Beauty and the Beast

Beauty and the Beast
02:09:00
Beauty and the Beast.2017.hd.1080p
HD
Download NowWatch Now
Be our guest.
Beauty and the Beast Poster
6.8/10 by 2252 users
Watch Trailer

A live-action adaptation of Disney's version of the classic 'Beauty and the Beast' tale of a cursed prince and a beautiful young woman who helps him break the spell.

Title:Beauty and the Beast
Release Date:March 16, 2017
Runtime:
MPAA Rating:PG
Genres:Fantasy, Romance
Production Co.:Walt Disney Pictures, Mandeville Films
Production Countries:United Kingdom, United States of America
Director:Bill Condon, Kim Armitage, Cathy Doubleday
Writers:,
Casts:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Plot Keywords:france, magic, castle, fairy tale, musical, curse, creature, held captive, gothic, 18th century, beast
Alternative Titles:
  • La Bella y la Bestia - [ES]
  • Ljepotica i zvijer - [HR]
  • E Bukura dhe Bisha - [AL]
  • La Bella y la Bestia - [AR]
  • Красавицата и звяра - [BG]
  • A Bela e a Fera - [BR]
  • Die Schöne und das Biest - [DE]
  • La Belle et la Bête - [FR]
  • Η πεντάμορφη και το τέρας - [GR]
  • A szépség és a szörnyeteg - [HU]
  • La bella e la bestia - [IT]
  • Piekna i Bestia - [PL]
  • A Bela e o Monstro - [PT]
  • Красавица и чудовище - [RU]
  • Skönheten och odjuret - [SE]
  • Красуня i Чудовисько - [UA]
  • მზეთუნახავი და ურჩხული - [GE]
  • Beauty and the Beast 2017 - [NL]

Beauty and the Beast Reviews

  • Leaves a lot to be desired
    by AlexV on 18 March 2017

    230 out of 308 people found the following review useful:

    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.

  • A meandering and dull mess. One of the biggest disappointments in recent years.
    by Joshua Cimarric-Penczek on 4 March 2017

    522 out of 901 people found the following review useful:

    Sure, I'm a huge film snob who (on the surface) only likes artsy-fartsy foreign films from before the 60's, but that hasn't stopped me from loving Disney's Beauty & The Beast; in fact, it's probably my favorite American animated film and is easily Disney's finest work. It's beautiful, it's breathtaking, it's warm, it's hilarious, it's captivating, and, in Disney fashion, it's magical. When I learned that Disney would be remaking their classic films, B&TB was undeniably the best wrapped package. How could they go wrong?

    Oh man, they went wrong.

    First thing's first: this film is so flat. The directing was dull and uninteresting throughout the entire film and it honestly felt like one of the Twilight sequels...and then I looked it up and found out that, yes, director Bill Condon was the man behind Breaking Dawn parts 1 & 2. Every shot looks bored and uninterested, which contrasts heavily with the original animated film that was constantly popping with vibrancy. The script too is boring because it's almost a complete remake of the original, though I guess most people won't mind that.

    Next: the CGI is horrid. Although I didn't care for The Jungle Book from last year, I could at least admit that the CGI was breathtaking. The same cant be said for this film. Characters like Lumière, Cogsworth, Mrs Potts, and most of the cursed appliances have very strange, lifeless faces that are pretty off putting to be looking at for such a long time. All of the sets too look artificial and fake, especially the town towards the beginning. However, the biggest offender is easily and infuriatingly the character that mattered most: The Beast. The CGI on the Beast's face is so distracting that it completely takes you out of the film. His eyes are completely devoid of soul, and his mouth is a gaping video game black hole of fiction. Klaus Kinski looked much better in the Faerie Tale Theatre episode of Beauty & The Beast, and that was a 1984 TV show episode. But do you know why it looked better? Because it was an actual face with actual eyes, not some video game computerized synthetic monstrosity. When will studios learn that practical effects will always top CGI?

    Finally: wasted casting. Emma Watson is beautiful, but she's no Belle. She is completely devoid of the warmth and humanity that made the animated Belle so beloved. Instead, she is cold and heartless throughout most of the film. Kevin Kline is 100% wasted and does nothing except look old. Ian McKellan, Ewan McGregor, Emma Thompson, and even Dan Stevens as the Beast are very expendable and could've been played by anyone else. The only good characters are Gaston and LeFou, mostly because they are fun and played by actors who breathe new life into their original shapes. If anything, this film should've been about Gaston and LeFou, but that would never happen because that would mean Disney couldn't cater to blind nostalgic 90's kids.

    Overall, this film is a complete bore. It could've been better if even the special effects were good, but the CGI in particular is horrendous. I'm all for Disney remaking their nostalgia- catering 90's films, but they need to be interesting. This film, sadly, is not. Even the Christmas sequel is better than this film because it's at least something.

  • Water and CGI does not an instant classic make
    by phantom_pixie on 16 March 2017

    316 out of 509 people found the following review useful:

    As a fan of the original Disney film (Personally I feel it's their masterpiece) I was taken aback to the fact that a new version was in the making. Still excited I had high hopes for the film. Most of was shattered in the first 10 minutes. Campy acting with badly performed singing starts off a long journey holding hands with some of the worst CGI Hollywood have managed to but to screen in ages.

    A film that is over 50% GCI, should focus on making that part believable, unfortunately for this film, it's far from that. It looks like the original film was ripped apart frame by frame and the beautiful hand-painted drawings have been replaced with digital caricatures. Besides CGI that is bad, it's mostly creepy. As the little teacup boy will give me nightmares for several nights to come. Emma Watson plays the same character as she always does, with very little acting effort and very little conviction as Belle. Although I can see why she was cast in the film based on merits, she is far from the right choice for the role. Dan Stevens does alright under as some motion captured dead-eyed Beast, but his performance feels flat as well. Luke Evans makes for a great pompous Gaston, but a character that has little depth doesn't really make for a great viewing experience. Josh Gad is a great comic relief just like the original movie's LeFou. Other than that, none of the cast stands out enough for me to remember them. Human or CHI creature. I was just bored through out the whole experience. And for a project costing $160 000 000, I can see why the PR department is pushing it so hard because they really need to get some cash back on this pile of wet stinky CGI-fur!

    All and all, I might be bias from really loving Disney's first adaptation. That for me marks the high-point of all their work, perfectly combining the skills of their animators along with some CGI in a majestic blend. This film however is more like the bucket you wash off your paintbrush in, it has all the same colors, but muddled with water and to thin to make a captivating story from. The film is quite frankly not worth your time, you would be better off watching the original one more time.

  • Moral of the Story: Marry for Money
    by Shlomo Jones on 6 April 2017

    162 out of 207 people found the following review useful:

    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.

  • The corporate version of Beauty And The Beast: Disney at it's most generic and dull
    by Quint1965 on 3 March 2017

    363 out of 612 people found the following review useful:

    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, kitchen devices 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. Of course it's not really a "bad" film; those 200 million blockbusters rarely are (this isn't 'The Room' after all), but it's so infuriatingly generic and dull - and it didn't have to be. In the hands of a great director the potential for this film would have been huge.

    Oh and one more thing: bad CGI wolves (who 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 - Beast - 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.

  • Don't bother stick with the original cartoon
    by sargis_y on 17 March 2017

    232 out of 356 people found the following review useful:

    My Childhood destroyed just re-watch the cartoon, don't bother don't waste a dollar. Poor acting poor everything. I don't even want to waste another minute explaining why and how horrible. Just means i'll need to relive it !!!! A little tip to Disney, you don't need to pick someone whom is well known i.e. Emma Whatfor.

  • An Autotuned Mess
    by LaLaLandSucks on 16 March 2017

    235 out of 362 people found the following review useful:

    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.

  • characters
    by jlucascaballero on 5 April 2017

    122 out of 149 people found the following review useful:

    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

  • As boring and emotionless as twilight
    by amythiessen on 20 March 2017

    181 out of 267 people found the following review useful:

    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.

  • Went with high hopes left with utter disgust
    by latemodelray on 20 March 2017

    185 out of 275 people found the following review useful:

    The movie is bad. My now grown kids went with the wife and I. Kids wife and I loved the cartoon version some 25 plus years back. This movie don't compare in any way. Kids are also life long Harry Potter fans and thought they loved Emma Watson they went truly wishing to love this movie they left feeling there money was stolen and swearing off Disney. I felt I was stuck on a 2 hour lecture about the greatness of being a liberal and found the movie sickening. Hey to each there own but I wish never wasted a penny on this movie and I am a life long cartoon and kid movie fan

Similar Movies