Beauty and the Beast

2017

Family  Fantasy  Musical  Romance  

Synopsis


Downloaded 31,815 times
Uploaded By: OTTO
May 19, 2017 at 7:56 am

Director

Cast

Emma Watson as Belle
Ewan McGregor as Lumière
Dan Stevens as Beast
Luke Evans as Gaston
720p 1080p
947.05 MB
1280*720
English
PG
23.976 fps
2hr 9 min
P/S 6,599 / 9,441
1.96 GB
1920*1080
English
PG
23.976 fps
2hr 9 min
P/S 8,086 / 13,979

Movie Reviews

Reviewed by olivia siegenthaler 9 / 10

Overstuffed and lacks the charm of the original

I was really looking forward to this film. Not only has Disney recently made excellent live-action versions of their animated masterpieces (Jungle Book, Cinderella), but the cast alone (Emma Watson, Ian McKellen, Kevin Kline) already seemed to make this one a sure hit. Well, not so much as it turns out.Some of the animation is fantastic, but because characters like Cogsworth (the clock), Lumière (the candelabra) and Chip (the little tea cup) now look "realistic", they lose a lot of their animated predecessors' charm and actually even look kind of creepy at times. And ironically - unlike in the animated original - in this new realistic version they only have very limited facial expressions (which is a creative decision I can't for the life of me understand). Even when it works: there can be too much of a good thing. The film is overstuffed with lush production design and cgi (which is often weirdly artificial looking though) but sadly lacking in charm and genuine emotion. If this were a music album, I'd say it is "over-produced" and in need of more soul and swing. The great voice talent in some cases actually seems wasted, because it drowns in a sea of visual effects that numbs all senses. The most crucial thing that didn't work for me, though, is the Beast. He just never looks convincing. The eyes somehow don't look like real eyes and they're always slightly off.On the positive side, I really liked Gaston, and the actor who played him, Luke Evans, actually gave the perhaps most energized performance of all. Kevin Kline as Belle's father has little to do but to look fatherly and old, but he makes the most of his part. Speaking of Belle, now that I've seen the film, I think her role was miscast. I think someone like Rachel McAdams would actually have been a more natural, lively and perhaps a bit more feisty Belle than Emma Watson. If you love the original, you might want to give this one a pass, it's really not that good (although at least the songs were OK). Also, I'd think twice before bringing small children; without cute animated faces, all those "realistic" looking creatures and devices can be rather frightening for a child.

Reviewed by Quint1965 9 / 10

The corporate version of Beauty And The Beast: Disney at it's most generic and dull

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Reviewed by Fan-of-Rare- Movies 9 / 10

A Missed Opportunity

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.

Reviewed by wilhelm-schneider1001 9 / 10

Underwhelming - some lovely scenes but the CGI face of Beast is a constant distraction

Come on Disney: what were you thinking?! You've got one of the most beloved films in your entire catalogue; the first animated film ever that was nominated for a best picture Oscar - and you give the new version of that film to the director of 'Twilight' parts 3 and 4? Has anyone of your executives even seen Bill Condon's 'Twilight' films or did you just look at all the money they made during their opening weekend? Just so you know: those films are atrocious. There are porn films who look better and have better plots (seriously).Now the good news is, 'Beauty and the Beast' is nowhere near as bad as the Twilight films, but it DOES bear a striking visual resemblance to those teen shlock movies. And that's what I don't get: if you have the chance to make a film that will make 1.5 billion dollars (given the reviews are good) - wouldn't you want to make sure to make the best looking film possible? But over large stretches this film has the mediocre looking CGI of a cheap Lionsgate fantasy film and the nuanced color-grading of a bowl of M&Ms.Emma Watson isn't half bad as Belle, but her acting feels forced in a way you can practically read the directions she gets from her director on her face ("now act SURPRISED" - "now show us a sense of WONDER" - "now look SAD"). Great actors like Kevin Kline are simply wasted because they have nothing to do besides just being there and have a certain look. The one actor who makes something of his role is, naturally, the one who plays the baddie; Luke Evans at least looks like he's having fun.But all that is still not the worst. What sank the film for me was Beast. It's mind-boggling to me how a gigantic company like Disney lets a film open if the most important CGI effects obviously don't look convincing yet. Beast's face never looks real and that's just not acceptable. It's been almost 10 years since we got a completely convincing CGI "beast" face with Peter Jackson's King Kong, complete with alive looking eyes and natural facial expressions. Since then we got films like 'Dawn of the Planet of the Apes' and 'Jungle Book' that looked even better and more realistic. So what happened? What did they spend the 200 million budget on?I'm sorry to say it, but this film represents a huge missed opportunity for Disney.

Read more IMDb reviews