So, you’re looking at the rating for Beauty and the Beast and wondering why the numbers feel all over the place. It’s weird, right? On one hand, you have a 1991 animated masterpiece that basically saved Disney. On the other, you have a 2017 live-action spectacle that made over a billion dollars but still makes some fans incredibly salty. If you check Rotten Tomatoes, IMDb, or Common Sense Media, you aren't just looking at a simple score; you’re looking at a massive cultural divide between nostalgia and modern studio polish.
Ratings aren't just numbers. They're a vibe.
When people talk about the rating for Beauty and the Beast, they’re usually trying to figure out two things. First, is it actually good? Second, is it okay for my five-year-old? The answer depends heavily on which version you’re sliding into the Blu-ray player or streaming on Disney+. The 1991 version sits at a staggering 94% on the Tomatometer, while the 2017 Emma Watson led remake hovers around 71%. That’s a massive gap for what is essentially the same story about a girl who falls for a guy with a serious temper and a buffalo’s head.
Breaking Down the Rating for Beauty and the Beast Across Different Eras
The original 1991 film wasn't just a "good cartoon." It was the first animated movie ever nominated for Best Picture at the Academy Awards. That’s huge. It has a G rating, meaning it’s basically the gold standard for family-friendly content. But if you look at the rating for Beauty and the Beast (2017), the MPAA bumped it up to PG. Why? Because the live-action version is legitimately darker. The wolves are scarier. Gaston is more of a sociopath than a buffoon. The Beast’s transformation looks like something out of a mid-tier horror flick for a second there.
Most parents don't realize that the PG rating for the 2017 film specifically cites "some action violence, peril, and frightening images." In the original, when Gaston falls off the castle, it’s almost Shakespearean and distant. In the remake, the tension is cranked up. The townspeople's pitchfork-and-torch march feels more visceral.
Critically, the 2017 rating for Beauty and the Beast suffered because of the "uncanny valley." You know that feeling when something looks almost human but is just slightly off? That’s the CGI furniture. Ewan McGregor’s Lumiere and Ian McKellen’s Cogsworth are technical marvels, but they lack the expressive, squash-and-stretch joy of the hand-drawn characters. Critics felt this. A 71% rating isn't bad—it’s actually quite "fresh"—but compared to the near-perfect score of its predecessor, it feels like a bit of a letdown.
Why Audiences and Critics Disagree
It’s actually kinda funny. If you look at the audience scores, they often trend higher than the critics for the remake. People love the songs. They love the costumes. They love seeing Belle in that iconic yellow dress. But critics? They’re paid to be cynical. They pointed out that the 2017 film is nearly 45 minutes longer than the original.
Do we really need a backstory about Belle’s mom and the plague in Paris? Probably not. Does it change the rating for Beauty and the Beast in the eyes of a casual viewer? Usually, it just makes them check their watch.
The 1991 film has a runtime of 84 minutes. It’s lean. It’s perfect. Every song moves the plot. In the remake, we get new songs like "Evermore." Now, "Evermore" is a banger—Josh Groban’s version is a staple for a reason—but it slows the momentum of the third act. This is where the nuanced rating comes in. If you value efficiency and classic storytelling, the 91 version is a 10/10. If you want a lush, bloated, beautiful visual feast, the 2017 version might actually rank higher for you.
📖 Related: David Alan Grier In Living Color: Why Antoine Merriweather Still Matters
Age Appropriateness and the Parent Factor
If you're looking for the rating for Beauty and the Beast to see if it’s safe for kids, here’s the honest breakdown:
- 1991 Version: Safe for everyone. The "scary" scenes with the wolves or the Beast's temper are stylized. It’s more "Disney scary" than "real-life scary."
- 2017 Version: Best for ages 6 and up. The Beast’s roar is louder. The gunshots in the final battle are more prominent. Also, the "exclusively gay moment" involving LeFou (Josh Gad) caused a massive stir back in 2017, leading to some lower ratings on conservative-leaning review sites, though it’s honestly blink-and-you’ll-miss-it.
The Financial Rating: A Billion-Dollar Powerhouse
Regardless of what a reviewer in a turtleneck thinks, the financial rating for Beauty and the Beast (2017) was an absolute triumph. It grossed $1.264 billion. It’s one of the highest-grossing live-action musicals of all time. This tells us that the "brand" of Beauty and the Beast is basically bulletproof.
Marketing played a huge role here. Disney leaned heavily into the nostalgia of the 90s kids who are now parents. They kept the Alan Menken music—which is the heartbeat of the franchise—and added just enough "new" to justify the ticket price. When we evaluate the rating for Beauty and the Beast, we have to acknowledge that the "Disney Remake" formula, while often criticized for lacking soul, is a commercial masterpiece.
Honestly, the remake actually fixed a few plot holes. Why didn't the town know there was a massive castle five miles away? The remake adds a "forgetfulness" curse. That actually makes sense. Why was Belle's dad an "inventor" who just made music boxes? The remake gives him a bit more depth. These tiny narrative tweaks help the rating for Beauty and the Beast among fans who care about logic, even if the movie overall lacks the "magic" of the original animation.
Technical Merits and the "Beauty" in the Rating
We can’t talk about the rating for Beauty and the Beast without mentioning the production design. Sarah Greenwood’s work on the 2017 sets was incredible. The ballroom wasn't just a green screen; they actually built a 12,000-square-foot floor made of faux marble. The costumes used over 180 feet of feather-light satin organza.
When you see those details on a 4K screen, the rating in your head goes up. It feels expensive. It feels "prestige."
However, the Beast himself is where the rating takes a hit. Dan Stevens did a great job with the performance capture, but the CGI face often looks a bit stiff compared to Emma Watson’s live performance. It creates a disconnect. You’re watching a real girl talk to a giant computer-generated goat-man, and sometimes your brain just says, "Nope." The 1991 animation avoids this because everything exists in the same hand-drawn universe. There’s no friction between the characters and their world.
How to Check the Rating for Beauty and the Beast Before Watching
If you’re still on the fence, don't just look at a single number. Do this instead:
- Check the "Parental Guidance" section on IMDb. It lists every single instance of "scary" stuff, from the wolf attacks to Gaston’s death. This is way more helpful than just seeing "PG."
- Look at the Rotten Tomatoes "Audience Score." This tells you how much the general public liked it, which is often a better indicator of "fun" than the "Critic Score."
- Consider the "Common Sense Media" rating. They break it down by educational value, positive messages, and "sexy stuff" (which is basically zero here, unless you count some mild flirting).
The rating for Beauty and the Beast is ultimately a reflection of what you want out of a movie. If you want a tight, 90-minute blast of nostalgia that is objectively perfect in its construction, the 1991 version is your winner. If you want to see a modern take that expands the world, adds new songs, and features a literal "A-list" cast with incredible production value, the 2017 version is well worth your time.
Don't let a 71% score scare you off. For most people, it’s an 85% or 90% experience just because of the music alone. "Be Our Guest" still hits, no matter how much CGI is involved.
To get the most out of your viewing, start with the 1991 original to appreciate the foundation of the story. Then, watch the 2017 version specifically to see the differences in character motivation, particularly for Gaston and LeFou, who are much more complex in the live-action take. Finally, if you're a fan of the score, seek out the Broadway cast recording or the 2022 "30th Celebration" special featuring H.E.R. as Belle—it provides a completely different perspective on how this "tale as old as time" can be interpreted across different mediums.