User Reviews

This is an almost perfect version of this well known story but my problem is that we do not feel the growing love of Belle for the beast too much. She's seeing in dreams who was the beast before, so we understand she can fall in love for who he was, but not too much for who he really is. If that makes sens. But all in all it's a very well made movie for all the family. The tone is a bit dark for little kids but always beautiful, as it's usually the case with Gans's movies. The use of CGI is obvious on the creatures, but it's done with good taste, IMO. It's a shame gans does not make more movies, I love his style. It's just that, after all this time waiting for a new movie of him, I wanted a little more substance.

La Belle et la Bête is such a beautiful movie with high production values that it could pass for one of these recent Hollywood blockbusters picking up all those old fairy tales and turning them into live-action movies, but in fact it's a high-end French movie, so unfortunately not as many people will get to see it. Which is a shame, because it really is candy for the eyes.

Although a good chunk of the movie is CGI, it really doesn't look like it, and most of the sets look real (unlike 'Maleficient', which also had beautiful imagery, but looked somewhat fake). The Beast's castle and surrounding gardens look magical, and the style reminded me a lot of 'Labyrinth'. The castle's interior decoration is so mesmerizing that it just makes you want to jump into the movie and explore it along with Belle. The music is also one of the movie's strong points, with melodies that really match the movie's beauty.

Unfortunately, as beautiful and magical the movie looks and sounds, it feels quite empty. The story is a lot closer to the original tale than the Disney version, with a darker tone, but the love story was put aside in favor of showing the movie's aesthetics. Although the movie slightly dwells into Belle's life and the Beast's past, neither character really feels developed, making it unbelievable that they would fall in love.

The movie strongly feels like a scene of connection is missing; one minute they're fighting, the next they're kissing, with absolutely no logic to their love story. Their love is never shown; you as the viewer don't see how they fall in love. A little extra 10 minutes to show their relation would have made all the difference. As it is, it makes no sense these two characters would be together. The Disney version did a better job at showing this.

Nonetheless, the movie is still worth a watch for the beautiful visuals if you like the original story; it goes deeper into certain aspects of it, but sadly the love story was lost somewhere along the way. Too bad, because this could have been better than anything Hollywood could have brought us, if only they had put a little more effort into building the two main characters.

Beauty and the Beast is another proof that French cinematography is on par with current Hollywood blockbusters in terms of CGI and outperforms them in storytelling. It might be wrong to generalize like this, but the previous sentence can't be negated in any serious discussion.

Beauty and the Beast is, hopefully, a fairy tale known to everyone. Discussing the script or actors' performance would be beyond the point. The story is retold in a visually perfect manner. Actually, this is in line with movies in which a superhero does the same thing one more time, but with a different lead actor and targeting the audience that was too young to witness the previous installment.

The best thing about this movie is the atmosphere. It is indeed a fairy tale, with some passion and some action, but it never becomes sleazy or boring.

Greetings again from the darkness. If you are looking for dancing tea cups or singing candelabras, you've come to the wrong movie. If you are looking for the Gothic approach to the dark psychological analysis of the original story … again, you've come to the wrong movie. Director Christophe Gans (Silent Hill, 2006) offers up a version that is neither animated Disney (1991) nor Jean Cocteau (1946), though his film does have a visual flair that will likely keep audiences (it's not for very young kids) engaged throughout.

The familiar story was first written by Gabrielle-Suzanne Barbot de Villenueve in 1740, however, it's the revised version from Jeanne-Marie Leprince de Beaumont in 1756 that provides the fairy tale/fable that has been filmed so many times since. The story's genealogy based in France instills a bit more hope and responsibility in a project starring Vincent Cassel, Lea Seydoux and Andre Dussolier, and directed by the Frenchman Gans.

Ms. Seydoux is an admirable Belle, and her grace and beauty make for quite the contrast to her needy and entitled sisters. Her time in the castle with the Beast is limited, and therein is the film's biggest weakness. We never really see the transformation of the Beast to a man who repents, turns over a new leaf, and is worthy of love … it all just kind of happens thanks to the beautiful dresses. Mr. Gans and Sandra Vo-Anh co-wrote the script, and this misstep deflates the core of the story. We are on our own to interpret the messages of class warfare, greed, and judging others by looks. The focus instead is on the visual presentation, which at times is spectacular.

The set design and costumes are especially impressive and elaborate, and though the look of the Beast may not be precisely to your imagination, the film isn't shy about putting him front and center with the camera. Vincent Cassel's time as the Prince is pretty well done, and the CGI and explanation of the gold doe, nymph of the forest, magic healing water, pack of beagles and the curse are enough to move the story along … even if some details are lacking.

A bedtime story being read to two young kids is the framing device and might explain why the fantasy world is emphasized over the dark psychological undertones (more prevalent in the Cocteau version). While some might view the ending as somewhat mawkish, it's really nice to see happily-ever-after is not twisted into some contemporary take on independence.

The story "Beauty and the Beast" is a classic. However, there is no one definitive version. Instead, it's a folk tale that's been passed down for generations until a very popular version was written by a couple women well over two centuries ago. And, since then, other versions have also been written. I mention this because if you watch ANY version of the story, you must accept that they will be different. This version is very different from the two most famous versions, Disney's and "Belle et Bête" (1946) by Jean Cocteau...and that's okay with me.

This new French version is different from many other versions because it concentrates much more on the family's back story and how awful Belle's siblings are. This is a highly dysfunctional family and the father seems oblivious to the monsters he's helped to create. All are monsters, except for Belle. And eventually, you learn that the father isn't all that wonderful either. When he's lost in the forest in the cold, he seeks shelter in what looks like an abandoned castle. However, after eating like a pig from the sumptuous dining table, the guy begins stealing stuff from the place. He says it's because it's abandoned...but the food was warm and obviously the guy was just a thief. On the way out, he stops to pick a single rose for his sweet daughter--and that is when the beast appears and tells him of his punishment. He will be allowed to return home to put his things in order, but he MUST return to be the creature's prisoner. But, when Belle learns of this, she bolts to the castle--offering up herself instead. As for the rest of the tale, it's NOT what you'd expect. There is a story involving Belle's crappy brother and some money-lenders as well as the creature's back story. Unlike most versions, this one slowly reveals bits and pieces of this sad tale and exactly why he's been turned into a beast is quite strange. But again, since there is not one version of the story, such license is understandable.

So was this film worth seeing? Well, yes and no. It's far from the best version I've seen but it is worth your time. Major pluses are how beautiful the film is in many places as well as a few changes to the generally accepted story. I appreciate how Belle's father really DID deserve to be punished, whereas in other versions Beast just seems mean and unfair in punishing the old guy. But, what didn't thrill me was the amount of extra story. With all the subplots and back story, so much of the romance between Belle and Beast is missing--and her falling for him seems to make far less sense. Plus, while some will love all the CG, I think after a while it was just too much--such as the HUGE creatures that appear at the end and start stomping on everyone as well as the bizarre crazy-eyed puppy creatures! I prefer a simpler version that is a bit smaller in scope and less intense. Call me a romantic at heart, but a bit less would have delivered so much more.

By the way, the version I saw DID have English subtitles, but they were not very good in places. Once in particular, I would have misunderstood an important part of the film had I not understood what they were actually saying in French.

I don't want to get you bored with long texts. My personal opinion is that 2 very good actors (Bella and Cassel) are wasted in a film with slow and uninteresting plot.

The same thing goes for the director. The special effects are great, the backgrounds and the places are awesome but it's just that.

PS. I saw it with French audio + subtitles so I may have missed a lot of important details. Sorry about that.

La Belle et la Bete has all the whimsical magic and fantasy of a captivating fairy tale but with the humanity of a feature adaptation.

There is just something about these fables that have the ability to touch the audience's heart. La Belle et la Bete (Beauty and the Beast) brings the French fairy tale to life in an equally as wondrous but more realistic manner than the Disney classic.

American audiences will recognize the story without confusion as only minor changes are made with Christophe Gans's adaptation. A once prestigious and wealthy sea merchant (André Dussollier) is left disgraced and penniless when his three cargo ships go missing. With everything confiscated by the banks to compensate for his debts, the newly destitute family retreats to the provincial countryside. The merchant and father becomes lost when returning from a trip to the city. Seeking refuge, he finds shelter in a mysterious but magical castle. Overstepping the castle's generosity, the father must trade une vie pour une rose, a life for a rose.

The French film La Belle et la Bete is what I had so desperately desired but failed to receive from Disney's Maleficent. Though it does not attempt to reinvent the tale from an alternative perspective, La Belle et la Bete does give audiences a refreshingly real story rather than a romanticized but far fetched fable.

In every scene and with every single frame, director Christophe Gans captures the magical and otherworldly awe inherent in a fairy tale. The castle's fortress is a maze of crumbling corridors and overgrown staircases that we explore with Belle during the day. From the set design and landscapes to the opulent costumes and cinematography, La Belle et la Bete transports its audiences to a magnificent and enchanting fantasy land.

In almost all regards, La Belle et la Bete is an overwhelming success but there are weaknesses in the narrative and film. The CGI is vastly inferior to the rest of the environment of the film and is a distraction. The writers and director do not take the added time to truly cultivate a love story between Belle (Léa Seydoux) and la Bete (Vincent Cassel). For a film that claims its genre to be romance, this is rather a large component and therefore complaint. Further the introduction of the Gaston character and eventual climax at the castle feels rushed and slightly out of place.

La Belle et la Bete is a spectacular cinematic experience that should be voraciously devoured by lovers of the fantastical, especially children. (Though there is nudity, it is minimal, tasteful, unavoidable and completely nonsexual.)

Please check out our website for all the recent releases reviewed in full.

I should have seen this before the latest Disney version of the tale. It came a couple of years ago, with a wonderful cast and visuals. French cinema is not a great vfx powerhouse. Unlike most of the famous Hollywood mythical and fairy tales originated from Europe, it's rare to see them converted to films in the similar fashion in its homeland. One of the reasons was the international market, to earn back everything they have spent for it, and more. When such projects do happen, sometimes the filmmakers tie up with Hollywood co-production to secure returns. Even if you take this film's worldwide box office, nothing overwhelming. But the challenge they had taken was truly appreciable.

That's not it, this is the most redesigned versions of them all I've seen so far. Because I haven't seen any other than Disney's, excluding the modern timeline adaptation like 'Beastly', 'I' et cetera. Yeah, even the Disney's live-action retained original from their animated version, but visually extraordinary. And in here, the story was same, thought told in a different way. The graphics too were very nice, I did not expect that. Despite it is being a fantasy and a children's tale, the contents were more serious. That reveals they were very keen to bring the adults to the screens than the kids. Yet nothing too seriously targeted the grownups like 'Tale of Tales'.

Everyone knows the basic storyline of this tale. A recently lost their fortune, a family of six siblings with their father relocates to a small farmhouse. No one other than the youngest daughter, Belle, was happy to be in such nature surrounded place. But one day when her father got into a big trouble, she takes his position and becomes a prisoner in an abandoned castle. Since then she begins to learn about the mystery man of the castle, particularly his past, reason to be ended like that. And following, a twist in the narration leading to the finale, everyone's fate will be revealed.

❝Remember... A life for a rose.❞

The film was two hours long and well filled with the scenes in it all over. It doesn't feel like we're watching a fantasy film. The colours, costumes, medieval story, misty mountain, all is the major reminder that you are watching a fairy-tale. Though you won't get anything magical from the story right away. Not until the third act. As for the story, from such vastly known tale, you can't expect any major surprise. As I said, some minor changes can be witnessed throughout. But such kind of scale the flick has in all the department, that too coming from Europe makes it a very special.

Definitely no to comparison with the Disney's. Both of them were fine products on their own way. But people would compare and pick one when they are based on the same source. That can't be stopped. Disney had created their own brand, aiming for kids. You can find the people who liked both the live-actions. I never knew the original tale, I mean from the original source/text. Those who are familiar with are saying, this is most closest one. But something I did not understand was the Beast was cute furry Beast, just like Disney's. I anticipated something tough physique, hard character, I mean Beast as a real Beastly.

Excluding that slight displeasure, I have had no other complaints with the film. I enjoyed it, yet there's another thing which is actually a question rather than a disagreement. The actors did their parts, though I felt the Beast character should have been played by a younger one. Vincent Cassel is a brilliant French actor and he did his best for it. Lea Seydoux as Beauty surely an excellent pick. The direction was good. Cautiously spent for everything in the film. So they have got a fine final product. Most of the people going for it, only keeping in mind Disney. You won't get that Disney's singing, dancing, overall appeal. One must clear off his mind from any great ideas and then only give it a try. Remember, it is not a very good film, but simply a good film.

7/10

A nice attempt by Christophe Gans, but certainly not his best work. The special effects are remarkable and the visuals are spectacular, but the movie has nothing much to offer other than that. The different take of the story might seem a little refreshing, but it lacks heart and soul, and the characters aren't developed much; one couldn't sympathise with or like any character in the film. Glimpses are given into the prince's life and his past, but nothing is done to develop his relationship with Belle; them falling in love doesn't make any sense in this story.

Talented actors like Cassel and Seydoux are completely wasted; they're just there to look their part. But I have to say, Lea Seydoux's looks in the movie are synonymous with her character's name, Belle (beautiful).

If anyone is a fan of the story, I would still recommend them to watch the 1991 animated musical instead of this one; it's better in every single way.

Overall, the film is all Beauty, no Beast (the majestic love story is missing).

I enjoyed this French version of "Beauty and The Beast" for the most part. The cinematography and character designs are beautiful. I liked the fantasy atmosphere and sense of exploration in the first half of the film. I also liked the mystery of the Beast's origin.

I appreciate the fact that it is more accurate to the fairy tale than previous adaptations. That being said, the second half deviates from the original story in a few respects and I found it sluggish in some parts. I found the final action sequence a bit too fantastical and left unexplained except via Deus Ex Machina. However, it certainly looks impressive.

Ultimately, the film isn't perfect. The story has been done many times before and this rendition is sluggish at times. Never-the-less, I recommend watching the film for its stunning beauty alone.

There have been many versions of the classic fairytale of Beauty And The Beast - from operas and television shows to science-fiction re- tellings. The best-known incarnation of the story, of course, bears the Disney brand and features singing teapots and dancing candlesticks. It sounds ridiculous, sure, but anyone who's watched that film will know that it packs a genuine emotional punch. That's not something that can be said of this latest effort by writer- director Christophe Gans, an opulent, lavishly CGI-ed affair that hews closer to the original, darker story (at least at the beginning) but seems to have forgotten the heart of its tale along the way.

The film opens on an elderly merchant (André Dussollier), who has raised a brood of narcissistic, spoilt children - apart from thoughtful, sensitive Belle (Léa Seydoux). As his fortune crumbles around him, the merchant stumbles into an enchanted castle, wherein he helps himself to plenty of food and treasures. The price exacted by the Beast (Vincent Cassel), mysterious owner of the castle, is a steep one: the merchant's freedom. When Belle arrives in place of her father, she finds herself both prisoner and guest - she's given beautiful gowns to wear and the run of the entire castle, but must spend every evening having dinner with the prickly and recalcitrant Beast. When the Beast finally allows Belle to see her family again, she inadvertently opens the way to the castle for people bearing prejudice, greed and, quite possibly, disaster.

There's no denying that Gans' film looks good - Belle is draped in rich, velvety fabrics, ivory-hued statues lie wreathed in ivy and tears, and the castle stands starkly Gothic against lowering skies. Cassel's Beast make-up - which makes him look like a cross between a cat and a wolf - is decent enough, though it doesn't give him much room to emote. There are moments when the film and its ideas seem to flare to life too. When Belle dreams of the people who lived and loved in the castle before her, she becomes witness to a climactic scene in which a horrible curse is cast - a girl lies, dying and naked, on the ground, cradled in the arms of her broken prince, bleeding a gleaming, scarlet trail of blood. It's a stirring image that might give viewers hope that the rest of the film can be as good and as daring.

But Beauty And The Beast seldom reaches those same heights. In busying himself populating the entire universe of his film with greedy vagabonds and comic-relief sisters, Gans forgets to enrich and develop the central relationship between Belle and her Beast. They share a few stilted, frankly terrifying dinners in which the Beast loses his temper or creepily breathes down Belle's neck. Slinking into her room to watch as she sleeps, the Beast comes across more as her pervert jailer than a legitimate romantic interest. In fact, none of their encounters suggests that Belle could ever find a place for him in her heart, so it's odd when Gans takes it as a given and barrels on towards his literally gigantic, CGI-overloaded ending.

Indeed, Gans spends so much time on the visual effects of his film - from the droopy-eyed puppy-like creatures that trail after Belle wherever she goes, through to the huge stone statues that come to life to defend the Beast - that he seems to have forgotten to get his actors to act. Cassel and Seydoux, who have both delivered arresting performances in other films, don't seem hugely invested in the proceedings or in each other. The film as a whole isn't helped, either, by the dreadful dubbed version playing in Singapore - moments that might have felt more organic and engaging in the original French feel stilted and almost ridiculous when recited in either monotonous or heavily-accented English.

Sometimes, it's easier to understand when directors lose sight of their characters in the flash and tumult of an action blockbuster - the focus, after all, is on spectacle rather than heart. It's less forgivable when the point of the entire story is the relationship between the two title characters. Without careful, gentle treatment, this centuries-old tale of Beauty and her Beast would have some pretty nasty overtones - which Gans fails to really remove from his film. In effect, his version of Beauty And The Beast is a love story without much love - and, as a result, isn't much of a story either.

You probably have heard the story more or less, so you'll know where this is heading. Therefor the flashbacks might either work, because the movie establishes two time-lines (three if you take the storyteller into it) and the movie jumps forth and back. It's nicely told and it does have very good visuals.

We get some fine french acting talent, with one from Spain thrown into the mix for good measure. Acting talent is up for it then, but might not make up for the predictability of the story. While there is no full nudity, there is a lot of skin shown, which is OK in Europe, but I'm not sure how it'll play over in America. Just be aware of that. Other than that, some CG looks a bit "cheap", but overall the fantasy aspect works in its favor (and it is aimed at the little ones, who are listening and kind of take the part of the viewer). Nice little touch at the end

In France's long held cinematic tradition (famously, they made adaptations back in both the 20s and 40s to much acclaim) comes a new version of the famous fairy-tale-novella about beauty, romance and redemption. Really, what do I need to tell you about the plot?

Director Christophe Gans is certainly an interesting cookie, having helmed Brotherhood of the Wolf (a pseudo period piece-Hammer throwback-martial arts film) and the first Silent Hill (which seems to have garnered a sizeable cult following in recent years). He's sort of a French Burton-Snyder; a visual stylist who does a lot of genre work. Indeed, the nod to Burton is apt as it's pretty clear this exists to be the French answer to Alice or Oz, a lavish fantasy reinvention. But, how do the frogs cope? Not half bad actually.

Off the bat, the film is breath taking. The style takes from classic watercolour paintings and it gives the film such a vibrant gorgeous storybook feel, like the illustrations in one of those old leatherbound tomes. If one could guess what DelToro's Beauty would've looked like, this is not a bad approximation. What's more, CG aside, the Beast also sports some pretty decent practical makeup that does a good job conveying what a humanised lion may be like. Speaking of which, Vincent Cassel as the Beast is probably the strongest performer here; even under the makeup, he gives the role a ruthlessness but also gentility that perfectly fits the characters, and being tall certainly helps. Nothing against Lea Seydoux, who is perfectly fine as Belle, but this is Cassel's show.

Now of course, the film's somewhat mixed reception isn't unjustified; it does run on fairytale logic, which doesn't make the smoothest transition to screen and sometimes has characters do things just because. Then there's also these weird cartoon dogs which, though they have a justification in the film's world, they feel completely perfunctory; they don't fit with the Gothic atmosphere, they're more odd than cute and they aren't even really out to be funny, which you'd think would be why they are included. Also, if you thought Gaston was goofy, here we have a robber baron with a gypsy-fortune telling girlfriend who has actual psychic powers. Oh, and the final battle involves stone giants (hmm, did Aronofosky get a sneak peek?) and living roots that turn people into trees. Yeah....

But honestly, I found myself surprised by this one. Yes, it may not be very bountiful from a writing standpoint, but Gans' tricks and Cassel keep things constantly going and certainly with a lot more liveliness than Burton's rather dour 'Alice'. It won't wins prizes for bold new thought, but it's still a fairly impressive piece of larger scale filmmaking from Europe, and decent take on the famous story if you're maybe tired of talking candles and LeFou.

This is a fairy tail, transfered on the screen with respect to it's original plot, pretty much as it should have been told two and a half centuries ago, when it was first put on paper (1756). Of course, given it's age and the nature of fairy tail stories, there are many variants from region to region and from century to century but the core of the story remained solid and this is what we see. I really had the impression that the story that i was looking at was told by someone who lived in the past and not my grandma. The realization is quite satisfying, the costumes and the colors are impressive but it's a bit too dark at some points. Maybe there should have been more day time scenes but i guess they wanted to stress out the dark side of the story. This was tiring. The music was all right but i really think that the producers could have done a better job here. More intensively ambient music could have make this motion much more interesting for a young audience. Overall, i think it's a beautiful picture to take your family to, especially if you have children -not too young though,it can get scary-.

When looking at movies I happened upon this one out of curiosity, and I am all the better for it. First, clear your mind of the Disney releases and story lines behind them. On many layers this masterful work will enchant you, from beginning to end. Disney should be put on notice, because the makers of this film made Disney look like amateurs. The sets, and costuming epitomize the true essence of what movie magic is all about, and will not disappoint you. Even the ending was wonderfully magical. The film score is awesome. Vincent Cassel, Léa Seydoux, André Dussollier all should be recognized for their fantastic talents. The makers of this film have something to be truly proud of. This is a lavishly and visually stunning film, completely delightful, and worth watching a few more times to see what you may miss. The details are exquisite to behold. I can with certainty recommend this film to anyone, knowing they will agree.

If you liked "Alice in Wonderland" (2010), there's a fair chance you will like the 2014 version of the traditional tale of Beauty and the Beast, too. While it's not directed in the spirit of quirky Tim Burton extravaganzas, it shares a problem of recent Burton work: overindulgence of colors & effects - and emotional underachievement.

While certainly great to look at, with many spectacular set-pieces, the film makes it hard for viewers to emotionally bond with the characters. The cookie-cutter good-and-bad separation of Disney movie characters is replaced by somewhat flawed human beings (e.g. the prince is an animal-killing rogue, much to the dismay of vegetarian princess Yvonne Catterfeld), but the film's artificiality is too in-your-face to be overlooked. Probably a matter of taste - how realistic does a fairy tale need to be, really? I would have been happier with a slower pace (I'm not 21 anymore), and cringed at some of Gans' choices to update the story (such as the castle's bizarre anime-fied CGI beagle dogs, a Jar Jar Binks kind of addition that does not help to bring us anyone or anything closer at all).

The heaving cleavage of Miss Seydoux is a sight to behold, shown with a frequency that might irritate audiences accustomed to sexless princesses, but it's just a choice of wardrobe, not a case of leering camera. Seydoux' sensual presence is a gift for the film. Strong dialog is not the main focus here, but she gives a convincing physical performance and gets the nuances right. Cassel doesn't have much to do here.

Belle's relationship to the beast is depicted (ever so) slightly different as in previous romance versions of the fable. This I liked. Ultimately, far from a masterpiece, and hardly an evening-filler, but a good choice for a rainy afternoon.

Some 70 years before German brothers Jacob and Wilhelm Grimm created fairy-tale characters Rapunzel, Snow White and the rest, French novelist Gabrielle-Suzanne Barbot de Villeneuve wrote and published Belle et la Bête – the original fairy-tale we know as Beauty and the Beast. As a Franco-German production dubbed and retitled in English, that's about the only thing original about this 2014 remake Beauty and the Beast.

Prince Charming is a beast, we already know that. But does he have to be boring too? Apparently, co-writer and director Christophe Gans seems to think so. Before deviating from the 1740 incarnation of the titular fairy tale, Gans' begins his story on familiar ground. A wealthy merchant (André Dussollier) has lost his ships at sea and moves his three daughters and three sons to a cottage they all hate but one that I can only dream of owning. The first deviation is the three sons, a subplot that gives rise to generous CGI meant for the action finale. But before that we learn that five of them are spoilt brats that would tell peasants to eat cake when they can't afford bread. Belle (Léa Seydoux), the youngest, is the only one with a heart of gold. While her siblings miss their former wealth (and cake), Belle is content with feeding them vegetables from her pumpkin patch. So when daddy goes into town, Belle only asks for a rose, while the rest asks for the moon (and cake). Of course, daddy ends up in the wrong place at the wrong time and then plucks the best rose. We know what happens here on. The rose belongs to a wretched beast who spares daddy's life only to hold Belle ransom until she gives in to his manly demands. And to think this story is being told for generations to children before they go to bed!

It takes a few yawns and couple more winks before we actually see the beast, a CGI spectacle that's bound to knock Andy Serkis into uncontrollable spasms of laughter. Vincent Cassel plays a sheep in beast's clothing with as much tenacity as a wolf stalking a snail. Conversely, the only times he seems threatening are during flashbacks where we see him in human form as a spirited but arrogant prince. These flashbacks are shown as Belle's visions. She's bored (like us) and wanders around the desolate castle until she finds a huge mirror that never comments on her beauty (which is fine because the talking mirror belongs in a Grimm's fairy tale). Instead, she sees the man behind the beast and secretly feels the hots for him. Well, not really, because Gans deviates again, and instead of the originally themed romance, we get a mangled face-off between the aforementioned brothers and a bunch of villainous thieves. Owing to which, Seydoux and Cassell have little screen time together and never enough reason to emote. It's almost as if Gans has forgotten where the story must ultimately converge with the original and central theme of never judging a book by its cover. By this time Gans has also arm-twisted the story to reveal the mysterious spell that turned the Prince into a reclusive creature. It's a twist revelation but one that feels snatched out of a tragic Greek love story.

If ever there's a dire need to watch this film, it would be for Christophe Beaucarne's stunning cinematography - a technical feat that somehow works in tandem with the heavy use of visual effects. Some of the backdrops are almost as impressive as those created in The Hobbit films and that's saying a lot. The other reason is watching Belle's transformation into a bodacious babe. Like my running 'cake' gag, Belle has her own - an array of bejewelled gowns she must wear each day at the dinner table to please her lord and beast. Forget about true love and all that jazz, the sight of bodice meeting bosom can transform any man into a beast!

The castle, the flowers, the garden, the forest, the places, the settings and the great Vincent Cassel acting. I loved them all, and finally the Closing credits was the biggest highlight which I watched over and over again and never get tired.

Story we heard them in childhood, first I thought why French production team is repeating the same story which we have heard 100 times in our childhood time.

I didn't plan to watch this movie.

But somehow I ended up watch a trailer of this movie, in few seconds I was hooked into the movie.

I always knew and heard, French people are perfectionist, what ever take, like Painting,Music,Cuisine even their kiss is famous all over the world.

Director Christophe Gans is no exception in this matter.

This movie will relax you from the fast forward life for 112 min. :- )

Lovely story. It's actually quite refreshing to not know who the actors are for a change. We got to focus on the movie more for this reason.