Looking at the animals, it is easy to see how the new films have gone wrong. Photorealistic fish? Not what you'd call cuddly The new films are too long, too monotone, too bland and full of photorealistic talking animals that range from boring to horrifying.
This relentless pursuit of realism doesn't make a good kids' movie: It may be dark underwater in the real ocean, but we want to see Ariel dance properly lit on the screen. Their biggest problem is simple: They were better off staying cartoons.Įvery change − to aesthetics, to story, to soundtracks, to length − that is required to make these films "live action" chips away at the magic of the originals. It's a tale as old as time when it comes to Disney's parade of live-action remakes of its beloved animated films (their box-office take, however, seems just fine). Much has already been said about the new "Mermaid," which stars McCarthy as the villain Ursula and singer Halle Bailey as Ariel, and how it disappoints compared to its animated original. In the 1989 version of "The Little Mermaid," the sea was a crisp blue, sea creatures could turn into functional musical instruments, ocean waves defied gravity and a flounder was huggable.īut under the sea in the 2023 remake, the ocean is dank and dark, the fish are slimy, scary and bug-eyed and the only thing defying science is Melissa McCarthy's eyeshadow, which stays immaculate underwater.
0 kommentar(er)
