Beauty and the Beast

2017

Action / Family / Fantasy / Musical / Romance

514
Rotten Tomatoes Critics - Certified Fresh 71%
Rotten Tomatoes Audience - Upright 85%
IMDb Rating 0 10 0

Synopsis


Uploaded By: FREEMAN
Downloaded 2,185,640 times
June 17, 2017 at 07:20 AM

Director

Cast

Emma Watson as Belle
Ewan McGregor as Lumière
Dan Stevens as Beast
Luke Evans as Gaston
3D 720p 1080p
1.97 GB
1920*1080
English
PG
23.976 fps
12hr 0 min
P/S 40 / 119
947.05 MB
1280*720
English
PG
23.976 fps
12hr 0 min
P/S 549 / 2,834
1.96 GB
1920*1080
English
PG
23.976 fps
12hr 0 min
P/S 1,874 / 6,318

Movie Reviews

Reviewed by Shlomo Jones 1 / 10

Moral of the Story: Marry for Money

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.

Reviewed by Joshua Cimarric-Penczek 3 / 10

A meandering and dull mess. One of the biggest disappointments in recent years.

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.

Reviewed by phantom_pixie 1 / 10

Water and CGI does not an instant classic make

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.

Read more IMDb reviews

311 Comments

Be the first to leave a comment