I can't think of anything new to say about the movie; I wrote my opinion up a while back and it still stands.
I also can't think of much to say about the 3D process. It really didn't make that much difference to me. At the beginning, as the film opened, there's a great shot of the camera panning towards the Beast's castle, and the 3D gave it a depth similar to what the multiplane camera achieved for Sleeping Beauty. But for the majority of the movie, I think the 3D actually hurts the animation, because it really draws attention to the fact that the characters were drawn on a thin piece of paper (well, celluloid, but you know what I mean). How do I explain this? The 3D effect pushes each individual layer of animation away from each other; in the foreground, you might have a patch of grass, and then a human figure walking across it in the middle ground, while the background might have a bright blue sky. The 3D process can't make a 2D woman look any rounder or fuller; it can only attempt to produce distance between the different grounds. So it ends up highlighting the layered process of animation, which to me is not an enhancement at all, as all it does is draw attention to the artificiality of the medium.
But that's just me, no?
I am curious to see how the 3D 'enhancement' will work with computer-animated films, since they're already designed with characters meant to be seen in the round. Perhaps with films like Finding Nemo and Toy Story, it will be a genuine improvement.