Beauty and the Beast
Year:
2017
Country:
USA, UK
Genre:
Fantasy, Romance, Family, Musical
IMDB rating:
7.6
Director:
Bill Condon
Ewan McGregor as Lumière
Ray Fearon as Père Robert
Luke Evans as Gaston
Haydn Gwynne as Clothilde
Dan Stevens as Beast
Gerard Horan as Jean the Potter
Emma Thompson as Mrs. Potts
Emma Watson as Belle
Stanley Tucci as Maestro Cadenza
Josh Gad as Lefou
Hattie Morahan as Agathe / Enchantress
Audra McDonald as Madame Garderobe
Kevin Kline as Maurice
Ian McKellen as Cogsworth
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.
Type 1080p
Resolution 1920x808 px
File Size 10077 Mb
Codec h264
Bitrate 10897 Kbps
Format mkv
Download
Type HQ DVD-rip
Resolution 720x302 px
File Size 1667 Mb
Codec mpeg4
Bitrate 1803 Kbps
Format avi
Download
Type Resolution File Size Codec Bitrate Format
1080p 1920x808 px 10077 Mb h264 10897 Kbps mkv Download
HQ DVD-rip 720x302 px 1667 Mb mpeg4 1803 Kbps avi Download


Reviews
An Autotuned Mess
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.
2017-03-16
Unimaginative and bland
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.
2017-03-22
Miscast of Belle, bad acting is distracting
I wish they had chosen a real actress to portrait Belle - not just someone who is there only because she is famous. I wish I had seen an actress who has talent and can actually act, sing and show emotion and some effort into the role.

The original movie was amazing, and it has always been one of my favorite Disney movies! Disappointed.
2017-05-15
An Honest Review
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.
2017-03-18
I loved this film!
Very much like the cartoon! The singing was really good ... Emma Watson ... what a star! The acting was great. I was in two minds about seeing this as it's my favorite fairy story and my favorite Disney cartoon. I was in tears at the end, even though I knew the story backwards. Why didn't I give it 10 ... The thing that let it down a little for me was the make up of The Beast, I thought it was a little too scary for the film and the wolves were quite a bit nastier than the cartoon version. Young children may be scared by these things.
2017-06-08
Not worth it
Emma Watson is wooden and has limited facial expressions. You would think she'd be used to emoting with CGI, having made all those Harry Potter movies. The prince is no looker either; hard to believe these were the most attractive people they could come up with.

I also had trouble with some of the goofs. When Gaston and the father set off to find Belle they imply that it's taking forever to get through the wintry forest to his castle, yet when Belle leaves the castle to go look for her father it takes her about 2 minutes to get to the town.

I know little girls won't care about that but it bugged me.
2017-03-30
Not as Good as the Original but a Fun Film Nonetheless
So this is Disney's latest attempt at making one of their animated classics a live action classic, and while it doesn't reach the incredibly high bar the original set I still found it pretty enjoyable. What really impressed me about this film were the visuals and the acting. This movie is just gorgeous to look at, the sets are just so grand in size that you can't help but become mesmerized by it, and the effects for the Beast and his servants were very well integrated into the live action. It also didn't hurt that the movie had an amazing cast; Emma Watson, Dan Stevens, Luke Evans, and Josh Gad just nail each of their characters and I never thought of the characters as being played by actors, I thought of them as the same characters from the original and that's impressive acting right there. Do that's what I liked about Beauty and the Beast but there are two flaws with this flick. Alright so remember all the positive things I just said about the film because I'm about to say something that will make most people really mad, Emma Watson's singing was dull. Watson did a nice job in the acting category but when it came time to sing it didn't sound like she was really getting into it, it sounded like someone with little musical background reading the lyrics and trying way too hard to prove she can sing, not bad singing just dull singing. With that being said the rest of the cast did do a nice job with the musical parts, I hate to single out Watson as the one singer who didn't nail the singing but that is the case, and because she does the majority of the singing in the film it does bring the movie down a notch. So overall I really did like this film, it had good acting and nice visuals, and even though it might have lacked originality and not all the songs were masterpieces it is still a fun adaptation that respects its source material, and I would definitively recommend people see it if they haven't already.
2017-04-16
One of the Best Remakes
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.
2017-06-14
Ill conceived, half baked and poorly executed.
This is just horrible, cringe-worthy comes to mind.The "new" musical scores stand out in nauseating contrast to the much better original songs. I don't know who writes these musical scores but this is not the first "musical" to strike my upchuck cord. It must be some new style, sing your script as badly as you can manage. Les Miserables (the new one) was the first thing that popped into my head when I heard the first terrible addition to the score. Even good actors can't help this kind of writing.

If the singing wasn't bad enough the CGI will certainly send you into the realms of disbelief. One would think that Disney would be able to hire competent 3D character artists and animators. The "beast" looks completely unbelievable, hell, it's anatomy doesn't even flow correctly. This reliance on CG for everything is killing the industry. Why do you need CGI wolves?

All in all, I wouldn't give this piece of money grabbing puke more than a 5/10. I rate it 1 because it's rating is sickeningly inflated. Even my 9 year old enjoyed poking fun at it more than watching it. This should not have been made. The cartoon was brilliant, this is forgettable garbage.
2017-05-20
A classic in its own right
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.
2017-06-08
×