Beauty and the Beast

(2017)

Beauty and the Beast - Thumbnail
00:00
1:47:07
  • 1080p
  • 720p
  • 480p
Title:
Beauty and the Beast
Release Date:
15th March 2017
Runtime:
123 min
MPAA Rating:
PG
Genres:
Directors:
Bill Condon
Writers:
Evan Spiliotopoulos, Stephen Chbosky
Languages:
English
Stream Quality:
1080p / 720p / 480p

Storyline

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

Ratings

Rotten Tomatoes Critics - Certified Fresh 72%
Rotten Tomatoes Audience 0%
IMDb Rating 6.1

Casts

Dan Stevens as Beast
Emma Watson as Belle
Josh Gad as LeFou
Kevin Kline as Maurice
Luke Evans as Gaston

Movie Reviews

Reviewed by Fan-of-Rare- Movies 4th March, 2017

A Missed Opportunity

Come on Disney: what were you thinking?! You've got one of the most beloved films in your catalogue; the first animated film ever that was nominated for a best picture Oscar - and you give the new version of that film to the director of 'Twilight' parts 3 and 4? Has anyone of your executives even seen Bill Condon's 'Twilight' films or did you just look at all the money they made during their opening weekend? Just so you know: those films are atrocious. There are porn films who look better and have better plots (seriously). Now the good news is, 'Beauty and the Beast' is nowhere near as bad as the Twilight films, but it DOES bear a striking visual resemblance to those teen shlock movies. And that's what I don't get: if you have the chance to make a film that will make 1.5 billion dollars (given the reviews are good) - wouldn't you want to make sure to make the best looking film possible? But this film has the mediocre production design of a cheap Lionsgate fantasy film and the nuanced color-grading of a bowl of M&Ms. Emma Watson isn't half bad as Belle, but her acting feels forced in a way you can practically read the directions she gets from her director on her face ("now act SURPRISED" - "now show us a sense of WONDER" - "now look SAD"). Great actors like Kevin Kline are simply wasted because they have nothing to do besides just being there and have a certain look. The one actor who makes something of his role is, naturally, the one who plays the baddie; Luke Evans at least looks like he's having fun. But all that is still not worst. What sank the film for me was Beast. It's mind-boggling to me how a gigantic company like Disney lets a film open if the most important CGI effects obviously don't look convincing yet. Beast's face never looks real and that's just not acceptable. It's been almost 10 years since we got a completely convincing CGI "beast" face with Peter Jackson's King Kong, complete with alive looking eyes and natural facial expressions. Since then we got films like 'Dawn of the Planet of the Apes' and 'Jungle Book' that looked even better and more realistic. So what happened? What did they spend the 200 million budget on? I'm sorry to say it, but this film represents a huge missed opportunity for Disney.

Reviewed by olivia siegenthaler 3rd March, 2017

Overstuffed and lacks the charm of the original

I was really looking forward to this film. Not only has Disney recently made excellent live-action versions of their animated masterpieces (Jungle Book, Cinderella), but the cast alone (Emma Watson, Ian McKellen, Kevin Kline) already seemed to make this one a sure hit. Well, not so much as it turns out. Some of the animation is really cute, but because characters like Clock and Tea Cup now look so real, they lose a lot of their animated predecessors' charm (I can't quite explain why that is, though). The voice talent in some cases actually seems wasted. What really didn't work for me, though, is the Beast. He just never looks convincing. The eyes somehow don't look like real eyes. I really liked Gaston, though, and the actor who played him actually gave the perhaps most energized performance of all. Kevin Kline as Belle's father has little to do but to look fatherly and old. Speaking of Belle, now that I've seen the film, I think she is miscast. I think someone like Rachel McAdams would actually have been a more lively and perhaps a bit more feisty Belle than Emma Watson. If you love the original, you might want to give this one a pass. It's really not that good.

Reviewed by wilhelm-schneider1001 3rd March, 2017

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

Up front: I'm probably not the right audience for this film. I only went because I was invited, and I wouldn't have gone to check this one out otherwise. Firstly, some of the production values are really beautiful and reminded me of the animated classic in a good way. Also, the voice cast for the watch and the cutlery 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. Thirdly (and most importantly), Beast. That's where they really dropped the ball. Giving him a live-less 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.

Reviewed by Quint1965 3rd March, 2017

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

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear: where should I start folks. I had low expectations already because I hated each and every single trailer so far, but boy did Disney make a blunder here. I'm sure the film will still make a billion dollars - hey: if Transformers 11 can do it, why not Belle? - but this film kills every subtle beautiful little thing that had made the original special, and it does so already in the very early stages. It's like the dinosaur stampede scene in Jackson's King Kong: only with even worse CGI (and, well, cutlery instead of dinos). The worst sin, though, is that everything (and I mean really EVERYTHING) looks fake. What's the point of making a live-action version of a beloved cartoon if you make every prop look like a prop? I know it's a fairy tale for kids, but even Belle's village looks like it had only recently been put there by a subpar production designer trying to copy the images from the cartoon. There is not a hint of authenticity here. Unlike in Jungle Book, where we got great looking CGI, this really is the by-the-numbers version and corporate filmmaking at its worst. Oh and one more thing: bad CGI wolves (that actually look even worse than the ones in Twilight) is one thing, and the kids probably won't care. But making one of the two lead characters look equally bad is simply unforgivably stupid. No wonder Emma Watson seems to phone it in: she apparently had to act against an guy with a green-screen in the place where his face should have been.

Reviewed by deepakyadavhp 1st March, 2017

Quite Average

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