Support NeoGAF

[inm8num2]

RT page will probably add the reviews soon.

The New ‘Beauty And The Beast’ Should Satisfy Most Fans (Uproxx)

There’s certainly nothing that new about this version of Beauty and the Beast (well, except it isn’t a cartoon anymore), but it’s a good recreation of a classic animated film that should leave most die-hards satisfied. In other words: When you imagine what a live action Beauty and the Beast movie would be like, the final product is probably a lot like what you think it would be like.

The New Beauty and the Beast Is a Lifeless Re-creation of the Original (Vulture)

Unfortunately, it’s over two hours long, and is padded out by a hugely unnecessary number of non–Ashman-Rice musical numbers and a pointless detour where Belle finds out what happened to her missing mother. At every turn, the film seems to ask itself if what the original film did was enough, and answers with a definitive “no.” But hey, at least that clock looked real.

‘Beauty and the Beast’ Review: Too Much of a Good Thing (Collider)

That being said, this isn’t a matter of not living up to a classic original as much as there’s a lack of consideration for making sure that everything works. There’s no reason Beast’s CGI makeup should look so awful when you’ve got Disney footing the bill. There’s no reason the new songs shouldn’t be outstanding when you’ve got Alan Menken back to do the music. There’s no reason to add new things if those things don’t make the movie better overall. Condon didn’t have to stay slavishly devoted to the 1991 film, but most of alterations and changes don’t make his version feel fresh. They feel like they’re grasping for relevancy.

Rating: C

'Beauty and the Beast': Film Review (THR)

Disney’s latest iteration of the fairy tale Beauty and the Beast is more than just eye candy. It’s a Michelin-triple-starred master class in patisserie skills that transforms the cinematic equivalent of a sugar rush into a kind of crystal meth-like narcotic high that lasts about two hours. Only once viewers have come down and digested it all might they feel like the whole experience was actually a little bland, lacking in depth and so effervescent as to be almost instantly forgettable.

Review: ‘Beauty and the Beast’ Revels in Joy and Enchantment (NY Times)

But this live-action/digital hybrid, directed by Bill Condon and starring Emma Watson and Dan Stevens in the title roles, is more than a flesh-and-blood (and prosthetic fur-and-horns) revival of the 26-year-old cartoon, and more than a dutiful trip back to the pop-culture fairy-tale well. Its classicism feels unforced and fresh. Its romance neither winks nor panders. It looks good, moves gracefully and leaves a clean and invigorating aftertaste. I almost didn’t recognize the flavor: I think the name for it is joy.

Review: Disney's 'Beauty and the Beast' (Newsweek)

Condon’s Beauty and the Beast is visually as sumptuous as Branagh’s Cinderella, paying close attention to ornate castle decorations and beautiful costumes. The CGI is also well-handled; the Beast looks realistic and the special effects used in the musical numbers will mesmerize young moviegoers.

“A tale as old as time;” yes. But Disney and Condon have found a way to breathe some new life into it.

Review: Rousing new 'Beauty and the Beast' is even better than the original (USA Today)

Embracing its musical theater nature and adding depth to a familiar narrative, the live-action remake (*** out of four; rated PG; in theaters March 17) is a real Beauty.
...
Unlike last year’s The Jungle Book, Beauty and the Beast marries visual spectacle and sumptuous design work with a better story than its original, casting a spell on old fans and newcomers alike.

The Live-Action Beauty and the Beast (Salon)

And so as an exercise in finding something there that wasn’t there before, while serving up pleasant familiarity for young and old alike, the movie falls in line with the surprisingly entertaining Cinderella remake. You’ll probably walk away longing to revisit the original for the ump-hundredth time. But isn’t that the point?

Video reviews:

Chris Stuckmann

Jeremy Jahns

 

[Poor GRIMES]

I was thinking the embargo for reviews ended so early because they're confident.........but it has a 50% 40% lol

 

[Solo]

Tale as old as mediocrity.

 

[CosmicGroinPull]

Hmm.

I just stumbled on the remake of the Beauty and the Beast song and it was blah. I liked the singers individually, but together they were blah.

 

[Litan]

Another movie that's meeting my expectations. Never thought this looked that good. Was hoping it would surprise, though.

 

[Lebron]

Fake News.


Gonna be the best movie of the year, easy

 

[mcfrank]

Seems pretty polarizing.

 

[Grizzlyjin]

Welp. After being bored to tears by Cinderella, I'm just gonna sit this one out then. If there isn't much new, I'm not particularly interested. Plus, it'll be on Netflix in a couple months

 

[Kodiak]

It's almost like it was engineered to create hype and make money without offering anything new or interesting.

 

[Violence Jack]

I don't believe that USA Today review. I thought The Jungle Book did everything it claims they didn't, and no way do I think it'll be better than the original. Everything I've seen from the trailers makes me think it'll be on par with it at best.

 

[whytemyke]

This movie is gonna be review-proof.

It's gonna gross a billion worldwide whether it's got a 50% RT or not.

 

[Osahi]

Pretty mixed. Exactly how I felt about the trailers too. One part of me wants to see it, the other feels like I should stick with the classic animation

 

[JdFoX187]

Damn, so sounds a lot more in the vein of Cinderella than The Jungle Book. Beauty and the Beast was probably my least favorite of the Renaissance films, so I'll opt out of seeing it in theater, especially since they come to Netflix so fast.

 

[DontBeThatGuy]

Sounds about right.

 

[KeyBladerXIII]

There's no way I'll not love this unless they butcher Be Our Guest.

 

[EatinOlives]

All the clips had a certain element of energy missing. I felt like the cinematography was really lacking in that regard, there was no creativity or musical sense to the shots and editing.

 

[PHOENIXZERO]

Not really surprising, pretty much everything I've seen from the trailers has looked dreadful and offers nothing. Might as well just go watch the classic animated version.

 

[Obliterator]

Whoa, its coming in much lower than I was expecting. Wonder if that's gonna hurt the box office on it or not. Seems like the kinda film that reviews wouldn't affect too much, but these are pretty low scores.

 

[GuitarAtomik]

Didn't realize this was out so soon.

 

[mhayes86]

That's a shame. Jungle Book was surprisingly good, and I thought the trailers for this looked pretty good as well. My wife is absolutely hyped for this, so we'll be seeing it. I won't mention the impressions so far since that will bum her out. I'd rather leave it up to her to decide.

 

[Poor GRIMES]

Reminder that we were once promised a much darker retelling of this story directed by Guillermo Del Toro.

 

[DontBeThatGuy]

Whoa, its coming in much lower than I was expecting. Wonder if that's gonna hurt the box office on it or not. Seems like the kinda film that reviews wouldn't affect too much, but these are pretty low scores.

Considering that piece of garbage Alice in Wonderland made a billion with poor to middling reviews, I'm gonna say this is gonna be just fine.

 

[Brandon F]

Shame, though trailer footage didn't seem too hot in a way that Jungle Book and Cinderella intrigued me. Still should do well, but not sure if this will endure beyond the box office take in people's minds.

Didn't realize this was out so soon.

A couple weeks I think.

 

[Alex_Mexico]

I expected another universally acclaimed remake like The Jungle Book (95%). I guess I was wrong. Modern Disney can fuck up!

 

[J_Viper]

Seeing a Disney movie with a rotten RT average is so strange. This looked quite terrible though.

If Kong ends up with a higher average I'm gonna laugh.

 

[Not]

Basically what I was expecting. Have absolutely no interest in this.

This movie is gonna be review-proof.

It's gonna gross a billion worldwide whether it's got a 50% RT or not.

This, though

 

[Tertullian]

I expected another universally acclaimed remake like The Jungle Book (95%). I guess I was wrong. Modern Disney can fuck up!

Yeah, I was expecting this to have a high tomatometer and lots of reviews saying it's pretty good. This is unexpected.

 

[Oersted]

Reminder that we were once promised a much darker retelling of this story directed by Guillermo Del Toro.

There is still the '46 version

 

[NealMcCauley]

I don't know if half-assed is the right description, but everything I've seen for this suggested Disney was so confident the movie would be a success anyway they didn't bother to make sure the movie was actually good.

 

[Hellwarden]

Sounds like the Maleficent film. A very mediocre flm that none the less is gonna be pretty successful.

 

[Baron von Loathsome]

I had a feeling that it'd end up feeling pretty pointless.

 

[GSG Flash]

Disappointed, I had high hopes for this one. That said, I was sort of prepared for this considering the director and the fact that Emma Watson is the lead actress.

An excerpt from one of the reviews:

Ms. Watson obviously lives up to the English translation of her Belle character, appearing quite ravishing throughout the film; she also likewise transfers her own intellectual gifts to the character, allowing the newly resurrected Disney princess to enjoy some of the thoughtful poise that Watson displayed before the United Nations, where she became as much of a role model for young girls as her beloved Hermione persona. But as an actress, she continues to struggle in adult roles with getting out of her own head and conveying the emotional core that drives her characters, and Belle is ultimately a blandly flat creation in this Beauty and the Beast, wise and more proactive than her 1991 counterpart, but also far more blank and unknowable—she’s paradoxically less alive in the flesh.

As the film rests primarily on Watson’s shoulders, this can prove fatal during scenes where she must sell romance to a CG-created Beast. Stevens fares better as that critter, bringing a bit more humanity to his character’s boorish physicality than the last film, and, for the record, both actors have much better singing voices than those that carried the Oscar winning La La Land (albeit, comparing them to 1991’s Paige O’Hara and Robby Benson proves more problematic).

I always thought casting Emma Watson as Belle was a risky move, that girl doesn't know how to act.

 

[rrc1594]

Man I'm so scared for Lion King

 

[Ohwiseone]

Currently sitting at 50% Probably will end up at 70% or so.

I mean, I am still going to see it. Can't say I am shocked that its just okay.

 

[jett]

Seems Emma Watson is still awful.

Tale as old as mediocrity.

Sounds about right.

Considering that piece of garbage Alice in Wonderland made a billion with poor to middling reviews, I'm gonna say this is gonna be just fine.

That piece of garbage was riding Avatar's 3D coattails.

 

[kurahador]

I expected another universally acclaimed remake like The Jungle Book (95%). I guess I was wrong. Modern Disney can fuck up!

Guess you forgot Maleficent and Oz the Great and Powerful.

 

[Oersted]

Sounds like the Maleficent film. A very mediocre flm that none the less is gonna be pretty successful.

Angelina Jolie was praised tho

Disappointed, I had high hopes for this one. That said, I was sort of prepared for this considering the director and the fact that Emma Watson is the lead actress.

An excerpt from one of the reviews:



I always thought casting Emma Watson as Belle was a risky move, that girl doesn't know how to act.

Shame what happened to Grint, had the most talent out of the 3 HP leads.

 

[Certinty]

Ouch. Will still do pretty damn well though I guess.

 

[Blader]

These reviews sound in line with what I thought of The Jungle Book.

 

[Litan]

Man I'm so scared for Lion King

Still looking forward to Mulan.

 

[Anung]

The second I seen that clip of Gaston singing it totally killed my hype and interest of going to the cinema and seeing this. Everything about this just seems flat and lifeless and for a musical lacking energy is such a sin.

 

[Ogodei]

Surprised after The Jungle Book was so praised, i was always skeptical of that movie due to overreliance on CGI, and that this movie would do better because Disney usually doesn't screw up the fundamentals.

 

[Boke1879]

Probably still gonna make a shit ton of cash.

 

[Ohwiseone]

The fact that the movie is 40 minutes LONGER than the original really worries me. One of the best part of the original is that its super short, but still so effective.


I am probably not going to like it, but it is just because I hold the 91 version is such high regard.


Also not looking forward to the Ballroom Scene (considering every review makes it sound like its Blah.) Which is shocking considering how effective Cinderella's was.

 

[Mortimer Brewster]

Disappointed, I had high hopes for this one. That said, I was sort of prepared for this considering the director and the fact that Emma Watson was the lead actress.

An excerpt from one of the reviews:



I always thought casting Emma Watson as Belle was a risky move, that girl doesn't know how to act.

Those were my thoughts initially and then the recent clips only confirmed my fears. It's never good when her facial expressions especially her overacting eyebrows are giving me Steven Seagal and Emilia Clarke vibes or a inconsistent and off hybrid accent giving me flashbacks to Keanu in Bram Stokers Dracula or Christopher Lambert in Highlander.

At least Stevens is Doing his usual great work though it sounds even his talents can keep Watson completely afloat.

 

[Ithil]

They need to only remake their very old or more mediocre releases, remaking a recent and excellent film of theirs is really pointless (that goes for the Lion King remake too).
Instead of remaking BATB and Lion King, why not remake the Black Cauldron or something?

 

[Baron von Loathsome]

Man I'm so scared for Lion King

Lion King is being directed by Jon Favreau, and he had the good sense to try something different with his version of The Jungle Book. It'll probably be fine.

 

[Decado]

The '91 film is a classic. This never looked like it would be half as good. A little surprised at the low reviews, though. I hated Jungle Book and it got great reviews.

 

[Ohwiseone]

At least Stevens is Doing his usual great work though it sounds even his talents can keep Watson completely afloat.

In all honesty, it sounds like Stevens, Evans and Gad all manage to keep her from sinking the whole ship.

Which.. isn't shocking, even now when I see trailers it's hard to get around that something seems..off with her.

 

[Not]

Man I'm so scared for Lion King

Don't. Favreau and Gambino. It's gonna haul.