"Beauty and the Beast" retells the Disney's version of the French fairy-tale written by Gabrielle-Suzanne Barbot de Villeneuve and published in 1740. The story is very similar to the magnificent 1991 animation and highly attractive. However this 2017 version is uneven, with the most boring songs that anyone could imagine and reasonable acting despite the great names in the cast. But the top-notch Computer Graphic Imagery (CGI) and the cinematography are worthwhile watching. Keep awake along the musical scenes and you may like and be surprised by this version. My vote is seven. Show Title (Brazil): "A Bela e a Fera" ("The Beauty and the Beast") 62 out of 96 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote. Permalink 7/10 Not Quite as Good as the Original An adaptation of the fairy tale about a monstrous-looking prince and a young woman who fall in love. If you have one of the all-time greatest cartoons, there are things you can do with it. Turn it into a musical is one. But turn it into a live-action version with practically nothing changed (though a few scenes added) may not be your best idea. Especially if such a version relies on CGI and you have neither the time nor the ability to pull it off. But if you are going to do it anyway, I suppose you could do much worse. Emma Watson was the ideal casting choice and no one else would have worked. No one. Josh Gad is spot on as LeFou. The Beast could be better, perhaps. My biggest casting complaint is Maurice. I suppose in this version he is less eccentric, but why is this the case? And why so tall? Kevin Kline is fantastic, but is he really Maurice? 38 out of 58 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote. Permalink 5/10 I'll take the cartoon version thank you Warning: Spoilers Disney has gotten on a kick of making live action versions of their classic cartoons, and why not? People are flocking to these things, so much so that this one made over 500 million in the US alone. Why come up with something original, when you can just redo the same thing and the people act like it is the best thing since sliced bread. Saves writers the trouble of being creative as you already have the basic structure of the story in place, just tweak it a bit and in this one they did not even bother to tweak it very much at all. Same movie essentially, but with a few added things here and there and a look that to me looks cheap. The beast looks good and some of the effects are alright, but it has a look of a movie that should have come on ABC as a special rather than a 150 plus budgeted movie meant for the big screen. The story is essentially the same. A arrogant prince is cursed by some enchantress and turned into a hideous beast. The only way he can become human is if he can truly love and be loved by another. Enter Belle, played by Emma Watson. She is a odd one in the village as she just loves to read and everyone in town thinks she is quite the strange one. Of course, this does not stop town hunk, Gaston, from pining over her and wishing to make her his bride. Belle's father gets lost one night and ends up in the Beast's clutches and Belle finds him and takes his place and becomes the Beast's prisoner; however, soon the selfish Beast begins to feel for Belle and she for him. I always thought Belle was one of the prettiest Disney princesses, so I am probably in the minority when I say, I thought Emma Watson was a horrible choice. She is so damn plain in the role as Belle and I have never understood why people think she is attractive at all. The rest of the cast is fine, I guess, but like I said, I just get a cheap television vibe when I watch this movie. About the only thing they really added that I thought worked was having Gaston be a bit more sinister in this one as he ties up Belle's father leaving him to the woods in this one. Makes one feel a bit better when he is killed than in the original where he was just a bit too eager to try and impress everyone and take out the Beast. He is more of an ass this go around and I think it works. They made his toady, Le Fou, gay in this one, and that works too. It makes more sense why he would keep wanting to hang around Gaston because he has a crush on him, himself. So, this thing made money, another one, Maleficent also made money and several other live action ones have as well, so the trend will continue. Of course, I thought the choice for Aurora was horrible in that film too, they seem to want to pick zipper girls with no figures for these roles are plain janes. I guess it could be I am from a different generation and prefer a different look than the younger generation. I still say the film could be a reenactment in the Disneyworld theme park sans the scenes at Beast's castle though. Basically, give me the cartoon over this any day of the week. 41 out of 63 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote. Permalink 10/10 One of the Best Remakes Amazed!! Probably the best word I can use to describe my feeling upon watching the film in theaters. It truly was an excellent film. It certainly had some originality, even though it was a remake of the 1991 animated classic. The characters were well driven, and came to life, more realized than I could have imagined. I still feel the animated version is far more superior, but this is definitely a close second. The acting wasn't terrible, however, Emma Watson is the most memorable as Belle. She was great. A great step for her, from the days of Hermione in the Harry Potter series. The part of Maurice was better than the animated film, Kevin Kline was nearly unnoticeable, as I didn't recognize him. 60 out of 93 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote. Permalink 3/10 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 **** 69 out of 117 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote. Permalink 8/10 A classic in its own right As an unabashed fan of the 1991 film, I came to this version ready for a fight more than one! Who dares tamper with a classic? But bit by bit, and moment by moment, I was enchanted all over again: the human performances "fleshed out" the old animated ones; the coggier Cogsworth and more limited Lumiere charmed me afresh with their differences from memory. The new songs, though surprising, fit remarkably well, and I never felt that the score missed a beat. And when all was added up, the sum was far more than any of the new and varied parts: this is a fresh masterpiece, beginning as a riff but ending with something much much more than a "cover" if Disney can do this as well with its other planned live-action/CGI versions, then count me in. This is a brilliantly-crafted film that honors and yet moves beyond its beloved original. 50 out of 72 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote. Permalink 5/10 Gorgeously produced, but without the magic, joy, charm, soul or emotional power Warning: Spoilers 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 48 out of 81 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote. Permalink 9/10 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. 23 out of 36 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote. Permalink 8/10 Beauty and the Beast (2017) Warning: Spoilers The remake of "Beauty and the Beast" is Disney's latest in live action animation. Blending real actors with CGI, it's a story most of us know (and love) about Belle and the Beast. Emma Watson (of Harry Potter fame) plays Belle, a simple country girl who is looking for her Prince Charming. She lives an ordinary life in an ordinary town surrounded by ordinary people. Trouble is, they think SHE'S strange. Gaston, the local hunk, has decided he must make Belle his wife since she clearly isn't interested in him. Fate, however, has other plans for both of them. Although the film was very pretty to look at, it lacked depth and simply did not have the heart the animated version had. I love Emma Watson, but her singing voice was adequate at best. Kevin Kline (who portrayed Belle's father) looked like he would rather be anywhere but where he was. It was Luke Evans (as Gaston) that stole the show. He stayed true to the character of Gaston, and man could he belt out a tune! Another problem I had is Disney trying to introduce a sexually confused character, LeFou. I wish someone would try to explain to me why this was done because, quite frankly, I am sick and tired of people trying to rewrite fairy tales just to make them "politically correct." Rated PG and even with its flaws, I would still recommend it. 42 out of 67 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote. Permalink 1/10 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. 396 out of 674 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote. Permalink 10/10 Reliving a childhood classic film Warning: Spoilers My first thought of a real life film Beauty and the Beast I thought disaster was gonna brew. I have been disappointed before with remakes especially to Disney classics. And hearing that Emma Watson was gonna play the lead I was like "No, no! Please no" She's Hermione Granger from Harry Potter and nothing more. So it was pretty intense to see the social media talk about it and hear their own opinions. But when the first photo came out for Emma as "Belle" I was blown away and my thoughts changed to hopefulness. As time came to see the trailers I braced myself yet again. "Would they stay true to the Disney classic or totally take it on a opposite roller coaster?" When it came out I was totally moved and in tears of joy. They did everything as they possibly could to make it real, and true to the Disney version. Little changes happened yes, like one or two songs, but they were all beautifully done and made for great reasons. All casting was beautifully done, music was perfect and it left me feeling like a child again. I think that is what is so important. When we love something we grow up with all we want is to relive those days and moments, to feel inspired and hopeful. To me that is what Beauty and The Beast did for me and I wouldn't change anything. Animated or not it still brought that magic in me once again. All I can say now is please bring more like this onto the screen! 60 out of 86 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote. Permalink 1/10 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. 423 out of 740 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote. Permalink 1/10 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. 145 out of 269 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote. Permalink 1/10 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. 349 out of 562 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote. Permalink 10/10 Walt would have loved it. Rated 11 stars and a box of tissues! Warning: Spoilers An almost perfect adaptation with many subtle changes that many people will probably miss. What I dislike is the obvious "gayness" of LeFou. A magnificent marriage of live action, animation, and CGI. "Agathe" is the "enchantress" who changes the Prince into the Beast, and yet this is never quite obvious to the townspeople. Additional songs and reworked lyrics, plus a more complete "background story" about Belle's and the Prince's parents. Only one or two scary spots and a rather pleasing interpretation of the Beast in "human" form. Belle's father is portrayed as a very clever man and not as an absent-minded buffoon. Gaston shoots The Beast several times and it's "almost bloodless" Hollywood violence. In 1991, he stabbed the Beast to death. Gaston dies as he traditionally should; never by the hand of the Disney hero or heroine. When a film or stage-play is "reborn" it's impossible to please everyone, but this one tries very hard to do so. Amazing cinematography, costumes and art direction. An outstanding cast and very well performed. I thought Emma Watson was just fine. I want that White Stallion with his built-in "GPS"! I miss the (extra) song "Human Again" and it should have been there! Enjoyable and entertaining ending titles. A great marketing idea would be the packaging of the 1991 animation and this 2017 version as a double Blu-Ray? For almost everyone except extremely small children. Curiously reviewed, as people either totally loved it or hated it! 32 out of 53 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote. Permalink 10/10 My childhood was not ruined! I have re-watched this in theaters this weekend, so I come fresh with this movie in mind. Having said that, my perception of this movie has not changed. I will also add that this story was my favorite Disney story growing up. Having watched it twice now, my experience has remained the same. I still got lost in the story, the imagery, the music, and the singing. The plot was almost completely the same as that of the cartoon version, with a few additions. I very much loved these new additions as they added depth to the story and closed some plot holes. It also helped to better establish the relationship between Belle and the Beast. P.S. Loved the gay millisecond! I don't know what all the fuss was about. 93 out of 139 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote. Permalink 2/10 Extensive review **SPOILERS BELOW** Warning: Spoilers 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. 286 out of 437 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote. Permalink 1/10 Moral of the Story: Marry for Money Warning: Spoilers Beauty and the Beast is about a deposed slave-owning aristocrat who imprisons a farm girl. She undergoes Stockholm Syndrome, identifying with her captor, then proceeds to betray her village's uprising and reinstates the slave-owning prince to power by offering her hand in marriage. Furthermore, Belle's contempt for the provincial farming community and their lack of refinement stems from vague memories she has of a more cultured upbringing in Paris. When she later is shown a vision of her childhood house and remarks "it's so small," this was a moment where she could put it all together. The lack of refinement in the rural areas was due to brutal exploitation which forced unmarried women to beg in the streets. It is likely that the community's surplus resources were taken by aristocrats like the Beast, and used to fund his opulent palace. Thus, depriving the farming community of leisure time and resources for education and arts, which would have made them more sophisticated, meeting Belle's approval. It is also possible that Gaston's intense desire to marry, which caused his nefarious plot, may be linked to levée en masse, a policy that required conscription for all unmarried French men between 18 and 25. So his patriarchal demands were a direct result of state policy to benefit the aristocracy by providing soldiers to sacrifice their lives in land disputes between inbred blue blood cousins. Then, this exploitation provided a concentration of wealth and power in the city, which created the market for her father to pursue creative employment rather than farm work. This also forced them into slums, where squalor and poor public health systems lead to the spread of plague, which is met with cold indifference by the doctor, indicating lack of public health care as a source of Belle's childhood trauma. All of this exploitation and upward wealth transfer made its way back to the remote plantation of the Beast. When confronted with this inescapable logic, what does she do? She decides to take the easy way out and enjoy the life of luxury, waited hand and foot by Beast's slaves, who feed her, clothe her, sing and dance for her. A life she always felt entitled to, on part of her feeling of superiority towards her provincial neighbors. The moral of the story is, marry for money, and ignore the suffering of the poor. A terrible message for children. 314 out of 554 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote. Permalink 10/10 What are people talking about? people reviewing this film are harsh, this is a great take on the original cartoon, great acting by Emma Watson and Dam Stevens this is such a good film loved the music and the dancing, loved the romance between Belle and the Beast this is such a good film, loved it should win an Oscar. 22 out of 32 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote. Permalink 3/10 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. 618 out of 1,100 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote. Permalink Doesn't Deserve So Much Vitriol First and foremost, this is a movie for children. The original was a movie for children. I'm surprised at so many scathing and very negative reviews I've read here. The sets and costumes are beautiful. The music is classic and treated with respect. It takes a very classic Disney animated film and fleshes it out with additional character development and enhanced songs. Many little Disney princesses will watch it over and over again, just like the original animated version. No movie is perfect, but I found it charming and produced with a great deal of love. 34 out of 55 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote. Permalink 7/10 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. 108 out of 200 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote. Permalink 10/10 A stunning masterpiece Warning: Spoilers There are almost no words for how amazing this movie was, but I am going to try my best anyway! If you are a true fan of the original film, there is no possible way you will not adore this movie. It brings wonderful additions and insights to the original story and the entire film is really just a feast for the eyes. The music will fully engulf you and make you feel like you are there with the characters. Emma Watson is visually the perfect Belle and portrays the part beautifully. Her singing is of course not as good as Paige O'Hara but I really didn't feel like her lesser voice mattered much in the film. They definitely needed to lower some of the keys and change some of the notes in order for Emma Watson to perform some parts of the songs but you could tell that she worked really hard to train her voice as best as she could and it resulted in a very pleasant sound. Luke Evans is great as Gaston, though I do not feel that any actual human man could play Gaston perfectly. Gaston is a huge, hulking man and refers to himself as a specimen. In the original, he is able to throw Lefou around like a pillow and he lifts the blond triplets and the bench with one arm with ease. He has a deep, booming voice and he is "roughly the size of a barge." Does any actual actor come to mind with any of those phrases? Luke Evans definitely had Gaston's narcissism, rudeness and viciousness down. But I personally did not feel like he was unbelievably handsome, big or brawny. But I was still very pleased with his performance. Josh Gad absolutely stole the show from Gaston as Lefou. He added depth to the character who was really just comic relief in the original cartoon. He sung "Gaston" in the tavern perfectly, it was really like the animation was just transferred to real life. I hope he gets the credit he deserves for that role. Certainly blows Olaf from Frozen right out of the water! Kevin Kline was a surprisingly wonderful Maurice and I really felt the love between he and Belle. I loved the additions they made with her mother and why Belle was so enchanted by roses to begin with. I'm glad they made Maurice more serious in this version, he was very goofy in the cartoon. Dan Stevens was wonderful as the beast and they added a surprising amount of humor to his lines. I at first didn't like that he knew how to read but I suppose it never made sense in the original that a prince didn't know how to read. My favorite song was the one he sung when Belle leaves, that was breathtaking. I thought he was the perfect handsome prince too, especially his eyes. There were a few additions I did not care for but I did not feel should take away from the rating. I wish Gaston had died the way he did in the cartoon, right in front of Belle who chooses to save the beast and does not even give Gaston a second glance as he plummets to his death. I also wish that the enchantress was NOT present during the beast's transformation back into the prince. I found that unnecessary and intrusive, that was supposed to be Belle and the Prince's moment. I also found it very strange and annoying that they did not speak to each other at all, they just stared at each other and then kissed. I preferred the original there, but these are just my preferences. I also felt like the servants gave away WAY too much to Belle in this version. It was almost shocking that Belle wasn't able to figure out what was going on herself with all of the info they let slip. All the little characters were wonderful, particularly the wardrobe. Overall, it is a truly breathtaking movie, one that only comes along once in a blue moon. You will be amazed how they literally transferred some parts of the cartoon directly into live action. They used the same music, same background noises, dialogue, EVERYTHING...for the most part. Don't miss out on this. You should really just drop whatever it is you are doing and go see this move now! Outstanding! 23 out of 35 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote. Permalink 8/10 I was very moved by this, maybe I was in a vulnerable state ... In any case I think this was very beautiful, following the story from the animation, really is a great transformation from animation to live action picture. The acting is good, the characters well portrayed and the visuals just as beautiful as the animation. Location, seating & time: Big Bio, Herlev, Denmark - Bio 2, row 4 seat 6, 8, 10 & 12 - 18.03.2017 at 15.15 28 out of 47 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote. Permalink 9/10 Quick Review If you let yourself enjoy a live action remake of a classic Picture, you will actually pretty much like (if not love) this movie. Yes, the CGI isn't first class always and in many cases is a point-to-point copy of the old one, but still The Disney Magic is all over this Film. Emma Watson is Incredible, the voices are perfect matches and the new elements made the story even more emotional and sweet. Is Beauty and the Beast good for kids?Beauty and the Beast does have some violent and scary scenes, which mean that it's more intense than Disney's original animated movie. Therefore, this movie isn't recommended for children under the age of 8 years, and we recommend parental guidance for children up to 12 years. Is Beauty and the Beast series worth watching?This is a good show, a remake of a show from the 80s. It's definitely worth watching. Why is Beauty and the Beast so good?The visuals and animation are better than in any Disney movie seen so far, surpassing even The Little Mermaid. The music, too, is tremendous. The opening number, 'Belle', is a great character song, effectively introducing us to the heroine. What was the message in the beauty and the beast?The moral of Beauty and the Beast is that we should value inward characteristics such as kindness over other superficial qualities, such as wit and appearance. This moral is presented by showing that Beauty valued the inward characteristics of Beast, and fell in love with him despite his outward appearances. |
