Beauty and the Beast (2017) 1080p YIFY Movie

Beauty and the Beast (2017) 1080p

An adaptation of the fairy tale about a monstrous-looking prince and a young woman who fall in love.

IMDB: 7.7150 Likes

  • Genre: Family | Fantasy
  • Quality: 1080p
  • Size: 1.96G
  • Resolution: 1920*1080 / 23.976 fpsfps
  • Language: English
  • Run Time: 129
  • IMDB Rating: 7.7/10 
  • MPR: Normal
  • Peers/Seeds: 214 / 2005

The Synopsis for Beauty and the Beast (2017) 1080p

Disney's animated classic takes on a new form, with a widened mythology and an all-star cast. A young prince, imprisoned in the form of a beast, can be freed only by true love. What may be his only opportunity arrives when he meets Belle, the only human girl to ever visit the castle since it was enchanted.

The Director and Players for Beauty and the Beast (2017) 1080p

[Director]Bill Condon
[Role:]Emma Watson
[Role:]Dan Stevens
[Role:]Luke Evans

The Reviews for Beauty and the Beast (2017) 1080p

Reviewed byphantom_pixieVote: 1/10/10

As a fan of the original Disney film (Personally I feel it's theirmasterpiece) I was taken aback to the fact that a new version was inthe making. Still excited I had high hopes for the film. Most of wasshattered in the first 10 minutes. Campy acting with badly performedsinging starts off a long journey holding hands with some of the worstCGI Hollywood have managed to but to screen in ages.

A film that is over 50% GCI, should focus on making that partbelievable, unfortunately for this film, it's far from that. It lookslike the original film was ripped apart frame by frame and thebeautiful hand-painted drawings have been replaced with digitalcaricatures. Besides CGI that is bad, it's mostly creepy. As the littleteacup boy will give me nightmares for several nights to come. EmmaWatson plays the same character as she always does, with very littleacting effort and very little conviction as Belle. Although I can seewhy she was cast in the film based on merits, she is far from the rightchoice for the role. Dan Stevens does alright under as some motioncaptured dead-eyed Beast, but his performance feels flat as well. LukeEvans makes for a great pompous Gaston, but a character that has littledepth doesn't really make for a great viewing experience. Josh Gad is agreat comic relief just like the original movie's LeFou. Other thanthat, none of the cast stands out enough for me to remember them. Humanor CHI creature. I was just bored through out the whole experience. Andfor a project costing $160 000 000, I can see why the PR department ispushing it so hard because they really need to get some cash back onthis pile of wet stinky CGI-fur!

All and all, I might be bias from really loving Disney's firstadaptation. That for me marks the high-point of all their work,perfectly combining the skills of their animators along with some CGIin a majestic blend. This film however is more like the bucket you washoff your paintbrush in, it has all the same colors, but muddled withwater and to thin to make a captivating story from. The film is quitefrankly not worth your time, you would be better off watching theoriginal one more time.

Reviewed byJoshua Cimarric-PenczekVote: 3/10/10

Sure, I'm a huge film snob who (on the surface) only likes artsy-fartsyforeign films from before the 60's, but that hasn't stopped me fromloving Disney's Beauty & The Beast; in fact, it's probably my favoriteAmerican animated film and is easily Disney's finest work. It'sbeautiful, it's breathtaking, it's warm, it's hilarious, it'scaptivating, and, in Disney fashion, it's magical. When I learned thatDisney would be remaking their classic films, B&TB was undeniably thebest 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 anduninteresting throughout the entire film and it honestly felt like oneof 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 withthe original animated film that was constantly popping with vibrancy.The script too is boring because it's almost a complete remake of theoriginal, though I guess most people won't mind that.

Next: the CGI is horrid. Although I didn't care for The Jungle Bookfrom 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 verystrange, lifeless faces that are pretty off putting to be looking atfor such a long time. All of the sets too look artificial and fake,especially the town towards the beginning. However, the biggestoffender is easily and infuriatingly the character that mattered most:The Beast. The CGI on the Beast's face is so distracting that itcompletely takes you out of the film. His eyes are completely devoid ofsoul, and his mouth is a gaping video game black hole of fiction. KlausKinski 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 whyit looked better? Because it was an actual face with actual eyes, notsome video game computerized synthetic monstrosity. When will studioslearn 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 theanimated Belle so beloved. Instead, she is cold and heartlessthroughout most of the film. Kevin Kline is 100% wasted and doesnothing except look old. Ian McKellan, Ewan McGregor, Emma Thompson,and even Dan Stevens as the Beast are very expendable and could've beenplayed by anyone else. The only good characters are Gaston and LeFou,mostly because they are fun and played by actors who breathe new lifeinto their original shapes. If anything, this film should've been aboutGaston and LeFou, but that would never happen because that would meanDisney couldn't cater to blind nostalgic 90's kids.

Overall, this film is a complete bore. It could've been better if eventhe special effects were good, but the CGI in particular is horrendous.I'm all for Disney remaking their nostalgia- catering 90's films, butthey need to be interesting. This film, sadly, is not. Even theChristmas sequel is better than this film because it's at leastsomething.

Reviewed byluxorrVote: 1/10/10

Bad movie for sure. Disney movies are most of the times one of the bestI have ever seen, but not always this is true which is the case here.This movie was so boring so I was wandering what to do 1 hour and 50minutes, only the last 10 minutes of the movie is worth seeing. Budget160 millions dollars and the result is total disappointment. All thismusical elements in the movie is just too much, it takes away the realfeeling that this movie is supposed to bring to the viewers. Ema Watsonclearly is worst choice for this role, she was looking like Beast'sdaughter when standing next to him, she is just too young for thisrole. This movie should be rated not to be viewed by viewers over 16years of age. Overall very bad movie, it is a clear waste of time tosee this movie, but we will forget Disney and will wait for them to getback on track this month of May.

Beauty and the Beast (2017) 1080p Related Movies

Tom Thumb (1958) Poster

Tom Thumb (1958)

Skyrunners (2009) Poster

Skyrunners (2009)

Teen Beach 2 (2015) Poster

Teen Beach 2 (2015)

The Barefoot Executive (1971) Poster

The Barefoot Executive (1971)

Return from Witch Mountain (1978) Poster

Return from Witch Mountain (1978)

Pup Star: Better 2Gether (2017) Poster

Pup Star: Better 2Gether (2017)

Annabelle: Creation (2017) 1080p Poster

Annabelle: Creation (2017) 1080p

Moon Pilot (1962) Poster

Moon Pilot (1962)