Each live-action Disney remake, ranked

Steven Spielberg’s 1991 fantasy Hook will be the true father of Disney’s large wave of live-action remakes and spinoffs of its basic animated options, however Walt Disney Studios didn’t really make it. Disney took one other twenty years to essentially see the attraction of that type of huge blockbuster model extension, as soon as the billion-dollar field workplace for Tim Burton’s CG-filled Alice in Wonderland and the equally large take for the villain backstory Maleficent made the live-action components appear to be a gold mine. Disney has been cranking them out ever since, typically producing hits that many individuals see, and few folks love. Which of Disney’s live-action cash-ins are literally value watching, and that are simply tedious repeats of higher films? We watched all of them to search out out.

We adopted just a few guidelines in curating this listing: To be included, films need to be remakes of absolutely animated Disney films, or direct prequels or sequels to them. (For example, the fabulous Pete’s Dragon isn’t on this listing as a result of the unique function was already principally live-action.) We did embody the 2019 CG Lion King remake and its prequel Mufasa as a result of Disney insisted The Lion King is a live-action function, regardless that there’s solely one non-animated shot within the film.

Ed. word: We’ll proceed to replace this publish periodically as new Disney live-action remakes are launched. Newest replace: March 2025, so as to add Mufasa and Snow White.

The story of the magically animated wood puppet who simply needs to be an actual boy is understandably tempting for administrators. From Pinocchio’s rickety, loose-jointed dancing to the darkish chaos of Pleasure Island to the dramatic escape from the stomach of a whale, Carlo Collodi’s youngsters’s novel is filled with disparate tones, intelligent sequences that should appear ripe for reimagining each few a long time or so.

No less than, that’s the one rationalization I can consider for why Guillermo del Toro and Robert Zemeckis would select to make Pinocchio films at nearly the very same time. However whereas del Toro’s stop-motion magnificence at the least provides a brand new stage of artistry to the puppet’s story, Zemeckis’ live-action remake of the Disney animated basic provides nothing. An artless, charmless, ugly bore, Pinocchio feels just like the hollowed-out endpoint for Zemeckis’ decades-long fascination with animation and moviemaking know-how. Each efficiency seems like a sleepwalk, and even the (nonetheless nice) Disney songs really feel like karaoke carried out underneath duress. Even on an inventory with loads of less-than-great entries, Disney’s live-action Pinocchio stands out as wood. —Austen Goslin

Not like the “live-action” remake of The Lion King, the prequel Mufasa doesn’t have the wonderful, attractive unique animated film to function a comparability level. That is each a superb factor — in any case, what can attain the heights of the unique “Circle of Life”? — and a foul factor, as a result of we are able to’t even occupy ourselves after we’re watching Mufasa by fascinated by a greater film.

The songs are mainly Lin-Manuel Miranda Presents: The Lion King! and the photorealistic animation does a disservice to any compelling emotional second. However there’s a glimmer of one thing extra in Mufasa, a narrative of two brothers pushed aside by their totally different ambitions and approaches to management. If solely it wasn’t doomed to be probably the most boring model of that story… —Petrana Radulovic

Whereas “live-action” doesn’t technically apply to this remake, director Jon Favreau wished immaculate CG animation to trick audiences’ brains into believing what they watched was actual. However in paving over the Satisfaction Lands with comparatively drab photorealistic natural world, The Lion King depends completely on nostalgia for the unique movie. The awkward song-and-dance numbers now include a brown palette and Earthly physics, they usually strip the humanity out of all of the animal performances.

Favreau makes all of the fallacious decisions with this film, together with including 20 minutes to the run time for issues like a dung beetle pushing a ball of poo throughout the African plains. Ultimately, it’s all joyless, even for Disney fanatics. Not even Beyoncé can imbue this voice-over-heavy redux with life. —Matt Patches

Reams of digital ink have been spilled about the controversies surrounding Snow White’s lead actresses, story components, and casting: Disney’s live-action remake was preventing an uphill battle earlier than it even entered manufacturing. However in a seeming effort to please everybody — the purists, the cynics, and everybody in between! — director Marc Webb has given it completely no id of its personal. It doesn’t even look good, with all of its near-$300 million funds apparently going towards rendering every little pore on the uncanny CG dwarfs.

Rachel Zegler is bringing her A-game and singing her coronary heart out, however nobody else within the film matches her power. Gal Gadot is so unhealthy because the Evil Queen that it’s nearly comical (and but, not fairly!), and the male lead seems like he was introduced in from a distinct film totally. —PR

18. Alice By way of the Trying Glass (2016)

For all its issues (and it has so many), 2010’s Alice in Wonderland nonetheless has a imaginative and prescient behind it. Tim Burton’s model of Wonderland is aggressively colourful, and bizarre for the sake of weirdness, however it additionally obtained the good thing about being explored. The entire film was about taking us on a tour of a world and seeing every little bit of strangeness as Alice got here throughout it. In one other world, it’s doable {that a} sequel, with a brand new director, might have performed one thing comparable with another person’s imaginative and prescient driving the colours of Wonderland. However the first one remodeled $1 billion, in order that isn’t the world we obtained.

James Bobin’s sequel to Burton’s film, Alice By way of the Trying Glass, is weighed down by the dramatic turns of an actual plot, and the burden of making an attempt to one-up its predecessor whereas bringing again all the pieces that helped the primary film make a lot cash. In consequence, all the pieces within the film simply seems like Tim Burton karaoke. It’s a hole imitation of the issues that resonated with a really particular viewers (our author Petrana, see under) six years earlier when the unique was launched. —AG

17. Magnificence and the Beast (2017)

Numerous the dialog in regards to the 2017 Magnificence and the Beast targeted on the ballyhoo over Disney’s “first brazenly homosexual character.” Which implies not sufficient was ever mentioned in regards to the movie’s actual flaws, significantly the half-assed, halfhearted additions to what was already a fairly excellent film. Invoice Condon’s model crams further strains into songs, ruining their rhythm, and provides a weirdly operatic new tune for Beast. It additionally packs in some further backstory for the characters, most of which is complicated and doesn’t make a lot sense, and piles on loads of bombastic motion and manic slapstick.

In different phrases, it makes all the pieces louder, extra chaotic, and much much less honest than it was within the unique model, whereas maintaining the script, designs, songs, and even photographs and digital camera angles the identical — a strict downgrade of a basic, with nothing new to suggest it. —Tasha Robinson

16. 102 Dalmatians (2000)

102 Dalmatians has the identical downside many sequels with good antagonists do: The creators clearly fell in love with their very own villain. It’s simple to see why. Glenn Shut is fabulous as Cruella de Vil, and he or she appears to be having the time of her life. Her Cruella is a high-fashion sophisticate with a maniacal love of fur coats, and a puppy-murdering plan to make the proper ’match. Her title is mainly Merciless and Evil, her license plate reads “Satan” at a look, and Shut is aware of that this villain by no means must be any subtler than that.

However Cruella works within the first live-action 101 Dalmatians as a result of the film isn’t actually about her. She reveals up at any time when the film wants a comic book carry or a scary second, however it’s nonetheless in regards to the heroic canines. The sequel isn’t. There are nonetheless canines, however the film focuses extra on Cruella. Even when she’s briefly cured of her love of fur (by Dr. Pavlov — the names aren’t refined right here), it’s laborious to do not forget that her unique (and future!) plan is to slaughter 100 canines to make a coat. She’s the villain for a cause, and this film simply offers us an excessive amount of Cruella face time for her to be enjoyable. (Which appeared to bode in poor health for the 2021 prequel Cruella, however extra on that later on this listing.) —AG

15. The Jungle Ebook (1994)

Stephen Sommers’ 1994 model of The Jungle Ebook doesn’t have something in frequent with the 1967 animated basic aside from the names. The animals don’t speak, as a result of nearly all of them are performed by actual animals. Additionally they don’t romp by the jungle, elevate a small human boy, and argue in regards to the Legislation of the Jungle. However hey, the child’s title continues to be Mowgli. This Jungle Ebook is extra of an action-adventure-romance about colonialism. After stumbling by nearly the precise plot of Tarzan, the movie ends in a third-act set-piece straight out of Temple of Doom, full with a hidden historical temple filled with treasure, booby traps, a vault that fills with sand (which buries a personality alive), and the largest snake you’ve ever seen. And that snake eats the villain in a scene far too horrific for this film’s PG score.

If this model of The Jungle Ebook had been a colonialist drama about an Indian boy falling in love with a British lady who learns to respect the sanctity of nature, or an Indiana Jones knockoff with some spectacular animal performing, it will have been thrilling. As an alternative, it falls proper between the 2, and by no means makes both plot fascinating. —AG

14. Maleficent: Mistress of Evil (2019)

The live-action Sleeping Magnificence riff Maleficent didn’t beg for a follow-up, and but we obtained one! And it could possibly be lots worse than it’s. Angelina Jolie and Michelle Pfeiffer save the film with completely stellar performances, although it’s nonetheless laborious to purchase that Pfeiffer’s Queen Ingrith needs to kill all fairies as a result of she’s… allergic to flowers? Thinks her brother died? It’s unclear.

When the film focuses on Maleficent’s conflict with the royal household, it guidelines. The awkward meet-the-parents dinner is humorous and deliciously tense, as Jolie’s quips slice by the air, as sharp as her cheekbones. However when the story pulls away from the household drama to concentrate on overarching mythology that nobody actually wanted — and particularly, on fantasy battle that appeared prefer it was resolved within the first film — it drags. —PR

13. Woman and the Tramp (2019)

All the things charming in regards to the unique Woman and the Tramp is flattened within the live-action model. Seems, when your complete film is about canines falling in love, utilizing precise canine performers for the roles finally ends up fairly stilted. Actual canines can convey a variety of feelings, however “battle between affection and the perceived limitations of implicit social lessons” isn’t often excessive on their listing. Whereas the voice-over performances from Justin Theroux and Tessa Thompson are high-quality, it’s all misplaced when the canine characters simply… are canines. —PR

The irritating factor in regards to the Mulan remake is that all the threads of a superb film are there — an opportunity for a extra correct retelling of the legend, tightly choreographed combat sequences, some fairly attractive cinematography — however the last product is woven collectively clumsily. It feels just like the filmmakers have been indecisive about how a lot they wished to depend on the 1998 animated movie: There are not any songs on this model, however a few of the lyrics are nonetheless clunkily spoken out loud, like “Ha ha, see what we did there?” moments.

The emotional beats that labored with the unique animated function, like Mulan’s determination to run away and be a part of the military, really feel rushed. So why embody them in any respect, when there are such a lot of further plot factors? Ultimately, whereas some issues work within the new model (I’m right here for the Shang alternative character, Chen Honghui, and the dope combat sequences inside the metropolis partitions), all collectively, it simply makes me wish to rewatch the unique — a standard aspect impact of most of those live-action diversifications. —PR

11. Alice in Wonderland (2010)

Let me say that my reward for Alice in Wonderland carried all of it the best way to this maybe surprisingly excessive place on this listing. What can I say? Tim Burton’s Alice in Wonderland is a film for 14-year-old Scorching Subject-wearing women who listened to pop-punk bands and reblogged edgy Disney edits on Tumblr. And when Alice in Wonderland got here out, I used to be that 14-year-old lady.

There are definitely unhealthy issues about Alice in Wonderland: the garish manufacturing design and overblown CGI, the unlucky implication that Alice might need a big function within the Chinese language opium wars. However it wholeheartedly indulges in its teenage lady fantasies — Alice wears a bunch of lovely clothes, but additionally will get some cool armor! She has a magical sword! She rides an enormous snow leopard creature! She’s the savior of the realm! She’s simply COOL! That provides it a heat place in my coronary heart, haters be damned. —PR

When Cruella is a film about vogue heists carried out by a daring designer, it’s really fairly rattling enjoyable. Sadly, a lot of the film is just not that. With a run time of greater than two hours, Cruella invents a fully inane sob-story background for the principle villain, who can be a significantly better character if she was simply allowed to be unhealthy, with none deeper motivations stemming from poverty and familial tragedy. All the things that could possibly be enjoyable in regards to the film is sucked away by probably the most cringey character backstory in Disney film historical past. —PR

9. Peter Pan & Wendy (2023)

Too many diversifications of J.M. Barrie’s Peter Pan put the emphasis on the titular never-aging boy or the nefarious Captain Hook, and overlook that crucial characters are literally the three Darling youngsters — particularly Wendy Darling, who’s navigating the difficult transition between childhood and adolescence. The live-action tackle the beloved story, directed by David Lowery (Pete’s Dragon, The Inexperienced Knight), does middle the narrative on Wendy, for probably the most half. Numerous Wendy’s journey and her acceptance that rising up isn’t essentially unhealthy nonetheless will get misplaced amid the Peter Pan versus Captain Hook backstory, which provides a secondary message about lacking your mother that distracts from the principle theme. Sometime, Wendy can have her correct place within the solar — simply not fairly but, apparently. —PR

8. The Jungle Ebook (2016)

Jon Favreau’s remake of Disney’s 1967 animated movie was simply ok to warrant The Lion King. The human ingredient goes a good distance: As Mowgli, newcomer Neel Sethi nails the instincts of a boy raised by wolves, the comfort of floating round by life with a giant bear, the phobia of Shere Khan’s confrontation, and the existential dizziness of realizing he doesn’t belong within the jungle. Favreau enhances the efficiency by turning The Jungle Ebook into an action-adventure film — only some photographs nod on to the unique movie. However as with The Lion King, the preliminary rush of seeing Baloo and Bagheera realized with photoreal animation subsides, and the spectacle sans the music ingredient leaves one thing to be desired. It’s high-quality! —MP

For all of the hoopla and uproar about blue Will Smith changing Robin Williams’ beloved tackle Genie, the Aladdin remake is totally OK. The blockbuster’s worst crime is the uninspired choreography — as an alternative of racing by Agrabah after stealing a loaf of bread, for example, Aladdin casually meanders by the streets with out a lot alarm. New characters and plotlines preserve the movie recent sufficient to be partaking: It isn’t only a dusty rehash of the unique, it really brings one thing to the story that feels extra justifiable than a few of the different remakes.

Princess Jasmine, as an alternative of getting some random pastime tacked on as a result of “feminism,” finds her personal company by the tip of the film. It takes a bit for Will Smith and Mena Massoud to search out their chemistry, which shines the perfect when it isn’t straining to duplicate the unique, and as an alternative will get its personal dynamic. Total, probably the most glowing factor to say about this one is that it might have been a complete lot worse. —PR

6. Christopher Robin (2018)

Marc Forster (Quantum of Solace, Discovering Neverland) follows Steven Spielberg’s Hook template to a T in Christopher Robin, this time with Ewan McGregor because the grown-up model of a well-known Disney child character, dwelling such a grey, stuffy life that his concept of a bedtime story is studying his younger daughter a historical past of the Industrial Revolution. Naturally, Winnie the Pooh has to infiltrate live-action London to remind Christopher of the surprise of childhood.

It’s sentimental, predictable, by-the-book stuff, and the “life like” CG variations of Pooh and his buddies are fairly creepy and never significantly charming. Actual-world Pooh additionally reads remarkably like a spoiled, whiny, impulse-driven child out to drive a caring dad or mum bonkers. However Christopher Robin does have a heat, hazy, wistful feel and look that’s interesting and distinctive, and McGregor makes for a convincingly put-upon unhappy dad. And you may say this for the film — it’s new materials with its personal distinct agenda, somewhat than a strict translation of a basic into reside motion. That mentioned, the “return to childhood” narrative may land higher if Christopher Robin’s “boring, joyless grownup obsession” wasn’t an try to guard his co-workers from being laid off by his struggling firm. Go away the man alone, Pooh, he’s making an attempt to save lots of folks’s jobs! That’s extra necessary than consuming honey and taking part in Pooh-sticks. —TR

What makes Disney’s live-action Dumbo work is simply how a lot it seems like a Malicious program. On the one hand, director Tim Burton confronted the troublesome activity of translating a weird however lovely little children film into one thing fascinating, whereas giving its supply materials a much-needed replace and bringing the entire thing into reside motion. And he does most of that respectably effectively. Dumbo stays the story of a cute elephant, laughed at due to the scale of his ears, whisked off right into a horrific life earlier than being rescued.

However Burton provides a daring pivot by making Disney — and Walt Disney particularly — the villain of his film. Performed with vicious glee by Michael Keaton, the theme-park impresario who needs to imprison Dumbo for his present feels inseparable from Disney’s esteemed founder. It’s a cheeky assertion for the person who helped kickstart Disney’s live-action-remake craze to finish certainly one of his remakes by burning evil-Disneyland to the bottom. However it’s additionally an extremely enjoyable option to cap off his goth-tinged Dumbo journey. —AG

4. The Little Mermaid (2023)

Halle Bailey and Jonah Hauer-King shine as Ariel and Eric within the live-action Little Mermaid. Bailey’s superb singing voice, coupled along with her extremely expressive eyes, make her some of the charming live-action Disney princesses on the market. However Hauer-King’s Eric seals the deal, turning the in any other case bland Disney prince into an earnest dreamer, a worthy accomplice for the curious and adventurous mermaid. The 2 leads are robust sufficient to principally save the movie from unhealthy speaking animals, superfluous plotlines for the aspect characters, and uninspired underwater scenes. —PR

For Johnny Depp or Will Smith, starring in a Disney live-action remake was a option to siphon off the magic of a mega-brand. For Angelina Jolie, it’s the opposite manner round. Disney’s reimagining of the Sleeping Magnificence story invests within the hearth and glow of the A-lister, who instructions the display screen as she flutters round a fantasy world with a pair of darkish fairy wings. Elle Fanning, one other main expertise of her era, co-stars, enlivening what might have been one other murky march throughout CG backdrops (grrrr, these Alice films — sorry, Petrana!) right into a story of female revenge. Sure, our antihero nonetheless turns right into a dragon, checking the field of the unique movie’s huge spectacle. However the film pops when it’s Jolie on display screen, chewing up surroundings. —MP

One of many issues of Disney’s live-action remakes is that the villains not often stack as much as the animated originals. Basic Disney villains are huge, foolish, theatrical, filled with ridiculous melodrama, and nonetheless terrifying to younger minds. Their pitched-up personalities have been excellent for that period’s lovely animation, however the evil alchemy that made these characters work is one thing that’s eluded most of Disney’s live-action remakes during the last a number of years. These new villains don’t have any of the attraction, charisma, or enjoyable of their extra dastardly animated counterparts. The one actual exception to that got here in 1996 when Disney solid Glenn Shut as Cruella de Vil.

101 Dalmatians is definitely the story of heroic canines and their defeat of the evil would-be pet assassin, however Shut’s efficiency as Cruella is what actually makes the film. Cruella is the one live-action villain thus far to hitch the pantheon of Disney’s nice evil characters. Her excellent, by no means overused presence helps elevate this at the least close to a few of Disney’s classics. —AG

The animated Cinderella is timeless and exquisite, however the story itself is straightforward. Maybe extra so than the opposite films on this listing, the Cinderella fairy story has had dozens upon dozens of diversifications, and the simplicity of its story implies that reimaginings are welcome. The 2015 Cinderella offers depth to the Disney story; our heroine was all the time kindhearted and resilient, however this model offers her extra backstory and character, together with a reference to the prince that goes past their fateful assembly on the ball.

The solid is successful. Lily James is so effortlessly Cinderella; Richard Madden brings attraction to the generic prince. Cate Blanchett is a formidable and nearly sympathetic stepmother, and Helena Bonham Carter is the proper quirky Fairy Godmother. The costumes are attractive: Cinderella’s ballgown seems like a watercolor portray. Prince Package’s spring-green embroidered driving jacket slays. Woman Tremaine’s nearly anachronistic each day put on suspends the film in a nebulous level of fantasy time. Above all, although, is the message of “Have braveness and be variety,” a mushy reminder that seamlessly matches into the fairy story and sticks with you after. —PR