Snow White (and 7 Little Fella’s)

[Wish]

Has anyone seen the latest Snow White currently on a cinemas?
It seems to get a bashing but looks ok to me on the trailers?

Got the week off and thought about going one afternoon as I’ve never seen it before.

Edited by Wish on Monday 24th March 16:12

[vixen1700]

This appeared at the bus stop next to my local yesterday.


The IMDB reviews are equally glowing.

Edited by vixen1700 on Monday 24th March 16:20

[PinkTornado]

Wish said:

Got the week off and thought about going one afternoon as I’ve never seen it before.

Watch the original animated version.

[dieselgrunt]

yet another Disney flop.

[mikebradford]

Go watch Ne Zha 2 instead
It's subtitled but brilliant

[marcosgt]

I watched the original today... Great!

Both The Times (apparently an 'alt-right' publication! ) and The Guardian ('alt-left'?) gave it terrible reviews.

Mark Kermodes comment 'It would be so much better if it didn't exist' seems to sum up every reviewer's view.

M

Edited by marcosgt on Tuesday 25th March 16:42

[Hub]

Bloody hell, it is 2.0/10 on imdb... Is that a lynch mob or something? Or genuinely that bad?

You have to say that these Disney live action remakes are generally pretty dull and soulless. They just seem to be insistent on going through the whole back catalogue when it doesn't make sense in some cases.

[Cliodci12235]

Plenty on here will absolutely love it.

[Wish]

Hub said:

Bloody hell, it is 2.0/10 on imdb... Is that a lynch mob or something? Or genuinely that bad?

The million dollar question im trying to find out.

[andySC]

Mark Kermode didn’t like it at all. Critical Drinker (who has been hugely negative about the film from the get go) wasn’t kind about it either although he did concede that Rachel Zegler was the standout & was rather good in it.

[fooman]

Hub said:

Bloody hell, it is 2.0/10 on imdb... Is that a lynch mob or something? Or genuinely that bad?

You have to say that these Disney live action remakes are generally pretty dull and soulless. They just seem to be insistent on going through the whole back catalogue when it doesn't make sense in some cases.

Lynch mob, l mean it might not be a great film but a genuine score this low is unlikely. While most of the live action remakes have not captured the magic of the originals I actually prefer the live Jungle Book, I watched the animated version recently it's pretty slow except for the great musical numbers everyone remembers.

[Hub]

Yeah, I had a look on 'X' and it seems to be attracting the anti-woke brigade, and some chatter/conspiracy about IMDb deleting reviews and not allowing any more 1/10 reviews

[Johnson897210]

I am intrigued by what worthitorwoke will have to say..

[g3org3y]

Cynical cash grab with a slice of progressive agenda thrown in. Seemingly universally panned by all the critics.

Currently at 42% for critic score on Rotten Tomatoes.

Guardian awarded it 1/5 (twice!)

Snow White review – Disney’s exhaustingly awful reboot axes the prince and makes the dwarves mo-cap
With tiresome pseudo-progressive additions that tie the whole thing in knots, this is a waste of estimable entertainers like Rachel Zegler and Gal Gadot
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2025/mar/19/snow-...

Snow White review – toe-curlingly terrible live-action remake
Audiences watching Disney’s sappy, dire-looking effort starring Rachel Zegler and Gal Gadot will wish only to be put out of their misery
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2025/mar/23/snow-...

andySC said:

Mark Kermode didn’t like it at all

Kermode: "This would be so much better if it didn't exist"

Ouch

andySC said:

Critical Drinker (who has been hugely negative about the film from the get go) wasn’t kind about it either although he did concede that Rachel Zegler was the standout & was rather good in it.

Yes, to be fair to all the negative reviews, the vast majority do credit Zegler as pretty decent and her singing performance excellent.

Edited by g3org3y on Monday 24th March 22:20

[TwigtheWonderkid]

A mate of mine (who is black btw) sent me this yesterday

[tim0409]

Hub said:

Yeah, I had a look on 'X' and it seems to be attracting the anti-woke brigade, and some chatter/conspiracy about IMDb deleting reviews and not allowing any more 1/10 reviews

Does the anti-woke brigade include The Guardian? It might just be the case that the film is genuinely crap.

[Evercross]

tim0409 said:

Hub said:

Yeah, I had a look on 'X' and it seems to be attracting the anti-woke brigade, and some chatter/conspiracy about IMDb deleting reviews and not allowing any more 1/10 reviews

Does the anti-woke brigade include The Guardian? It might just be the case that the film is genuinely crap.

Yup. Disney were trying to spin an anti-woke backlash as a last gasp defence mechanism against genuine criticism of the film, but the left-leaning media weren't buying it this time.

The irony of a multi-billion-dollar listed company pushing an anti-capitalist message in their ultra-profligate effort to extend copyright on one of their IPs was not lost on the reviewers. Even the BBC mentioned it.

So, with the political bias neutralised the film could be judged on its merits, and the critics are not holding back. I agree with Kermode that it would have been better if this had never existed.

Three things wrong with it for me.

First is the complete inconsistency in the use of CGI, with life-like animals being combined with uncanny-valley grotesque looking dwarves (a compromise borne of Disney trying to make them look like the 1937 cartoon versions).

Second - the trope of a main protagonist who is already virtuous, strong, brave and true having done nothing to earn it (doesn't matter that they are female, but that is in itself now a boring trope) and just has to realise their true potential (IMO a damaging message that proliferates our society causing massive disappointment and problems for our younger generation when they realise they may have to actually work to achieve).

Third - the very blatant and cynical reason for this and other Disney live-action remakes existing ie. the aforementioned IP copyright extension. How about using those vast resources to generate some original content for a change?

Edited by Evercross on Tuesday 25th March 10:40

[Timothy Bucktu]

A friend of mine went to see it at the weekend with his 8yo daughter and a group of her friends...he recons it wasn't too bad, and the kids enjoyed it.
It's a film that will obviously disappear from memory very quickly never to be seen again, whereas the original is timeless.

This film came about during peak Woke...hopefully that nonsense is behind us now?

[Peterpetrole]

Evercross said:

tim0409 said:

Hub said:

Yeah, I had a look on 'X' and it seems to be attracting the anti-woke brigade, and some chatter/conspiracy about IMDb deleting reviews and not allowing any more 1/10 reviews

Does the anti-woke brigade include The Guardian? It might just be the case that the film is genuinely crap.

Yup. Disney were trying to spin an anti-woke backlash as a last gasp defence mechanism against genuine criticism of the film, but the left-leaning media weren't buying it this time.

The irony of a multi-billion-dollar listed company pushing an anti-capitalist message in their ultra-profligate effort to extend copyright on one of their IPs was not lost on the reviewers. Even the BBC mentioned it.

So, with the political bias neutralised the film could be judged on its merits, and the critics are not holding back. I agree with Kermode that it would have been better if this had never existed.

Three things wrong with it for me.

First is the complete inconsistency in the use of CGI, with life-like animals being combined with uncanny-valley grotesque looking dwarves (a compromise borne of Disney trying to make them look like the 1937 cartoon versions).

Second - the trope of a main protagonist who is already virtuous, strong, brave and true having done nothing to earn it (doesn't matter that they are female, but that is in itself now a boring trope) and just has to realise their true potential (IMO a damaging message that proliferates our society causing massive disappointment and problems for our younger generation when they realise they may have to actually work to achieve).

Third - the very blatant and cynical reason for this and other Disney live-action remakes existing ie. the aforementioned IP copyright extension. How about using those vast resources to generate some original content for a change?

Edited by Evercross on Tuesday 25th March 10:40

I'm confused on the copyright point -

According to a quick search, remaking a film does nothing to extend the copyright of the original 1937 film?
It just starts another copyright of the current film which it sounds like no one in their right mind is going to borrow anything from anyway?

So, er, anyone can take anything from the 1937 film, it's public domain?

[Evercross]

Peterpetrole said:

I'm confused on the copyright point -

According to a quick search, remaking a film does nothing to extend the copyright of the original 1937 film?
It just starts another copyright of the current film which it sounds like no one in their right mind is going to borrow anything from anyway?

So, er, anyone can take anything from the 1937 film, it's public domain?

Indeed not the story, but the visual depictions of the characters, the costumes, sets etc. Many of the scenes in the new movie are beat-for-beat copies of the originals because they are iconic in themselves. IP copyright extension is one thing, but trademark is more nuanced if a company can argue that their brand recognition has become so associated with certain visuals.

For example - Disney's particular rendering of Winnie The Pooh is a separate and distinct IP from the bear illustrations in the original books.