Beauty and the Beast (2017) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
943 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
2/10
How can this have so many talented actors and be this bad?
MBMB25 March 2017
Warning: Spoilers
I am a huge fan of the original and I was thrilled when the cast was announced. I'm a big fan of Emma Watson and most of the other supporting actors so I went in with high hopes for this. It was awful! The CGI and auto-tuning were distracting and poorly done. On the subject of auto-tune- why did they insist Emma Watson do her own vocals when she clearly wasn't up to the task? Several other numbers, notably "Gaston" and "Be our Guest" fell flat. None of the charm or warmth of the original.

The performances were another issue for me which blows my mind considering the talent propping this horrid remake up. I can't fathom who approved the accents of Ewen Mcgregor and Emma Thompson. They were BAD. Emma Watson's performance was not what I expected from her. It was like she was trying but missing the mark time and again. Her Belle is condescending at times, bland in others, and overall forgettable. **spoiler** When Gaston and the beast have their fight,in this version instead of stabbing beast in the back, Gaston shoots him unexpectedly like twice. Emma Watson's "reaction" to this is a prime example of my above complaints. She doesn't seem shocked, sad, NOTHING. She waits until he's been shot a few times and has been down awhile before changing emotion at all and even then her "sorrow" at his death is horribly unbelievable. I could not believe this was Emma Watson preforming in this way. The beast was eh, Lafou wasn't funny (the theater was at no point filled with laughter. My 10 year old laughed twice the whole time), and the servants weren't charming or at all like their cartoon versions. I also hate that the funny back and forth between Lumiere and Cogsworth wasn't there. The only one I enjoyed was Luke Evans as Gaston. He was far from perfect but I think he did best out of everyone.

As I scroll through the IMDb reviews with the occasional 8 or 9, and pages of 2's and 4's, I can't understand how the rating is a 7.8. I give it a 2 for effort and can say with 100% certainty that I won't ever sit through it again. Another pointless remake. Disappointing.
170 out of 236 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Leaves a lot to be desired
AlexV18 March 2017
Warning: Spoilers
MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS

I don't usually do reviews but this film was such a huge disappointment I couldn't fight it anymore. The original movie was so good and, considering this is the exact same movie, there was really not much that could go wrong. In theory of course, because in reality the final result is just soulless. Everything feels fake. From Emma Watson's acting to the cgi and the props. I love Emma Watson but in this film she is just playing herself trying to play Belle. To be fair though, no one in the film actually manages to instill the characters with the same emotion and personality as the original except maybe Josh Gad. Luke Evans is very good but his character is written as a villain from the start, while in the original he evolves from slightly annoying to "evil". Which brings me to my next point: the awful writing. The film treats the audience like we're stupid and needs to explain everything verbally instead of just letting things show through the action. The characters are one dimensional and don't change as the story unfolds. Gaston is the villain. The Beast is just a misunderstood soul from the beginning despite the prologue telling us otherwise. Even his bad temper is watered down. The writers had already the script written for them, all they had to do was add a few more lines here and there and create two or three scenes that would blend in seamlessly with the original (since, I repeat, they chose to use almost word for word the 1991 script with minor changes). Well, the new dialogue feels very wooden and unnatural. The new scenes add nothing to the story and, even though the creators try to answer some questions we have from the original, in the end they create new plot holes that go unanswered. I miss the subtlety of the 1991 film in which every expression, every line and every pause added something either to the progression of the story or the characterization of the heroes without anything feeling forced. I keep mentioning the original a lot but that is because this movie has nothing new to offer really, so I can't fully separate it from the 1991 one. In the end, what annoys me the most is that the 2017 remake had great potential to become a new classic and stand on its own had it been handled a little differently and not with a rushed "let's make some good money" mentality. There are very few good things about this movie, one of which is the music which is simply magical and manages to convey all the emotions the actors can't. Then there is the ending (after the transformation) where there is a more realistic touch as the villagers remember their friends-relatives that work at the castle and are finally reunited. Overall, despite the enormous hype, the movie just makes the original stand out even more as a timeless film that won't be surpassed by another adaptation any time soon.
347 out of 500 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Extensive review **SPOILERS BELOW**
tmzaepfel31 March 2017
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.
195 out of 282 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
characters
jlucascaballero5 April 2017
Warning: Spoilers
The face of the beast is like the face of a person coupled with that of a bulldog,the horns of the beast are taken from a goat,the clothes in the part of the hair against the wolves is very well achieved,Gaston instead of being a strong person seems to just leave a slimming diet, the only character that has improved since the first movie is the Gaston squad
149 out of 213 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
simply boring
ruhail-mohammad-ali22 March 2017
Warning: Spoilers
I had the opportunity to watch this movie today and man it was disappointing. It was boring. reason being perhaps that it felt like the copy of the original. These were the great cartoons which we grew up watching. But why would the same songs, characters, story be entertaining for us, we could just watch the cartoons again, why bother to remake. It might have been entertaining if characters were a little believable at least. The beast lack any emotion. Emma Watson (though I love her) was just trying to copy belle from the cartoons. She wasn't even given a chance to try to portray the character of belle and not the 'acting' of cartoon belle (she wasn't even successful in that). The only person I liked in the movie was Gaston. The rest of the characters were soooo animated that it stole the real feel of the movie which should really be the purpose of remaking a movie after all. A few new songs were added which were quite boring. The village of belle was aweeeefuulllll. Why Why Why would they make a village which just look like a ground full of hideous people. Why not put a little more money in that part. The reason of the movie should be to give a real life feeling to fairy tales ( which jungle book and Cinderella gave), not to just make it more cartoonish.

stay away from this one and save your money
116 out of 165 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Moral of the Story: Marry for Money
Shlomo Jones6 April 2017
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.
252 out of 379 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Fake historical facts, zero original music, average actors. Disappointed
JuliaMula9 April 2017
Warning: Spoilers
Once again I was convinced that Hollywood is dead. First of all, main the Beast and the Beast auditory are kids and teenagers from age 6 to age 18. So no big expectation for adult auditory. It is not supposed to be masterpiece of all times. But even so... how you could misrepresent historical facts like that? Medieval France. What we see? Black people lived freely among white people, they dance happily together and drink in one bar. I understand things about political correctness. But don't you think it makes movie look fake and misrepresent original fairy tale.

Secondly, music. Did you actually hire song writers, authors, musicians for such big cinema event? There are some good songs. But it turned out they are all classic French songs or taken from 1991 animated "The beauty and the beast" movie.

Thirdly, actors. Well, I have no complains to Emma Watson beauty. Interesting young British actress. But Belle was French. French women have special charm and chic(remember Amelie?). Emma Watson with her solder walking and always the same face expression did not convince me. Animated Belle expressed more emotions and love in her eyes that Emma "Belle" Watson. As for other actors, was very pleased to see Kevin Kline. Only actor in the movie which performance I enjoyed. Other actors were very plain or their roles were so short that it is hard to do something outstanding.
140 out of 209 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Unimaginative and bland
jeremyrleath22 March 2017
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.
117 out of 175 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Disappointment
motorcyclepro15 April 2017
Warning: Spoilers
To start Disney come on the casting choices were not good. The movie does not do justice to the original and i would imagine Walt in turning in his grave. The CGI was HORRIBLE and i mean Absolutely Terrible. the worst part is in my opinion this hurts the original because it may turn younger people away that haven't see the original animated version and that is the one worth watching. I understand it will still make a ton of money but that is not do to the content because it Garbage!
72 out of 105 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Could've been amazing
Erika20 March 2017
Warning: Spoilers
I don't know where to begin. beauty and the beast Had so much potential to be an extraordinary movie. THe village set was disappointing, everything in the movie looked fake. The beast looked like a plastic mask, the wolves I can't even begin to say. I'm honestly just disappointed in the movie. Only part I truly enjoy was the "be our guest" performance. honestly should've left this movie alone. It made me feel like I was watching those teen vampire movies( which I don't watch).
110 out of 165 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Not too bad. But I personally felt that the 1991 version is still the best
lingweichuapipafiddle6 April 2017
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 can't "perform" the story very well, it appears to me that they are trying to tell the story with a fusion that combines animation, movie and musical, a bit of everything in everywhere, however I don't really enjoy this experience. The actors and actresses were fine considering the demands and preference of the audiences (consumers), some of them did very well, Like Gaston and LeFou. I think that Emma Watson looks very pretty on screen as Belle, and her singing is okay, but I personally felt that her acting is very stiff, her singing skills is very much not enough for a musical. She is a very successful and smart celebrity, I think she is a very good fashion and makeup model too, but her performances (including Harry Potter, etc) on screen I've seen so far, haven't appear to me as a professional/convincing actress at all, I never seen her looking like she is doing (performing, acting) something she believes. As Belle Emma Watson sometimes looks miserable, like she is forcing her face to hold on expression(disgusted, love, sad, etc.) that she was told to. I felt that my money spent on the movie ticket was burned watching her performance, and this isn't the first time at all when it comes to movies that has her in the cast, I remember feeling really angry last time when I saw her performance in Harry Potter- The Goblet of Fire, because I can't believe I spent money to get to watch such unprofessional performance of a pretty "actress" like her on a mainstream movie, and now in B&TB she hasn't improve at all.

Overall I think everything on the screen appears to be pretty but also boring (awkward). I personally much prefer the 1991 version, for me it is one of the best from Disney. I kind of wish they didn't do the remake.
90 out of 134 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Miscast of Belle
wmsfp22 March 2017
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.
130 out of 198 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Boring
c200720 March 2017
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.
126 out of 192 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Plain
Suroor Zehra29 March 2017
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.
257 out of 407 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Stick to the cartoon!
Rick Hogue14 April 2017
I must say, Disney seems to be putting out live action movies of their successful cartoons just for the sake of putting out live action movies! I guess corporate thinking is the initial buzz will make it money on the first weekend! This is the worst of the live actions, the acting is boring, the story mundane, I do not care about the characters at all, it seems it's just made to show how cool Disney can use special effects! If you like the story, stick to the original cartoon!
162 out of 253 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
As boring and emotionless as twilight
amythiessen20 March 2017
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.
271 out of 435 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Worse than the original, in the same group of recent, meaningless releases from Disney like Rogue One
David Chien25 March 2017
Warning: Spoilers
SPOILERS!! ---------- ----------

I saw the original classics of the era - Beauty and the Beast, The Little Mermaid, etc - so I was interested in seeing what this live-action could do with the story. Here, Disney attempts to remake their own animated version of Beauty and the Beast (BnB), but for various reasons, it falls far short of the classic animated version much like Rogue One fell far short of being a great Star Wars movie.

1) The songs suck.

One of the most glaring examples is when the Beast pines for Belle, and sings his song while climbing up the tower stairs. Something along the lines of 'I'm climbing these stairs, then looking out the open window.' This is repeated over and over as if we're to sing along to the line or be excited by it. Nope, complete fail.

The songs lack the vocal power of the original ones, failing mostly to inspire or make one tap one's feet. No humming along to this movie - it's dead on arrival.

2) The actors do not shine in their roles, sometimes, because the aura around them is too strong from past movies, sometimes, they simply are too generic for the role.

For example, Belle's dad is far too generic. One of those characters you look at and forget right away, even after the whole movie was seen.

The mysterious enchantress that enters in the beginning is nowhere near a Maleficent or Snow White Witch - she looks like some generic female that walked in, cursed the Beast, and you promptly forget.

Others like Gaston (still think he's from Fast and Furious), Watson (her performance here is dead, unlike her more moving Potter performances), etc. have the problem of being mismatched for the roles.

3) Really bad scriptwriting.

You've got lines with characters suddenly mentioning things out of the blue, unmotivated. eg. Dad parks his horse, says 'oh, there's water and hay.' Huh? Why? What does that add? Nothing. It would have been far better for him to park the horse and cut to next scene.

4) Movies should be something one can understand with the sound off, but there are many examples of things that don't make sense, and characters breaking out of their roles.

eg. If Gaston is really the battle hero he is, then why is he afraid of a few wolves in the forest? He's got a gun, guts, and strength, so why not just charge in and save the day? Okay, so he's played as a guy who is all show and no real guts in this movie in this scene, but later, he's crazy enough to shoot the Beast several times, jump across big gaps, etc.

eg. The Beast is supposed to be a BEAST, but he takes a few bites from attacking wolves and collapses, out of energy after the attack, wiped out. Yet, in the end, he takes multiple gun shots from Gaston before finally collapsing.

eg. Belle falls in Love with the Beast after a few scenes of them reading books, and he lets her go to save her dad. Huh?? Are girls really that Easy?? There's no motivation at all for a real girl to fall in love with the Beast after a few days in captivity, so it's unbelievable based on how it is shown.

4) A lot of the fun, the connection, the relationship between Belle and the household items are lost.

The animation had the interplay between them which you could see and feel, eventually building up a very strong connection between Belle and each of the items, like the teacup, the candle holder, etc. In this movie, it was more of a show and tell - Belle sits back, things are shown to her, and..that's it. Moving on, much like a Disney Fantasy ride - you see interesting displays, but no connection. Same for the horse and Belle. In the animation, you can see the horse reacting to the scary forest, setting up an undertone of fear and worry as they enter the dark forest. But in this movie, none of that - it's simply a 'machine' that she hops on, and it takes her to and from the Beast's home.

5) The lighting is uneven. There are places where it's really good and you can see the characters well-defined, then other places where it's just tough to see Belle and the surroundings (like the prison her dad was kept in and just outside that). This is a far cry from Potter where you can see inside the dimly lit school, but there's definition and more clarity to the details. Here, it simply goes black to dark gray and there's nothing there to add to the scene.

6) Too many competing messages and periods.

You've got Belle implying she doesn't need/want to get married in the beginning, then wanting to stay forever with the Beast in a few days. Yet, they look like they're living in the old ages, before the 20th century.

You've got Gaston with a gun, yet when the town attacks the Beast, most don't have a gun?! Are we in the swords and stone age, or gun age?

You've got lots of white characters, then, the mandatory politically correct insertion of a black female here and there.

You've got Belle saying 'I'm not normal' (ie. I'm not the usual cute girl that gets married young, has kids, etc), ie. smart and educated. Yet, that scene has her bending forward towards the camera many times to show her cleavage in an attempt to sexualize her despite her small breasts.

In the end, not worth a full-price movie ticket to see it in the theater. A DVD rental at most, fast-forwarded through the dull, slow scenes for sure.
71 out of 106 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
A Torturing Disappointment
Sarah Movies25 March 2017
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.
132 out of 206 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Waste of time!
Sequeira7 April 2017
2 words: Terrible & Waste of money. How on earth does this movie even get 7.8!:score seriously!!!??? I found the French movie " Beauty and the Beast " released in 2014 ten times better than this!! As a parent, I though I was the only one, but my 4 year old who loves to listen to this story when I read it to her was so bored .. that she asked" is this movie finished yet"???

So I rest my case. Hahah.
167 out of 265 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
One of the worst Disney movies ever
luxorr22 March 2017
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.
236 out of 383 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Boring...
mrtom7317 April 2017
I've seen the original more times than I can count so I was very excited when I heard about a live action version that sticks to the original movie. While they did stick to the original for a good portion, they changed many of the most iconic scenes and not in a good way. For example, they cut out the scene where Belle's father first encounters the beast by the fireplace, which is my son's favorite, and replaced it with something far less interesting. They also managed, and I don't know how, to ruin the music. All of the songs are slowed down so much that it's hard to care about them and they're lacking the booming vocals that made the originals so good. They also added a lot of unnecessary dialogue which makes for a much slower pace. Overall all this movie just lacks the character of the original. We were so bored that we actually left about half way through.
84 out of 129 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
An Honest Review
generationofswine18 March 2017
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.
123 out of 194 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
An Autotuned Mess
LaLaLandSucks16 March 2017
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.
334 out of 553 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
My childhood was not ruined!
Luz Maria Sanchez5 June 2017
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.
33 out of 47 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Magnificent Computer Graphic Imagery and Cinematography
Claudio Carvalho21 May 2017
"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.

Title (Brazil): "A Bela e a Fera" ("The Beauty and the Beast")
26 out of 36 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

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


Recently Viewed