Belle's Magical World

Uninteresting plots, bad dialogue, forgettable songs, and ugly animation. It's not only the worst direct to video Disney sequel, but also one of the worst Disney movies overall.

When I started reviewing on IMDb, I began to watch all the Disney direct to video sequels. It was almost torture for me to watch all of them (I have seen 6 of them at the moment I wrote this review), but this one I only could watch 10 minutes of it before I turned of the PC and have to watch the first Beauty and the Beast to remind me that it was one of my favorite Disney films.

THIS THING IS A DISCRASE TO THE ORIGINAL ONE!!! The story is the bland, predictable plots of 3 failed episodes from a failed attempt of a TV- series (that is exactly what this is, and they ask $19.48 for it at eBay!!!!), the animation is just cheap and awful, the characters are nothing from what they were in the original (especially the beast), and the songs make Howard Ashman roll in his grave.

This is one of the WORST Disney DTV sequel I have ever seen (the worst one being Hunchback of Notre Dame II). Skip this movie, PLEASE!!!!!

Yeah... not great, that!

I'm not gonna lie, 'Belle's Magical World' is rather painful to watch. It's an anthology film, which is a negative straight off the bat. They cobble together three stories to fill 92 minutes, all of which should be left to being 7-10 minute short stories.

Much of the original cast pleasantly remain, with the exception of Angela Lansbury who ran for the mountains I assume - don't blame her! The voices all do fine jobs to be fair. It's the writing which is severely lacking here, with all three premises being entirely predictable and hard to watch.

The only thing this third 'Beauty and the Beast' production achieves is that it makes the Beast even more unlikeable, who knew that was possible? At this point, I shudder to think how the third follow-up, 'Belle's Tales of Friendship', is - though it isn't available to watch on Disney+, which is probably a blessing on my part.

The core target audience may have an OK time, but Disney really should've tried harder with these sequels/prequels.

This movie was probably one of the worst I've ever seen. I kept watching out of sheer morbid curiosity. The plots were bad. The animation was bad. The songs were bad. There were some places that the animation was so bad that I literally laughed out loud. It's boring as snot otherwise. If you had any respect for any of the characters before it goes out the window completely with this movie. The beast is a GIANT violent control freak and Belle always blames herself for stuff that's not her fault. The only reason anyone would ever want to watch this more than once besides masochism would be if they wanted to remember their parents domestic abuse toward each other as some kind of dismal nostalgia.

That's right! Under 9 on average, but maybe under 12s for some others! I was 11 when I originally saw this on video and at such youth I wasn't able to notice the shoddy cartoon-quality or the fact that those classic characters we have all grown to love are Not the same or as good to see. Just about everything is so 2D here! Belle is, I'll agree, not even beautiful but just a plain-looking woman with tinted skin, she wears the same bright blue dress all the way through with not one glamorous dress on, Wardrobe is to say the Least, annoying - my ears may bleed if I had to listen to her everyday! Lumiere, in both the original and the Christmas edition was suave and elegant, but here he is a womanizing, unfunny twit! Cogsworth, despite being the no-nonsense housekeeper he is famous for, is a complete sh-t and the most insufferable character I'd say! He always seems to find shutting that unbearably grating pie-hole of his very difficult in this one and whose clock face should really have been used for turning back in time to the unforgettable two film in this series! Poor, poor Mrs Potts was not brought to life by Angela Lansbury (one of my favourite classic actresses) but by Anne Rogers who captured none of Mrs Potts' character, no offence to her! Not if she did her best! When the beast roars it sounds so horrifically fake with clearly no additional roars, snarls or growls by a microphone. I am aware that this is only a third feature following two other films so of course it wouldn't be as good but I'm sure that more of a contribution wouldn't have hurt the Disney artists who, indeed, have achieved such remarkable styles of animation over the years. It's alright, I guess, and I do watch it sometimes though only when it suits me. It's quite difficult to make a recommendation for you reading this because it depends on how old you are but remember this will not at all be what you may expect following the earlier spectacular movies! And to think that on my video of it the text on the back cover said "boasting brilliant animation"! It's a nice little flick but for one thing it's also highly poor and, for another, those 3 words ought to have been saved for the next re-release of the original!