Beauty and the Beast (2017) Poster

User Reviews

Add a Review
869 ReviewsOrdered By: Helpfulness
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.
124 out of 167 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Leaves a lot to be desired
AlexV18 March 2017
Warning: 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.
331 out of 466 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
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
139 out of 190 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
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.
136 out of 186 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
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
101 out of 137 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
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.
166 out of 235 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
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.
234 out of 338 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
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.
148 out of 211 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
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.
77 out of 106 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
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!
64 out of 87 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

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