People are not judging this film on its own merits...just viewing it with their reverence for the original.

Rating: 6/10 (10 June 2017)

After seeing that this film came out on DVD recently and viewing it on a whim, I decided to go on IMDb to get a sort of consensus on it. And...wow! I didn't think I would be in the extreme minority here, because I loved this film. Loved it. Look, I get all the criticism. I was skeptical at first too; I doubted Disney wanted to accomplish anything more than a mindless popcorn flick with this film, knowing hordes of mindless sheeple would flock to the movie in droves because it's a remake of a classic. Pure capitalism is what drives the film industry now, right? But the longer I watched, the more my breath was taken away. Yes, I'm aware that it is pretty damn similar to the original; but the lush beauty of the film has a sheer opulence to rival Versailles. Complaints on the character designs notwithstanding, the absolute beauty of the village and the castle blew my mind. A lot of people are complaining about the lack of originality in this movie. And to that I say...well, it's a remake. I'm aware that remakes can drastically differ from the original, and I have no problems with filmmakers being inspired by another's work. But still...it's a remake, guys. It wasn't the script from the cartoon repeated verbatim; there were some nice, subtle funny new bits thrown in, and I, on one hand, adored the new songs in the film. However, I will concur that the subplot regarding Belle's mom is historically inaccurate and adds nothing to the plot. But regardless, I think the film did a good job of triggering nostalgia while adding its own little flourishes in. Acting and performance wise, I've heard a lot of people complaining about Emma Watson; yes, you can tell she's not a professional singer, but I think she did a perfectly fine job as Belle. The real standouts here are Gaston and LeFou as portrayed by Luke Evans and Josh Gad. They are absolutely hilarious and breathe new life into these characters, and deserve an accolade of some sort just for making them likable alone. Singing wise, yes, you can tell that most of the actors aren't professional singers; none of them were horrid, though. If that sounds like faint praise for a score of ten, it's because I legitimately don't believe "Emma Watson has a weak voice" negates the emotions I felt while watching. If you just let yourself enjoy the renewed vitality of these characters and their story, you'll see how genuine the romance feels, how gingerly the characters develop into something there that wasn't there before. Bottom line: it's a beautiful story, that's why it worked in 1991, and that's why it worked yet again in 2017. If anything, this movie rekindled my admiration of the original, and I plan on viewing it again shortly.
Pros: you know what you're getting. Even if you do believe it's a soulless money grab, the elegance of the music and the tenderness of the story cannot be eliminated. Also, the CGI is gorgeous.
Cons: Again, it IS a remake, and if that bothers you, stay away. The character designs of Cogsworth, Lumiere, Mrs. Potts, etc didn't bother me as much as others but definitely not as iconic as original. And yes, Emma Watson is no Paige O'Hara when it comes to singing. That may be a big deal for some people.
In conclusion: Basically, this movie is the film equivalent of someone rewriting your favorite book to be more eloquent, refined, and lavish. Everything is bigger and bolder, but it's still not the original. You'll probably still prefer the original, but you may return to the remake every now and then for a renewed view of the story, that, who knows, may make you appreciate it even more now.