User reviews

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.

"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")

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?

Hadn't seen Emma Watson in a movie before (not a Harry Potter fan), but for some reason, social media had me with the idea she was a good actress. At least here, she wasn´t. I read here on the Trivia section that while shooting Be Our Guest the crew had to make her smile and all: that's a bad actress right there, it's not like they were working with 6 year olds. (My daughter likes to watch the Cinderella live action almost every day, I highly doubt Lily James was actually witnessing a pumpkin turning into a charriot). She had the same face seeing spoons dancing, someone being shot, and when a handsome prince appeared before her.

The whole Belle being an inventor was so irrelevant to the story, and during the dance with the Beast, she was so stiff and it was so badly choreographed, it ruined one of the most beloved Disney scenes.

No chemistry between Beauty and Beast at all, the only moment that made me feel something was when the enchanted objects were becoming just objects. Too bad the main character was not great, the movie itself is enjoyable and the special effects are really good, wish horror movies had this kind of CGI.

A fabulous movie, I enjoyed every moment. So beautifully done that I would watch it again. It's a true musical as they used to be. I cried and laughed, it brought out many emotions. It's a great family film. The artistry and special effects make a great Disney style fantasy come to life. The music and songs were very pleasant in typical Disney fashion.

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.

I am not a fan of musicals but I went to watch this one out of nostalgia. I like the fact that they kept the original songs. Unlike a LOT of people in here, I did not mind the autotune because I didn't want to hear the voices of the actors if they were bad. Now people will complain about choosing a different cast then. The cast was final, end of story, get over it. Also unlike a lot of people in here I am really glad they did not change the story from the original. Since it is a remake I don't expect a whole new story that would totally ruin the original. Besides, with the money Disney has made, a 2nd one is definitely coming, you'll get your different story. The visuals were OK but could have been better especially Belle's village.

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

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

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

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

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

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.

The movie was that good, however Emma Watson acting is like subpar and a bit of monotone. Her Belle is kind of different with the sarcastic, cartoon Belle. I missed the belle expressive face when facing Gaston being narccisist he is.

For The cgi, the music, i like everything. It still one of the best princess remake of disney tho Belle is not really good. The thing is, this is fairy tale, and the dress doesn't look ethereal or magical enough nor does it looks correct to the history element. It can be a better dress, their first dance was supposed to be perfect, i guess disney need a better dress designer.

I hate of why it is Yellow when its supposed to be GOLD and disney can make it with some roses texture since its her signature and there are lots of better dresses in the movie, plus beast clothes are very gorgeous and historically close, while belle one are so 2D, no depth in color and underwhelming. The castle and others were magical but hers are so badly designed. They didn't read the why the old designer design stuff that way, which i think too bad for supposed bookworm like emma.

I like the new beast altho i love the old look more because of his underbite which is more beast-ly.

But still i really love the new one.

*edit i just find out that the dress looks ugly bcs of emma watson bad influence, now i hate her more in this role. She is forever my favorite Hermione but, Belle is my favorite disney princess and she kind of ruined it with her Wokeism. Corsets are not bad if it is used for supporting posture, and can be comfy.

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.

As much as it pains me to see movies being remade, I find that I am able to give Disney a pass for this. I thoroughly enjoyed Beauty and the Beast . I have been a fan of Emma Watson's, since first watching the "Harry Potter" series several years ago. It is evident she is not a strong singer, but her singing was pleasant enough. I think I doubted Disney's decision to cast her as Belle, but after seeing the movie, I feel as if those doubts have been put to rest.

I also thought the rest of the casting was well done. Dan Stevens of Downton Abbey fame was great as The Beast (in this version, he even gets to sing a song) and Kevin Kline was great as Maurice, Belle's father. Emma Thompson never fails to impress me. She was one of the people I was extremely glad was cast in this film. She did Angela Lansbury proud. Josh Gad (Lefou) is perhaps most famous for portraying the lovable snowman, Olaf, in Disney's 2013 animated film, "Frozen" (although I knew him mainly from the raunchy Broadway show, "Book of Mormon," but that's a story for another time). Luke Evans (Gaston): I am not as familiar with him; the only film of his I've seen is "Dracula: Untold." He was pretty good as well. Ian McKellen and Ewan McGregor were wonderful as usual. The one I was impressed with the most, was 6-time Tony winner Audra McDonald. I have been a fan of hers since the year 2000 when I first watched Disney's "Annie", and she never fails to amaze me with her consistency and overall talent. Her voice was, by far, the best in the movie.

The cinematography and special effects were obviously all there. When you get a huge company like Disney behind a product, they naturally have all the money and the resources available to make the best quality motion picture in the technical aspects that they want.

Give this movie a try, it was truly beautiful.

A beautiful film crucially inspired with artistic perspective and multifarious virtuosity of solid directorial pulse by Bill Condon in his cinematic canvass, also including sequences of tribute to the great tradition of classic musicals, with the potentiality of establishing the film as a future classic itself. Emma Watson is wonderful, Dan Stevens is superb, Ewan McGregor is amazing, Emma Thompson is excellent, the great gentleman of acting Sir Ian McKellen is euphorically enjoyable as always delivering his touch of gem, while exquisite performances are also offered at any rate by a brilliant cast in every role of actors such as Luke Evans, Josh Gad, Kevin Kline, Audra McDonald, Gugu Mbatha-Raw, Stanley Tucci, Haydn Gwynne, Hattie Morahan, Ray Fearon, etc. Delight of a fine cinematic tale.

A very good movie. Emma Watson embodied the character of Bell excellently, CGI in the film was good but in the faces it was not good, the servants are still enjoying in the film even though their songs are not as good as the original film, I felt that the film had lost the charm of the original film, they deleted the scene of Belle And The Best in the Snow pissed me off, the new scenes that were put in the film did not need to be prepared in one scene, their focus on the witch was not interesting, the film was too long And bored, I felt that it was a copy of the original movie with extended scenes and some new scenes. If you see beauty and the beast, I advise you to watch the anime version. All the nice things in the movie were in the original version, most of the new things were bad

As a fan of the original cartoon, I also really enjoyed this remake. The songs are as wonderful as ever and the cgi effects really add to the film. The acting seemed very strong to me and the casting is pretty good. I'd definitely recommend seeing this. Will be a classic for future generations.

When you take on an oscar nominated classic like Beauty and the Beast for a live action movie. You HAVE to make sure that the spirit of the original remains intact even if you can't make it as good. I know that one has to tweak a few little things to make it appropriate for the new generation and a live action movie. You mustn't make it look cheesy or over the top... which quite sadly was the case with this one. It was directed by an Oscar winning director (who also directed a twilight movie). And a studio that has recently produced better than the original adaptation of the jungle book (which I really loved). So one wonders what must have gone wrong. That I think, we will find out later. But for now if I have to say something positive about this movie it would be its visual effects. They were quite gorgeous if not entirely believable. The design of the CGI characters were reminiscence of the original ones. Belle played by Emma Watson though not as great as I wanted her to be, seems to have done her job. And even if the songs didn't flow as greatly with the story, you could still enjoy them. The choreography, set design and the costumes also stole the show. Even the Humour even if cheesy at places worked because of its talented cast. It managed to make me laugh (especially Gaston) hence making it a better movie than it really was... I will give it a 7/10...

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

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.