Believe it or not, I've never seen the original cartoon. So my opinion is based solely on my experience at this viewing of the new film.
That explains it. The original animated film was quite well done, and other than having seen it about 100 times, and the more overt Stockholm syndrome incorporated in it, its really a good film - beautiful and entertaining in many aspects- especially for Kids. I was hoping the live action version would be more "broadway musical" and less " use the original film as a storyboard for shooting this one" - But as the Original was excellent , and this followed it closely, they got a similar excellent and marketable product, with almost zero risk. Its a good film. Its an excellent soundtrack ( just as it was when the animated version aired) but there was little surprising or new in it, and I found myself getting bored as there wasn't enough new material to keep and maintain my interest.
Emma Watson (as obnoxious as she is in real life) was enchanting as Belle. Pitch-perfectly cast, in my opinion. I've seen her casting in that role criticized elsewhere, so I wasn't expecting to like her in the role. To the contrary, I thought she was perfect.
She was the right one for the part for sure. She played the role very well, and I can't imagine who I would rather see playing that part if not her. But that doesn't make me like her any better.
The throw away joke about the guy liking to be dressed in women's makeup and gowns was more annoying to me than Le Fou.. and I think your description of his character is spot on, and he really doesn't detract ( or add) much to the performance besides his comic relief. And really the original cartoon version was enough that I was wondering if Disney were trying to sneak a gay character in back then.. so I was wondering what all of the hub-bub about a gay character was about... because Le Fou - other than a more overt quip here and there, was not much different than he was in the original. I even wondered if he was really the character that had gotten everyone so upset, or if there was someone new that was going to be introduced.
My criticism is mostly that I would have preferred Belle's alienation from her community and loneliness had been played stronger, thus giving a more solid foundation to her desire and willingness to stay with the beast, and even to become attracted to him as they both find solace in each others company. That element was there in bare-bones form - and was an intriguing deviation for the original.. but I think Disney missed the opportunity to explore that part of the courtship and the underlying motivations, and I think if they had, it would have been a stronger and more emotionally involving story. Perhaps my irritation is simply that the bare bones were there as if to say " Yeah, we know we could have gone there and made this even better for audiences who have seen this all before, but we knew most would be happy with a duplicate of the original so we didn't bother.. and took the safe way out. I can even see some exec somewhere hacking that out of the script screaming "The original was a winner! don't fix what isn't broken!!" Which is of course why I was more enthralled with Your Name, than this film.. That director is still taking risks