Beauty and the Beast (2009) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
22 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
1/10
absolutely awful
karenina_anna29 January 2010
This movie is awful. I just wasted precious minutes that I'm not getting back. After watching the movie on fast-forward (I couldn't bare to watch it full), I thought there were dozens of ways in which I could have spent this wasted time.

Estella Warren was a..let's say..good cast. although such a bad script and lines would make even Sean Connery look like a B-grade actor. The troll, the Beast and the gore scenes looked so fake that I wonder how was it possible for this movie to be directed in 2009. What budget did this movie have?? A few thousand dollars, probably. The movie completely destroyed one of the best animations. I will totally erase this movie from my memory and cherish the true "Beauty and the Beast".

I rated it 1/10 just because 0 isn't possible.

*** excuse my bad grammar, I'm not a genuine English-speaker.
41 out of 57 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Don't try with this movie
haytham868626 January 2010
I think that 90 minutes are too much for that nonsense, I have not seen such horrible acting, bad directing or terrible dialogue. I have seen the cartoon, that was produced in 1991, which was marvelous compared to this failure.

Please, if you want to do something enjoyable stay away from this film and watch a football match, watch a silly comedy show or go to sleep.

But if you're going to watch it. remember that I warned you and say to your kids "don't be afraid from this fake beast, boys"

This film really deserves to be one of the worst 10 movies that can be watched ever.

I rated the film 1 because I couldn't rate it 0.
36 out of 53 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
David Lister tries for a second time and has an epic fail... again.
ErikAngelofMusic7 March 2010
Once upon a time, David Lister, the director of this version of Beauty and the Beasts(2009), directed another movie called Blood of Beasts(2003). It was another film based on Beauty and the Beast and it was awful, but terribly funny in a way it was never meant to be. Because Blood of Beasts(2003) was so awful, it made sick and twisted sense for him to try to go ahead and redo it.

With David Lister (as one of the most ineffective directors around), I knew what I was getting into. Low-budget? Yes. Bad costumes? Yes. Bad directing? Yes. Bad acting? Heh, let's try NO acting. It was perfectly set up for accidental comic brilliance.

Let me say this: David Lister has really out-done himself this time. Beauty and the Beasts(2009) is even worse than Blood of Beasts(2003), and that is no small feat.

I laughed the whole way through. Between the miniskirt with the brown vinyl corset thrown over it, inappropriate uses of CGI, the Botox lips-of-doom, the high school theatre costume department reject wigs, and the ketchup-for-blood effects, if I did not laugh I would have cried, it was that painful.

Even then, let's chalk that up to low-budgeting. If there are good actors and good directors, any film can shine. My favourite Beauty and the Beast film, the Czechoslovakian Panna a netvor(1978), is riddled with the signs of a low-budget: simple special-effects, second rate costumes, natural and sparse sets. Still Panna a netvor(1978) is brilliant, making up in plot, intensity and acting what it lacked in money. With this in mind, Beauty and the Beasts(2009) has no excuse.

It was excruciatingly painful, so much so that you have to be masochistic to watch it more than once, but I think I could have forgiven much of it had the film had even the barest sense of humour. Everyone takes themselves much too seriously. Imagine a campy Vincent Price flick like the Abominable Dr. Phibes(1971) in which they try to be serious? It wouldn't work, and it didn't work here.

I'll give it a point for the potential of the story. It was an interesting idea which happily did not conform to the established version of Beauty and the Beast, and it *could* have had interesting repercussions. Still, and not surprisingly, it failed to deliver.

This is the sort of traumatic experience in which an "I survived Beauty and the Beasts: A Dark Tale 2009" t-shirt should be made so that you can be admired and pitied all at once.
21 out of 30 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Let the beast remain inside the cage
mshabaz25 January 2010
I happened to saw this movie today regardless of the many warnings that I will be wasting my time if I do. And yes, I believe, I not only wasted my time, I forgot what the real story of Beauty and the Beast was. I wonder why nowadays anyone can come up with an empty plot and file up the movie name with a title of a legendary story. Someone should stop this, or we may be seeing Snow white with Pinochio dancing in Cinderella's ball.

Estella Warren was a good cast, but Director David Lister failed to bring up some nice actor with her. Though I saw one at the end, just thirty seconds ago the movie was ending.

AS far as gore is concerned, the effects and graphics looked exactly what a low budget movie should display.

In no way this movie can be classified as a family movie, or a movie for children, because of the so much blood and gore in it, which all looked artificial though.

This one deserved 3/10, because I need to rate at least something.
26 out of 41 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Bad acting, bad effects, bad script, bad quality. Bad, bad, bad. Really only two reasons to watch. I say D
cosmo_tiger3 April 2011
How can you prove your innocence if everyone thinks your guilty. After many townspeople wind up dead, the Beast (Parascos) is blamed. Belle (Warren) and her father know the truth but it may be too late to help. Where to begin....This movie was lame. It reminded me a lot of the "Hercules" and "Xena" TV shows, without the witty dialog. It was a made for TV movie (I think) so I can't be too harsh on the effects, but when someone's head gets cut off and 2 little squirts of blood show up, I mean come on. I think this one was rushed out to coincide with the movie "Beastly" that is in theaters, and it shows (that it was rushed). I was not expecting a lot from this, but it was really, really bad. Ill stick with the cartoon. There were really only two reasons I kept watching, you will know why when you see this. It's actually almost worth watching to see how bad it is. I give it a D.

Would I watch again? - Never again will I watch this
12 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
don't Watch.
rynex7423 January 2011
basically, the movie is Shite! although Estella warren is really hot! could've been better if you made a porn movie out of this. i'm not saying that you should. but the movie is just horrible! special effects is a 1 out of 10 acting is a 4 out of 10 costume, i can give it a 7 out of 10 (just because Estella looks really HOT!) just please! if you plan on watching this or buying this movie, Don't! it's completely Boring, bad acting. bad Background music. and as i said, better if they made a PORN movie out of it. it's just that awful. i have seen the original cartoon and its better. even though there is a twist on the tale, when i watched it, the storyline basically changed. as i said better if it showed some skin or better if it was made for porn.
14 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
surprised at all the bad reviews....
belleoftheball-669-25051222 February 2010
Im really surprised by all the bad reviews this movie has gotten. I, for one, immensely enjoyed it. First of all the plot was completely original. For once I didn't have it figured out in the first 10 minutes and think that gave it a nice twist. Yeah the special effects weren't great but they were still gory. Give 'em some credit at least they put some thought into it. I also REALLY LIKED BELLE. I hate the movies that have a quiet, demure heroine in it. This time, Belle had spunk! She was a witty, sarcastic little spitfire and kept me laughing through the whole movie. I was also really glad to see that she didn't end up playing some tragic, defenseless victim. She and the beast saved each other quite a few times throughout the movie and I was glad that FOR ONCE their was a couple who I could look at as equals. I give it a 7 because essentially, to me, this movie looks like a rough draft of a really great movie. It is a little cheesy, but to me that just adds to it.
24 out of 46 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Laughable attempt at making a movie!
paul_haakonsen7 February 2010
Warning: Spoilers
This movie, well I use the term movie loosely here, is bad.

It seemed like someone had gotten the idea to bring a camera along to one of their live roleplaying game sessions in the forest. It was horrible! Lets go through the "movie", shall we?

THE ACTING? - What acting? Whatever they portrayed here was amateurish at best.

THE CAST? - Well, Estella Warren was so badly cast! I didn't know they had Botox lips back in the medieval times. Her lack of acting was astounding. Rhett Giles was perhaps the one with the most outstanding performance, but it was a half-hearted attempt at best.

THE CGI/SPECIAL EFFECTS? - They meant well enough with the creature/troll (whatever you want to call it), but it was poorly implemented in the movie, it looked bad. The textures and design of the creature were good, but it was just too poorly put into the movie. And for some reason magic also turns clothing to stone, not only flesh?! One of the more laughable scenes was when the beast turned into the prince, and his old, filthy clothes turned into rich garments worn by royalty? Alrighty then, so I guess the sorceress not only curse the prince, but his clothing as well? What the hell!?

THE SET/SCENERY? - Nice enough, though some question should be brought as to how far up was the sorcerer's room in the tower? Apparently it was super easy to climb up there. Easy enough to throw a small leather pouch up there. And for some reason, the castle had surprisingly few guards and soldiers stationed there. The village, well let's just say what village? It consisted of two or three buildings.

This movie seemed even to be too crappy to be shown on the Hallmark channel. I watched it with no expectations and a handful of doubt as to how good (or bad) something like this would turn out to be. And it turned out BAD! I didn't give it a rating of 1, because I managed to sit through its entire length, determined to see it to the end. And I am glad that it did end. It was a horrible fantasy/adventure experience.
12 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
See are A pea.
logismum1 February 2010
Firstly, this is NOT for CHILDREN, there are copious amounts of blood squirting scenes from severed limbs within the first ten minutes and my six year old has nightmares now... from BEAUTY AND THE BEAST???

The acting in this film is third if not tenth rate, and since when did they have mini skirts back in the day they are trying to portray... There is no thing believable (except the squirting blood to children) about this film, there is no heart to it, no pull or grab, I would liken it to an extremely bad comedy, as its acting is so poor, its comical they even let it be produced!

I found this film to just be a complete waste of time, and it is really not suitable for children under the age of ten at least, and even then will probably require parental guidance, so as to make light/jokes of the disgusting blood squirting scenes. Very bad taste.
20 out of 41 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Ooops
Samiam39 July 2010
David Lister's Blood of Beasts may have been the first film which I walked out of after five minutes. The only good thing about it was that it made this semi-remake a little easier to approach, because I had a better idea of what to expect. You may ask, why, if I disliked the first so much would I even bother thinking about this one? Let's just say that it was a chance to find out what I missed, without having to pay for the exact same movie. That wasn't such a good idea.

Even with my expectations set so low, the film still feels embarrassingly icky. I will let it go this time that the production looks like it was shot at the Renaissance fair with fifty bucks worth of props and costumes and a dozen extras who for all I know could have been stolen right out of the nearest homeless centre. It is obvious that this film (like the last one) has no money. What is unforgivable and totally unacceptable however is just how utterly kindergarden minded the screenplay is, as well as the performances. Beauty and the Beast is so stupid that it doesn't even work as an unintentional comedy. You'd have better luck with Battlefield Earth.

I have no good advice on how to approach this motion picture, and I cannot imagine how something like this finds its way to commercial video stores. Estella Warren is a 'very' pretty face, but that's about it.

What a waste,
7 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Surprising
iicbiit26 February 2010
This is a very surprising movie. It is surprising, that a movie, any movie, can be accomplished with such a modest budget.

The plot is entertaining, I tried to imagine what it would look like if it was written as a book, and it sounded very nice. It represents a mixture of various myths, legends and tales, including "The Beauty and the Beast", "Quasimodo", "Sleeping Beauty" and, I believe, I detected some references to "Red Heat" - an interesting concept.

The actors' play is very butaphoric, but after the first 5 minutes I somehow got adjusted to it.

The really surprising thing about this movie is, that despite its ridiculousness, it is amusing. It is absurd and is fun. And I had great time watching it.
8 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Beauty and the Beast was good fun
giedlins1 March 2010
I liked this movie. It was just good fun.

Yes, the FX are little on the low-budget side. But the troll looks good in the snarling close-ups.

And yes, going in you already know that Belle and Beast end up together and the evil character gets a comeuppance. But that's how these stories work.

But in between there's monsters running around, plenty of blood, and lots of violence with swords! Good times.

The Beast beats the hell out of whatever other 10.5 Earthquake/Hurricane/Disaster movie junk ends up on SyFy.
6 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Um OK 2009 goes back to the dark ages
blackrose198912 November 2012
Warning: Spoilers
So story line was alright. But acting poor...the beast his make up effects where alright but his transformation was poor.

Spoiler: heads being chopped of and the arterial spray was to great and not really in the formation of an arterial spray, and the fact that they kept talking after they had no head. Really?

To me it felt like it was done by drama students in grade 10.

Belles Short dress was not apt of the time, nor was the low cleavage.

I am in no way comparing to Disneys Beauty and the Beast. but that is still a classic where i think this movie could win the worst movie ever.

The fact that the beast did nothing in order to be transformed. Where as the original book clearly states that his pride was his own downfall.

Bit too twisted from the original script.

If you don't mind corny than go ahead and watch.
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Better than what people think if you can pass BAD CGI
destroyerwod14 March 2011
OK, first of all i have to admit i buy ed that movie(5$) because of the beauty on the cover(i know bad word game...lol) but seriously Estalla Warren in such a hottie in that movie. After that i did knew the overall plot of the fairytale so knew what to expect. Lets just say as for the story it was pretty decent working with something you already know and still have to follow a little bit. Some people say the acting is terrible, maybe its because i watched the movie in french and it was obviously dub, but i think they did a decent job. I remember old VVS titles back in the early 2000 had terrible dubbing sounding like a cheap erotic movie on cable, but they improved that and its fine now. My only negative point is the very BAD, CHEAP, TERRIBLE CGI which in my opinion was Unnessary. They could have go with a man in a suit for the creature instead of CGI. The creature look by itself is not so bad but its the gore stuff when it attack that looks terrible. I don't know the budget for this so i will not be too hard, it didn't ruin the movie for me, but i can understand people not liking it because of it. It does look so fake and cheap.
5 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Beautiful and Beastly
abominablebro10 March 2010
Warning: Spoilers
This film is a pretty great re-telling of the Beauty and the Beast fairy tail. Some of the effects were really well done while others, not so much, although we have to cut low budget effects some slack once in a while and try to enjoy the film as best as possible. I was actually able to enjoy this film quite well. I liked the twisted elements that were thrown into this movie as well. One scene that was really demented was the one near the end when the prince made the troll bite someone's head off and then threatened to kill the rest of the villagers unless they applauded his death... Which they did. The acting in this film was just fine and the characters were performed really well. Some of the gore was disgustingly realistic while sometimes it was just too unbelievable. An alright low budget film and definitely worth a watch.
5 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
You NEED to see this!!
kendokuju9013 February 2013
For a comedic video review of this movie by ThatPunkJoCassidy, 'Beauty and the Beast: A Dark Tale' (C)2010, try the video link below!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0TmcD9E0KAU

Oh this movie guys... If you haven't looked at the spoiler reviews here, then just know this: This is a Syfy twist on an already Disney popularized story, taking a dark turn... And failing. Awesomely. Really! I would even suggest watching the movie before my own video review, it's that enjoyably bad! The setting is bland, but the sets are well designed and attracts the eye. The acting sucks, but you will love Helen the witch's scene chewing and the Beast's awkward yet likable prosthetic garbled talk. I really don't hate this one, and gave it a three on the terms of being a bad put together film, yet is a MUST SEE!! Watch as David Lister and crew try so hard to tell the 'REAL' story of the Beauty and the Beast fable with mini-skirts, trolls, and CG castles! Get ready to break out the LARP costumes and cherry syrup blood!
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
You forgot to mention ruthless
nogodnomasters21 June 2019
Warning: Spoilers
Cousins vie for the crown as washerwoman Belle strolls into the forest and causes a ruckus with the beast and a troll created by the witch.

The film is Asylum Grade farce. Estella Warren prances around in her Medieval mini-dress. Her cleavage is far less than what is on the DVD cover and her eyes are not blue. Low-grade entertainment.

No swearing, sex, or nudity. Bloody body parts are strewn around.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
The most hilariously bad SyFy movie till now
nirmaljustin119 January 2019
What can I say about this movie? This movie is so bad that sometimes it's good. But only sometimes,and those are not worth your time. First things first,our Middle Ages heroine Belle(Estella Warren)has her cleavage on display and wears a miniskirt(yes seriously) the whole movie. And her acting is hilarious. Yes this is a B-movie and we can expect only this much from its actresses. Then there's the villain(Rhett Giles) who has the ability to keep the same expression for the whole movie. The female antagonist(Vanessa Gray)can compete for the best overacting award. The actor playing the beast was relatively good.

Now coming to the best worst part of the movie,CGI. Each time you see the CGI monster created by the witch,you can't help feeling bad for the makers of this wreck of a movie. It is so bad that you would actually stop laughing at Henry Cavill's CGI moustache memes.

If you value your time don't watch this wreck.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
A highly overlooked & misunderstood film
jpperris24 October 2018
Warning: Spoilers
In regards to this 2010 version of Beauty And The Best, I am quite shocked with all the negative reviews and comments that I have found for this film...I though it was excellent. As for the affections between Belle and Max, as far as I am concerned they seemed very real/believable. She is a very caring person and so is he. Many people with these levels of caring, well, it doesn't take long to feel the like minded vibes/affections/heart of another who is around the same frequencies and develop such affections quite quickly.

Of course she was originally afraid of him (He shot an arrow at her that barely missed her head, all be it because he didn't want her to look at him, but how was she suppose to know that at the time) and of course she leaned towards thinking that he committed those murders, including that of her mother, and had her moments of doubt throughout. As for the romance end of things, well, Max has been through hell for as long as he can remember, and I though they were very well connected, so, them not going all Disney is fine by me. It was all quite moving, at least to me it was anyways.

As for the more corny/comical aspects of the film, I don't think that any of the acting or special effects were bad (It seems to me like they were meant to be part and parcel of this film, as in, intentionally done in those manners)... Have any of you ever seen a flick such as "Dracula: Dead and Loving It", cause those moments kind of remind me of certain scenes from that movie, that is, in regards to the intended comical aspects of things. And as for the flick being boring or hard to watch (In regards to thinking that it's a bad movie)...How?!
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Ruined A Perfectly Good Story
Rainey-Dawn14 September 2018
This one could have been decent - even on a budget! I didn't have a problem with Beast - he was fine considering the budget. What really irked me was them giving Belle a short dress - really out of place for this time era. Also irked by the dialogue - it sucked along with the actors. Cartoon version definitely wins this one hands down!

2/10
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
a beauty of a film not in the least
RavenGlamDVDCollector26 October 2014
This is not the B-A-D movie I expected after two months of involvement with it on IMDb; see my message 'Consumer Alert' on the board post. I expected a very weak movie after all the negative reviews. For sure, this isn't a great movie, but it does have moments. The problem with it, is that it is SERIOUSLY FLAWED.

I also have the misfortune that after having to reschedule my planned watching of this title from late in August to tonight, I watched this one a week after THE STRANGER WITHIN, and in that one, Estella Warren is the aging former star (unbearably close to harsh reality) and that hindsight is totally bothersome when watching this movie. There are several very obviously unflattering angles here of the Beauty's face that should have been discarded and re-shot, but no, the Director wallowed on.

They were too intent on blood and gore, and didn't even realize that their blood and gore wasn't exactly well-filmed. Oh, an A+ for effort here, but look at that junk: it's laughably shoddy. Blood spurting from severed arteries would be six-feet high gushers that would ruin any camera within sight!

The standout is the troll. It was creepy, really creepy, like Yikes!! The Beast looked like E.T. met Vincent of the 1987 TV series. But the real beast that did all the slaying was Estella's uneven acting. For shame! You can't act for toffees, girl! You're much better on the DVD's interview where you are just yourself and excited about the movie. Stilted and uneven, gives way too little, especially in scenes where she is supposed to be distressed, like when the troll grabs her, it's like she's just reciting half-heartedly something vaguely pathetic, but OK, she knows her movies are going straight to video anyway, so why the hell bother, huh?

Estella, I understand you are a great person, but these performances are gonna haunt you for the rest of your life, dear. And people who know RavenGlamDVDCollector know that I defend the actresses and their titles all the way till the cows come home, but Estella, darling, you have to be more convincing all the way through... It's like this, baby, you have to pretend the bad stuff is really happening, like that mean old troll has really grabbed you, and you're scared, desperate...

If only they'd have done this when Estella was truly in her prime. As a pin-up model she was great! I'd not have gone on (so much) about the hammy acting then...

Oh, and this is also a review of THE STRANGER WITHIN. Estella Warren fans stay away from that one. Rather watch ol' BEAUTY AND THE BEAST A DARK TALE again. It has moments...
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Not even beautiful Estella Warren can save this turd!
TheLittleSongbird5 July 2012
I was both interested and dubious in seeing this version of Beauty and the Beast. Interested because of the story and what the interpretation would be like, and dubious because it was SyFy, which often means bad effects and next to non-existent writing and acting. As much as I wanted to like it, it suffers from everything that makes the worst of SyFy's output intolerable. Estella Warren is beautiful granted, but the script and her character doesn't give her anything to work with other than look beautiful-which is little more than showing her longs legs and cleavage- and say the odd "witty/spunky" line, something that anybody can do. The script seemingly aimed to be witty, but ended up being cheesy and leaving all the actors(Warren was not the only person affected by the writing) little to work from, consequently the acting ranged from bland to overdone, Rhett Giles often veers towards the latter. The characters are little more than fantasy clichés(wicked witches and evil counts are types of characters that have been done before and so much better) and written in an underdeveloped and very vague manner, and the film manages to commit one of my pet peeves in regard to film and make them do stupid things. The story is overall dully paced and predictably told, and I never felt moved by the chemistry between the leads. The effects, make-up and gore are very fake in look, the troll actually looks more an uncooked turkey than a troll, and the scenery, while quite lush just didn't have any sense of wonder because it was all very choppily shot. The music at best was generic. All in all, a turd that not even Warren or the scenery can save. 1/10 Bethany Cox
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed