Bill Condon had a massive problem in 2017. He had to take a "tale as old as time"—specifically the 1991 animated masterpiece that was the first cartoon ever nominated for a Best Picture Oscar—and turn it into a live-action juggernaut. It worked, mostly. People flocked to it. The movie made over $1.2 billion. But if you look closely at the beauty and the beast rating 2017 across different platforms, you start to see a weird, jagged divide between what the professional critics thought and what the families in the nosebleed seats felt.
Honestly, nostalgia is a hell of a drug.
When Disney dropped this remake, the hype was suffocating. Emma Watson as Belle? Perfect casting on paper. Dan Stevens as the Beast? Intriguing. But as the reviews rolled in, the scores stayed... decent. Not legendary. Just okay. Rotten Tomatoes settled it at a 71% "Fresh" rating from critics, while the audience score sat higher at 80%. On Metacritic, it landed a 65, which basically translates to "good, but don't get your hopes up for a revolution."
Breaking Down the Beauty and the Beast Rating 2017
Why didn't it hit that 90% mark?
Critics like Peter Travers from Rolling Stone gave it a thumbs up but noted it was "overstuffed." That’s the recurring theme. It’s a movie that feels heavy. It’s long—129 minutes compared to the original’s lean 84 minutes. That extra 45 minutes of runtime is exactly where the rating starts to dip for some people. They added backstories about Belle’s mother and the Beast’s childhood that some viewers found fascinating, while others felt they were just "filler" to justify a two-hour-plus runtime.
Then you have the IMDb crowd. Over there, the beauty and the beast rating 2017 sits at a solid 7.1/10. That is a very specific kind of score. It’s the "I enjoyed my popcorn and didn't feel robbed" score. It’s not The Godfather. It’s not even The Lion King (1994). It’s a polished, expensive, slightly autotuned musical that hit all the right notes for a generation of Millennials who grew up on the VHS tape.
The Autotune Elephant in the Room
We have to talk about the singing.
A huge part of any musical's rating is the vocal performance. Emma Watson is many things—a brilliant actress, an activist, a style icon—but she isn't a Broadway powerhouse like Paige O'Hara. Critics were quick to point out the heavy use of pitch correction on "Belle" and "Something There." For musical purists, this dragged the score down.
🔗 Read more: Mike Judge Presents: Tales from the Tour Bus Explained (Simply)
On the flip side, Luke Evans as Gaston and Josh Gad as LeFou carried the movie’s energy. Most reviewers agreed that whenever Evans was on screen, the film spiked in quality. He brought a theatricality that felt real. He didn't need the digital help. That contrast is why you see such a wide range of opinions; if you cared about the music, the rating was lower. If you cared about the visuals and the "vibe," the rating was higher.
Common Misconceptions About the PG Rating
Parents were worried. I remember the headlines.
The beauty and the beast rating 2017 from the MPAA was PG, but there was a lot of noise about "scary imagery" and "thematic elements." Specifically, the wolf sequences and the final confrontation on the castle roof are significantly more intense than the cartoon. In the 1991 version, the Beast looks like a grumpy buffalo. In 2017, the CGI Beast can be legitimately intimidating for a four-year-old.
Common Sense Media, which is basically the gold standard for parents, gave it a 4/5 star rating, suggesting it’s fine for kids aged 8 and up. They noted the "peril" and the "mildly suggestive humor" (mostly Gaston’s vanity and LeFou’s subtext).
The "LeFou Moment" Controversy
There was a lot of talk—maybe too much—about the "exclusively gay moment" director Bill Condon teased before release. In reality, it was a blink-and-you’ll-miss-it shot during the final dance. Some conservative groups boycotted the film, which arguably led to a wave of "review bombing" on certain platforms early on. This briefly suppressed the audience rating on sites like IMDb and Rotten Tomatoes before the general public's volume drowned it out.
Looking back, the controversy feels like a footnote, but it’s a reminder of how external social factors can skew a movie's "official" rating in the first week of release.
Comparing the Live-Action Score to the Original
It is almost impossible to judge the 2017 film without the shadow of the 1991 version.
💡 You might also like: Big Brother 27 Morgan: What Really Happened Behind the Scenes
- 1991 Original: 94% Rotten Tomatoes / 95 Metacritic
- 2017 Remake: 71% Rotten Tomatoes / 65 Metacritic
That's a massive gap.
Why? Because the remake is a "copy-paste" job in many ways. When you remake something, critics look for a reason for it to exist. Is it adding a new perspective? Is it reinventing the wheel? The 2017 film mostly just... puts skin and fur on the characters we already knew. It’s beautiful. The production design by Sarah Greenwood is literally award-winning. But "pretty" doesn't always equal a high rating.
The Beast’s design was another sticking point. Using motion capture for Dan Stevens was a bold choice, but some felt it hit the "uncanny valley." When the eyes look too human but the face doesn't move quite right, it creates a subconscious disconnect. This prevented the emotional core of the movie—the romance—from hitting as hard as it did in hand-drawn ink.
What Actually Matters for the Viewer?
If you're looking at the beauty and the beast rating 2017 because you're deciding whether to watch it tonight, ignore the 71%.
Think about what you want.
If you want a lavish, costume-heavy spectacle with great performances by the supporting cast (Kevin Kline as Maurice is underrated, seriously), then it’s a 9/10. If you’re a musical theater geek who cringes at autotune, it might be a 5/10.
The movie thrives in its "Be Our Guest" sequence, which is a psychedelic explosion of CGI. It’s basically a fever dream of kitchenware. Ewan McGregor (Lumière) and Ian McKellen (Cogsworth) are charming, even if they are stuck inside digital clocks and candelabras for 90% of the film.
📖 Related: The Lil Wayne Tracklist for Tha Carter 3: What Most People Get Wrong
The Financial vs. Critical Success
Money talks.
The film's box office performance suggests a 10/10 in terms of marketability. It proved Disney’s live-action strategy was a gold mine. It paved the way for Aladdin and The Lion King. But in terms of "evergreen" status, the 2017 rating has stayed stagnant. It hasn't become a "cult classic" that people re-evaluate years later. It’s seen as a solid, professional piece of corporate filmmaking.
Interestingly, the film won several MTV Movie & TV Awards and Teen Choice Awards. It resonated with a younger demographic that didn't have the same baggage of the 1991 version. For them, Emma Watson is Belle. Period.
Actionable Insights for Your Next Rewatch
If you’re planning to dive back into this version, there are a few things to keep in mind to get the most out of it:
- Watch the background: The production design is the best part. The detail in the provincial town and the West Wing is insane.
- Listen for the new songs: "Evermore," performed by Dan Stevens, is actually a great addition to the canon. It gives the Beast a voice he never had in the original.
- Check the "Parental Guidance": If you have very young children (under 6), maybe pre-screen the wolf attack in the woods. It’s much darker than the cartoon version.
- Compare the "Gaston" sequence: Compare the choreography of the tavern scene to the original. It’s one of the few places where the live-action arguably matches or beats the energy of the animation.
The beauty and the beast rating 2017 tells a story of a movie that was destined to be a hit but struggled to be a masterpiece. It sits in that comfortable middle ground: a high-budget, faithful recreation that satisfies the craving for magic without necessarily creating anything new. It's a "safe" movie. And sometimes, safe is exactly what you want for a Friday night on the couch.
To get a true sense of whether it holds up for you, try watching it back-to-back with the original. You’ll notice the 2017 version tries much harder to explain "why" things happen—why the town forgot the castle, why Belle’s dad is so protective—while the original just asks you to believe in the fairy tale. Your preference between those two styles will ultimately determine your own personal rating.