Ranking Disney’s live-action remakes
How does Disney's new version of The Little Mermaid stack up against reboots of The Lion King, Aladdin, Cinderella, and more?
Film Features Creative works
If you read through The A.V. Club reviews of all the recent Disney remakes, you may see a pattern start to emerge. Although the films are all visually impressive, they tend to be hollow imitations, and more often than not leave us questioning the need for their existence. Despite their uneven history of success, Disney can’t seem to quit these remakes. Why come up with original ideas when you can just keep mining your old catalog of classics and make them all over again? Remember all those direct-to-DVD animated sequels in the ’90s? The Mouse is gonna Mouse.
The latest of these, and possibly the most ambitious to date, is The Little Mermaid, opening in theaters on May 26. How does it stand up against the other remakes, including recent efforts like Peter Pan & Wendy and Pinocchio? For the purposes of this list, we’re only including remakes directly based on previous animated films, which would exclude prequels and spin-offs like Maleficent and Cruella. We’re also not counting literary adaptations like the 1994 version of The Jungle Book, which was more directly inspired by Rudyard Kipling’s writings than the 1967 animated film. That still leaves us with plenty of films to rank, though. Read on to see where they landed and how we reviewed them when they were originally released.
80 Comments
Mama, they’re all in last place
Came to make this comment, will grudgingly upvote you instead
The Jungle Book wasn’t actually terrible but the rest are a huge race to the bottom
I liked Jungle Book and Cinderella but if they had never been made I’d be no worse for wear. Outside of admiring Cate Blanchett in those dresses that was wonderous.
She was absolutely stunning as Baloo.
Pete’s Dragon was good. But everything on this list is shitty nostalgia bait.
It helps that the original was baaaaad.
No doubt. There was no legion of Pete’s Dragon superfans to take issue with any liberties they took with the material, and seemingly Disney more or less just let the filmmakers do what they wanted. Otherwise it would’ve ended up like every single other movie on this list: a garishly expensive hollow cover version with any and all rough edges sanded off.
I was thinking the same, but I’d forgotten about number 2 on the list. That was actually a movie, good times.
Nah, The Jungle Book was good, though not really necessary. The rest of them are unnecessary and bad.I hadn’t realized that Favreau did The Lion King for them too – he did much, much better with Jungle Book. My theory is that the Kipling stories, in all iterations, just have more life to them than most Disney animation projects, no matter their original source.
If the 101 Dalmations remake is that high up, it’s not a good sign for everything beneath it.
That was also so very long ago. Practically a different century.
Mama’s Don’t Let Yer Cartoons Grow Up To Be Live-Action Remakes
What about Pete’s Dragon?
I guess it’s not counted since the remake is, if anything, more animated than the original, as both were hybrid live-action/animation films.
I’ve settled on my ranking looking like this: (Spoilers for #6)
10. Lady and the Tramp zaps one of Disney’s sweetest romances of all its charm for the most generic take on its source material than any of these others. 9. Dumbo made up too much shit and spent way too much time on humans I don’t care about. If we’re lucky, maybe we see some Dumbo scenes.
8. Mulan completely botches her character arc, and the entire message of her journey! One confoundingly lame decision after another. Nice cinematography, though.
7. The Lion King’s greatest strength is also it’s greatest weakness. It’s dazzling photorealism leaves characters expressionless, crippling the film.
6. Pinocchio is surprisingly faithful, perhaps to a fault, and ends up with the Watchmen problem of ticking the boxes, but lacking the soul. Bad ending and all.
5. Aladdin I quite liked. Will Smith shouldn’t be trying to imitate jokes specific to Robin Williams’ style of comedy, though, and that happens often.
4. Cinderella admirably tries to do everything right. Even the new material is mercifully inoffensive. It’d be higher if I were into Cinderella.
3. Beauty and the Beast gets a lot of flack, probably deserved, but I have rose-tinted glasses for Emma Watson, and the story, which is too good to be bad.
2. It’s been a minute since I’ve seen 101 Dalmatians, but I remember it as a showcase driven by the actor, not the IP, and my how times have changed.
1.The Jungle Book more or less balances its old and new ideas well. And the visuals are stunning. Some unfortunate singing aside, this one remains the best.
Dumbo made up too much shit
I mean, right? They should have stuck with the true historical story of a flying elephant!
Look, if you’re going to do a movie about elephants, too much shit comes with the territory.
Starring mostly for the Lion King as a misconceived concept from the beginning. You animate animals so they can portray human emotion. You make them this incredibly photorealistic if you want to tell an animal story without having to train a bunch of real lions. The two together simply don’t make a lick of sense.
While at the same time, since you’re trying to make them as realistic as possible, much of the charm and more fantastical scenes are lost to the grounded restrictions of ambitious realism.
I think Disney were high on the success of jungle book that they thought photo real animal tech was their crown jewel.
There’s no denying it looks incredible, easily the most realistic CGI I’ve seen hands-down. A great technical achievement, but one that detracts rather than adds to the story.
2. It’s been a minute since I’ve seen 101 Dalmatians, but I remember it as a showcase driven by the actor, not the IP, and my how times have changed.I watched it not that long ago and it’s actually a pretty delightful update to the original. Glenn Close is absolutely marvelous and chews up the scenery in the best way possible and the costumes are gorgeous. Plus lots of puppies!
Hot take: the original Dumbo was actually pretty thin and, beyond an iconic character, is actually pretty forgettable.
We watched 101 Dalmations recently, it’s absolutely driven by Glenn Close.
For those who don’t remember, Roger is no longer a music composer but is now a video game designer.
Disney sure has paid up for some A-list directors for these projects.
Surprised to see Beauty and the Beast so high: The changes made to the plot are either superfluous, confusing, or completely change the character journey, Emma Watson can’t sing, and the actors who CAN (ie Audra McDonald) don’t get a lot of screen time. Kevin Kline was wonderful, though and Maurice was probably the sole example of an improvement on the original.Personally, I’d push Cinderella to the 3 spot: The changes made sense narratively and it took characters like the Prince (who only had one line in the original) and the King and fleshed them out. Was it straightforward with simplistic morals? Sure, but it’s a fairy tale, and not every fairy tale needs a complex lesson or plot twist.
We pretty much agree on everything. Its funny when the Lion King remake came out there was much complaining about it being shot for shot, and I was like wait that was a people with BATB and yet I didn’t see that pointed out enough. Cinderella was sweet, the original is good if a bit dated and flawed and the changes were for the most part understandable. Plus Cate Blanchett was having a ball and well she can’t do much wrong in my eyes. Also Lily James is a better singer in a non musical remake then Emma Watson.
Kenneth Branaugh swings for the fences, and even when he goes into left field, there’s always something redeeming and coherent in his work (whatever, I thought Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein was well cast, but needed finese on the pacing and score). I do wonder if folks discount Cinderella because of the simple story- I actually appreciate that they weren’t trying to make Ever After 2.0. Comparing Cinderella’s smaller story beats with say the nonsense added to Belle, Beast, Nala, the hyenas, Jasmine, Gaston, etc showcases that actually you CAN make something different without anticipating what Tumblr will eviscerate.
I do agree even when Brannagh screws up, its not dull at all. I also think Cinderella is underrated, it cuts some of the fat from the original film and has a vamping Cate Blanchett dressed like 19th century Joan Crawford crossed with 1920s Joan Crawford. I could die for those hats!
People often feel “I don’t like this” and try to retcon an explanation.That’s how you end up with movie A is too much like the original and movie B is too different from the original.I wish more people were comfortable saying “I didn’t like that, but I’m not sure why”
Huh, so you guys only publish lists anymore?
I love that even the #1 ranked one is still described as “thinly conceived” and “[struggling] to make a place of its own amid the callbacks.” Like, even when the execution is really good, the entire underlying intent is so obviously the shallowest, most cynical, money-grubbingest possible.The only one of these I’ve actually seen was Beauty and the Beast (at the behest of family) and I regretted it immediately. It’s possible I’d like at least some of the others more than the critics do; they have enough glitz and production value to at least be something like a distraction if I turn my brain off. But no analytic eye I could cast upon these would reveal anything beneath the surface other than a cash-register sound effect.
I heard someone mention (maybe on a YT video or something) that the Disney parks are doing absolutely no merchandising of the live action versions, and that makes so much sense. They know exactly what the value is— one or two weekends of box office, then annoying people searching Disney+ for the originals.
101 Dalmations is easily the worst of the lot. The Lion King gets far too much hate.
That Beauty and the Beast remake can kiss my fucking ass. Holy shit, I’m sure Emma Watson is a decent person but she cannot sing, she cannot sing Broadway songs, and the stage direction must have been awful because that was not a great performance. Worst of both worlds, slavishly loyal to a point where its frequently shot for shot, and every change feels wildly pointless such as the songs. Lion King might have been more pointless, but Beauty and the Beast 2017 was miserable to sit through.
The one change I actually quite liked was Kevin Kline as Maurice. Maurice was written as comic relief and Don Hahn specifically called out that “hit on the head, underwear shot and pants on fire” was the formula for Maurice and LeFou. Changing him into this competent, sensitive clock maker added a sweet dynamic to his relationship with Belle, and his intro scene was melancholy in a way Disney rarely is.But other than that, pure trash seemingly designed to address every stupid bad faith critique of the original.
Oh I agree. I have a fondness for Rex Everhart in the orignal but the character is definitely more comedic. Kevin Klein was a good choice and brought a good sweetness. A shame that after that first scene he’s not really allowed to be an emotional core. And don’t get me started with what they did to Belle. Now I’m bias because I know Paige O’Hara fairly well and I’ve written papers on why she’s a great character, but putting all that aside god the additions in this version are worthless and the character feels so much meaner for no reason.
Beauty and the Beast suffers from awful casting. Aside from Emma Watson, who really should not have been cast in the role, you have Josh Gad (who turns off a substantial portion of audiences), Ewan McGregor playing a Frenchman, and Luke Evans playing a character that seems counter to how people view him. In fact, the sheer number of British actors playing French characters in this movie is astounding.
I will say, though, what might have justified at least a portion of the film was the addition of Evermore to the story. That’s probably been the best song of any of the live-action adaptations, and it wasn’t even in the original animated film. Menken and Rice got an immediate hit with that that fit in with Ashman’s other songs.
Nobody can top anyone from the original cast but I always thought the girl from Les Miserables who play Epoine, Samantha Barks, would have made a good Belle. Also Bruce Campbell would be a solid Gaston.I will disagree with Evermore, it just adds to the length and I don’t think it really says anything more then I am sad but content which is kinda already implied without being said.
Bruce Campbell circa 199x, maybe. Bruce Campbell now is a bit long in the tooth for the role. He might have been good as Belle’s father, but everyone seems to love Kevin Kline’s take so why make changes?
Oh I agree Army of Darkness era Bruce Campbell. More just if we had the perfect possible cast that’s what I’d go with.
Isn’t Pete’s Dragon a live action remake? Got a B+ on AVclub, and it has to be better than Pinnocchio.
Pete’s Dragon is really a live action movie with an animated component, not a remake of an animated movie.
IIRC the dragon was the only animated part of the original, much like the remake so I guess you’re right – it didn’t start as an animated property.But it’s head and shoulders above anything on this list. A straight-up great family film that deserves to be a modern classic. I can’t understand why it seems to have faded from view.
If you’re suggesting that that’s the reason why it is not on the list, you are giving the AV Club far too much credit.
Yeah, 100% they straight up just forgot about Pete’s Dragon which stands head and shoulders above anything here.
Pinocchio made my young son cry at the end because the fuckers at Disney decided setting up a sequel that will, hopefully, never happen was more important then showing the damn puppet boy become a real boy. It feels like they were trying to ham fist a disabled acceptance/be true to who you really are sorta narrative into the movie which doesn’t work. Pinocchio isn’t a disable boy wishing to walk, he’s a puppet. It was a weird terrible movie.
Do they leave him submerged in a helicopter begging the Blue Fairy into eternity to make him into a real boy?
I was thinking more along the lines of King Diamond’s Puppetmaster story where he’s left hanging on a wall in an old toy shop, disheveled and unwanted as the years/decades go by.
10,000 years later… WORST MOVIE EVER
Sir, I’ll have you know that was an amphibicopter. How else could its occupant have stayed nice and dry while at the bottom of the sea?
My eyes rolled into my brain when they did all the cameo easter eggs with the clocks. Good lord what a slog.
Wait, the live action version ends with him still as a puppet????
In fairness to this movie (which is overall quite bad, and frankly embarrassing next to del Toro’s version), Pinocchio does kind of turn into a real boy, it just happens mostly offscreen with Jiminy Crockett’s VO saying he heard a rumor that he turned into a real boy. In my opinion this was done not to tease a sequel, but to fudge the difficult creative question around how to handle the transformation in live action.In animation, they just used the same model for Pinocchio, but removed the wooden joints around his limbs and mouth. In live action, would they replace the CGI puppet with a human actor wearing the same clothes? Would he still be a CGI character, but with flesh instead of wood textures? Either choice would look a little weird. What they went with didn’t work, but I don’t think the other options were great either.
What about the 1994 Jungle Book with Jason Scott Lee and Cary Elwes?
Or the 1942 Jungle Book with Sabu?
I prefer Elwes in the live-action remake of Robin Hood.
Franky, dignifying these remakes by ranking them assumes that any of them were any good. Granted, I heard the Jungle Book and Pete’s Dragon were actually decent but at least the Jungle Book had been adapted many times before, before and after the Disney animated classic, so it’s a story that’s been told throughout film history.The original Pete’s Dragon was already mostly live action and the David Lowery remake takes quite a departure from the mixed media musical of the 70’s Disney era to make it an almost entirely different movie.
No mention of the 1994 Jungle Book?
How are the words remake and reboot being used so interchangeably now I swear they mean different things.
They all fucking suck and should be fired into the sun.
Happy to see jungle book get number 1. I maintain a major reason that movie works is because it’s endlessly respectful to the original, but also completely willing to deviate from the details and make something more character focused than the cartoon, with a central plot that ends up being largely different from the cartoon. My issue with every other adaption is they change one or two minor things and then otherwise do a shot for shot for the cartoon.
Where’s the new Cruella on this list?
Where’s the original animated Cruella?
Unlike other movie lists, there is a clear order to these. You start with number one being the one that made the biggest profit, and work your way down to the least profit. Because that’s all that matters with these. They only exist to make money and maintain Disney’s copyright (on public domain material).And for all the complaining people seem to be doing about them, they certainly seem to have seen them. If you want better movies, stop paying for the shitty ones.
My list: The Jungle Book (2016)The End
Aladdin was unwatchable. We stopped partway through and never finished it. The others were all *fine* for a one time watch but nowhere near the caliber of the original animated films.
Isn’t this a bit like ranking fast food cheeseburgers?Sure, some are a bit better than others. But what are we even doing here!?!
When are we getting our live action Chicken Little?!?
The best thing they did live action was Maleficent, beauty and the beast is a travesty and doesn’t deserve this spot, they focus so hard on how intelligent and independent belle is that they forget that shes also very expressive, inquisitive and womanly. qualities that (however I like E. watson) Watson didn’t convey with her very flat emotional range in the film. I am not even gonna go into how they made a frenchman (Gaston) into a freaking red coat. Now that is culturally insensitive as it gets. (I’m french I get to be offended thank you very much)
All you need to know about Mulan comes with Ming-Na Wen’s cameo, where in just a few seconds of screentime she displays a dozen times more charm and engagement than the new Mulan. It’s just such an incredibly fundamental misunderstanding of the story to portray her as someone who’s always been a perfect warrior her whole life rather than a regular peasant girl suddenly thrust into that position, leaving her absolutely no room for character development and the movie clearly only existing for cheap feminist points, brought home by the villain being a cartoon misogynist every single second he’s onscreen, which in turn causes it to make no sense why his witch sidekick is helping him, even when she spells it out later.
Mckayne TechnologiesMobile App Development Company
https://mckayne.com/mobile-app-developmentMcKayne – Mobile App Development Company | iOS & Android App DevelopmentMcKayne is the leading mobile app development company. Our team has years of experience in developing and designing Android App Development, iOS Development, Android Development & Mobile Application Development
email: [email protected]
Contact: +91-9447520016
Isn’t this kind of like comparing horribly obnoxious noises? I mean, sure, you can decide one is less annoying than the others, but do you ever really get a reason to subject yourself to it?
*And yes, I’m technically making an assumption here, because I can honestly say I haven’t wasted my time watching any of these completely, and most of them I haven’t watched any of at all.
You missed Alice in Wonderland, but they all suck anyway.
I’ve had to sit through almost all of these because I have kids. If we’re going by target audience, Mulan would be in last place. I think they asked me to turn it off after 20 minutes. We made it through most of the other live action remakes.
Heavens, what a large bucket of chum. Don’t mind if I do! *num num num num num*
The Mulan remake is just as much an American’s sterotypical understanding of China as the animated one but, unlike the original, it’s doesn’t even make up for it by being fun.
I’m amused that almost every single quoted review is like “Eh, what is the point of this…???” Which is a very valid question which will be debated for decades. Like…will these be the preferred versions of the kids of today? Or will 20 years from now will most of these be lost in the Disney Vault someplace? (We can dream.)
(And, as an aside, I am NOT looking forward to the live action remake of my favorite Disney film. Gods I can’t see that being anything but a mess.)
No one will be talking about these movies in 20 years.