this movie.

    8 out of 10.

  • tm-sheehanMarch 22, 2017Reply

    Is this one version too many?

    This is the 7th film version of Beauty and The Beast and I really
    wonder why they made another, especially seeing it’s part human and
    part animation but it works . It’s neither a film version of the
    Broadway stage hit or a Human version of the great fully animated
    Disney feature film. It does have all the magic and effects that Disney
    dollars can throw at a film and a few new songs and plot twists.

    The cast is very capable especially Emma Watson, who sings well and
    looks suitably enchanting as a true Disney Princess should . It’s was
    fun to see some favourites of mine like Audra McDonald as Madame
    Garderobes and Emma Thompson as Mrs Potts . The new songs by Alan
    Menken don’t really add anything to his original score in fact I think
    they made a mistake by not including Human Again in this film it’s a
    great production number and I missed it, perhaps it’s on the DVD extras
    cost certainly couldn’t have been a factor in dropping it with Disney
    dollars behind it.

    In conclusion it’s a good film with reservations I prefer the 1946 Jean
    Cocteau version, watched it recently with new Phillip Glass opera
    soundtrack or The fully human live Broadway musical production, but yes
    it’s lovely and pays little tributes to The Sound of Music opening
    scene Maria twirling while ”The Hills are Alive ”and little references
    to the Original Cocteau version but please no more Beauty and The
    Beasts , that’s enough!

  • nicolemortensenMarch 22, 2017Reply

    Dull, Boring and Doesn’t Do the Original Justice

    Out of all the Disney remakes, I think this one might the worst.

    I’ll give credit where it’s due, the movie is really gorgeous. And the
    actors playing the servants are all fantastic. In fact, I think they’re
    the best part of the movie to be honest. Luke Evans is hilarious as
    Gaston and Josh Gad was a fantastic Le Fou. The music was decent but
    they added two new songs. Days in the Sun is fine until Watson starts
    singing and Evermore was pretty good.

    But in all complete honesty, this movie is just not that great.

    First of all, why did they cast Emma Watson? She is not a singer and
    you can tell in this movie. Why cast a singer if she can’t sing? Not
    only that but she looks bored throughout the whole movie. Also, the
    romance between her and Beast never feels realized. It seems like the
    Beast cares more about Belle.

    There is also this random subplot about Belle’s mother that goes
    nowhere. It feels really awkward and there was zero reason for it to be
    in the film.

    But my biggest pet peeve is that they cast one of the greatest vocalist
    of all time, Audra McDonald, as the wardrobe.

    Are you kidding me!?

    She has the best voice in the whole entire movie and they stick her as
    the wardrobe!? Why?!

    I say skip this movie unless you have little girls who are dying to see
    it.

  • alindsay-alMarch 22, 2017Reply

    A great remake that has personality

    With the animated film being one of the most iconic films of all time
    there was a lot of pressure on this film to be good and I thought it
    really was. The premise of this film sees a girl who is seemed to be
    weird by her village because of her books, when she is trapped in an
    enchanted castle with a a beast. Emma Watson plays belle in this film
    and she does a decent job, she fit the role with her looks and singing
    voice. I also thought she was a pretty strong female character that is
    good for women to see. However, I felt like her character was a little
    bland and wooden which made her one of the least memorable characters
    in this film. Dan Stevens plays the beast in this film and I thought he
    did a great job, I thought his character had a good character arc in
    the film and I liked his subtle humour that he had in the role. Luke
    Evans plays Gaston in this film and he was absolutely the perfect
    person to play this role, he had the look, the voice and the charisma
    he had oozed on the screen. Josh gadd also had great comedic timing in
    this film and I loved his chemistry with Evans in this film. Ewan
    McGregor and ian McKellen play lemuier and cogsworth and they
    encapsulated the roles perfectly and I loved them in these roles. The
    story does have some truly emotional moments that makes you care about
    the majority of characters. However, similar to how I felt about the
    2014 Cinderella film this film doesn’t really add anything new to its
    story which makes it an easy watch but doesn’t do anything that
    interesting. The script has some great humour in it that really
    surprised me and actually had me and the audience laughing quite a lot.
    The drama also works and you end up buying the development in belle and
    beasts relationship. The style of this film has some excellent singing
    sequences that are very familiar but memorable in this film. Overall
    this is a great remake that hopefully leads to more of these remakes.

  • Danusha_Goska Save Send DeleteMarch 22, 2017Reply

    Standing Ovation

    Within ten minutes of ”Beauty and the Beast” 2017. I wanted to rise
    from my seat and applaud. Within twenty minutes I had laughed, gasped,
    and been wowed. I can’t say ”go see it.” You will see it. It’s going to
    be a classic.

    I saw a ten a.m. matinée, thinking that I’d avoid the crowds. No way.
    The theater was full. Some little girls were dressed in fairy tale
    gowns. In spite of the film’s length, I didn’t see anyone bail – no one
    left the theater and never returned. When the film ended, the audience
    broke out in applause.

    I love watching lots of money and talent explode on every inch of my
    visual field. ”Beauty and the Beast” slathers on the money *and* the
    TLC. Someone took the time to paint roses on the lintels of a cottage,
    and to costume Belle in bloomers so she can ride a horse, and to
    wrinkle the noses of the CGI wolves when they growl.

    ”Beauty and the Beast” feels very much like a fairy tale. It has the
    plot conventions and morality of a fairy tale. The wolves menace when
    menacing wolves are needed to move the plot along, and they are nowhere
    to be seen when Belle needs to ride through that forest without being
    interrupted. This is how fairy tales work. They have their own logic. A
    peasant crone entering a rich man’s house, begging for alms and being
    refused – that is the classic spark of a witch frenzy, or a curse.

    Watching Emma Watson delighted me just as watching Julie Andrews in
    films like ”Mary Poppins” and ”Sound of Music” once did. Watson is an
    intelligent, dignified, decent human being and that comes across in her
    every move. She’s never the dumb blonde, never the shrinking violet or
    damsel in distress, never the flirtatious coquette who has nothing to
    recommend her but her curves. She inhabits the role of a smart,
    inquisitive, integral human being.

    Twinkly-eyed old pro Kevin Kline is a favorite. Ewan Macgregor somehow
    manages to turn on the charm even as he is nothing more than a CGI
    candlestick. Emma Thompson imbues a ”there, there now” maternal
    instinct into a Cockney teapot, Stanley Tucci, Audra MacDonald, and Ian
    McKellan are more jewels in the cast.

    You can practically smell the testosterone coming off of Luke Evans as
    Gaston. He’s both funny and menacing, just handsome enough and just
    oily enough.

    The few complaints I have with this film I had with the animated
    version as well. I wish there were more time spent building a
    relationship between The Beast and Belle, and less time spent on chase
    and fight scenes, but I recognize that this is primarily a film for
    children and kids don’t want to watch the kind of subtle interaction
    and tender moments that Jean Cocteau depicted in his live action,
    adult-oriented 1946 ”La Belle et la Bete.”

    I do think that Gaston is an anti-male character. Gaston is not just a
    bad guy. He’s an indictment of traditional masculinity. But that’s a
    whole ‘nother essay.

    I do wish we had had more time with The Beast generally. Dan Stevens is
    a very good looking man. I wanted more of him, both before and after
    transformation, and more of The Beast. But you can’t have everything.
    For that, there’s fan-fiction, and there’s a lot of it on the web.

    About the protests. LeFou casts yearning glances in Gaston’s direction,
    and there is a very brief shot of him dancing with another male
    character. And … that’s it. *All* the movie does is remind us that
    there are gay people among our friends, neighbors, and fairy tale
    characters. There is nothing graphic or inappropriate for children. In
    fact, most children won’t even notice LeFou’s orientation. I’m not even
    sure I would have, had I not read articles about protests before going
    to see the film.

    Too many Christians are willing financially to support violent,
    misogynist, and graphic films, TV shows and video games. If you liked
    the violent movie ”Logan,” if you voted for a man who speaks about
    grabbing – ahem – if you laugh at contemptuous humor, and yet you
    protest this lovely film, you need something that this movie provides –
    a magical mirror. Not so you can see far away, but so you can see
    yourself.

  • ruhail-mohammad-aliMarch 22, 2017Reply

    simply boring

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • duentesMarch 22, 2017Reply

    Very disappointing

    First I want to say that I have been waiting for too many years hoping
    that Disney will make my favorite Cartoons in real movies; but when I
    went to the movies and I saw beauty and the beast I was very
    disappointed.I expected to see something beautiful, like the work they
    did with Cinderella. Why they didn’t chose the same director. This
    movie would have been huge!. I was sad. My little daughter was scared
    of the beast. She is 7 years old and kept crying. This is supposed to
    be a family movie. This movie didn’t meet my expectations at all.
    Actors didn’t show emotion while acting. It looks fake. I’m sorry; but
    it was disappointing.

  • FallsDownzMarch 22, 2017Reply

    The Trade-off that’s not worth it

    When i was a kid Beauty and the Beast (1991) is one of my most favorite
    animated films of all time (followed by Mulan and Toy Story 2) so
    there’s no denying that this review is going to be a little bias.

    Why is that ? you might asked, it’s because this Beauty and the Beast
    basically try to do exactly what the animated version do like literally
    almost copy and pasted frame by frame and this became the most negative
    things about this Live Action version even though it adds a few
    backstory here and there (which i appreciated) the part where it’s
    exactly the same lacks the emotion or authenticity like 1991 version
    did.

    A lot of iconic scene came out kind a bland because it can’t go crazy
    like the animated film did instead it just move there in a frame called
    ‘Beauty and the Beast 1991 version’ in a way that there’s so few room
    left to actually breathe (or dare i say they too scared to actually do
    something new?), sure production design is so beautiful sometimes even
    more than the original but when the emotion is not there at all it’s
    pointless.

    one thing that i really need to gave credit to is Luke Evans like wow
    he’s really really great as Gaston, honestly he’s one of the best thing
    about this version.

    If we judge Beauty and the Beast ( 2017 ) by it’s own without comparing
    it to the original movie it’s a pretty good movie but still i think
    that’s impossible because in the end it’s a remake, and few of new
    backstory is not worth to trade with emotion and authenticity than the
    original has.

  • lmks1972March 22, 2017Reply

    Don’t listen to the bad reviews.

    I saw Beauty and the Beast (2017) and I loved it. After reading some of
    the reviews of Beauty and the Beast (2017) after seeing the movie made
    me wonder: did these people see a different movie than I did? I went
    back to see it again, and I loved it! OK, it may not be as good as the
    animated Beauty and the Beast, but really, nothing is. Beauty and the
    Beast (1991) is Disney at its very best. If you just want to sit back
    and escape for a little while, this is perfect. The singing is great,
    the new songs added for the film fit in seamlessly, and all of the
    actors in the movie did a fine job.

  • tinovalkkiMarch 22, 2017Reply

    Tale as old as Time…

    You can have many opinions about movie remakes. It is true, that many
    times remakes are stupid and vain and many times they flop simply
    because of their contradiction in terms. So is Beauty and the Beast
    remake legitimate? Absolutely yes. Movie is a thoroughbred true musical
    and many musicals are very populated in theaters all around the word
    and people travel to see them in many theater cities around the world.
    There is no reason why we can’t enjoy the new version of Beauty and the
    Beast. With the new technology movie has brought back so beautifully.
    It’s legendary themes sounds so lovely and familiar, that even new
    generation can enjoy it’s magic and luxury. Also the movie characters
    are now more profound and therefore more interesting even for more
    adult audience. Beauty and the Beast takes it’s audience from very
    beginning to it’s magical world and entertains it’s whole audience.
    Movie follows almost exactly the original movie concept. Most of the
    time it works, but not all the time. Especially at the middle of the
    movie ”Be my Guest” song is little too blurry and childish and could be
    replaced with better scene. That doesn’t bother too much and movie
    maintains it’s magic.

    Emma Watson as Belle manages her role very well and surprises with her
    talent to sing. Dan Stevens has make-up almost unrecognizable, but
    digitally created monsters face and eyes are brought to screen so
    lively and humanly as possible. Strong story, great characters and Alan
    Menken’s score is so beautiful watch and hear, that it sensitize even
    strongest viewer. Remake of Beauty and the Beast is very well done
    update of original Disney classic.

    Tale as old as time True as it can be Barely even friends Then somebody
    bends Unexpectedly Just a little change Small to say the least Both a
    little scared Neither one prepared Beauty and the beast

  • batmanjokercatwomanMarch 22, 2017Reply

    Pretty but lifeless retelling

    There is a trend going on right now with Disney films, that they are
    redoing their animated classics in live-action – Alice In Wonderland,
    Sleeping Beauty, Cinderella, The Jungle Book and now the latest in this
    trend Beauty And The Beast. This one was going to be difficult for me
    because the 1991 Disney film Beauty And The Beast is one of my
    favourite films of all time.

    So how do I feel this film? Honestly I spent the first half being
    pretty annoyed as it was just carbon copy with minor changes, but I
    just accepted it by the time I got to the second half and just
    pretended I was watching a play of the movie instead. But then I have
    to admit there was one really great scene that got me emotional towards
    the end. Not enough to make me love the film, in a way it highlights my
    biggest problem with the film, I’ll get to it later and don’t worry I
    won’t spoil it.

    The majority of it is pretty much a copy of the 1991 film, they might
    as well have used the same storyboards. The problem though is not so
    much that it redoes the same scenes, it’s that they get lost in
    translation, not enough effort is put in to create the same feelings. I
    lost count over how many cut-to-blacks this film has.

    Visually this film is really nice to look at. Many of the sets are well
    designed, the castle especially with all the little details. However
    the environments of the locations aren’t well explored that you notice
    at times that it’s shot on a sound stage. The CGI effects for the Beast
    is not that great, I don’t understand why they couldn’t use
    prosthetics, you could’ve saved legendary make-up artist Rick Baker
    from his early retirement. The best CGI goes to the animate objects,
    sure the designs were pretty creepy this time but I did buy them as
    genuine moving objects – the mechanics on the clocks look realistic and
    the teapot and cup look like real china. Be Our Guest was a visually
    stunning moment.

    The acting all-round was more or less on the same level, they are great
    actors but the issue I have is that I’m always aware that they are
    playing the parts. I don’t see Belle in this film, I just see Emma
    Watson playing Belle in this film and it’s like that for everyone. It
    seems like all these big named actors were putting on performances for
    theatre instead of an actual film. It’s kind of bad that I think the
    characters in an animated film feel more like real people than the ones
    played by real people. I don’t care how much they expand on their
    backstories or how many additional character-building moments they are
    given; if they don’t act natural I’m not going to be invested in them.
    They’re never boring however, you can tell everyone had a lot of fun
    making this, so at times they share that enjoyment with you. The
    strongest performances are from Kevin Kline as Maurice and Josh Gad as
    Le Fou, I guess that helps that their characters are the most different
    from their animated counterparts, they’re less goofy and are a little
    more realistic. The singing is not the greatest either, not Russell
    Crowe or Peirce Brosnan levels of bad, but not good compared to the
    singing in the original. The best singing comes from Audra McDonald,
    whom is a soprano but she’s not given enough to sing.

    In terms of what this added (again not to spoil the film), there are
    about four new songs added which were good I will admit, I could see
    these fitting into theatre productions quite well. There are some
    really good additional scenes like when Maurice and Belle work on a
    music box together and they mention her mother and a pretty unpleasant
    scene with Gaston and Maurice. There’s a scene that could’ve taken this
    film in a unique direction, unfortunately it doesn’t go anywhere and
    adds nothing except to try and expand on Belle’s past which kind of
    ruins the subtle moment she had with her father at the beginning. Then
    there is the big scene towards the end that made me tear up, it was a
    real heart-breaking scene. It was built up quite well and when it
    happens it lets it play out. Very clever and by far the best scene they
    did in this film. So why is the best scene it’s biggest problem?
    Because it’s a moment that does not involve Belle or the Beast and it
    made me realise I how much didn’t really care about them here. I love
    Belle and the Beast, they are awesome characters because in the
    original they are allowed to be characters. They have genuine emotions
    that you feel in all of their scenes and you feel their chemistry even
    in scenes without dialogue. Here despite being ‘more developed’ they
    feel still feel shallow, again it’s because they don’t feel like real
    people and their chemistry is non-existent.

    I apologise that I keep making so many comparisons to the original but
    it’s very difficult not to. This film keeps reminding me of the
    original, it keeps redoing it but not as well with minor changes and
    additions that aren’t strong enough to let this film stand on it’s own
    merits. Honestly, this film only works for me as like seeing a stage
    theatre version of a film you like. In fact if you watch this film
    without seeing the original, you’d probably think you are watching a
    stylised film adaptation of a musical play like 2004’s Phantom Of The
    Opera. If you bare that in mind you’ll enjoy this just fine, it’s not
    bad by any means but it won’t stand the test of time. The 1991 movie
    however is a timeless classic.

  • kyltinloMarch 22, 2017Reply

    Skip this movie. You won’t miss anything

    Skip this movie. You won’t miss anything. Except perhaps the good
    performance by Luke Evans as Gaston. But still, the bad aspects of this
    film just overrides any good ones.

    There were too many distractions in the film that it does not evolve
    into a movie experience. There are lots of propaganda in this film. If
    you would like to put racial minority actors, you don’t pick 18th
    century France as your setting. I am a racial minority so I can say
    this. They also depict that gays as mostly men in drag, weak and the so
    called gay scenes are not empowering at all but rather tacky. I am gay,
    so I have a right to say this.

    The worst distraction and aspect of this film is Emma Watson. She
    doesn’t give justice to the role of Belle. You can see it in her eyes.
    This actress grew up with everything, having played Hermione. Belle is
    a sweet, innocent provincial lass. Every time I look at Emma Watson, it
    seems like I am waiting for her to roll her eyeballs or take out a
    cellphone and tweet.

    Dan Stevens looked effeminate and his beast form should have been a
    bird and not a mammal. Josh Gad looked mechanical, uninspired and
    unconvincing as gay LeFou.

    I watched this film because I was afraid I would miss out on something
    historic or a good film sequence. But sadly there was none. I should
    have skipped this.

  • jeremyrleathMarch 22, 2017Reply

    Unimaginative and bland

    Like all Disney fans from the 80’s to present, I found myself excited
    to see this live action adaptation once I saw the teaser poster! I
    decided to ignore the naysaying that followed with the trailers, and
    the wave of immoral rhetoric being associated with the sexuality of
    LeFou. (Rolls eyes)

    Ignoring all of this I decided to make a judgement call after seeing
    the movie. I’ve came to the conclusion that this movie is to Disney
    movies what the original Blair witch was to the horror genre. This
    movie apparently cost $160,000,000 which begs to question: Where did
    they spend all this money? The sets designs and props were hastily put
    together. The village at the opening looks like the village Dorothy
    lands in, at the beginning of the wizard of oz. Next is the CGI! The
    budget and expertise behind Disney should not have been lacking. This
    movie could’ve been a cash cow. But the sad fact is, Disney let fine
    details and lackadaisical work ethic be passed off as a masterpiece.

    Emma Watson is a tremendous actress, and this is evident in her ability
    to phone in a wonderful performance to a imaginary beast. Disney
    please, please… please heed this. When the Gorilla from ‘Mighty Joe
    Young’ a movie from 1998 looks more realistic than your beast in 2017
    you must realize you’ve made a mistake. Disney used to be the go to for
    amazing movies that left you with spirit and wonder. What they’ve
    proved with their latest live action movies Is the realization, that
    they just crank out regurgitated movies with less effort just to cash
    in on nostalgia. From now on we will be renting Disney movies from
    redbox instead of seeing them in theaters.

  • Dave Emerton (Yorkshirebuff)March 22, 2017Reply

    Still not convinced we need any of these remakes from Disney

    Credit where credit is due, I am glad Disney has chosen to go full on
    musical (after the confusion that was ‘The Jungle Book’)if you are
    going to have 7-8 songs in a film, Do it in a theatrical/ musical style
    so I am glad they have at decided on that.

    Gaston and LeFou where hilarious, Gaston is perhaps my favourite Disney
    character so I was prepared for the worst but I found him to be
    (almost) the same character and Luke Evans can actually sing! (a rarity
    in this film but more on that later) Josh Gad was humorous with a nice
    arc towards the end that I didn’t feel was too cheesy.

    Ewan Mcgregor and Ian Mckellen had a good back and forth too, with
    Mckellens final line a favourite for me (Turn me back into a clock!!)
    The CGI (for the most part) is wonderful to look at and the costumes
    are great as well. I was a huge fan of the animated version so I was
    always going to like this film to a certain extent, however…

    EMMA WATSON CANNOT SING!!! Her voice was made up of 99% auto tune, it
    wasn’t even hidden well. Emma Stone doesn’t have the best singing voice
    but with the right songs and background music, it works in La La Land
    (heck she even won an Oscar) ‘Belle’ is such a powerful song and I am
    afraid the film lost me in the first 10 minutes as I simply wasn’t
    convinced, Waston did not even look as though she was singing, her
    mouth shape was not right for the volume that it was meant to be
    singing. As she sings in most songs, this was a big complaint.

    Did anyone else feel the entire film was ticking off plot holes from
    the animated film? The decadent party showing us the Princes
    selfishness? The village bewitched explaining the ignorance of the
    villagers? Gaston behaviour explained by being a war hero? Maybe these
    are details from the original fable, but to me it felt the director
    watched ‘Everything wrong with…’ Youtube video and was correcting
    everything from the animated version. And what was the deal with Belles
    mother? that whole section could have been cut and not made one jot of
    difference to the final story. Another example of filler to flesh out
    this movie to fulfil a 2 hour running time.

    My final complaint was the darkness, this was a very very dark looking
    film, I saw it in 2D and I felt I was wearing shades. I couldn’t make
    out parts of the film when the camera panned.

    All in all a bloated version of the original with some major nitpicks,
    certainty not the modern masterpiece everyone is raving about but if
    Zootopia can make over a billion, this will make 2 bil. Do yourself a
    favour and watch the 1991 version, or watch this version when the hype
    has died down so you don’t get lynched at work when you agree with me
    (I am writing this reviewing from a cupboard hiding from a work mob!)

  • t jMarch 22, 2017Reply

    Did I miss the gay stuff?

    Beauty and the Beastiality is a tough movie to watch as a cartoon, it’s
    even more disturbing as a live action film. first off, the story is
    about abuse and allowing a person to imprison you and abuse you with
    the hope that there is a better person underneath it all and falling in
    love with this person. seeing this Stockholm Syndrome story played out
    in live action may be a little tougher for some viewers. but the part i
    couldn’t get passed is the fact that this dude probably stunk because
    his fur would get all wet out in the snow. dogs stink when they come in
    from the snow, imagine a dog that big. it appears to be a period before
    sanitation, so where and how does he poop and pee? that beast has sharp
    teeth and is breathing all over that girl. his breath probably was all
    stank. Plus, giving oral would not be pleasurable for a woman. Unless
    he licks like a dog, then that might be pleasurable. Not to mention an
    erection. What would that be like? Is like a bull penis or is it more
    like the dog lipstick?

    then, SPOILER ALERT for those of you who don’t know the ending of a 300
    year old story, after the beast becomes a man (a man who probably looks
    better as a walking buffalo), the girl wants him to grow a beard. what
    next? bringing animals into the bedroom? also, my wife brought up that
    he had hooves and hind legs like a cow, so how does he get up and down
    the stairs? The actress, though attractive, didn’t really have what i
    thought would be the Bella look. i know it’s corny and probably not
    expected in this modern world, but perhaps someone like Ariana Grande
    would fit better in this roll (plus, she sings). also, where’s all the
    gay $#!+ that everyone was talking about? i waited so long for it, with
    my Vaseline and Kleenex and saw nothing. did i miss something? sure,
    there was a guy who gets put in a dress and enjoys it, but as my social
    brainwashing goes, that does not make one gay. then the two dudes
    dancing together. unless they’re rubbing up on each other, doing the
    bump and grind or grabbing each other’s ass, then i don’t think that’s
    gay. but then again, you’re watching a musical — now, that’s gay.
    also, the state of Alabama is said to have a problem with Disney having
    a gay character, and the worst of it is two dudes dance together, yet
    they have no problem with a woman getting it on with a buffalo. But,
    then again, it’s Alabama.

  • adam-greenwoodMarch 22, 2017Reply

    A delightful, fresh take on a well-loved classic 🙂 *SPOILERS*

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • ccorral419March 22, 2017Reply

    Tired of musical movies…

    Director Bill Condon (”Dreamgirls” – 2006) knows his way around
    real-life big budget films, however, his current special/visual/CGI
    effects film is too dark (literally it’s in shadow throughout much of
    the film) to be thoroughly enjoyed by it’s primary audience – children.
    As for the ”gay” issue, PLEASE! Guys briefly wearing female clothing
    and/or a few seconds of two men dancing together does not make a gay
    film. To Condon’s credit, he doesn’t change the story much, so if
    you’ve seen the animation and the live theatre production (and who
    hasn’t?), there’s really no need to see this version. Belle (played by
    all grown up Emma Watson ”Harry Potter”) does a nice job, giving her
    Belle more of self assured female presences. The Beast (Dan Stevens –
    Matthew from ”Downton Abbey) costumes and make-up is terrific, and
    Stevens’ managers to display a nice warm conflict in emotions
    throughout. On the other hand, Gaston (Luke Evans ”Dracula” 2014) is
    over the top in dialogue and jesters, making his character a Laurel and
    Hardy team opposite LeFou (Josh Gad ”Book of Mormon”). While it’s
    always great to see Kevin Kline on the big screen, his Maurice didn’t
    feel connected to the story, and the ”antique” VoiceOvers (Ewan
    McGregor, Ian McKellen, Emma Thompson, Audra McDonald and Stanley
    Tucci) were fun in CGI format, when they transformed back to human, it
    was all too stagy for my enjoyment. In fact, the big wrap at the end
    was really the end for me. Maybe I’m just tired of film/TV musicals?

  • MrDHWong ([email protected])March 23, 2017Reply

    Improves on just about everything that was enjoyable about the 1991 film

    Beauty and the Beast is the live action remake of the classic 1991
    Disney animated film. Based on the French fairy tale of the same name,
    this adaptation is so far the best live action update of a Disney film.

    In 18th century France, a beautiful young woman named Belle (Emma
    Watson) is imprisoned by a savage Beast (Dan Stevens) inside his giant
    castle. Unbeknownst to Belle, the Beast is actually a Prince who has
    had his physical form altered by a curse. The curse will only be broken
    once the Beast wins her love in return, otherwise he will remain a
    monster forever.

    This version improves on just about everything that was enjoyable about
    the 1991 film. The songs sound better, the set design looks better, and
    even the pacing feels better. The film moves at a breathless speed, but
    never so much that the story is hard to follow. Emma Watson is
    perfectly cast as Belle, not merely for her physical appearance, but
    for her range as an actress. The film even has some moments of dark
    humour and the occasional self-referential quip about certain
    situations the characters may be going through at someone else’s
    expense, similar to Disney’s previous live action adaptation of The
    Jungle Book.

    I rate it 8/10

  • Clayton Holloway (Darkhorse_Knight)March 23, 2017Reply

    DHKR: Beauty and the Beast (2017)

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • Matt GreeneMarch 23, 2017Reply

    The First Disney Remake to Feel Mostly Pointless

    Disney’s latest money-printer…I mean live-action remake…has most
    everything we all love about the 1992 animated opus: the magical
    romance, the fun characters, the beautiful art direction, and possibly
    the greatest collection of songs in Disney’s impressive canon. And
    based on the first weekend box office, audiences are more than happy to
    be guests in this world again. The problem for me is that everything
    they love here, they love, or would love, in the much superior
    original. Instead of taking a new approach to their property (i.e.
    Cinderella, Jungle Book), Beauty and the Beast is essentially a
    moment-for-moment remake with some hit-and-miss additions. So you
    already know the story: girl is imprisoned by beast, beast learns to
    love, girl returns love, etc. A couple of backstory facelifts and
    plot-hole fixes are really the only changes in this update, and they do
    serve their purpose. Even the romance itself is given a needed
    expansion, making their love slightly more genuine. However, those
    additions also further other pressing questions (why did she stay
    imprisoned for so long?). Also, the titular characters are just plain
    worse. The normally competent and likable Watson is completely out of
    her element, opting for a quieter and frankly smugger Belle than the
    quirky and free-spirited one, and the beast roars uncanny valley like a
    furry Transformer. On the plus side, the household objects (Lumiere,
    Cogsworth, etc) have a much better arc, including more than a few funny
    moments and a surprisingly emotional plight. The question is: are these
    additions enough to warrant a brand-new movie? I guess if you refuse to
    revisit the original then they are. Otherwise, they simply aren’t.

  • HellmantMarch 23, 2017Reply

    Not as good as the Disney animated classic, but it is a pretty entertaining and well made update.

    ‘BEAUTY AND THE BEAST’: Four Stars (Out of Five)

    Disney’s live-action remake of their 1991 hit animated musical, of the
    same name; which was based on the eighteenth-century fairy tale, also
    of the same name, by Jeanne-Marie Leprince de Beaumont. The film tells
    the classic story of a woman who falls in love with the beast that
    imprisons her, in an enchanted French castle. It stars Emma Watson, Dan
    Stevens (of 2014’s ‘THE GUEST’ fame), Luke Evans, Josh Gad, Kevin
    Kline, Ewan McGregor, Stanley Tucci, Ian McKellen, Emma Thompson, Gugu
    Mbatha-Raw and others. It was directed by Bill Condon (who also helmed
    ‘THE TWILIGHT SAGA: BREAKING DAWN – PART 1’ and ‘2’, as well as the
    musical ‘DREAMGIRLS’), and it was scripted by Evan Spiliotopoulos and
    Stephen Chbosky (who also wrote and directed ‘THE PERKS OF BEING A
    WALLFLOWER’, also costarring Emma Watson). The film has been a huge hit
    at the Box Office so far, and it’s also gotten mostly positive reviews
    from critics. I mostly enjoyed it as well.

    Belle (Watson) lives in the village of Villeneuve, with her father
    Maurice (Kline). She is harassed constantly by a popular, and extremely
    arrogant, former soldier named Gaston (Evans); who desperately wants to
    marry her. One day, on a trip to the market, Maurice gets lost in the
    woods and stumbles upon an old castle. He’s then attacked, and
    imprisoned there, by a beast that lives in the castle (Stevens), for
    stealing a rose from the garden. When Maurice’s horse rushes to Belle
    for help, she returns with it to the castle and offers to take her
    father’s place, in order to free him. The Beast accepts her offer,
    against Maurice’s wishes, and Maurice is set free. Belle slowly begins
    to sympathize with her captor, as she learns how he, and his staff,
    were transformed into a monster, and a bunch of inanimate objects, by a
    powerful enchantress. She also later learns, that only true love can
    break their curse.

    The 1991 animated film is one of my favorite Disney animated movies
    (excluding Pixar), I remember fondly when it was shockingly nominated
    for Best Picture (at the Academy Awards for that year). I haven’t seen
    it in a while, so I don’t remember for sure how faithful this
    live-action remake is, but it seems pretty faithful to me (there’s a
    few things I noticed that were probably changed though). One of the
    most notable changes, to the original animated film, is the
    controversial inclusion of an openly gay character (played by Josh Gad
    in the movie). I think his character definitely makes the film more
    entertaining (and Gad is great in the role). I definitely can’t say I
    enjoyed this new version as much as I remember liking the Disney
    animated classic, but it is a pretty entertaining and well made update.

    Watch our movie review show ‘MOVIE TALK’ at:
    https://youtu.be/Y0XE5jyxMFQ

  • patsworldMarch 23, 2017Reply

    Disney Needs To Return To Pure Entertainment

    Okay, Emma Watson did a great job. Who knew she could sing so well? As
    did Dan Stevens as the Beast, Kevin Kline as Maurice and Luke Evans as
    Gaston. Josh Gad as LeFou – this actor has such a charming face, so
    likable. Why did they have to make him a flaming whatever? For the most
    part, the cast was wonderful. In so saying, however, frankly I SO love
    the 1991 animated Beauty and the Beast that there can not possibly be
    any improvement on it. When I hear ‘Mrs Potts’ sing, I want to hear
    Angela Lansbury. When Lumiere sings Be Our Guest, I want to hear Jerry
    Orbach. Seriously. This is a good version, if a version absolutely had
    to be made. But did it, beyond having to mix in some liberal views?
    Here’s the thing, Walt Disney must be up there somewhere shaking his
    head in dismay. Not sure who or what is in charge of the Disney world
    now, but obviously someone who simply feels compelled to throw in
    politically correct foolishness to the nth degree – even if it means
    spoiling the movie for thousands and thousands of previous Disney fans.
    Come on. Stop the insanity and get back to entertainment. Enough with
    the politically correct spoilage. Get back to ‘family entertainment’
    will you, Disney people?

  • eddie_bagginsMarch 23, 2017Reply

    This beast is a visual beauty, but lacks heart

    Before we get down to business it’s only right that I admit to never
    having seen the beloved Beauty and the Beast Disney animation from
    1991, a film that clearly holds a special spot in people’s hearts, as
    well as being regarded as one of quintessential telling’s of the Beauty
    and the Beast story.

    To be even more honest, I’ve never seen or read an iteration of the
    Beauty and the Beast story at all, for whatever reason, so my feelings
    leading up towards the release of this modern day retelling of the
    famous story were probably quite different to many other’s and
    regardless of how the populace feels about this film as it stands, its
    already a huge box office smashing hit that will likely see Disney have
    another film enter into the famed billion dollar club in the coming
    weeks/months.

    Now the actual film itself as directed by Dreamgirls helmer Bill Condon
    is one that will likely appease hard-core fans and newbies alike thanks
    to its sumptuous production design and often visually captivating
    settings but for a story that’s seemingly remained as popular as ever
    over a number of years, no doubt through its emotionally charged and
    magical story, this lavishly produced music filled romantic fantasy is
    a rather cold experience when it comes down to the nitty gritty of love
    against the odds story at its core.

    In the biggest test of her career yet, Hogwarts graduate Emma Watson
    has the relatively daunting task of bringing screen heroine Belle back
    to the big time in a performance filled with singing, impressive
    costume changes and the requirement to act alongside CGI tea-cups and
    the at the time non-furry beast and she makes a good fist of it without
    ever really becoming a standout. It shows the still learning actress is
    capable of carrying a film but it’s unlikely her turn will be regarded
    as a new Disney staple in the female heroine stakes.

    Arguably with the tougher job, still relatively unknown Dan Stevens
    does a fine job of becoming the Beast, under the disguise of some
    noteworthy CGI work (the Beast often looks almost photo real in the
    right circumstances) he performs well but a major problem Condon’s film
    has is within its chemistry between the two leads and while
    individually they’re fine, as an on screen budding romance there’s no
    real fire, merely a flicker and no amount of visual pizazz was ever
    going to carry the film past a certain point if this was to be the
    case.

    There’s able support from co-stars like Luke Evan’s as the despicable
    Gaston and Kevin Kline as Belle’s father Maurice while a couple of the
    A-list voice stars such as Ewan McGregor and Emma Thompson try their
    best to make the various household objects cursed alongside the Beast
    work, but at times McGregor in particular seems to be trying a little
    too hard to be French while Thompson’s ”poppet” filled script work
    grates after a while.

    The other somewhat lacking component of this updated Beast is the fact
    that for a musical, a lot of the big singing set pieces never truly
    fly. Perhaps spoilt from recent musical masterpiece La La Land the big
    song and dance numbers within Condon’s film are more tolerable than
    toe-tappingly exciting and bar a nice opening number as Belle sings her
    way through her local village, the rest of the films well liked and no
    doubt well known songs do seem to lack that certain magical touch that
    would’ve made this well-meaning experience fly rather than simply amble
    along.

    This Beauty and the Beast is without doubt a beauty but in the grand
    scheme of things this box office behemoth is but a pleasant experience
    without ever threatening to be a great one and while this entertaining
    popcorn event will be a popular date night pick and a new favourite for
    little wannabe Disney princesses everywhere, it’s unlikely this
    re-telling of the ever popular source material will ever be regarded as
    fondly as its hairy forefathers.

    3 ”papa’s” out of 5

  • autisticreviewersMarch 23, 2017Reply

    Autistic Reviewers Opinion Of This Movie.

    As you are all aware Disney is rebooting all of its cartoon classics
    and bringing them to life. The last one they rebooted was ”the Jungle
    Book” and that was so close to perfection. Sadly Beauty And The Beast
    is a downfall from that. Jay And Nick (The Autistic Reviewers) will
    start off this review by starting out with the bad and then ending with
    the good. We always like to leave on a positive note! The Bad: There
    are some horrible moments of CGI such as The Beasts face, the wolves
    and Lumiere (in some scenes). The face of the Beast was just lazy.
    Don’t think it had anything to do with the CGI…after all if Peter
    Jackson’s 2005 version of Kong can look so real there is no reason that
    The Beasts face could have been done the same or even better. The eyes
    of the beast are also a problem. The eyes just don’t go with the CGI
    face. You could either make the CGI better or just put a guy in a
    costume. Lumiere (Ewan McGregor)and Cogsworth (Ian Mckellen) were
    completely miscast. They didn’t capture the charm and humour the
    original Lumiere and Cogsworth did. Audra Mcdonald who plays Madame
    Garderobe was annoying as hell. In fact without going too far into the
    voice cast just didn’t capture the heart nor the charm of the original
    voice actors did with these characters. One of the biggest complaints
    of this movie was casting Emma Watson as Belle. She just seemed
    completely fake and kept looking away from the camera all the time as
    if she was saying to the director ”Am I doing this right? Am I doing
    this right? Am I supposed to feel this way?” We always pictured someone
    like Emma Stone or Rachel Mcadams playing someone like Belle. One other
    big complaint is the director. The direction was awful. It felt like a
    Twilight movie, and looking at the directors history of directing he
    did, in fact direct the finale 2 Twilight Movies. It just did not fit.

    The good: The singing and the soundtrack was really good. It had songs
    from the original movie and even 1 or 2 extra songs thrown in there for
    entertainment purposes and it does work. Luke Evans as Gaston was the
    perfect choice. He relive Gaston not only as a bully like he was in the
    original, but also as a murdering, short tempered man. Josh Gad as
    Lefou was also another good choice for casting. Him and Luke Evans
    looked like they knew what they were doing and were having great fun
    bringing their characters to life. More good news is that Emma Thompson
    (who plays Mrs. Potts) was the perfect choice to play her. She was he
    only voice that was convincing and her singing was really good.

    Verdict: With a better director and a better actress to play Belle and
    many others this film could have been saved and made into an excellent
    reboot like The Jungle Book, but sadly it didn’t end up that way. The
    Autistic Reviewers give this 2/5 stars. 5/10. Check us out on facebook
    and Instagram!

  • ArgemalucoMarch 23, 2017Reply

    Beauty and the Beast

    Beauty and the Beast continues Disney’s very profitable line of fairy
    tales made in live action (after Alice in Wonderland -2010-,
    Maleficient, Cinderella and The Jungle Book -2016-). And even though
    Beauty and the Beast is a lavish production with an amazing design and
    excellent special effects, it didn’t leave me completely satisfied.
    However, that doesn’t mean this is a bad film by any means; on the
    opposite, Beauty and the Beast offers abundant visual delight, and,
    despite its redundant and inflated screenplay, it keeps enough elements
    of the original tale in order to please the fans and capture the
    imagination of new generations, supported by the sober direction from
    Bill Condon, who knows how to keep the romance above the visual
    spectacle. In the role of Belle, I honestly found Emma Watson a bit
    rigid and unable to release the total strength of her character’s
    emotions; in other words, she always feels repressed and a bit cold.
    Dan Stevens brings a competent performance as the Beast, even though
    he’s occasionally sabotaged by the limitations of the digital
    character; the studio Digital Domain created a Beast with an impressive
    organic realism, but the dead look occasionally ruins the illusion and
    reminds us of his artificial origin. Regarding the rest of the human
    cast, I liked the performances from Luke Evans, Kevin Kline and Josh
    Gad; and finally, we have the solid voice performances from Ewan
    McGregor, Stanley Tucci, Ian McKellen, Audra McDonald, Gugu Mbatha-Raw
    and Emma Thompson. On the negative side, Beauty and the Beast feels
    longer than it should, introducing sub- plots which don’t substantially
    contribute to the story, even though they allow the presence of more
    visual flourish; and the third act full of action feels a bit dissonant
    with the languid rhythm of the rest of the movie, but at least, it
    leads to a good ending. In conclusion, I didn’t find Beauty and the
    Beast particularly memorable, but it kept me entertained, and I liked
    it more than other live action adaptations of fairy tales.

  • llewellyn-adderleyMarch 23, 2017Reply

    Amazing film

    An amazing film from start to finish, Emma Watson has a fantastic
    voice, and her acting skills were just perfect. I was shocked at how
    good Luke Evans voice was he was simply amazing acting and singing.
    Entertaining and spectacular. Cant wait to get it on DVD, tempting to
    go to cinema again to watch it.

  • mwatts_78March 23, 2017Reply

    Amazing!!!

    I don’t know if this is the new place to be rude and nasty and
    Trollsome (is that a word lol) since IMDb rightfully took away our
    Message Board privilages, But I don’t understand what Y’all are talking
    about. This movie was AMAZING. Besides every overwhelmingly positive
    review i have seen about this movie, Every person I know directly or
    indirectly that has seen this movie was amazed by it. Every desciption
    that I have gotten (including my own) was full of goose bumps and
    tears. (Tears, of course, of love, excitement, nostalgia.) When I saw
    it, the people (aged very young, boy and girl.. to grown-up boy and
    girl) were packed into the theatre and vocalized throughout the show
    their appreciation of it, ending in a rounding applause at the end of
    the movie. BOOM. Visually stunning and an Amazing Cast. Updating the
    original movie, but sticking close to it. BRAVO!

  • nicole_neufeldMarch 23, 2017Reply

    Stays true to the animated classic

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • ironhorse_ivMarch 23, 2017Reply

    This remake is not quite as beautiful as the original 1991 Disney animation movie. It was a paint by number cash grab

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • drawlifeMarch 23, 2017Reply

    It’s serviceable.

    I’m not a huge fan or musicals to be honest, but every now and then I
    find myself to be entertained by some of them.

    That being said when I was a child I enjoyed a few Disney animation
    classics and Beauty & the Beast is definitely one of them. During the
    hype train I found myself anticipating the film the more I heard about
    it. Emma Watson’s casting as Belle definitely brought my attention to
    the film. As did the casting Ewan McGergor, Sir Ian McKellen, Stanley
    Tucci, and Emma Thompson. The set photos and promotional images also
    grabbed my attention too.

    I’m happy to report that it’s a serviceable adaptation of the animated
    movie. Most of the cast delivers with the exception of Luke Evans. He
    definitely looks like he’s having fun in the role as Gaston, but he is
    so cartoonishly two-dimensional and so over the top. I just could not
    take him seriously every time he showed up on screen. Aside from him
    everyone does a great job. Emma Watson brings it, and her singing isn’t
    too bad either. Stand out for me was Ewan McGergor as Lumiere. He
    brought a lot of swagger and personality to the role. His banter and
    exchange with Ian McKellen’s Cogsworth brings a lot of humor in their
    relationship. I also really enjoyed Dan Steven’s performance as the
    Beast.

    Singing in the beginning of the film is a little bit of a turn-off. Not
    because the actors couldn’t sing, but it’s one number after another,
    and some of the verses were kind of pointless as well. But once the
    plot gets going it becomes more tolerable. In the middle near to the
    end, the film know when to pick it’s moments to showcase a number. Like
    I said I’m not the biggest fan of musicals, but the annoyance is only
    temporary. Some of the actors are kinda there without much to do,
    despite some amusing moments, like Kevin Kline, Stanley Tucci, Audra
    McDonald, and Gugu Mbatha-Raw.

    The romance is solid. It never felt too over the top, and the chemistry
    for the most part was there. I believe making people laugh and
    showcasing romance is something hard to convey for any movie. Beauty &
    the Beast does a commendable job at it, however while I never felt like
    Belle and Beast’s relationship felt force, I wish that a little more
    was given to them. The film does showcase their bonding, but most of it
    are montages. Everything set up for their romance was just almost,
    almost executed with perfection. I also wish I got to see more out of
    Dan Steven’s Beast as well. The film hits in high gears once the film
    introduces him.

    Special effects and production design are first rate. Yes there are
    moments where you can tell it’s CGI, but it’s not that noticeable that
    it’s going to distract you. Costumes are fabulous too look at and the
    actors are well lit. Director Bill Condon does an excellent job
    showcasing the fantasy land, it’s visually pleasing and enriching. The
    ball-room dance sequence with Beast and Belle is done with justice too.

    At times Beauty & the Beast can feel cluttered and overproduced
    eye-candy, but the film is a very faithful adaptation of the animated
    film. Aside from a little backstory from Belle and the gay character
    LeFou played by Josh Gad(which is handled well to be honest), it really
    doesn’t bring a lot new to the table. Which is fine for some, cause why
    fix what isn’t broken, but that works for and against the film.

    Among other live adaptations, I’d rank this below or evenly with
    Cinderella, but definitely much more entertaining than Maleficent or
    the Alice in Wonderland films. Odd that both Cinderella and Beauty &
    the Beast are basic retellings that work for the most part, but
    Maleficent and Alice in Wonderland try to be new re-imaginings that
    just crumble. Perhaps Little Mermaid or Mulan might find the striking
    balance of both.

    6.6/10

  • cgrill8March 23, 2017Reply

    E Gad… could have been SO much better…

    The movie was great. The score was a wonderful mixture of the original
    tunes plus 3 new tunes as well, but no ”Only Human” figure that one
    out. The cast was brilliantly picked, though Belle came off a bit stiff
    from time to time. The effects looked great, most of the time. Now my
    main complaint. Gad. Why. Why do they continue to hire this guy? He
    wasn’t very funny in The Comedians. I couldn’t stand his character in
    Angry Birds. The butt jokes in Frozen, and then we saw his dairy rotund
    and crack in Pixels with his antics in that movie (which would have
    been better without that actor…) And then they use him like a bad
    Kleenex in this film. Can we just stop hiring Josh Gad. He embarrasses
    the parents that try to take kids to a decent movie… every time.
    Beauty & the Beast was wonderful, but would have been so much better
    without Josh Gad. He ruins every movie his mug shows up in. Secret
    hidden Disney agenda or just continued hiring of a bad/disgusting actor
    over and over?

  • spasekMarch 24, 2017Reply

    Live Version Falls Well Short of the Animated Classic!

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • mcdrbdMarch 24, 2017Reply

    yes and no

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • Leah MartinMarch 24, 2017Reply

    Beautiful, Enchanting & Fun

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • Jeanne FrancoiseMarch 24, 2017Reply

    The eternal movie that is always the legendary one

    The movie ”Beauty and The Beast” 2017 version is compact with what I
    have been expected so far. I had imagined the beautiful actress, the 3D
    images, the new songs, and the original plot. Yes, Disney gives all of
    it! Thank you 🙂 The first I want to review is about the title. Disney
    kept the original title ”Beauty and the Beast” or ”La Belle et La Bete”
    en francais, not like other fairy tales movies, for example Huntsman,
    Red Riding Hood, or others. Disney keep the title, so that everybody
    can already guess the ending. The plot of this movie is easy to guess,
    but the special one with this newest version is that about ”French”
    style, by decoration, some words, wardrobe, songs, and ambiance of the
    villages. All is so-French and I love it. I appreciate Emma Watson who
    can change character from the witch in Harry Potter, to the ordinary
    village girl who is awkward and book-warm, even though there is a witch
    also in this movie. I suggest this movie is watched by your children,
    so you can teach them about morality, the important of being humble,
    and the appreciation of all materials that you have now, can be cursed
    by the beautiful witch 🙂 Super bravo, c’est un bon film! 🙂

  • kailomonkeyMarch 24, 2017Reply

    Great conversion of the original. Emma Watson a bit out of place.

    Watched this one yesterday and in my opinion, it came off way better
    than the modern jungle book remake. The CGI animation is much better
    suited to this story while keeping the essence intact. The movie didn’t
    always carry the right momentum and the new songs were a bit hit and
    miss, but that sits in line with the original songs which were fun and
    memorable but half the time a bit sing-what-you-could-
    just-say-or-are-doing, but perfectly passable relative to its
    predecessor.

    The main thing that let the movie down for me was Emma Watson. I don’t
    think she’s a bad actress or have anything personal against her, but
    most the time her sort of face squint she does isn’t what we want to
    see. She tries to hard to act, sometimes this works in strong emotional
    scenes, but most the time she’s supposed to represent an innocence she
    just doesn’t seem to have. The last foible is that at times her
    interaction with all-CG elements including The Beast, look awkward and
    displaced. Mostly this isn’t the case, but sometimes it is and it is
    off-putting. That’s not to say it’s all her fault: it could be down to
    direction that things are left wrong…

    Despite the issues I have with Belle, she still carries the story
    perfectly well and the film is just as enjoyable as the older Disney
    animation. Excellent use of our current age of technology and the songs
    still feel right at home.

  • stephenhallmanMarch 24, 2017Reply

    Hey awesome for Disney

    All i got to say to the haters of this film get over it Disney did well
    i thank it was better then the 9os version i love Disney i cant waite
    till this is out on DVD You rock Disney keep the good work people if
    yall don’t like the movie yall have issues Disney did a great job on
    this movie so did all the actors Emma Watson was a good bell in the
    film had dome action and funny things in and it was great

  • lilywanMarch 24, 2017Reply

    Nice songs as always

    I am quiet surprised when Emma did not sing so well cause it is
    supposed to be a musical film. Except for that, costumes design and all
    the other scenes in the film is quiet remarkable. Anyway, fairy tale
    has to be fairy tale, if we made it real the selection of the actress
    has to be more demanding. Get a little disappointed when the smart
    erudite little girl Belle in the childhood story is acted like a
    beautiful dressed not so smart girl in the movie.

  • n-90721March 24, 2017Reply

    Something…Not There

    (Spoilers ahead, possibly)

    As much as I love Disney, shame on them for insisting on modernizing
    classic animated movies by making live-action remakes. From the moment
    I heard of this movie being in production, a part of me knew that it
    would never measure up to the beloved 1991 film, yet try to compensate
    for this fact with some *grand* musical numbers and better developed
    elements of the story and characters…

    This movie, in my opinion, is just okay, and I would not mind never
    watching it after that first viewing (save for a few scenes toward the
    end). In my opinion, B&tB tries a bit too hard to impress viewers of a
    new generation (predictable), and the use of auto-tune on the female
    lead was annoying and unnecessary (none of that that rubbish, or cast
    an actress who can actually sing well!) The new songs enhance the story
    but are altogether unmemorable. The live-action versions of Mrs. Potts
    and the rest of the enchanted objects looked so dainty and realistic,
    it was creepy and ”unmagical” to me. As for the main characters, the
    writers did not even seem to give Gaston a chance. He was deeply
    unlikable from the beginning, so his characterization was not very
    well-rounded in this version (villains deserve even a bit of
    love/empathy).

    There are enough remakes/reboots being made nowadays, and I find it
    upsetting that Disney ended up tampering with one of its classics. This
    movie is a bit of a disappointment. Listen to the other reviewers
    stating you would be better off re-watching the original.

  • mwcrunnerMarch 24, 2017Reply

    Great adaption of the original classic

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • Sara WaverlyMarch 24, 2017Reply

    A must see!

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • Troy_CampbellMarch 24, 2017Reply

    A visually stunning and musically catchy live-action remake.

    A tale as old as time, this Disney animated classic gets a live-action
    makeover complete with singing candelabras, a crumbling castle, and a
    cantankerous brute doomed to live out his days in solitude and regret.
    That is, until the weird and wonderful village bookworm Belle (Emma
    Watson) brings a slice of humanity into the creature’s cursed world.
    But can this Beauty tame the Beast? We all know how the story plays out
    yet that does nothing to dampen the exuberance and splendour on
    display; each song and dance sequence is a feast of stunning
    cinematography, fascinating choreography and catchy tunes. And the
    recognisable theme song is, of course, still amazing. Musical numbers
    alone, however, will only take the movie so far, so it’s credit to the
    cast that they imbue proceedings with an additional layer of heart,
    humour and interest. Watson is simply delightful as the strong-willed
    and resourceful Belle, Dan Stevens is complex as the motion-captured
    Beast, Luke Evans and Josh Gad are comically over-the-top as Gaston and
    LeFou, and Ewan McGregor almost steals the show entirely as the
    rambunctious Lumiere. There’s a couple of missteps blocking this
    remake’s lofty ambition of matching the original—the runtime is
    slightly too long, the sweeping shots of the castle become
    repetitive—although it gets enviably close. A charming tale of romance
    and redemption, Beauty and the Beast dazzles with visual opulence and
    irrepressible musical energy.

  • emrefidan41March 24, 2017Reply

    Director drops the ball

    First: Bill Condon making huge mistakes in this movie. Animations bad i
    mean very bad. Beast face unbearable.

    Second: Cast choices are bad except Emma Watson. She is good but not
    great.

    Finally: I think Disney making huge mistake hiring Bill Condon for
    this.

  • giuligiuli-90645March 24, 2017Reply

    Visually Stunning

    The whole film is amazing to watch, the costumes and the scenography
    are stunning! Dan Stevens’ Beast is marvelous and him and Emma have
    great chemistry. It is indeed a remake of the classic but there are
    some new scene that add that ”Je ne sais quoi” that makes this film
    utterly amazing. I loved it, laughed and cried with it. Go and watch it
    in theatres, it’s worth it!

  • Greta MorleyMarch 25, 2017Reply

    A completely charming, deeply respectful celebration of the original

    If you loved the animated original as a child, you will be utterly
    delighted by the live- action version, which, while adding depth to the
    central themes and complexity to the characters and story, still
    remains remarkably winsome and charming. The extra forty minutes are
    used deftly, adding richness and detail only when needed, and expanding
    only where the original film simply did not have time enough to do. The
    love story is deepened beautifully, compelling and believable enough to
    satisfy adult audiences without drifting from the sweetness and
    simplicity the original. Inevitably, there are moments where the movie
    falls short and you may judge for yourself where those moments occur —
    but even where it disappoints, it only reminds us of the perfection of
    the iconic film that inspired it. It is, above all, a respectful,
    endlessly enjoyable celebration of the classic.

  • mark.waltzMarch 25, 2017Reply

    Disney gets it right with a tiny little twist that got extreme conservatives in a twist.

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • mary_rose-865-848198March 25, 2017Reply

    Enjoyable but maybe leave the really young children at home

    I really enjoyed it as did my mother, I brought my young son. He found
    the first half too scary. I really liked Emma in it. I do prefer the
    singing voices of the original though. I think all the acting was very
    good but overall film lacked that high level of magical feeling you get
    from the original animation

  • Biraj YogiMarch 25, 2017Reply

    Great!

    I have to admit, I have never watched the animated movie. When Disney
    said they were making a live action version with Emma Watson and Dan
    Stevens, I was on board. I don’t know really why I’ve never watched the
    animated version but watching this movie was a great experience.

    I just can’t get that song out of my head. I was humming it after the
    movie was over and all the way to my home. I am playing that song on a
    loop right now.

    The movie was great, Emma Watson was awesome and the beast was really
    good. Every voice actors from Emma Thompson to Ian McKellen were good.
    The way this movie is made, it will appeal to all the demography…old
    and young.

    Even though you know what is coming next, you are still attentive. The
    actors and the production have that hold on you. The sets were huge and
    the production design was top notch.

    I loved it. It was a fun Saturday!

  • jrdorf1March 25, 2017Reply

    As with most things, you’ll find what you’re looking for…

    I just love wannabe IMDb movie critics. No room for nuance. Must hate
    any movie unless it has subtitles. Who do you suppose the audience is?
    I took my 7 and 9 year old girls. They loved it, and I was entertained.
    Guess what they weren’t thinking! Whether or not CGI was getting in the
    way. IT’S A FANTASY PEOPLE!!! This may also explain why they weren’t
    concerned whether or not the characters were realistic enough. How many
    talking clocks and candelabras do we know in our real lives?!?! Those
    that want to pan this have to come to terms with the fact that they are
    looking for ways to be miserable. Please don’t pollute the rest of us
    with your chosen misery.

  • ultron77March 25, 2017Reply

    A Wonderful World of Music and Love

    When Disney first announced their slew of live-action remakes after the
    financial success that was Maleficent, I had great doubts about them.
    Maleficent was, to a point, fun, but the amount of films they planned
    to make in such a short time sounded like they were not going to do the
    originals justice. I found myself proved wrong with Cinderella. Alice
    in the Looking Glass was a lost cause. (Pete’s Dragon, while not a
    remake of an animated classic, was utterly beautiful). The Jungle Book
    was nice, but highly overrated in my opinion.

    Then there was this. This … THIS … is true Disney at its finest. A
    classical romantic musical adventure extravaganza filled to the brim
    with a strong story, upraising laughter, marvellous tension and
    pulled-straight-from-your-heart tears of both sadness and joy. Bill
    Condon’s direction is a complete triumph and, if I may, the best thing
    he’s ever made thus far. Alan Menken’s return as composer is
    spectacular, restoring lyrics that were deleted from the original film
    and adding in three new and very moving song numbers (Evermore, the
    Beast’s solo, is a personal favourite). Every cast member was
    masterfully chosen for their roles in both professions of acting and
    singing; Emma Watson defies all expectations, Dan Stevens puts on a
    magnificent and awesome Beast, Luke Evans perfectly conveys the
    villain’s immoral tendencies in the form of a realistic psychopath,
    Kevin Kline and Ian McKellen are as funny as ever, and Ewan McGregor
    and Emma Thompson pull of their respective roles (and singing) of
    Lumiere and Mrs. Potts with performances that would make Jerry Orbach
    and Angela Lansbury proud.

    And the music… oh, the music. All the well-remembered and beloved
    songs of the 1991 animated masterpiece are back, fully realised in all
    of their resplendent glory and never losing any of their charm.

    If it’s classic Disney you love, then this is your film.

  • Sarah MoviesMarch 25, 2017Reply

    A Torturing Disappointment

    The movie from the first scene up to the end was emotionless and
    spiritless. I do appreciate that they didn’t want to change the story
    much and keep the classic version for the most. Even when the movie was
    slightly tweaked, it was in the wrong dull way. Some tweaks don’t
    really make sense and don’t add up.

    I don’t know whom should be blamed for the ’emotion delivery failure’
    is it the cast or the director? Emma Watson is good actress for some
    certain roles, but certainly not this one. She was very stiff. We
    couldn’t differentiate her surprise from anger or love from sadness. In
    many scenes Belle and the Beast were talking so fast with no emotions,
    soul or spirit. It was as if they were rehearsing on a play by reading
    out loud from their scripts and the director was simply not there.

    Cinematography had a problem too. Too many close ups. The original
    cartoon had some close ups too, but Do they really have to copy
    everything as-is? The couple dancing scene cinematography could have
    been better.

    I really don’t advise anyone to see this movie. Disney failed this
    time. It happens, though!. Hopefully we’ll know what really happened.

  • Nuno Pinto Do SoutoMarch 25, 2017Reply

    Definitely worth watching

    Contrary to the idiots who think this should be a different story than
    the animated version, I actually preferred they stuck to the original
    as much as possible. Some minor differences that really do not affect
    the outcome. But the acting is first class. So is the music, the
    singing and the tempo. And it’s amazing how well something that even in
    animation is difficult to imagine can be so well done with the modern
    CGI techniques! Once again well done, Disney. And please ignore the
    naysayers. This is definitely worth watching and proof was the theater
    was packed and all the children got out singing and loved it! Saw the
    3D and I’m watching the 2D tomorrow with the wife. Yes, THAT good!

  • GTMarch 25, 2017Reply

    If you liked the first one…

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • arthur_nonimusMarch 25, 2017Reply

    Don’t believe the haters – will go on to become one of the greats

    Whatever you do, under no circumstances, believe the haters. I have
    read a few reviews so far and most are, sad to say, woefully and
    shamefully inadequate.

    As most would know this is a remake of the 1991 Aminated classic.
    Winner of Academy Awards and loved by generations, the animated musical
    casts a long shadow. Any movie following in its footsteps has a lot to
    live up to. Fortunately, the remake does this in spades.

    Beauty and the Beast (La Belle et la Bête in the original french) was a
    fairy tale published 1740 for the french court. Fairy tales were
    popular in the French salons at the time. This version – a political
    thriller of sorts – was later republished in 1756 by Jeanne-Marie
    Leprince de Beaumont for children in the form that is known today. This
    fairy tale, of the daughter of a merchant who is forced to move to the
    country after her father loses their fortune, was not the version told
    in the 1991 animated movie.

    To be clear, Disney did not re-invent BatB, but the story was
    streamlined with elements removed and added to make the transition to
    the silver screen. The inclusion of Gaston, who doesn’t appear anywhere
    in either of the french versions, is an example of this streamlining.
    Another is the rose, a pivotal part of the fairy tale, was changed into
    a plot device.

    The problem with any streamlining is that sometimes elements are left
    out that turn out to be needed to fill plot holes. A plot hole from
    1991 – why was the beast ”spoilt” and ”cruel” before the curse? Who
    knows. Another one – Why are Maurice and Belle so different to the town
    folk? Don’t know. Or try this one – why did the Beast lock Maurice up?
    Because ….. Yeah. It only took 26 years for a remake to come along,
    and more importantly, a remake which fills the plot holes. And not only
    fills them but fills them either with new story or even more
    importantly with elements from the original fairy tale!

    Moreover, charges have been levelled against the movie of being a
    shameless knockoff of the 1991 movie. To this, I have but one word to
    say – MUSIC. To remake Beauty and the Beast without the songs that
    earned its place in the hearts of an entire generation would be no less
    than a crime. The story into which those songs fit, how much can it be
    changed without the songs becoming irrelevant, or worse yet, out of
    place? The answer – very little! This charge usually comes with the
    accusation that certain scenes had been all but duplicated. What those
    making such a charge fail to realise is that these scenes like the
    music have become iconographic and inalienable to the Disney story. To
    lose them would have created a gaping void in the finished product just
    as changing or removing the songs would have. A symptom of the success
    of the 1991 movie is that parts must be used in any remake if it is to
    feel finished to the many, many who have grown up with the original.

    Other complaints from reviewers who have panned Beaty and the Beast
    2017, unfortunately, get worse, more insignificant and more nit- picky,
    from there. Unfortunately again it is a symptom of the success of the
    original that there are so many ready to tear apart this remake by
    sifting through the minutia to find a flaw.

    The remake of Beauty and the Beast took 26 years to come along and was
    well worth the wait. It is the must see movie of 2017 and many years to
    come.

  • xelectricblazexMarch 25, 2017Reply

    Astonishing!

    I don’t really write reviews on movies. I like reading them though. And
    to be fair, I have never even written a review before. But a movie as
    beautiful as Beauty And The Beast deserves to be noticed. So before you
    read, go ahead. Tell me I’m exaggerating. Because, honestly I don’t
    really care if you thought the movie was great or just utter rubbish.
    The movie was indeed great and made me want to watch it again for the
    FOURTH time.

    Okay, on to my discussion:

    First of all, I am just one of those casual moviegoers who like to
    watch movies that are always popping up in the Internet of how great it
    is. So one day, I was just surfing the web and I found something rather
    exciting. Disney was making a live-adaptation of their beloved animated
    classic, Beauty And The Beast. And I felt like a kid again. Beauty And
    The Beast was one of my favorite Disney movies of all time and will
    always have a special place in my heart. After a few months, they had
    released a trailer that blew up over the Internet. It looked stunning
    and magical. Everyone was talking about it.

    Then it started popping up on Google advertisements. Then on
    television. Even starring on network commercials in my country. And
    there was a sudden urge to go into the theater and watch it right then
    and there. And so I did. When I got there, all seats were taken on
    THREE different theaters. Was it really that hyped? I felt
    disappointed. So I thought that I’ll go ahead and wait for it next week
    (because it obviously would go for a second week), to empty the space.
    The next week I go into the theater yet again… And it was still FULL.
    Whaaaat?! It’s already been a week, yet there’s still so much
    moviegoers. Luckily, I remembered to reserve online in case this would
    happen. 😉

    I got inside and went through the boring advertisements and got out
    smiling.

    Beauty And The Beast is enchanting, entertaining and magical in its own
    way. And I tell you, DON’T believe the negative reviewers. They just
    thought that it sucked because it didn’t match the original. Maybe it
    didn’t exceed their favor for the original. But from a blind-audience’s
    perspective of both movies, they did a really great job of bringing the
    movie to life. There wasn’t a single set that seemed extraordinary. All
    were immersing in its set up. In a small provincial town and its
    townspeople wearing those goofy headdresses that made it look like it
    was actual real. The musical numbers were great and the choreography
    was perfect. With my favorite being ”Be Our Guest.” The cast was great
    and the acting was on point. Not to mention Dan and Emma’s roles as
    quirky but pretty Belle and the horrifying Beast as they find their
    love for each other despite their differences. I literally was jumping
    on my seat smiling whenever they both had a scene together. Oh! And the
    ending made me CRY like a bitch. Which I didn’t even feel when I
    watched the original. I loved Gaston and Le Fou’s funny attitude. Le
    Fou and Lumiere has got to be my favorites!

    The only problem was the clear auto-tuning which, to be honest, wasn’t
    really much of a bother to me and I wish that the movie could have been
    a little bit longer just to add in some extra scenes of Belle and the
    Beast. :3

    What more is there not to love?!

    New songs, beautiful sets, stunning costumes, romance, and EMMA WATSON!
    And what do you get? Well, just might be the best movie ever in 2017
    (As of now, that is).

    Over all 9.5/10. 😀

    P.S. Not looking forward for The Little Mermaid 😛

  • Don TronMarch 25, 2017Reply

    A beautiful remake with spectacular wardrobe

    I definitely see why this recent remake generated so much in box office
    sales. I was less than 4 years old when the original Disney animated
    movie Beauty and the Beast came out and now parents in my generations
    are seeing it with their kids. The adults that are the most nostalgic
    have a gorgeous wardrobe remake of their own; see it here:

    http://www.ofleatherandlace.com/ reimagining-fairy-tales-beauty-and-the-beast/

  • prinsesvanzeilanMarch 25, 2017Reply

    Just watched it. It was magical, but it didn’t meet my highest expectations. I think they could put a bit more emotion to it.

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • basirkhan33March 25, 2017Reply

    Amazing, and a lot to take in at the same time

    Oh, where do i start? First the set design, based during the Roccoco/
    Art Nouveau period, was spectacular. All the intricate details were so
    well done. Very refined and very on point decor of every set. Second
    the acting was so well done. From Emma Watson down to the ordinary
    villager, everyone looked like they were so much into there roles and
    had a lot of fun during each performance. Third, the Song ”Be Our
    Guest”. This was that one song i was so looking forward to and the song
    was so overwhelming i needed about ten minutes to get over it and
    switch back to concentrating on the movie again (lol!). Lastly, the
    ball dance. God the ball dance!! so well shot and loved Emma Thompson’s
    version as well as Ariana Grande and John Legends. Belles dress, that
    some people found distasteful, GUYS!! learn to let go of trying to see
    how close it was to the animated version of the dress, the dress was
    amazing and is still amazing in this movie. Recommending this movie to
    everyone, but also the die hard fans, go and watch it right now… and
    please stop trying to see how its different to the 1991 version on a
    microscopic level, move on and appreciate this masterpiece of a movie.

  • dietaubeMarch 25, 2017Reply

    No time for emotions

    It’s very sad to see, that the animated movie from the 90s has had more
    sense of timing and creating atmosphere. The remake is alright, but it
    misses the opportunity to create real emotions and strong relationships
    between the characters. And to be honest, Emma Watson didn’t put many
    emotions or any kind of good acting in this movie. There is a huge
    party on the table, plates and bowls are dancing and making a fuzz and
    all she does is stare and smile. I would flip the f*** out if my dinner
    would dance and sing around me! The animation of the beast is
    questionable as well and I think Disney could have put much more effort
    in it. But at the same time Lumiere and all the other furniture were
    animated really well and if they are in the scene, you’ll have a good
    time! To wrap this up, it’s an enjoyable movie but misses the
    opportunity to create emotions or any kind of atmosphere.

  • kamc-97198March 25, 2017Reply

    Not one to look back

    Well I absolutely loved this movie. Couldn’t give a care that an
    animated 1991 version was much better!? Animated – not my thing – and
    truly why would you even make a comparison between a cartoon and a CGI,
    human acted movie, nonsensical to me. I am far from a Disney fan as all
    the singing generally drives me crazy but in this case I just sat back
    and enjoyed it all. I took my 8 year old who enjoyed it immensely. She
    found the Beast scary, hid her face a few times from the action and
    swooned over the love story. So in frankness I’m unsure what all the
    negativity from the adults is all about – oh wait… Yep it’s a movie
    for kids. All very simple, very pure and true to form but shockingly
    without the animation. I think you could see that was the case from the
    previews and the posters and the casting. But well, it appears people
    went hoping Disney would re-write an animated movie and recreate the
    whole premise to just appease grownups. Had they done that of course –
    the reviews would be even worse I can guarantee it. If you loved the
    original story and enjoyed the characters and found the love story and
    the message of being bigger and better at being a human being .. then
    you’ll love this movie too. It’s very beautiful, Emma was fine, Dan was
    fine … every one was fine and it was 2 hours of pure entertainment.
    All I hope for in a movie. I think Disney out did themselves and I
    HIGHLY recommend it as a modern day reprisal of a much loved animated
    film without trying to recreate perfection.

  • LooInSpainMarch 25, 2017Reply

    An Excellent Addition to the Story

    I understand there are many people that will hate this movie because it
    has Emma Watson in it. I also think that to hate this movie for that
    reason is unjust and frankly stupid.

    Yes, Emma Watson deserves criticism for some (OK, maybe a lot) of her
    acting in the Harry Potter series. She reminds me of Joey in Friends
    when he was playing Dr Drake Ramoray and explained the ‘Smell the fart’
    acting when he couldn’t remember his lines! Some of her pauses in Harry
    Potter are exactly like that!

    Anyway, back the movie in hand. There are some major plot holes in the
    1991 cartoon, and every single one is addressed in this movie, giving
    it depth, background and originality. There is one story and you can
    only tell it so many ways, so for all the people who expect something
    original, I have one message: ‘Go watch something else’.

    The CGI graphics are excellent, the colours and scenery are extremely
    well done and the movie as a whole looks impressive. With the extra
    scenes and explanations, the movie gives a more satisfactory story
    (even when you didn’t realise you needed one after the 1991 version)
    including the castle no one misses, the significance of the library
    gift and the fact that none of the castle characters are ever missed
    from the local village.

    I took my 9 year old to see this and she loved it. The wolf scenes
    could be scary for younger viewers (mine couldn’t watch!) but she
    laughed and cheered all the way through. An excellent evening spent and
    one I would repeat given a chance.

    Others may concentrate on originality (originality in a remake?!),
    slight CGI deficiencies in certain places (please!) or the fact that
    Emma Watson is in the movie, but don’t listen to them. The Beast looks
    great, the wolves are a 2 minute segment and Emma Watson, although not
    the most beautiful woman in the World, has similar features to the
    cartoon version and more than holds her own in the role (even managing
    to lose the dramatic ‘smell the fart’ pauses).

    An enjoyable evening out for those with kids and for us kids at heart.

  • Carolyn Barratt ([email protected])March 25, 2017Reply

    Excellent Live Action Of Disney’s Beauty & The Beast!!!!

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • lasttimeisawMarch 25, 2017Reply

    A fair fairy-tale with mass appeal

    ”Would you love a monster?”, has become an increasingly moot question
    in our age branded by individualism and non-conformist viewpoint, so
    the answer would be: you betcha! How cool can be to tame a beast like
    that? Not to mention, his monstrous front aside, there nestling a
    genuine prince inside, that’s a bonus!

    This Disney live-action revamp of the classic fairy-tale, directed by
    the workmanlike Bill Condon (DREAMGIRLS 2006 and TWILIGHT franchise,
    with occasional curve-ball GODS AND MONSTERS 1998), clings firmly to
    its 1991 animation in its storyboard and iconic songs, rendered
    altogether with a grandiose flourish could run rings around Kenneth
    Branagh’s Cinderella (2015).

    The preamble musters efficiency and glimpses of royal pageantry with a
    more plausible premise (in the realm of magic, sky is the limit), a
    selfish prince (Steven) is transformed into a monster (and his servants
    into a clutter of objects) by an enchantress (Morahan), he must learn
    to truly love someone and get the reciprocal affection before time is
    running out, otherwise, him along with his hapless underlings will lose
    humanity for keeps. Then the narrative introduces our heroine Belle
    (Watson), a French village girl, who has a yen for reading and is an
    inventor herself (both are inadvisable hobbyhorses for womenfolk
    strait-jacketed by macho insularity), she is relentlessly pursued by
    Gaston (Evans), a bumptious village war-hero who doesn’t take no for an
    answer. When Belle’s father Maurice (Kline) is interned in the
    monster’s castle for stealing a rose (a gift under Belle’s request),
    Belle trades herself for her father, and inevitably develops a quasi-
    Stockholm syndrome to her captor (with the benevolent prodding from
    those anthropomorphic knick-knacks, among which a motormouth Ewan
    McGregor revels in sporting a wavering French accent as a candelabra).
    But when an exasperated Gaston knows about the existence of the
    monster, he convenes the village mob to assail the castle, there will
    only be one man standing between him and the monster, Belle is
    entangled in the scramble, but her feels powerless to stop the
    inevitable, until, yes, the magic moment after a poignant
    humanity-dissipating corollary. What a volatile enchantress!

    The upgraded musical numbers are meat and potatoes to the allure of the
    film, highlights are BE OUR GUEST (a cynosure garnished with the most
    deliriously enchanting special effects), GASTON (Evans is so close to
    snag that Hollywood leading man status for a voluntarily outed gay
    actor) and Emma Thompson’s rendition of the theme song, a balm to one’s
    ears, it is beggar belief that she hasn’t been cast in a musical
    before!

    Acting wise, the film is a bog-standard family friendly fare demands
    nothing taxing for its stellar cast, Watson is presentable but far from
    impressive, Stevens is understandably curbed by his overwhelming
    costume, even his voice is muffled as if emanated from a mask, only
    Josh Gad’s LeFou adds a nice (but overtly praised) touch of gay
    inclusivity.

    Disney’s gargantuan ambition of transposing their animation repertoire
    into live-action by virtue of technique advancement, has been in full
    swing and proved to be not only viable but also massively lucrative,
    the only gripe is they could be more gallant in its story-telling
    (different angles, re- interpretation, reflecting current perspective,
    et al.), but at the same time, one cannot help but wondering does this
    trend flag up an overlooking threat to the popularity of animation
    filmmaking, a food for thought – when CGI anthropomorphism can
    seamlessly meet the demands, what will audience (in particular,
    grownups) prefer, a more realistic context or a self-conscious
    other-worldly dimension?

  • ArielMarch 25, 2017Reply

    My Disney experience in ruins. Hogwarts is nearby…

    A huge disappointment.

    The only thing great about this film is probably the animation of the
    supporting characters (ie. The candle / clocks, etc). Well done in that
    area.

    However, Producers made a huge mistake in casting Emma Watson as Belle.
    With her usual ‘too knowing’ look and accent, watching the film is like
    watching the Harry Potter star making a parody appearance. The strong
    English Accent is cringey throughout the film and Emma clearly is not a
    believable Belle. One of the original Belle’s main features are her big
    luscious eyes batting gracefully and innocently. Whether the Producers
    are looking for a modern Belle or not, the casting failed miserably.

    With all the hype, I was truly hoping for a ”a movie that you must
    watch at least once in your lifetime” quality and vibe. There was
    clearly none here and it was as if the producers are given a big budget
    due to their status, but rushed on the set up without applying a
    masterpiece-making creative direction, completing the film on a whim,
    throwing in a couple of big names and making do with clear super
    imposed backgrounds. The opening scenes with Belle was as if it was all
    filmed in a small studio section with no air. Those who find her accent
    refreshing as Belle are just pulling the strings back to something
    favourable in their imagination and to settle with acceptance.

    With the plot and characters already well known and predictable, they
    should have captured other aspects of making it a big modern classic –
    such as going ‘outstanding’ on vocals and emotional pulls. There was no
    effort here and the main characters are heavily set on auto tune and
    heavily lacking of real emotions.

    The film is worth watching if you’re curious, and it will be sufficient
    to please the kids who tend to enjoy a subtle entertaining objective
    expressions in a simple plot, but with the potential it had from the
    start, the film makers failed to go the mile.

    A true waste.

  • katarinamandic3March 25, 2017Reply

    Didn’t do justice to the original

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • CarycomicMarch 25, 2017Reply

    Not bad! But, it’s going to suffer by inevitable comparison to the 1991 original.

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • isaacglover_05March 25, 2017Reply

    The good and the bad

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • gmacdon-16521March 25, 2017Reply

    Fantastic remake of the original classic

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • Lisa MuñozMarch 25, 2017Reply

    Tips the scales in both the right and the wrong

    To be honest, I never found the animated movie as spellbinding as
    everyone else. I never owned the VHS as a child. I really liked it and
    there were a lot of great things about it, but I preferred other films.

    This live action version manages to correct a few mistakes, but also
    leave out some things and add new ones that weren’t necessary.

    The set is beautiful, and the song and dance routines are very
    energetic. The characters are rendered more realistic and three
    dimensional with extra back stories.

    What I thought was the best change was the character of LeFou. He is
    not really a villain in this film, more like a very sweet guy who
    happens to worship and be in love with a very bad man (Gaston).

    The same could not be said of the Beast. I kind of prefer it in the
    animated version. There were things left out and things added that were
    both good and bad, but ultimately didn’t leave much of an impact as I
    thought.

    Another thing I thought was missing was the hilarious banter between
    Lumière and Cogsworth (”En Garde you overgrown pocket watch!”).

    Overall, it’s a sweet and beautiful tribute and expansion to the
    cartoon version, but probably not enough to make it stand out on its
    own.

  • David ChienMarch 25, 2017Reply

    Worse than the original, in the same group of recent, meaningless releases from Disney like Rogue One

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • MBMBMarch 25, 2017Reply

    How can this have so many talented actors and be this bad?

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • insankgMarch 25, 2017Reply

    Live Show and Movie is Different

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • zkonedogMarch 25, 2017Reply

    True Disney Magic

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • drummer0913March 26, 2017Reply

    Exceptionally Executed Except…

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • melodyannpattonMarch 26, 2017Reply

    This is a Disney film for children

    It really irks me when adults critique a children’s movie. So from my 7
    year old granddaughter ” I loved it. I got scared but I can’t wait for
    the DVD. And I love Emma Watson! ” As a grandmother I also thoroughly
    enjoyed it. That’s why it’s called Disney. I think they did a great
    job.

  • cuthbertjoelMarch 26, 2017Reply

    Just watch the original

    The original of this film is probably up there in my Top 10 of all
    time, so I knew this remake would not be as good. All I wanted was for
    this one to not desecrate my childhood memories of the original. By
    that measure, this film was a success. It isn’t so bad that it ruins
    the original.

    All actors play their role reasonably well, and for me the standout
    being Luke Evans as Gaston and Emma Watson did a decent job as Belle.
    Disney brought its usual flavour of production and most of the original
    songs translated adequately to the live-action format. The opening
    number, ‘Belle’ worked the best in my opinion. However, some of the
    songs really paled in comparison to their original counterparts. ‘Be
    Our Guest’ I thought was the weakest of the lot. Disney also
    shoe-horned in a few new songs which for me didn’t really add anything.
    Also, a few plot differences and new script twists seem to have been
    manufactured just to make the film a little less of a carbon copy of
    the original.

    Leaving the cinema though, I could only see this film as a pretty
    vanilla, paint-by-numbers rerun, which in no way exceeded the original.
    In that sense, I end up thinking, what was the point of this? Are
    Disney simply just going to go through their back catalogue
    re-releasing things as live action? It seems that might be the case.

    There’s certainly nothing new here, and nothing that makes the
    animation look dated or comparatively weaker. As a stand-alone film, I
    wish I could think of a better adjective than ‘OK’, but that is simply
    how the film makes me feel. It will no doubt make the Disney
    shareholders happy as it will rake money in, but for us that hold the
    original in such high regard, this is a second-rate copy.

  • bao3108March 26, 2017Reply

    Instant classic!

    I haven’t written a review in a couple years, but seeing the negative
    reaction to this film, I had to act.

    First of all, I watched the 3D version , it was magical to say the
    least. Secondly, I’m that millennial who loves Harry Potter so I would
    have a soft spot when it comes to Emma Watson.

    You have to keep in mind this is a children movie, it’s not supposed to
    be the next God Father. Also, it’s kind of hard to make a movie when
    people already know the plot. They still managed to get that suspension
    at the end, even though everybody knows how it ends.

    The movie is beautifully done. Scenes are like in a fairy tale as it
    should be. They spared no money on costumes. Decoration is
    breathtaking. Cast choice is appropriate. Music is beautiful.

    I didn’t have a problem with the Beast CGI. I thought it looked great!
    All the objects in the castle have a personality and they make you
    forget it’s just CGI.

    Emma Watson as Belle is the best choice in my opinion. She is stunning
    in the film and has done a great job being the outcast farmer girl. But
    again, I’m a fan so that may be a little skewed.

    Most of the Disney princess movies have become classics that children
    often look up to. I wouldn’t mind my children looking up to the Emma
    Watson Belle.

    Bottom line: this movie keeps the original plot, at the same time
    provides us a beautiful display of choreography, charming music,
    fascinating scenery.

    And most importantly, this movie provides us another classic Disney
    princess movie!

  • Sofi CelesteMarch 26, 2017Reply

    slightly above average

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • soulrebeljenMarch 26, 2017Reply

    Haters Gonna Hate…This Movie is a Joy!

    Honestly people, we’re talking about a Disney live-action remake of an
    animated film; not the next Pulp Fiction. Enjoy it for what some movies
    are supposed to be about – FUN! This movie superbly captures the
    essence of the original animated film while filling breaks in the plot
    line. The characters were perfectly cast, the music was beautifully
    arranged, costume design & CGI were cool too. Enjoy the movie for what
    it is – a Disney film!

  • tdoaMarch 26, 2017Reply

    So much negativity, not that my opinion is more important, but ….

    Whether you argue that Disney has run out of creative ideas or not this
    movie was totally enchanting and also a feast for the eyes with great
    SFX. Not a fan of the bombastic show tunes that musicals tend to
    nowadays, but I could live with it. Biggest surprise is what a great
    singing voice Luke Evans has. Get that man into a musical soon. Emma
    Watson sounded a lot like Anna Kendrick, but it seems she did her own
    singing.

  • cjmfromMarch 26, 2017Reply

    Good not brilliant considering the budget

    Emma Watson miscast hardly glamour for Beauty stiff unengaging her
    voice not strong enough, the musical was made longer by unnecessary
    songs. The Beast looked like a beast excellent makeup and prosthetics.
    The CGI,effects were excellent as were the costumes and scenery. Luke
    Evans and his sidekick Josh Gad struck just the right note.

  • tabunoMarch 26, 2017Reply

    A Slightly Askewed Live Action Version

    Adapting the animated classical musical into a live action musical
    brought forth some memorable emotional moments but at the same time
    lost the fun exaggerated, lightness captured in the cartoonish display
    of several of the characters. The most prominent problem with the
    updated live action movie is the casting of the real human character
    Gaston whose physical presence just doesn’t capture the animated
    comical snootiness of the anti-hero. The animated version had charm
    whereas the live action version had to make due with a pseudo-Broadway
    stage musical production and in some ways didn’t capture the dazzling
    set designs along with the musical renditions found in such productions
    as Sound of Music or even Mary Poppins or My Fair Lady.

    The live action was most wonderful when it came to the humanity of
    human suffering and pain but as the same time became too edgy in its
    raw, violent scenes. Oddly enough Kevin Kline while perfectly cast as
    the father, wasn’t Kevin Kline enough to capture the softer and lightly
    comical animated version. As for the use of song as live actions and
    the voice over, which is almost second nature in animated movies, since
    Les Miserable (2012) use of live singing on set, this live action
    musical seemed less authentic and more acted.

  • felix-wyderkaMarch 26, 2017Reply

    An enjoyable and heartwarming family movie with a great soundtrack

    ”Beauty and the Beast” is another proof that Disney can make
    heartwarming and entertaining Live-Action movies. Lets start by saying
    a few words about the acting and characters. Emma Watson, despite a
    shaky start, shows off her acting skills and not only that but she also
    proves that she is a quite good singer. Kevin Kline shows off his
    skills as well and makes a rather serious role enjoyable and quirky.
    The most enjoyable part of the whole movie are the voices of the
    castle’s staff. Ewan McGreggor, Emma Thomson and Ian McKellen have such
    a great chemistry just with their voices and it just feels natural for
    them to be like this. All the singing performances of all actors are
    just amazing and heartwarming. Furthermore I must say that all the
    casting decisions made here were spot on. The costumes are marvelous
    and perfectly reflect the characteristics of each single character, may
    it be the joy and cleverness of Belle or the sadness of her father.
    Moving on to cinematography we can say that there are many great
    extreme long shots of the castle, forest or simply the village that
    make the viewer want to jump into the screen and spent time in this
    magic land. Often the camera expresses the feelings of all characters
    very well. One more thing that should be mentioned is that the whole
    set and all the props are just beautiful and make the village appear so
    welcoming and at home. This movie makes the viewer feel welcome and at
    home in every way and I just did not want it to end because it was so
    entertaining. While there is many great things to say about this movie
    there are also some minor criticisms. First, Belle just seems so small
    and unremarkable in the whole setting of the castle. Another thing that
    bothered me was that in some scenes the lighting was off and it
    appeared a bit dark. A rather minor thing was Evan’s acting appeared a
    little wooden throughout the movie but luckily it was well compensated
    by Josh Gad’s funny and quirky performance. In conclusion we can say
    that ”Beauty and the Beast” is a very well made movie with an
    outstanding soundtrack and great acting performances as well as some
    great shots of scenery. At the end I can say that Disney outdid
    themselves once more and I hope that whatever movie they decide to make
    Live-Action next will be as good as this one.

  • Randomguy NobodyMarch 26, 2017Reply

    Great movie , potential a classic , but an utterly immoral narrative

    I will give a thumb up for the movie as a movie great entertainment
    However the story itself kinna bad Original fairy tales can very bloody
    and cruel which is OK as fairy tales But as a movie it is a hostage
    situation in which the bad person has won If you want to see a movie
    about someone fallen in love with captors there are many which are made
    better than this one. Try look them up in IMDb Most of them are somehow
    based at this fairy tale, which is very nice

    However make the fairy tale into a movie, it is just bad form Some
    fairy tales are just too (badwords) to be ”translated” into motion
    picture. So bad that I have to review this one

    Again, the movie as a movie is great actors and all the production
    stuffs great Just the (badword) narrative, it is insane.

    ^^

  • jojojojocoolMarch 26, 2017Reply

    Monotony and the Bleak

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • cmtrn1March 26, 2017Reply

    Love it!

    I’ve read the reviews with the lower ratings and just want to scream!
    This movie is given low rating because of the CGI face of the Beast and
    other production issues. Can’t you just watch this movie with your
    heart and your inner child’s mind and not review it with your
    techno/computer brain? Sorry if you don’t like the CGI and other stuff,
    but I loved the movie!

  • PhanfingerMarch 26, 2017Reply

    Was it necessary? No. Was it pretty good? Yes

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • quiqueperiqueMarch 26, 2017Reply

    It’s actually just good (impartial review)

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • rootbeerfloatproductionsMarch 26, 2017Reply

    Don’t Waste your Money on this Magicless Remake

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • DarkVulcan29 ([email protected])March 26, 2017Reply

    Memorable Disney remake

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • Leffie LeffieMarch 26, 2017Reply

    Just because I loved the animated film doesn’t mean I have to bash this one

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • bella2007March 27, 2017Reply

    A step up from previous Disney’s animation adaptation movies

    Went to the theater to watch this movie three times and I have zero
    regrets. The movie meets my expectation and certainly worth the wait. I
    love everything about this movie; the casting, almost seamless CGI
    effect, the brand new songs, and the plot which kind of completing the
    plot holes in the original one.

    It is a dream come true to watch Emma Watson plays Belle. Emma is
    breathtakingly beautiful in it and the movie really exploit her singing
    (quite good for beginner), acting and dancing skills. I couldn’t be
    more happier that they cast Emma as Belle. Both Emma and Belle are
    truly a good role model for young girls. Needless to say Belle is my
    all time favorite Disney princess so I’m probably heavily bias.

    And to The Beast of it all, Dan plays Adam so fiercely. He shares about
    how complicated it was for him to transform into The Beast and I’m
    seriously amazed how this handsome and charming guy could transform
    into a monster. Hats off special effect team!

    Josh as Lefou and Luke as Gaston are perfect for their respective
    roles. I can’t imagine another actors playing their role other than
    them. Also I like this version of Lefou because he’s less stupid and
    not a blind follower of Gaston (like in the animated version) which is
    pretty good.

    If you love the original, love fairy tales, love musical or just love
    the actors, I’m damn sure you would enjoy the movie. See, I wouldn’t
    dedicate one post for it if it is not that good.. So, seriously, this
    is the best animation adaptation movie by far. Go watch it ❤

  • stevenditoMarch 27, 2017Reply

    Had just as much charm, maybe more

    I don’t understand the negative reviews. The criticisms I’ve read are
    trivial at best. This was a great movie. In fact, it was a perfect
    rendition of an all-time classic Disney movie. What made it so well-
    rounded was the fact that they stayed true to the 1991 original with a
    few added scenes that explained the story further.

    It was a wonderful movie. Don’t listen to these wannabe movie critics.
    Just go and enjoy.

  • zft-13331March 27, 2017Reply

    THANK YOU Disney

    Disney, please know that putting the same musical elements in the live
    adaptations movies= great success.

    It’s not just about how everyone looks and okay, great now we have
    actual people… but if the same songs aren’t in there, then there’s
    not that classic ”Disney” feel. It’s basically not the same movie. It’s
    not as loved and nostalgic. But with Beauty and the Beast, when the
    movie opened up to the story of the Beast and then the title and then
    the provincial town–exactly like the animated movie– with seemingly
    the same song taken from the animated to the live, old to the new,
    classic to modern, that’s when my heart started smiling.

    Thanks so much, watching Beauty and the Beast, I had a great time c:

  • jasmineporter12March 27, 2017Reply

    Way better than I expected!

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • cinesocialukMarch 27, 2017Reply

    An extra 45 minutes whacked on?!

    Disney’s live action remake of Cinderella set the box office tills on
    fire in 2015, so it was inevitable they would mine deeper into their
    archive of former glories for another hit.

    This mostly shot for shot remake of 1991’s Best Picture Oscar nominated
    classic is less wooden and more lovingly handled, although with 45 mins
    of extra running time, the padding is sometimes painfully obvious.

    Emma Watson proves to be a charming Belle, far more accomplished in
    this non-Harry Potter outing than her previous ones (and is not
    hampered by a death knell American accent, cf The Bling Ring) and is
    matched by a hugely enjoyable Luke Evans as her preening suitor Gaston.

  • chazzheatonMarch 27, 2017Reply

    A Bit Disappointing

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • kcurtisjanesMarch 27, 2017Reply

    Simply stunning

    I will start out by saying that I am a Disney lover! As soon as I heard
    that they were remaking this I was extremely excited! After watching
    once I will have to watch again to decide which version I like more.

    The story line followed the Disney original incredibly well adding in
    only a few minor details which I personally think enhanced the movie.
    Beautiful animation, fantastic acting, overall I was incredibly
    pleased. I look forward to adding this to my movie collection.

  • EvastarMarch 27, 2017Reply

    Magical in every way

    Beauty and the Beast was my most favorite Disney movie ever and hearing
    the news that it’s going to be with real actors…oh my gosh -I
    couldn’t wait! And the movie met my expectations more than I could ever
    wished for!! Generally I loved the thing that it was so close adapted
    to the original…I think that was the purpose: To bring to the next
    generations as perfect as it was, but with the necessary fresh twist.
    From the first moment you hear the intro music, you feel the trigger of
    emotions in your spine….and it gets into you till the very
    end…Laughing, singing, crying….all the emotions you could feel
    watching the original, were all coming back, even stronger. Seeing your
    favorite characters come to life, makes it even more intense. The
    actors\actresses chosen couldn’t be more perfect for their roles! Emma
    Watson was like she was born to be Belle…and so was Dan Stevens! His
    voice, his eyes..were a perfect match with the Beast! Josh Gad…?!! Oh
    my gosh…If there weren’t those 26 years between this and the
    original, I would swear that the made LeFou watching Josh! Sooo
    identical! Luke Evans? Perfect! And all the rest as well. Plus there
    were so many extra elements in the movie that filled us some story gaps
    from the original, like what was like the Prince before the
    transformation or why did Belle and her father were so different from
    the rest of the villagers…And of course there are some new songs,
    which we are going to love equally I believe. Also all the technical
    stuff in there was so unbelievably amazing!…The castle, the rooms
    inside, the costumes…everything was made with perfect detail! Many
    times I got myself distracted from the characters staring the dazzling
    objects on the background. So, don’t even hesitate a little…Watch and
    enjoy this wonderful movie!

  • Sandy0095March 27, 2017Reply

    Great homage to a Disney classic

    When I heard they were remaking the 1991 original, I was so excited. I
    grew up in the 90’s and believe me, my VCR got a workout from
    rewatching the animated version. Fast forward 26 years- I was so happy
    when Emma was eventually cast. She seemed to really identify with
    Belle’s persona & rumor has it, even lobbied for the part!

    For anyone who isn’t familiar, Beauty and the Beast is about a man who
    misjudges & mistreats an old, beggar woman & is cursed as a hideous
    creature. The live action version is no different- in fact almost
    everything was a homage to the original. From sets, design & casting.
    Josh Gad was so absolutely perfect as Lefou, I can’t think of another
    actor to play this character. He worked well alongside Luke Evans’
    Gaston.

    Emma also did a great job but I’ll admit, her voice needed work. She
    isn’t quite the powerhouse like Paige O’Hara, but it was decent. Dan
    plays Beast, who’s completely CGI. The motion capture stuff looks
    pretty good considering they created this look head to toe. And I think
    Dan probably preferred it that way- spending hours inside a buffalo
    suit probably wasn’t his thing. Emma and Dan have good chemistry and
    create a believable romance. Anyone who’s seen the movie knows Belle is
    originally Beast’s captive. I actually thought the live action version
    did this one better and humanized Beast more.

    The only ”flaws” were maybe the added stuff. I didn’t love the magic
    book which transports Belle wherever she wants, etc. But I can’t deny
    that I sat through the movie with a big smile on my face. I really
    think the majority of new and old fans are going to love this movie. It
    works really hard to maintain the original film’s spirit, while still
    reinventing itself for a new generation. Disney got this one right
    guys.

  • d-e-stewartMarch 27, 2017Reply

    My favourite Disney!

    My girls treated me to see this as a gift for mothers day, I went with
    some trepidation because the 1991 version is my favourite Disney ever,
    there is nothing I disliked about that version.

    Well I have to say I LOVED this! Everything was just so beautifully
    done, the casting was perfect and it looked and sounded gorgeous. Even
    the three additional songs written especially for this fitted so well.

    This will definitely be a limited edition purchase when it hits the
    shops in blu-ray!And just in case you think I’m some starry eyed young
    thing, I’m actually a rather crotchety 58 year old. I’ve always adored
    the telling of a fairy tale.

  • mabrykdyeMarch 27, 2017Reply

    Best Disney Remake Yet!

    This movie was exceptionally great so a 10 in the ratings is a
    definite! The cast was great, the score was great, the acting was
    great, and the real life remake is surprisingly parallel to the
    original Beauty and the Beast. Emma Watson and Dan Stephens did not
    disappoint. Go see it! You won’t regret it!

  • marcosgdmoMarch 27, 2017Reply

    A good tribute to a great film, but forgettable

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • varniumMarch 27, 2017Reply

    Perfect Adaption of the Original Cartoon

    This is the best and the perfect adaption of the original cartoon in
    the 90s. It has some extension to the sound track and scenes, but
    they’re there to build up the perfect emotion for viewers to fall in
    love with the characters. And I just must say that Emma Watson is truly
    the perfect selection to play as Belle. She’s charming and just pure
    perfect! Ignore any bad reviews you see in here. If you liked the
    original cartoon, then you’ll desperately fall in love with this one.

  • planktonrulesMarch 27, 2017Reply

    A visual masterpiece that you MUST see….

    I have to admit it…I was dead wrong about ”Beauty and the Beast”. I
    had absolutely zero desire to see it because I really hate remakes. The
    only reason I did was because my wife insisted we go. And, when the
    wife insists…we go! I have now to thank my wife and must admit she
    was right…the film is terrific. The only reason I don’t score this
    one an A+ is simply because so much of it is a regurgitation of the
    wonderful 1991 cartoon version by Disney.

    So why am I so positive about this movie? Well, to me it’s simply the
    most visually stunning and artistic film I have ever seen…and I have
    reviewed thousands and thousands of films. I went to the theater fully
    expecting to hate the picture…but soon found it took my breath
    away…not just once but again and again…it’s that beautiful. And,
    what I also really appreciate is that the film is the best looking
    CGI/live action combination I have ever seen and the 3D effects are
    much, much better than usual. With most live action films made in 3D, I
    generally leave with a feeling that I could have enjoyed the movie just
    as much in 2D as 3. And, all but a few scenes seem as if they were not
    even shot with 3D in mind. But not Beauty and the Beast. The filmmakers
    obviously thought out every possible aspect of the movie and each scene
    used the multidimensionality to its fullest. Because of that, I
    strongly recommend you not only see the film on the big screen but pay
    the extra money and see it in 3D. Really, you must see it on the big
    screen and in 3D. I have no desire to ever see the film on DVD or cable
    television…it is truly a big and impressive film you must experience
    in person. You can thank my wife later.

    By the way, a side note: I know there’s been a lot of hubbub about the
    character Le Fou in this film because he’s gay. I think if Disney
    hadn’t said anything about this before the film was released, most
    folks would not have really cared one way or the other and many simply
    wouldn’t have noticed. It doesn’t smash you over the head and I don’t
    see this movie as some ‘gay agenda picture’…and I see it much like I
    see ”Some Like it Hot”. It’s a shame, as I am sure a lot of people who
    were angered by this gay character probably wouldn’t be so angry if
    they just saw the film and let themselves enjoy it.

  • StephanieMarch 27, 2017Reply

    Beautiful Adaptation

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • paulisthebestukMarch 28, 2017Reply

    A credit to the 1991 cartoon version

    What can I say? Beauty and the beast was always an amazing movie, i
    haven’t seen any prior to the Disney 1991 masterpiece but lets just say
    this new remake does it pure justice.

    I’ve never actually watched a remake of a film that is so same yet so
    different it actually works so well it makes me smile and emotional
    from start to end.

    Emma watson and the cast was an amazing choice. The way she betrays
    belle is believable and just as realistic as the 1991 classic. I cant
    really give too much about this remake as its likely to instantly give
    spoilers in certain scenes but what i will say it was an absolute
    beautiful thing to watch. All in all if you like the 1991 version, and
    you don’t like this version, your crazy. It just works well.

    Its not just the actors/actresses/ songs that makes it work well either
    – there is some quite lush scenery in glorious modern HD that works
    too, cgi is impressive and its just a movie that i feel doesn’t need to
    be taken seriously or realistic – but just works in the – it does what
    its intended to do Amazing job Disney and if you go and see this
    regardless if you watched the 1991 version or not – if not – you will
    probably end up watching the 1991 version afterwards!

  • ajrg-17-381639March 28, 2017Reply

    It was only bad if you liked the first Disney version. Great if you hated it

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • jessamaxl-79017March 28, 2017Reply

    spectacular movie

    Beauty and the beast! The beast (pun intended) movie I’ve seen this
    year! The casting choice is just brilliant!! Emma Watson brings this
    charming and incredibly sweet side of belle. The songs are so good that
    I have downloaded them all! I had an excellent time watching this movie
    (twice) and I recommend you all go see it! The setting and the tiny
    changes they made in the movie make a huge difference and really for
    the best! I have no real words to describe this adorable and fun movie!
    Just go watch it!!!

  • Shalini MohantyMarch 28, 2017Reply

    Doesn’t even meet the expectations

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • blueyedchickkMarch 28, 2017Reply

    Amazing

    I saw it opening day. This movie was great. Love the animated one grew
    up on it, didn’t think this one would be as good because its just not
    the same as animation but it was incredible. everything from the
    characters/ Actors, music, wardrobe everything, defiantly a must see
    for everyone.

  • Alan MarsdenMarch 28, 2017Reply

    Beauty and the Beast does the animated film proud

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • Mickey Wilson (mickeywilsonsfx)March 28, 2017Reply

    Outstanding!

    I seriously can’t quite figure out why this movie doesn’t have a 10/10
    average. There are no flaws with the film. Score was great, cast was
    great, acting was great, plot was great, execution and directing 100%
    great as well as the sound mixing and overall color grading. The movie
    IMHO was perfect. I believe we need to start rating movies on flaws
    rather than basing our opinions off of preconceived notions from
    nostalgia. The movie on it’s own was fantastic, even trying not to
    think or bias it from the original animated version. The problem with
    these sub-par reviews from other viewers that clearly have bias, is
    that they are contributing to Hollywood creating more terrible films.
    Disney needs to know that this movie was fantastic and most people
    generally loved it. If the industry thinks the movie wasn’t that great
    based off of reviews, then they will change their future movies for the
    worse. 10/10, fantastic. Take it from a film composer, gamer, and movie
    lover.

  • Maleficent7March 28, 2017Reply

    How Disappointing

    ”Just because you can, doesn’t mean you should.”

    I’m sure this won’t be the last time I say this, but it needs to be
    said: Stop making movie musicals with people who can’t sing. If they
    can’t sing, drop the Autotunes and dub them. We have the technology;
    it’s virtually painless. Non-singing actors have ruined 3 of my
    favorite musicals: Beauty & the Beast, Sweeney Todd, and Phantom of the
    Opera. In a musical, music is a character, and hearing Josh Groban sing
    ”Evermore” over the end credits merely proved what was missing.

    The overuse of CGI in films is creating a nightmare of quick cut, in
    your face visuals that are detracting from the overall story and quite
    frankly, giving me a headache. Again, CGI should enhance, not overtake
    your scenes and wrestle them and your actors into the ground. The same
    CGI that made ”Be Our Guest” a thing of beauty in the 1991 version
    creates an on-screen, muddled mess here. In fact, the CGI detracted
    rather than enhanced this entire production. The cartoon characters
    showed more emotion than the flat, emotionless, and rather frightening
    faces here.

    I’d rather not comment on the acting because it’s hard to do that and
    not hurt people’s feelings, and at the end of the day, actors are
    people, too. I will say that there is a reason Disney is now seriously
    recognizing and marketing their Villains. THEY ROCK. Oh, and Kevin
    Kline gets a pass because I love him. 🙂

    While others may love it, it simply wasn’t my cup of tea.

  • niki-mahonMarch 28, 2017Reply

    Confused by the negative reviews

    Tasteful, true the original and very well cast. It didn’t need to be a
    CGI fest, it’s a classic Disney. Jungle Book had virtually none of the
    original songs which was a huge disappointed. It felt as though there
    was a respect for the film unlike other remakes. Of course people find
    some way to bash it but its an absolute masterpiece and should be
    enjoyed by all.

  • austin0731March 28, 2017Reply

    A genuine rendition of a Disney classic

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • harrypotterloonyMarch 28, 2017Reply

    A beautifully nostalgic movie

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • pyrocitorMarch 28, 2017Reply

    Hairy Pouter and the Reluctantly Redundant Remake

    Watching Bill Condon’s Beauty and the Beast as an adult is like running
    into your best friend from grade school at a bar. They’re hammered,
    decked out in a circa 2001 Avril Lavigne Sk8ter Boi outfit and
    faux-hawk, but surprise: they work as an insurance claims adjuster, and
    make awkward, drunken conversation about linoleum. Yep. Hear me out.
    Heady nostalgia, amusement (both uncomfortable and sincere), but all
    tampered by a vaguely alienating sense of antiquated tackiness and
    boredom. This is your old friend, and you’ll always love them in spite
    of… them. But did you really need to run into them again like…
    this? This is the battle of Beauty and the Beast 2.0: not as beastly as
    your worst fears would have it, but a far cry from the beauty that once
    was.

    ‘Tale as old as time’ doesn’t work as well when it’s a tale barely
    older than the average viewer, begetting the invariable ‘Too Soon!’
    griping. Sadly, in this case, the peanut gallery may be justified. It’s
    rare to see a film tiptoeing around its fan following so fearfully,
    every frame oozing desperation to validate its own existence. From the
    first notes of the soundtrack, there’s an uneasy balance between near
    shot-for-shot slavishness and defiant new beats. But, for every closed
    plot hole (so THAT’S why no one in the village noticed the gigantic,
    deserted castle!), there’s awkward, superfluous character exposition
    (did Belle really need to be saddled with a ‘disappeared parent’
    subplot, a-la Amazing Spider-Man?). The original songs are, naturally,
    too darn good not to make hearts soar, but they’re staged with varying
    degrees of imagination and vibrancy. New tunes range from cutely
    forgettable to downright cringe-worthy (let’s just say the Beast’s solo
    romantic ballad plays better on Broadway…), while inexcusably lame
    tweaks to Gaston’s legendarily raucous tavern ditty will have you
    pulling out every last inch of you covered in hair. And so on. More
    than almost any adaptation, Condon courts an invariable game of
    constant compare/contrast that he’s fated to lose (would you want to go
    toe-to-toe with the first animated Best Picture nominee?), conjuring an
    audience commentary of ”Meh, that was better in the original” to ”Did
    we really need that?” Throw in some lurching pacing – how can a film 40
    minutes longer than its predecessor feel so much more rushed? – and
    staid, wooden sensibilities, with only glimmers of the original’s
    whimsy or the playfulness of 2016’s Jungle Book, and you’ve got one
    squirmy audience.

    It’s a shame, because Condon’s fairy tale unearths plenty of magic when
    it’s allowed to breathe. If there’s one strain that feels fully fleshed
    out in live action, it’s the poor provincial town’s bullying of Belle,
    seeing her unmarried, innovative intellect as beyond ‘odd,’ but as a
    downright ideological threat verging on witchcraft. It’s this focal
    point that lends surprising sincerity and sweetness to her budding
    romance with her ferocious captor – she connects with him as a fellow
    outsider, passionate, but fearfully clueless about how to societally
    integrate. Condon also finds surprising poignancy in the Beast’s
    household workers resigned to living as animated objects as penance for
    taking no accountability in preventing his warped, cruelly spoiled
    upbringing. A subtle nature/nurture conversation of a social
    environment’s power to corrupt through passive-aggressive teasing or
    shameful inactivity? Now that feels like classic Disney!

    If the prospect of 2017 special effects bringing the magic to life were
    a selling point, it’s still a mixed bag. It’s ironic that the film’s
    prologue cautions against gaudy, superficial excess, as Condon’s film
    is almost exhaustingly lavish, but too loud and busy to settle into the
    painstaking elegance of its predecessor. The surreal twisty, Jean
    Cocteau decor is pleasingly intricate, but almost perennially muted by
    murky, grey lighting, while the vaguely creepy anthropomorphic
    household utensils take considerable acclimatizing to. Even the ‘Be Our
    Guest’ showstopper manages the paradox of looking ferociously expensive
    but oddly unspectacular. Still – Condon does nail The Dance, and it
    alone is transcendently lovely enough to keep the film afloat, and then
    some. No, you’re twirling around humming the theme. Hmmpff.

    You want to love Emma Watson’s Belle. You really do. But, Hermione
    hangover aside, she feels distressingly miscast – as sullen and sunken
    as her wincingly autotuned singing voice, she’s too caustic to capture
    more than dribbles of Belle’s warmth, spunkiness, and bubbly
    braininess. Trading Harry for Hairy, Dan Stevens makes a superb Beast,
    dubious CGI aside. His Beast is a grumbling hipster, his former effete
    condescension bleeding into his brooding making his character arc all
    the more charmingly self-aware. Though far from the size of a barge (no
    ”biceps to spare” here, amusingly), Luke Evans swings solidly at
    Gaston’s seismic chauvinism. But, although he hits the musical notes,
    he’s too tentative a scene-chewer, and lacks the thunderous charisma to
    properly sell the narrative’s masterful deconstruction of toxic
    masculinity (it’s no wonder LeFou has to bribe these townspeople to –
    literally – sing his praises). Speaking of: 10 points to Josh Gad,
    singlehandedly stealing the show with a pitch-perfect deluge of
    adorably fawning silliness. While Kevin Kline’s softly quirky Maurice
    is pleasantly winning, his additional screen time adds little to the
    film. Indeed, most of the comedic and emotional lifting is left to the
    charming voice cast, and Ewan McGregor, Ian McKellen, Emma Thompson,
    Stanley Tucci, and others all brim with the mountainous charm and
    silliness you’d hope for.

    There is beauty within Condon’s film, but it’s largely enshrouded by
    oodles of overstuffed visual dazzle and fumbling mimesis that fail to
    disguise the the film’s heart isn’t quite there. It’s an amiable
    diversion, but a worthwhile remake? Let’s just say time won’t be kind
    to this tale. But let’s be honest: it’s Beauty and the Beast. Reviews
    or not, you’re probably going to obstinately check it out anyway,
    muttering ”surely it can’t be as bad as all that.” And you know what?
    Be my guest.

    -6.5/10

  • Tamara DMarch 29, 2017Reply

    Disappointed.

    Beauty and the Beast is by far one of my most favourite movies. The
    story it portrays, the music and magic and morals knowing that love
    heals all, unfortunately, I only saw and felt all that from the
    animated version and not this one. This movie lacked the good old ”warm
    and fuzzy” feeling you get from Disney’s animated movies, it lacked
    ”heart.” It just seemed a little emotionless and forced, some bits even
    seem rushed, other parts had nothing to do with the original at all. I
    was looking forward to see how Beast would be as a ”realistic” version
    but they didn’t capture Beast’s imagery or personality at all and I
    feel the same way about Emma Watson playing ”Belle” I like Emma Watson,
    she is a great actress but she is no ”Belle.” I wanted to like this
    movie and I was hoping for the same satisfaction as I got from the
    animation, but I couldn’t. I have been a Disney fan all my life but I
    think Disney should have left this one alone, sorry but the animation
    was better.

  • Maddie1003 CinephileMarch 29, 2017Reply

    A visually mesmerizing movie

    First and foremost, this movie is visually stunning. From the beginning
    to the end. Disney has done an amazing job of keeping everything seem
    so alive, and alarmingly terrifying at times.

    This is a story about Belle, who is a well read town girl and wants
    something more than ”this provincial life”. She eventually steps into
    Beast, who is a prince cursed by an enchantress. He has time to reverse
    himself until the last petal of an enchanted rose falls. In the
    meanwhile, Belle is continuously wooed by all-brawn-and-no-brain
    Gaston, who has an evil intention of killing the Beast and forcibly
    marrying Belle. Love is slowly blossoming between Belle and the Beast,
    but will it be enough to break the curse?

    All the characters in the story have blended nicely with an amazing
    cast. As I have said before, the visuals were stunning, and so were the
    ballads performed throughout the musical. A 3D experience is
    phenomenal, and kind of required.

  • buenoschichesMarch 29, 2017Reply

    Slightly Nostalgic & Incredibly Flat.

    Firstly, can I suggest that perhaps it would have been better had they
    strayed away from a classic remake, but instead, had created a comedic
    prequel featuring Gaston and LeFou since they were the real stars of
    this movie? It is sort of nostalgic- I’ll give it that. And I’m not
    even too mad at the casting choices for any of the main roles. My main
    concern is with SUCH a big budget for this and after the success of the
    live-action Jungle Book– how could a classic like this be given such
    bad treatment? The CGI was honestly horrendous. I felt it difficult to
    call this live-action when everything that surrounded the human
    characters seemed like a really bad theatre set- they didn’t even feel
    like they’re in a small, French town. If you’re going to really push
    the CGI route- go full throttle. Don’t use it on places that you need
    it the least- like the Beast’s face for example. I’m familiar with Dan
    Stevens and I could see some of the facial remarks and quirks were him-
    but that’s it. Otherwise, it could have been anyone. It looked like
    Belle was speaking to a green screen throughout the entire movie. I
    also didn’t love Lumiere’s Liberace-esque redesign. But overall-
    Lumiere and Cogsworth were enjoyable for the most part and Be Our Guest
    was BY FAR the saving grace as far as the musical numbers were
    concerned.

    If they wanted to do BATB in modern times or re-imagine it- go with it.
    Go that route. But take it all the way there. I don’t think it was a
    good idea to try and keep the script the same in literally 90% of the
    movie only to add in a handful of unnecessary extra songs (which
    weren’t actually any good- especially Beast’s), the back story of
    Belle’s mom which really did not add anything special to the story and
    the need to alter the ending by adding in the ‘hideous wench’
    character. What was the point of that? Stick to the original or
    reinvent it. I didn’t mine the slight addition of insinuated gayness of
    LeFou- I thought it was quite entertaining and very Waylon Smithers/Mr.
    Burns-esque. I don’t understand the uproar, quite frankly. Besides-
    it’s 2017. Can people finally just stop? Being gay isn’t a new
    phenomenon, folks. Just ask Napoleon.

    The classic songs felt incredibly flat for me- especially Bonjour. I
    agree with another review that I didn’t understand nor particularly
    like the odd delays in the song- what was the point? And also, she just
    didn’t really seem to sing with much effort. I like Emma as an actress
    in most scenarios (I try to forget that she did Bling Ring- arg) but it
    felt very much like Emma playing the role of Belle in a theatre
    production- I didn’t feel as though she really embodied the character
    in any way. The stand outs- by far- were Luke Evans and Josh Gad. I
    don’t think they could have done better casting for those roles no
    matter if you enjoyed the characters or not.

    Another thing that felt incredibly dull to me was the colors. I
    remember seeing the cartoon version of Belle in her glowing, golden
    dress that was SO beautiful and well-constructed that it honestly just
    made Emma Watson seem like she was wrapped up in her grandmother’s
    curtains. Like, who did that? If you’re going to do ANYTHING the
    service that it deserves- you can’t lack on Belle’s dress and that
    entire Beauty & the Beast dance sequence. It was flat. Where were the
    colours and the incredible camera angles? I remember one specific
    ”camera shot” that swirled around them in the Disney cartoon version
    where you could also see the rest of the ballroom- I still feel
    goosebumps. One of the most beautiful scenes I’ve ever seen.

    And lastly- Mrs. Potts’ animation was just plain scary to me.

    That is all.

    Twitter: @steacyc

  • Meredith SecaurMarch 29, 2017Reply

    A Beauty of a Film, Magical From Start to Finish!

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • questiontheauthoritiesMarch 29, 2017Reply

    Rated the same as ”Robot Chicken” (7.8)

    My title says it all. Even with releasing nude photos of herself and
    playing it up as a ‘hack’ Emma Watson fails to deliver in this
    predictable, cliché, gyno-centric feminist’s wet dream of a reboot.
    You’d think Hollywood would stop trying to dictate what the audience
    finds entertaining, but it seems nobody in Hollywood wants to make any
    money anymore. Maybe the film / television industry is going the way of
    the music industry. Maybe it should, the ‘talent’ has been full of
    themselves for far too long now.

  • Suroor ZehraMarch 29, 2017Reply

    Plain

    Where do I start. This adaptation of Disney’s 1991 Beauty and the Beast
    was an utter disappointment. Emma Watson as Belle was extremely
    unconvincing from the start to the end. She had the same expressions as
    the actress from Twilight. The animators did a terrible job with the
    Beast. He looked fake and lifeless. They could have used special makeup
    to create the beast similar to the Grinch where we get to see Jim
    Carrey’s expressions. The side character animations were poorly
    executed. Overall I felt the film was rushed as there was lack of
    compassion and chemistry between the characters. There was a lot of CGI
    and green screen which could have been replaced by normal acting,
    because then why make an animated version of an animated film? This is
    by far the worst remake of an animated classic.

  • chioreansilviaMarch 30, 2017Reply

    Enchanting

    At first I was skeptical about this movie, and then, month by month, I
    started to get very hyped and excited. Nevertheless, I still had my
    doubts regarding the director – I mean seriously, Twilight?
    Seriously?!? What was Bill Condon thinking when he accepted to involve
    himself in that sparkly mess? And of course, this extended to Emma
    Watson and Dan Stevens, as I could not imagine them worthy of playing
    my all time favorite characters from my favorite movie… Yes, I
    followed Dan’s career since he played Edward Ferrars in ”Sense and
    Sensibility” and I am a convinced Potterhead so Emma’s acting skills
    were never in question.

    I even postponed watching it because I was sooo afraid of spoiling the
    picture perfect created by the 1991 version, and also because I had
    read some reviews that were not so favorable…

    Nevertheless, last Sunday I went to the theater, heart in my teeth,
    stomach in knots, expecting a big letdown. But, something magical
    happened from the very first scene. I forgot how to breathe properly, I
    barely blinked, entranced as I was by this marvelous piece of
    cinematography. I cried, squealed with delight, laughed, sobbed, sang
    along when my favorite tunes started and listened to the new ones
    breathlessly… I felt my heart grow heavy so many times, feeling I’m
    still experiencing on a daily basis whilst listening to the
    soundtrack…

    Every moment, every image, every song, it all combines in an unique
    experience, enhanced by the 3D technology, compelling many of us to
    re-experience it again, and again, and again.

    Ultimately, my advice is to go watch this movie, with an open heart and
    you won’t be disappointed. Haters will be haters, they will continue to
    bash this movie, write negative reviews and advice against it. Don’t
    follow my example, don’t listen to my advice, do the smart thing and
    experience it yourself and then let your heart decide….

  • Cooly_44March 30, 2017Reply

    Not worth it

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • maheswarinabilaMarch 30, 2017Reply

    I love it, but it’s not really perfect

    *** THIS REVIEW MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS***

    Well, i love this movie to be honest. You know, my lovely Lumiere,
    Cogsworth, Mrs. Potts, Chip, etc are real! They’re real and its
    magical. I know it using a lot of CGI, but that’s no problem. I am a
    Disney’s fans and i know they’re always using CGI in every single
    movie. But, i can’t gave this movie 10/10 because there is something
    distract me.

    I just watched Beauty and The Beast (animation version) one week before
    i watched the live-action version. I still remember each detail on
    animated version. You know. When the beast become a human, he used a
    fit shirt. And he has a really big muscle (on animated version). But,
    in the live action, when the beast became a human, he used the
    over-sized shirt and his muscle is gone. I know maybe Disney wanna make
    this scene become make sense. Because the Beast has a big body and Kyle
    Kingston is smaller than the Beast. But overall it’s good. I like Dan
    Stevens. He is handsome. And Emma Watson as Belle, OMG she is
    definitely a real belle! although sometime i still remember her role as
    Hermione.

    The cast and role is perfect. And the song, to be honest, i love this
    version more than 1991 version. Luke Evans as Gaston, he is handsome,
    strong, but annoying in the same time. He can brought that whole
    package in Gaston’s personality. And i admit, Josh Gad as Le Fou is
    really helped Gaston. I mean, he gave a power and soul into the
    atmosphere so the story became more alive. Overall, it’s good. I love
    it.

  • diverdivaMarch 30, 2017Reply

    Enchanting!

    Reading all the negative reviews citing the ‘distracting’ CGI, Emma
    Watson not being as good as the animated Belle(!), etc., etc. I wonder
    what people expect when going to movies like this. Do they leave their
    sense of wonder at home and just look to pick holes? Well, to summarise
    my feelings on seeing Beauty and the Beast – I thought it was lovely!
    It paid respectful homage to the iconic animated original, but can
    stand on its own two feet as an artistic achievement. The
    cinematography and set decoration was magnificent, Emma Watson was
    fresh-faced and feisty as Belle, Luke Evans was a funny and wonderfully
    hateful Gaston and the musical numbers were well staged (Emma has a
    sweet voice which suits the songs). Only down side was that we didn’t
    get to see very much of Dan Stevens out of beast mode – but can’t help
    the story-line! I thought that the beast CGI was effective and managed
    to convey both the savage and vulnerable sides of the character. Go and
    see it, take your movie critic hat off and prepare to lose yourself in
    this magical movie.

  • Ashlie K MangerMarch 30, 2017Reply

    Beauty and the Beast Review

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • left_us_silentMarch 30, 2017Reply

    Why all the hate? I loved it!

    Wow, I am so shocked by all the people on here hating on this movie. I
    thought it was fantastic, a wonderful adaptation of the original
    animated version. I am a huge fan of all the Disney classics, Beauty
    and Beast being my absolute favorite. My VHS copy when I was a kid,
    practically had a hole burnt through it from the amount of times I
    watched it. I of course was hesitant about this remake, particularly
    after the deluge of Disney remake failures that have disgraced us with
    their presence over the past number of years. But Beauty and the Beast
    surpassed all my expectations. I’ve now seen it twice in theater!

    The songs were all perfectly done, I found myself signing (quietly) to
    them all, and the nostalgia brought on a number of tears I must admit.
    There were a number of new songs that I didn’t really care for, but it
    tied the story together well, so I can appreciate them for what they
    were.

    Emma Watson was a wonderful Belle. She had the perfect description for
    her, and played the part really well. She’s not going to win any
    Grammys for her singing, but she did a pretty good job, and should be
    commended for this.

    Luke Evans was definitely the highlight of the movie playing Gaston. My
    goodness, what an absolutely perfect choice for this part. I could not
    get enough of him! His arrogance and vanity, his voice and those strong
    strong egotistical facial expressions. It was like the animated Gaston
    had been pulled straight out of the screen and turned into the real
    life version. Josh Gad also did an absolutely wonderful job as LeFou!
    Him and Luke Evans made the perfect team.

    Shout out also to the CGI team who did a great job with all the talking
    antiques in the castle. Great choice of actors to play the voices
    behind them too. The ”Be Our Guest” number (a personal favourite from
    the original) was simply marvelous. What a visual delight!

    Negatives: There were a few corny moments throughout the film that
    added some cringe factor, a few extra little stories lines and aspects
    that weren’t from the original and a few scenes that could have done
    with a little more depth. But in the end, this was not enough to change
    my overall opinion of the film.

    Just go see this movie and let the nostalgia wash over you. It’s not
    the original, but it does a hell of a good job as the remake.

  • Syo KennexMarch 30, 2017Reply

    An eloquent, classic romance renewed

    26 years after the classic Disney film was released, Bill Condon
    directs Emma Watson and Dan Stevens in a retelling of Beauty and the
    Beast.

    This film was absolutely stunning. I sat and watched my childhood on
    screen with real people for the first time in my life, and I am not
    ashamed to admit I shed a tear once or twice. I grew up watching Emma
    Watson as Hermoine, so seeing her on screen as my all time favourite
    Disney Princess was highly emotional.

    The cinematography in this took my breath away. Every frame of this
    film was stunning. The cinematography was beautifully done. The costume
    designs were so expertly done, they all looked like they were direct
    from the animated film. The casting was done so stupendously it was
    like the original animations had just stepped out of the film and began
    waltzing across the screen.

    The only two qualms I had were

    – It seemed to take Emma Watson a while to warm up to singing. It was
    very rough in the first song of the film, and then she seemed to get
    better as it went along.

    – The pacing of the film seemed quite rushed. I understand they were
    pretty much copying the original animation, but I feel like it could
    have been paced out just that little bit better. I felt a little out of
    breath watching it, whizzing from one point to another.

    Those qualms aside, this still took my breath away. It definitely
    deserves the hype it got. This was a wonderful retelling of such a
    classic tale. I hope that this generation of children may enjoy this as
    much as I enjoyed the original growing up. They deserve a movie like
    this, full of love, hope and romance. And of course, the age old moral,
    don’t judge a book by it’s cover.

  • Olga LevinMarch 30, 2017Reply

    Be our guest? Certainly!

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • christonr-64261March 30, 2017Reply

    A Thing of Beauty

    The live action update of the Oscar-nominated Disney animation, Bill
    Condon’s re-imagining is a sweet, thoughtful and emotional film with
    clear themes of empowerment, feminism and individuality.

    Emma Watson is perfectly cast as Belle and her singing is a real
    show-stealer throughout; as are Luke Evans and Josh Gad as the comedic
    yet villainous duo of Gaston and Lefue, respectively.  On the flip
    side, Dan Stevens as the Beast leaves a lot to be desired (not in a
    good way), particularly in terms of his – albeit, limited – singing.

    The songs remain as catchy as ever and are beautifully (and
    expensively) choreographed on screen with seamless combinations of live
    action, CGI and what often appears as one shot camera work.

    Despite its 2hr 9min runtime however, the plot seems somewhat rushed
    and bare bones at times.  Admittedly, this is based on an existing
    Disney property and storyline, so screenwriters were shackled in many
    ways to the original material but the plot really felt like it could
    have done with more back story around the Beast/Princes’ troubled
    childhood and how this fully justified his conduct as an adult (a la
    Frozen).

    All in all though, this is a greatly enjoyable musical take on the
    classic story which very much has its heart in the right place and
    isn’t scared to pitch at both young and older audience members. 

  • emmalovesfilmMarch 30, 2017Reply

    There may be something there that wasn’t there before …

    To say I’m a Disney fan is a tiny bit of an understatement …

    Where to start with this review? there is so much I want to rant and
    rave about I literally don’t know where to begin.

    I suppose first of I should say, oh my goodness loved every single
    moment of this movie. The goosebumps were constant and there wasn’t a
    moment when a huge smile wasn’t plastered all over my face.

    THEY’VE KEPT IT TRUE TO FORM – and when I say that, I didn’t read the
    bloody original fairy tale, but I’ve seen the animated Disney dream
    around 200 times.

    They haven’t removed any key moments or tried to make things dark and
    deep (which everybody seems to do these days) . They’ve added a little
    more depth to certain characters and a wee little backstory to our
    Belle’s background, but the tale really is as old as time …

    Just want to get one thing out in the open – I’m not a huge fan of Emma
    Watson.

    Obviously Harry Potter is life, but for some reason I find her acting
    ‘talents’ seriously lacking, so when I heard she landed herself the
    title role, I did a little face plant.

    In fact the only thing that kept me positive about the whole thing was
    thinking ‘it could be worse, they could’ve given it to Anne Hathaway’

    In all honesty though, she is perfect for this part. She looks
    gorgeous, her singing is pretty on point and her personality on and off
    screen is a dead match.

    In fact the whole cast was perfect!

    Luke Evans is the stand out performance in the film for me, his singing
    voice is ace and he oozes the arrogance and anger that Gaston needs.

    ‘I USE ANTLERS IN ALL OF MY DECOOOORATING’

    When you’ve been listening to the same songs for 25 years, it’s hard to
    love any covers in the same way.

    Well that’s what I thought until now. Every musical moment is perfect.

    From the arm swinging Gaston to the slow dancing title track, they sure
    did do it right.

    When the soundtrack was released, people were claiming the new
    additions were mostly filler, and I don’t know what these crazies had
    been smoking, but they must be out of their minds.

    ‘Evermore’ stood out to me from the beginning, as I always thought that
    the beast needed a song of his own and this is everything I could’ve
    dreamed of. It’s so powerful, moving and YES, I DID CRY! JUST BACK OFF
    OKAY?

    Blah blah blah, I could talk nonstop about the many, many ways this
    ticked all the boxes for me but I’m going to cool my jets a bit now and
    get down to it.

    I am confident that people will come out of this movie disappointed,
    they’ll be wanting/expecting something fresh and different but I for
    one am glad that’s it’s neither of those things.

    It’s not at all a straight imitation but at the same time it’s not
    trying to be something that it’s not. To me they hit the nail on the
    head and this movie is my absolute dream. Everything I was wanting and
    more.

    My rating – 10/10 all day, every day. I have already booked to see it
    again and I am counting down the days!!!

    Seeing it for the first time was an experience I won’t forget and I
    would like to personally thank Disney for giving me yet another film I
    can cherish forever.

  • brisingamenMarch 30, 2017Reply

    SPOILER ALERT — I’m going to talk about events in the film, don’t read if you don’t want to know

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • robinerrinMarch 31, 2017Reply

    Simply lovely!

    If you enjoyed the original animated classic, then you will like this
    one. They did a wonderful job of the story and singing (Emma Watson is
    enchanting!). Didn’t care for the horns on The Beast (made him look
    like a Tiefling) – otherwise no complaints, CGI was done well. Disney
    did a great job of redoing my own personal favorite Disney animated
    movie.

  • kaliahdickensMarch 31, 2017Reply

    Okay.

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • Mickey WMarch 31, 2017Reply

    Not as good as I expected

    I agree the picture is very pretty. But to be honest, this is a very
    bad movie. The story do not give me any impression, I can’t tell why
    Bell fall in love with monster, the only reason looks like he is very
    rich because he has a big library. I almost sleep in the theater. Don’t
    wast you money and time on it.

  • showMarch 31, 2017Reply

    poo poo crap

    crap not even kids film and not animated over hyped too long so boring
    2nd worst film of the year no script or story crap toilet film just as
    bad as paddington which should have been a 12 cert and this should have
    been 12 over hyped typical British film moana should have done 30m plus
    but British public don’t know there movies.

  • tmzaepfelMarch 31, 2017Reply

    Extensive review **SPOILERS BELOW**

    I’m going to share an unpopular opinion. I’m heartily sorry to my
    fellow Disney fans, but I feel the need to say something: This
    obsession/worship of the new Beauty and the Beast is BS.

    I saw this film with my 6-year-old a couple weeks ago. While there’s
    plenty about which to gripe, here’s one of my biggest problems: I can’t
    stand this constant CGI-heavy everything-must-be-a-sequel-or- a- remake
    era of film making. It’s making movie makers lazy.

    Wanna make a buck? How about remake the biggest Disney films of all
    time but in LIVE ACTION. OMG *heart emoji* *heart eyes emoji* *crying
    emoji* *hands raised emoji*

    More like dollar signs. That’s all this film was about. Dollars.
    Millions and millions of them. Yes, every film needs to make money, but
    Disney isn’t hurting. They can afford to make quality films… and they
    do! They really do. But this wasn’t one of them. This was a cash grab
    and nothing more.

    Let’s focus on the visuals in the film. Stills from the finished
    product were gorgeous. Everything was so intricate and colorful and on
    such a huge scale. The problem is that it was literally everywhere.

    Go to an art gallery. There are canvases, stand alone sculptures,
    photos, etc. All organized in a specific way. There’s a break between
    each piece, whether by floor or wall, that allows you to digest it and
    have a moment to reflect.

    Movies like B&TB are like the entire building in which you hold the
    gallery is a ”work of art”. There’s no space to reflect, just constant
    stimulation. You haven’t a moment to enjoy the beauty and grandeur of
    it all because it’s literally everywhere.

    Storytelling-wise, it was all over the place. They already had a basic
    story thanks to the original, but you can’t just do that. You have to
    add as much back story as you can, fill those plot holes, make it the
    SAME but BETTER.

    They were shoehorning in so much that half the damn thing was
    backstory. And it wasn’t told chronologically. Noooo, ma’am. That’s not
    how the original was structured, so we CAN’T deviate from THAT. What
    about the music? The music? You mean the mostly half-assed regurgitated
    pile of those classic songs I loved listening to growing up and still
    enjoy? And the extra songs shoved in just so that you always had
    something to distract you from how they didn’t know how to write a
    proper story with poignant and meaningful silences?

    Look. I love Emma Watson. I really do, but her voice… She sounded
    weak. I’m sure she tried really hard, but she doesn’t have the vocal
    chops for this. Don’t get me started on Ewan McGregor’s horrible accent
    and lazy singing.

    The Beast was fine, but his song after Belle left totally ruined the
    moment. He was supposed to be in pain and the moment in the original
    film where he roared out the window was perfect. You understood his
    sorry and his sacrifice. No song needed.

    And since when is Gaston NOT a baritone? To be fair, though, Gaston and
    LeFou were the best thing about this whole mess. They should have just
    done a movie about their war adventures and I would’ve been happy.

    They poured on the whole ”LeFou is gay” thing a bit thick for my taste.
    It was the only thing that added levity to the movie (despite how much
    fun it should have been already), but it seemed a bit cheap. I’m not
    going to apologize for wanting more for my LGBTQ characters than to be
    just the comic relief.

    Want to know a CGI-heavy Disney remake that they did right?
    Surprisingly enough… it was The Jungle Book. They took the old one,
    used a couple of the songs, but made it completely their own. It was a
    similar story, but they didn’t rely completely on it. Leave it to my
    boy Jon Favreau to retell an old story with fake animals and make it
    feel more real and original than anything in B&TB.

    That’s all I can think to say for now. Call me jaded and picky. It
    might be true, but it’s also true that I have higher standards for my
    movies… especially from Disney.

    TL;DR – Over-CGI’d-musical-number-heavy mess attempts to distract you
    from the fan-service-and-needless-backstory-filled plot so that you
    don’t realize what you are watching is just shiny, saccharine- glazed
    vomit.

  • chrisman-24354March 31, 2017Reply

    Our group loved it

    I have been awaiting for this movie for awhile now and yes I am a
    Christian and was raised in church but let me tell you that I adored
    the movie as did my sister and mother who watched the movie the action
    level is superb and the story is wonderful I loved the beautiful Emma
    Watson as Bell she is a good looking woman indeed I highly recommend
    that you take the family to see the movie.oh yea PS if you are
    concerned about the whole gay moment it is not a big deal yes lefo did
    dance with A man and did a weird dance with Gaston during the song
    Gaston. But aside from that it is a remarkable movie that is not to be
    missed

  • Igenlode WordsmithMarch 31, 2017Reply

    Tries too hard

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • merlin-80979March 31, 2017Reply

    Wonderful

    I will keep this short. Went with my adult daughter who grew up with
    the Disney Animated movie which was one of her favourites. Went in with
    no preconceptions or expectations. We adored it. Love Emma Watson.
    Can’t understand the horrible hatred some people out there have for
    her(and usually personally aimed). Thoroughly entertained and will go
    and see it again. Well done Disney. Wonderful casting, gorgeous
    costumes. Pure entertainment.

  • Tan NguyenApril 1, 2017Reply

    The end was too politically correct

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • chelsgotmailApril 1, 2017Reply

    Fantastic

    This movie could not have been better! They stuck to the original
    songs, the original plot. The casting was spot on. A perfect Belle &
    Beast! Just phenomenal! The yellow dress was just fabulous. I wouldn’t
    have changed a thing. It was hard not to sing along in the theater! The
    acting was superb, very touching.

  • Jackson Booth-MillardApril 1, 2017Reply

    Beauty and the Beast

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • SixseventyOne671April 1, 2017Reply

    Decent movie

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • eagandersongilApril 1, 2017Reply

    An adaptation almost at the Disney level

    ”The beautiful and the beast” is a good musical, a great adaptation,
    with many hits, but also with some mistakes. With a script coming from
    the animation of 91, we have some changes for the worse, like trying to
    create a suspense over the beautiful mother, and solve this mystery in
    a scene that completely escapes the rhythm of the movie, such a mystery
    would not have to exist or could be solved In 2 min, because such a
    plot is created for the development of the father’s character, but
    really, it does not work, other small changes were the king’s employees
    become more and more inanimate and the castle collapses more as the
    pellets fall, that change was Great, more, the script follows the
    pattern, with scenes equal to the animation – which is not bad – and a
    great development of the village in relation to the beautiful and the
    passion point between beautiful and the beast. The film talks about how
    the quest for knowledge was something seen with strangeness, and the
    film is completely full of diversity, I am against putting gay actors,
    whites, blacks, women … just to meet quota, ”the beautiful and the
    beast ”Changes the character in an extremely natural way, and the
    change gets even better. We have a photograph that mixes the white of
    the village with the gray of the castle, we also have a great mix and
    sound editing, a completely confused assembly, and we have a makeup and
    a costume simply spectacular (a sure indication to Oscar in the
    costumes). Emma watson is not a painter in terms of acting, but
    fulfills her role as beautiful, and at times even charms, Josh Gad is
    great, and incredible as it may seem, has an incredible chemistry with
    the character of Luke Evans, at last , We have problems in the script,
    and problems of continuity, but the film pleases, and much.

  • prossholcApril 1, 2017Reply

    My life will never be the same

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • moonspinner55April 1, 2017Reply

    Expensive but not expansive…everything money can buy or manufacture except charm and spirit

    Disney trying to top themselves. This live-action rendering of the
    studio’s 1991 animated version of the oft-told fairy tale is Disney’s
    way of giving family-friendly audiences a ‘treat’ while raking in big
    money the easy way: by delivery a presold product, one with name and
    song value–and built-in approval ratings. At a debutante ball in 18th
    century France, an old hag casts a spell on the partygoers after she is
    rebuffed (seems she’s an enchantress in disguise, though we have no
    idea why); the selfish prince of the manor is then turned into a
    beastly creature, while his attendants are turned into (talking)
    objects. Her spell will be broken once the prince learns about true
    love, though this must happen before the last pedal on the
    enchantress’s rose falls… Ideally, this material is timeless and
    should entertain those who do not know the story and approach it with a
    fresh perspective. However, while Disney’s previous version broke new
    ground for animated musicals, this dark, lead-footed endeavor never
    lifts off, remaining flatly earthbound despite the familiar songs and
    characters. When trying for a little humor, scenarists Stephen Chbosky
    and Evan Spiliotopoulos cannot come up with anything other than dry
    sarcasm, which doesn’t wear well on their princess Belle, played by a
    miscast Emma Watson. Whether feigning indignation or attempting to
    register awe, Watson approaches her part with a firm jaw and a
    righteous tone, as if this were a feminist mock-up; when she asks the
    Beast if he’s joking when he offers his castle to her, she sounds like
    the captain of a cheerleading squad. The art direction and design of
    this preconceived blockbuster is fussy and forgettable–no one will
    come out of this movie saying that it transported them to another time
    and place–while the unobtrusive supporting cast plays it safe, perhaps
    so as not to be in competition with their animated counterparts.
    Somewhere, French filmmaker Jean Cocteau (who helmed the 1946 version,
    ”La Belle et la Bête”) is smiling, for trendy blockbusters come and go
    but art remains truly timeless. *1/2 from ****

  • Gonzalo LlancaApril 1, 2017Reply

    Beutuful

    Beauty and the Beast It tells the classic story of Disney, in which a
    Bella (Emma Watson) after its father (Kevin Kline) was imprisoned by
    the Beast (Dan Stevens). After exchanging roles with her father, Bella,
    is imprisoned by the Evil Beast?

    Let’s start with the actors. Emma Watson as Bella is a Disney hacienda,
    unfortunately I went to see her in Spanish. For me the English seat is
    the best there is. Dan Stevens as the Beast can not be said any more.
    Because most of the work was done by the effects. But the character I
    liked the most was Le Fou, interjected by Gosh Gad, after realizing
    that he is on the bad side change sides, for a few moments. Ian
    Mackellen and Ewwan McGregor (Cogsworth and Lumière respectively)
    seemed very good, a very important impulse to the film.

    The music is very well used, I would put one point less than La La
    Land. It should also be said that La La Land and La Bella y la Bestia
    have different styles of music. This very well used music in this
    movie, it would not seem strange that I had an Oscar nomination for
    best song or best soundtrack.

    Beautiful 7/10

  • destinylives52April 1, 2017Reply

    Great Re-make Of A Tale As Old As Time

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • shelbylyn-92984April 1, 2017Reply

    Disappointing

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • Kendall MeadApril 2, 2017Reply

    A Little to Long.

    Disney did a wonderful job making this film absolutely beautiful. My
    favorite piece of craftsmanship that was in this film was the costumes.
    The simplicity of Belle’s costumes throughout were remarkably gorgeous
    and the details on the villagers costumers were absolutely stunning in
    their simplicity as well.. Another aspect that I thought was very well
    done was Emma Watson’s acting. Being that most of the film’s characters
    were CGI I think she did a wonderful job from her facial expressions to
    her emotions working on a green screen. However, the reason I did not
    give this film a higher review was because it was a little long for my
    taste. The original film was only an hour and a half and this one had
    added on an additional thirty minutes and I believe that these minutes
    were not needed. At times, the movie did seem to drag on and I found
    myself drifting off and thinking about other things, so the time was
    something that definitely needed to be improved upon.

  • Dan HardenApril 2, 2017Reply

    Beauty in the eyes of the beholder

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • dtpomeroyApril 2, 2017Reply

    Revelatory

    Went with my son to see a movie about a beauty and a beast not
    expecting to witness a film about the new American president. Only when
    Belle tells Gaston she cannot marry him because ”there is no love in
    your heart” does it occur to me the Gaston character is mirror image of
    the current occupant of the White House. Narcissist on reveal, self
    centered, indifferent to others, willing to deceive, defile, deflect
    and behave in a categorically cruel, offensive and desultory manner, as
    unlikable as any villain that could possibly be depicted. Thanks to the
    producers for depicting a character more than vaguely familiar to
    American audiences. Stunning similarities unveiled artfully.

  • Royce RApril 2, 2017Reply

    Hermmm

    Before entering the theater, I found myself scoffing at a review by
    someone on IMDb, complaining it was a shot for shot of the animated
    version. Saying, ”duuuh”. Every line and scene from the trailer was
    identical; da f*** did you expect?! But oh wooooow was she wrong! It
    was a compilation of the animated movie and the Broadway adaptation!!
    Bringing a new experience for some and the best of both worlds for
    others!

    Worth the watch.

  • chrislef21April 2, 2017Reply

    Not a bad adaptation

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • hjalsayeghApril 2, 2017Reply

    Flat Soda

    OK so I’m that one person you know that hates that movie or TV show
    that the whole world loves, the snobbish hipster that just shrugs off
    the popular and goes for the one thing that people won’t look at twice.

    But you know what, even if I didn’t like the original Beauty and the
    beast I still acknowledged it’s beauty and mastery. this one was just
    flat and oddly directed…

    WORST PARTS =

    – The songs, just imagine a dove flying in the air… it now dropped
    like a rock to the pavement and somehow changed into a filthy pigeon
    along the way. that’s the songs in this film and sadly there are so
    many of them that it’s almost a musical, also for the iconic ones from
    the classic the comparisons just make them worst.

    – The shot framing, there is something very weird with how this was
    directed. it’s like you don’t know where you are supposed to focus on,
    everything blends with everything and the thing that was supposed to
    stand out… doesn’t…. this really shows in the village song as Bella
    blends rather then stand out.

    – CGI…. although the details on the furniture is lovely the whole
    effect is more nightmare fuel (that wardrobe is creepy and yet they
    love it so much that they keep zooming in on it!)

    – Bella. No offense to Emma Watson but she can’t sing and this is
    almost a musical so she sounds flat and it brings her entire preformace
    down, whenever she’s on screen I’m just bored.

    – The Songs/Musicals, it bears repeating how flat they were and there
    are just A lot of them.

    BEST PARTS

    – Gaston and LeFou, They provided the humor and MUCH needed energy,
    seriously everything else in this film is so flat and everyone sounds
    so bored that those two are the only ones that look and sound like
    they’re having fun.

    – The costume designs, those are actually really beautiful and vibrant.

    – The third act is actually good and high in energy, I guess they
    wanted to wake you up before you leave the theater.

    I’ll just note that nostalgia is a factor which elevated this movie a
    bit, I can see people liking it for that as it is a serviceable movie
    for that…

  • ScreenwriterVAApril 2, 2017Reply

    Main characters just too creepy

    As a huge fan of the original Disney animated pic, there were several
    issues I had with this live action remake. Namely, the Beast and
    Lumiere. The Beast’s horns made him look like the devil, as well as
    nothing like the original Beast in the animated movie. Why change that?
    It gave me the creeps. Also, making him two-legged only, instead of
    sometimes four-legged like in the original movie was distracting. As
    for Lumiere, there was nothing charming about his face at all. That too
    was creepy, the kind of thing that scares you in your dreams.

    Thirdly, where was the delightful song, ”Only Human Again,” by the
    original team of Ashman and Mencken, that made it to the stage
    production? That would have been much better than the forgettable tunes
    by Mencken and Rice.

    And lastly, why mess with Beauty’s original gorgeous yellow dress? The
    one Emma Watson wore was nice; it just wasn’t Beauty’s.

    So, I would not take little children to this movie. Let them enjoy the
    original animated feature or the stage production. No bad dreams there.

  • smartljdApril 2, 2017Reply

    Disappointed

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • ephiles2April 2, 2017Reply

    Thumbs down

    Emma great actress, very poor casting! I just couldn’t buy the
    Hogwart’s wizard as Belle….I wanted her to look and sound like a
    totally different character. She made me hate mud bloods Any muggle
    with better vocals and a SMILE would have been better. But…….Great
    to here the songs again!

  • christinejones89April 2, 2017Reply

    Fantastic film!

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • Dave ArcherApril 2, 2017Reply

    The animated version is better – and shorter

    The animated Beauty and the Beast is one of the few movies I own on
    DVD*. I had high hopes for the live action version, but alas, it was
    not meant to be.

    With a running time of 129 minutes, the new version is over 50% longer
    than the animated version – and it feels like it. The movie seems
    padded and I know I fell asleep at least once. (I kept imagining the
    Disney exec’s telling the producers: ”We’ve spent a fortune on sets,
    costumes and set dressings, and damn it, we want to get our money’s
    worth.”) Having said that, the production design IS gorgeous, but
    oftentimes seems to take the place of story and plot.

    As to the cast, I’ve never understood Emma Watson’s appeal, Dan
    Steven’s Beast is mostly CGI (as obviously are the castle’s
    inhabitants) so that leaves Luke Evans as a very good bad Gaston, and
    Josh Gas as his conflicted sidekick.

    The movie briefly comes to life with the three big productions number
    of Belle, Gaston and especially Be Our Guest. The closing cast credits
    are equally good, but it’s a long wait to get to them…

    Some of the CGI is surprisingly poor, such as the sequence towards the
    end when the Beast is swinging along the castle’s rooftop. And, the
    cinematography is downright vertiginous in a couple of shots where the
    camera pans and tilts from the castle to the surrounding countryside.

    See it now if you have kids or love the story. Otherwise, wait for the
    DVD, watch the three big musical numbers and the closing credits, and
    call it good.

  • crazy_smilersApril 2, 2017Reply

    Better than expected.

    Okay I was not too thrilled over the movie by the time it was coming
    out. First announced yes. I wasn’t so happy to see it anymore because
    Emma Watson got the role of Belle. I like Emma but prefer unknown women
    as the classic princesses. Even when I heard Angelina was Maleificent
    but I LOVED her in the role after all. So with Emma, I didn’t love it
    but she suited the part. Did rather well and I was pleased.

    After the beast transformed at the end I was smitten with Matthew from
    Downton Abbey. Lol Oh how I miss thee. The show is no more.

    Another thing was the other characters. I did not like their new looks.
    That also wasn’t so bad when watching. Although I much prefer Lumiere
    and his women more like how they were. The bird is weird. Oh and Mrs
    Potts, I miss the spout being her nose. Well I liked the cartoon ones
    much more but I wasn’t as bothered by these ones as I had thought. Same
    for the beast. In the posters and ads he looked extra ugly but when
    watching it he was actually similar to the Disney beast.

    Lastly I thought this was going to be a whole new telling of the tale
    but it was actually a retelling of the classic which I actually enjoyed
    possibly more than a new creative spin. Including the classic songs.
    That made me happy. Wasn’t a fan of the new songs added but oh well.

    So all in all. I liked it better than I had expected. Now I want to
    watch the Disney one. Lol

  • lasalleinfb-15755April 2, 2017Reply

    An artwork

    BEAUTY AND THE BEAST (2017) I was very excited about watching this film
    but I finally found it a little bit boring. I think this is because I
    already knew the story. In spite of that I think the film was perfectly
    done. It shows all the essence of the real history and it makes you
    travel back to your childhood. Another point in favour were the special
    effects. They were very realistic and all the characters from the
    enchanted castle were awesome. In conclusion I think it is
    recommendable for everybody. It is a classic film remake into an
    artwork, and if you want to have a good time with your kids it’s the
    perfect occasion.

  • ben frasierApril 2, 2017Reply

    Visually Dramatic and Stunning

    Well, I’m almost 60, knew the story line since I was 6, have seen every
    version and this one really did blow me away with it’s stunning
    visuals. Unlike transformers where I got so much input, I went to
    sleep, Disney had me wanting more. I know I’m old school because the
    tainted part of the movie for my wife and I was the two scenes where
    the ”left wing globalists” stick in the the gay guys and the cross
    dresser. It blatantly detracted from the story line. It’s almost
    obligatory these days, but I didn’t expect it from a classic. When it
    elicited laughs from the audience instead of moans, it confirmed for me
    the ongoing degradation and desensitization of society. I’m not
    homophobic or intolerant, I’m moral. Our kids completely missed it
    which was the saddest thing about the whole experience. Token gays are
    a fact of life and so I guess I have to get with the program…. or
    leave the planet.

  • fuzzysweater-09099April 2, 2017Reply

    I Think I’m Obsessed With This Movie…

    To start off, I absolutely loved the original 1991 film and admired
    Belle as a character ever since I was a young child. But the original
    did have multiple plot holes such as the age of Prince Adam when the
    enchantress put the curse on him and his servants. But in this remake
    this plot hole is fixed by showing the Prince as an adult when the
    enchantress showed up at his palace and by changing the lyrics in ”Be
    our guest” from ”ten years we’ve been rusting” to ”to long we’ve been
    rusting.” Not to mention the fact that the last rose petal was set to
    fall on the prince’s 21st birthday in the 1991 film. This was changed
    by simply not giving the final rose petal a known due date.

    I also believe that Emma Watson made a good Belle because she is the
    closest thing to a human Belle. She did the role well and didn’t seem
    out of character at any time. Even though she didn’t really sound all
    that close to the animated Belle in her singing parts it’s not
    necessarily a big deal. The rest of the casting in this movie was great
    as well and the props and sets in the film were grand and magical as
    well. My favorite performance in this movie was probably Josh Gad as
    Lefou, he truly brought his character to life and the Gaston song in
    the bar was just so amazing to watch! It was definitely a magical film
    for me.

    So in conclusion, I honestly can’t wait till this movie gets on DVD and
    blu-ray because I will continue to watch it over and over and over
    again. I highly recommend it to Disney fans, non Disney fans and people
    who just want to watch a charming movie.

    Thank you for reading my review!

  • mozziecatApril 3, 2017Reply

    Good – but…

    May be some spoilers for those who have never seen any version of
    beauty and the beast. Of course the story is well known – nothing much
    changes in this version. In fact, it’s pretty point by point with the
    animated film. The sets and animation is quite good and they did choose
    great actors for the characters, the costumes are wonderful and all the
    singing is great. It just seemed to lack a bit of magic to me. The
    scenes with Maurice didn’t seem to build up the drama about the beast
    enough. The editing or pace was quite rushed in his scenes. Not enough
    tension was built in so it didn’t make as much sense why Gaston would
    do anything he did. It seems as if they wanted so much to build up the
    gay character that they lost the story in favor of an agenda.

  • James StephensApril 3, 2017Reply

    Don’t believe the negativity

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • John MaverickApril 3, 2017Reply

    Only ‘True Love’ can break the spell.

    ‘Beauty and the Beast’ is Disney’s take on retelling their classic 1991
    animated feature in a live-action version. Introducing an all new cast
    but familiar beats, and with a perfect blue-print to follow, does this
    version recapture that of it’s predecessor?

    1. First and foremost, if you are a fan of the 1991 film, you must try
    your best to see this film with an open mind. Although the plot in the
    same and the story unfolds the exact same way, there are still changes
    and different variations of things here and there. Everyone’s main
    complaint is the look of the Beast (Dan Stevens). I would agree that he
    should have more of a vicious look, but the more I thought about it, if
    the original design of the beast from the animated film was translated
    into live-action, he would have been too terrifying and scare the
    daylights out of the younger audiences. In that sense, I can see why
    Disney altered him to be more subtle in appearance for that reason.

    2. Alan Menken (the veteran Disney composer) returns to score this
    film, and he does yet another fantastic job in recreating his original
    songs for the new cast. The movie is approximately 120mins, and this
    can be in part to the addition of a couple new songs as well as more
    fleshed out back-stories, especially that of Belle and the Beast.
    Another complaint that crossed my ears, was the casting of Ewan
    McGregor as Lumiere, having been criticized for his shaky French accent
    judging by the trailers. Need not worry, you completely forget about
    your doubts when you see him on screen. Not only are the CGI effects
    fantastic, but Lumiere completely steals the show whenever he is on
    screen, especially during the ”Be Our Guest” song and dance number.

    3. The movie however, is not without flaws. To begin with, as beautiful
    as Emma Watson might be, she in no way captures the spirit of Belle.
    Coming to her father’s rescue a couple times doesn’t quite sell the
    point that she is as brave and courageous as she’s supposed to be. She
    only skims the surface of the character without bringing much depth to
    it at all. Dan Steven as the ‘Beast’ however, shows more conviction in
    his role as the cursed Prince. His persona and feeling of a tortured
    soul comes closest to that of Robby Benson who voiced the Beast in the
    original. Sharing (a little but not as bad) the same lack of character
    depth as Emma Watson, Luke Evans (to me) feels slightly miscast as the
    handsome yet egotistical Gaston.

    4. I applaud Bill Condon’s direction as I was blown away by every
    theatrical song/dance sequences in this film. Of course the most
    outstanding being the classic ballroom scene which brought tears to my
    eyes. I also appreciate that the Beast finally gets to perform his own
    solo song which expressed his inner struggle of both anger and
    compassion. Something which was clearly missing from the animated film.
    There is no arguing with Disney especially when it comes to their CGI
    department, because they can do no wrong. The production design in
    beyond incredible with not a hair out of place. The magic is surely
    recaptured whether you admit it or not. This and ‘The Jungle Book’
    surely stand out in Disney’s live-action line-up thus far.

    Fans will undoubtedly nitpick this film as much as they can simply
    because the animated one is sheer perfection in their eyes. Not saying
    it’s not, but it be unwise not to give this version a chance, because
    it does it’s best and delivers beat for beat in a spectacular way:)

  • MoviemanApril 3, 2017Reply

    Artificial Art

    Missing magic, for the entire film you’re waiting for a grande finale
    trick that will make up for it all. Sadly the climax is fast tracked
    and dull to say the least. The 2D tea party is the largest let down,
    followed by a flame-less candle and a faceless clock. Artificial
    artwork that should have been a painted dream, you’re left wondering
    who had the permission to produce this, and had Walt been present,
    would he have let Disney be involved.

  • bostonandblakesmomApril 3, 2017Reply

    Review of Beauty and the Beast

    Beauty and the Beast was one of my childhood favorites, and I was
    excited to watch this one with my kids. I thought that they followed
    the story line pretty well. I was not a huge fan of the Beast’s
    physical features, I don’t know, I think I wanted him to look more like
    the Beast from the original film. I felt that the singing was great and
    all the actors did a great job portraying their characters and that
    overall the film was pretty good. I just did not get the same great
    feeling as when I watch the original.

  • KimApril 3, 2017Reply

    Excellent!!

    This was an excellent, fun and whimsical film! The characters were
    great and the story line follows very closely to the original.I
    actually believe it may even be better than the original. I would
    totally go see it again, one of my favorite Disney movies ever made.
    You WILL NOT be disappointed and your kids will love it too!

  • arfdawg-1April 3, 2017Reply

    The Pandering of Identity Politics

    The Plot. If you don’t know the plot, you have been living under a rock
    for 40 years.

    So the direction is good. The look of the movie is good. The exposition
    is good. The special effects are good. The acting is decent. But there
    is something missing. You’ll leave the movie feeling empty. There is no
    heart to this movie.

    It’s mechanical.

    And then there is the pandering like I’ve never seen. Over the top
    flaming gay characters abound and every person of color is partnered
    with a white person. What? They couldn’t find one set of blacks to be
    partnered?

    It’s really offensive to our sensibilities because movies now have been
    reduced to identity politics and quotas instead of making good movies.

    Disney must be spinning in his grave.

  • comps-784-38265April 4, 2017Reply

    Not a beauty nor a beast, but presentable Disney offering

    OK why make another Beauty & The Beast?

    I thought the older cartoon was pretty good and there are other film
    versions. The reason for this remake of course, is to make more money
    from a sure bet.

    With real actors, I thought maybe, it could have been made more
    appealing to adults.

    It does play safe to the beloved fairytale and to politically correct
    doctrine, include everybody, offend nobody.

    There is nothing bad about this film as such. They certainly did not
    botch their version of a classic story.

    Minor criticisms (I am just knitpicking here)

    Emma Watson was unremarkable as Belle.

    I found the bursting into song every 5 minutes a little wearisome, and
    I know this is heresy, but a little more popular music.

    Maurice (Belles father) was sliding off a snowy rocky outcrop about to
    be eaten by wolves then suddenly he’s on his horse galloping away.

    All in all, it is, what it says on the tin.

    ”Beauty & The Beast By Disney”

    I doubt it will be a ‘classic’ I had a nagging feeling it just ‘missed
    the boat’ for it.

  • OberratedApril 4, 2017Reply

    Another home-run for Disney’s live-action re-imagining

    Disney continues to knock home-runs out of the park with their plan of
    re-imagining their animated classics and this time they have done so
    again with ”Beauty and the Beast”.

    Headed by the beauty herself, Emma Watson, the film has a star-studded
    cast of rising stars and legends of Hollywood. The entire cast does
    such a phenomenal job at each of their own respective characters.
    Making the audience fall in love with virtually every character on
    screen. Personally, I had a strong liking for Belle (Emma Watson),
    Lumière (Ewan McGregor), and LeFou (Josh Gad).

    Visually, the film is beautiful and eye-popping. From the visuals of
    the live environment surrounding the castle or village to the animation
    involved in the music numbers. Everything was quite beautiful.

    My only gripe with any form of animation was with Beast. There has been
    criticism about his animation which I can half agree with. In some
    scenes, he was great and his animation wasn’t distracting but in other
    scenes, his movement was choppy and evidently off.

    Ultimately, ”Beauty and the Beast” was a great live-action film. Disney
    continues to work its magic re-imagining their classics and continues
    to work their fool-proof formula.

    — Oberrated.com —

  • orangecolouredskyApril 4, 2017Reply

    Shameless money grab that is sub-par at best

    Let me preface by saying that while the ’91 cartoon is my favorite
    movie of all time, I am not a strict cartoon purist, as the Broadway
    musical of BATB is also one of my favorites and there are other takes
    on the fairy tale that I really enjoy as well. But, when you are doing
    the songs from the cartoon and even replicate some scenes
    shot-for-shot, I expect that the characters should feel familiar and
    the quality of the production should live up to its predecessor.
    Unfortunately, this 2017 version falls dreadfully short.

    CASTING – The biggest blunder is Emma Watson in the lead role. This is
    not to disparage her as an actress in general, but she is not right for
    this. Her Belle lacks grace, enthusiasm, warmth and sincerity. She
    seems bored, and while it sounds like she could have quite a sweet
    voice with further training, it is evident she does not have that skill
    set yet. In the other title role, Dan Stevens’ Beast is all CGI and you
    never forget it. They’ve also edited his voice to make him sound more
    ”beastly”, which makes his solo awkward to listen to. One has to wonder
    why they didn’t just cast someone with a deeper voice then? The
    character also seems a more like a grumpy old man than a tortured soul
    in a beastly body. Why did Disney cast ”Hollywood names” instead of
    people who were best for the role? It’s not like there was ever a doubt
    this would be a box office smash anyway given the beloved source
    material. I also never believed for a moment the relationship between
    any of the characters with the exception of the playful
    rivalry/camaraderie between Cogsworth & Lumiere.

    CGI AND MUSIC – For a ”live action” version, it certainly feels more
    stilted and unreal. The CGI in general looks fake, and the enchanted
    objects are creepy. There are new songs but they are mostly dull. Now,
    I think Alan Menken is a musical genius, so perhaps it had something to
    do with having to write songs for non- singers. The Beast’s new song is
    the best of the bunch, but the emotion doesn’t seem appropriate for the
    scene. The reused songs have new arrangements & new lyrics, but with
    the exception of The Mob Song, the changes are distracting and feel
    oddly paced.

    STORYLINE – In truth, the whole movie is oddly paced. Things are
    dragged out that don’t need to be, and other things zoom by that should
    have been fleshed out. They give backstories, but odd ones at odd times
    in odd ways. Minor spoilers: For example, Gaston is a soldier who saved
    the village and that’s why everyone loves him. He likes Belle for her
    looks but also her dignity.By giving the villagers a very good reason
    to like him, he is no longer a foil for the Beast. Gaston is supposed
    to be handsome, strong and charismatic and people equate that with
    being good. The Beast is ugly so they automatically think he’s bad. Is
    not the moral that it’s actually what’s on the inside that counts? It
    seems they have forgotten the point. Even Belle makes a joke in poor
    taste at the end which undermines the message. Furthermore, significant
    details are altered which result in the Beast not changing & the leads
    basically falling in love by accident, and (SPOILER) the enchanted rose
    has no real significance in the end (END SPOILER)

    I could say more, but I think you get the picture. I wanted to like it,
    but it grossly failed to enchant.

  • martin-807-452270April 5, 2017Reply

    Strangely boring

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • Teodora DumitrescuApril 5, 2017Reply

    Gives credit to the old one

    I really wanted to like this one. Although I did read many negative
    reviews. But I figured I would go there with close to no expectations
    and have a nice time because all movies are OK in cinema. And this one
    has good actors and good story and big budget – how bad can it be? Well
    I actually struggled not to leave in middle of the film.

    I do have one fault: I have seen the old movie a few times and although
    I tried not to, my mind kept replaying the old one in parallel with
    this new one.But this is because it completely fails to capture your
    attention. It is devoid of any feeling. When a movie is this bad is
    usually the director so I mostly blame him but all the other aspects
    are also bad. The actors have no chemistry (there is no feeling of a
    relation between beauty and the beast), the objects are indeed creepy
    from time to time, the scenario has been slightly altered but in all
    the wrong ways and the movie’s CGI is also embarrassing at times. The
    scenery is also far to shiny, I couldn’t stay focused on the
    characters, you constantly have this feeling that the screen is to
    small and the 3D is also silly at times (rocks and arrows rushing into
    your eyes, I thought we left that behind).

    I stayed hoping that I will appreciate some parts of it but I actually
    hated it from the first words (the narration has no magic, it just
    sound like a bored woman) to the last lines between Belle and the
    Prince.

    The only good thing is that it makes you appreciate the old one.
    Sometimes we take things for granted and believe that it’s easy to make
    a good movie. I mean good story, good actors what can go wrong, right?
    I used to see the old movie like a typical beautiful Disney cartoon but
    I have a lot more consideration for it now.

  • jlucascaballeroApril 5, 2017Reply

    characters

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • Student1234April 5, 2017Reply

    Petals Fall as a Curse Finalizes. Beauty and the Beast (2017) Movie review.

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • Maleeha KeswaniApril 5, 2017Reply

    Beauty and the Beast 2017 movie review

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • FedgirlApril 5, 2017Reply

    Magical

    Went to see this movie last night and dragged my husband along for
    company as all my movie ‘buddies’ had already been to see it. I fully
    expected him to be nodding off early into the film, but to my surprise
    he actually enjoyed it. As for me – I loved it. It has been a long time
    since I’ve been to see a good musical (La La Land doesn’t fall into
    this category for me…dismal film); however, for 2+ hours I was able
    to completely lose myself in this movie and wasn’t bored for one
    minute. The one thing I can’t understand is the criticism that Emma
    Watson has been receiving from lots of reviewers as I thought she was
    the perfect Belle. Some people even referred to her as being
    ‘unemotional’ and too ‘cold’. For me; however, Emma captured Belle
    exquisitely, with just the right mix of angst, vulnerability, strength,
    longing – and in the end, love. She is a natural beauty without the
    typical Hollywood glamour – a refreshing change if you ask me. As for
    Luke Evans – he most definitely nailed it as Gaston!

  • Coffe OApril 5, 2017Reply

    Brilliant

    Never seen the previous version, heard about it though. Film was pretty
    good but would have gained a higher score from me if some Watson nudity
    was provided.

    Usually I buy a medium popcorn, did the same thing now. Only managed to
    eat half of it though. Think that I will bring a sandwich next time.

  • julia-glizApril 5, 2017Reply

    Nice adaptation of Disney animation

    It is really beautiful and nice adaptation of one of my favorite Disney
    animations. Very colorful and relaxing. Although I struggle to watch
    Watson in role of Belle. Wasn’t anyone better? She was OK in total, but
    she just doesn’t look like beautiful Belle. On other part Stevens
    really surprised me, he was just copy of Adam.

  • calvinnmeApril 5, 2017Reply

    A remake that was well done

    As much as it pains me to see movies being remade, I find that I am
    able to give Disney a pass for this. I thoroughly enjoyed Beauty and
    the Beast . I have been a fan of Emma Watson’s, since first watching
    the ”Harry Potter” series several years ago. It is evident she is not a
    strong singer, but her singing was pleasant enough. I think I doubted
    Disney’s decision to cast her as Belle, but after seeing the movie, I
    feel as if those doubts have been put to rest.

    I also thought the rest of the casting was well done. Dan Stevens of
    Downton Abbey fame was great as The Beast (in this version, he even
    gets to sing a song) and Kevin Kline was great as Maurice, Belle’s
    father. Emma Thompson never fails to impress me. She was one of the
    people I was extremely glad was cast in this film. She did Angela
    Lansbury proud. Josh Gad (Lefou) is perhaps most famous for portraying
    the lovable snowman, Olaf, in Disney’s 2013 animated film, ”Frozen”
    (although I knew him mainly from the raunchy Broadway show, ”Book of
    Mormon,” but that’s a story for another time). Luke Evans (Gaston): I
    am not as familiar with him; the only film of his I’ve seen is
    ”Dracula: Untold.” He was pretty good as well. Ian McKellen and Ewan
    McGregor were wonderful as usual. The one I was impressed with the
    most, was 6-time Tony winner Audra McDonald. I have been a fan of hers
    since the year 2000 when I first watched Disney’s ”Annie”, and she
    never fails to amaze me with her consistency and overall talent. Her
    voice was, by far, the best in the movie.

    The cinematography and special effects were obviously all there. When
    you get a huge company like Disney behind a product, they naturally
    have all the money and the resources available to make the best quality
    motion picture in the technical aspects that they want.

    Give this movie a try, it was truly beautiful.

  • Gregory RothgebApril 6, 2017Reply

    Try the grey stuff it’s delicious

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • jarmstrong-96551April 6, 2017Reply

    The Iconic Rose Drops the Mic

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • tavmApril 6, 2017Reply

    This new version of Disney’s Beauty and the Beast seemed just as excellent as the previous animated version

    For weeks, part of me dreaded watching this mostly literal Disney
    live-action remake of its deservedly praised and Oscar-nominated
    animated version from 1991. Now that I’ve seen it, I was mostly
    enthralled with what I saw. The songs are as well-performed as ever and
    the added ones don’t make the movie too long. The CGI used to animate
    the inanimate objects were also pretty charming. And the actors cast
    for the story were very compelling to watch. I remember crying in
    several spots, that’s how much I enjoyed it. And the Dolby screen I saw
    it on was also a wonderful treat for me and my movie theatre-working
    friend who had watched it before but not on Dolby. There were some
    added lines that explained some things more clearly so that was another
    thing I liked about this version. To tell the truth, I’d probably have
    to watch the other version again to make comparisons so for now I’d say
    I like each version equally. So that’s a high recommendation of this
    version of Beauty and the Beast.

  • Shlomo JonesApril 6, 2017Reply

    Moral of the Story: Marry for Money

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • atiyaahsanApril 6, 2017Reply

    Deserves all the accolades and more….!

    I’d been waiting for this movie for nearly an year ever since the first
    trailer came out, and I finally got to see it the way it deserved to be
    seen, seated in a plush, velvety, reclining couch, in my city’s best
    ”Royal Cinema” in 3-D. The animated original is a childhood classic of
    mine; I know all the songs and nearly all the scenes by heart. Going by
    the trailer, and learning about all the preparation that had gone in to
    its making, I was expecting it to be a grand affair, and it was just
    that, AND MORE…..! Everything from the luxurious sets, to the lavish
    costumes, the splendid dancing and the mesmerizing songs at once
    transported you to another world. I felt like I was watching a grand
    re-enactment of a Broadway musical and not a live- action version of a
    Disney animation. I kid you not when I say that I had the silliest grin
    plastered across my face every time a familiar song number came on, as
    I knew all the lyrics and every time an usher saw me singing along to
    the tune, they thought I was beckoning them to order food service. I
    believe Luke Evans a.k.a Gaston deserves a special mention; his role
    was strong and he portrayed it perfectly. Kevin Kline’s contribution
    was limited. It’s a shame we didn’t get to see Emma Thompson (Mrs.
    Potts) and Ian McKellen (Mr. Cogsworth) spend much time on screen in
    their human forms but their household crockery/furniture versions were
    also effectively entertaining (especially Ewan McGregor as Lumiere). I
    have to admit, I wasn’t completely sold on Emma Watson playing Bella as
    I felt she lacked the natural charm to portray Bella as a personable
    character and I’m afraid she did fall rather short in the beginning but
    I confess she’d won me over by the end and she and Dan Stevens made a
    lovely couple. I could tell they had put in considerable effort to
    master the dance moves in the ballroom scenes which were elevated to an
    ethereal level with their elegant outfits, the timeless music and their
    effortless gliding across the ballroom floor. All in all, it was a
    truly magical film as is the trademark of most Disney productions and I
    recommend all mothers take their daughters to see this film and share
    this amazingly delightful experience.

  • John William H.April 6, 2017Reply

    Adequate but unnecessary remake of Disney’s ’91 Classic.

    Beauty and the Beast is the most recent installment in Disney’s
    ever-growing library of live-action remakes based on the company’s
    famous animated movies of ‘yore’. Why is Disney doing this again? To
    keep its non-Marvel, non-Star Wars, and non-Pixar stuff relevant with
    the times. For the most part, Beauty works well in updating its classic
    Best Picture-nominated precursor. But it’s mostly pointless and
    practically shot-by-shot and beat-by-beat remake that introduces just
    enough material to justify its existence. And the original is STILL a
    modern film by today’s standards.

    There’s some truly pretty moments here and there, but because this film
    is live-action, you can feel the painfully obvious reality that THIS
    Beauty and the Beast film lacks the energy and expression of the 1991
    original. Despite all the CGI-fueled imagery helping give some extra
    life to some of the set-pieces, we’ve seen these pieces before in the
    original. ‘Be Our Guest’ is personally the piece I consider to stand
    out the most in this interpretation. Ewan McGregor does have a unique
    singing voice: I’ll give him that.

    This growing trend in Disney does seem to be working, I understand why
    they’re pursuing remaking their own movies, but how far can you go once
    you’ve run out of animated movies to remake? They can’t last and work
    forever. I’m guessing that there’ll be a remake of The Little Mermaid
    starring Sophie Turner as Ariel or something, and Melissa McCarthy as
    Ursula; or Henry Cavill as Prince Eric? Michael B. Jordan as Sebastian?
    *Groan* Disney, please keep focusing on Star Wars for the time being.
    And don’t lose sight of the greatness Pixar affords your company in the
    field of originality and creativity.

    Anyway, Beauty and the Beast: the first truly interesting successor to
    the original 1991 film (the straight to DVD sequel vermin can FINALLY
    be forgotten: for good)!

  • lauravalerietaylorApril 6, 2017Reply

    Mixed Feelings

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • Tiffany LeApril 6, 2017Reply

    The Tale Beauty and The Beast

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • lingweichuapipafiddleApril 6, 2017Reply

    Not too bad. But I personally felt that the 1991 version is still the best

    I think the problem with Disney live-action remakes, is that there’s
    such awkwardness in the layout, I personally felt that in the case of
    Beauty and the Beast, the live-action version canR