Connect with us

Movie Reviews

Film Review: Rachel Zegler is the Best Part of an Otherwise Dull Remake of ‘Snow White’ – Awards Radar

Published

on

Film Review: Rachel Zegler is the Best Part of an Otherwise Dull Remake of ‘Snow White’ – Awards Radar

It was about time that Disney would eventually get to reimagining their first-ever feature-length animated production in live-action after remaking many of their classic princesses, such as Cinderella, Mulan, and Belle, just to name a few. For a studio that has financially thrived over the past decade on live-action retellings of their most beloved movies, you would think that Snow White would be at the top of their list. It is the one that started it all more than 90 years ago and still holds up to this day as one of the defining achievements in animated cinema – not only in its staggering, artful animation but also in how it pioneered many techniques that animators still use to this day when creating fully-realized, hand-drawn worlds.

Yet, one had to wait until 2025, nine years after development on the remake started, to finally see what director Marc Webb and writer Erin Cressida Wilson had in mind when readapting the iconic Disney character to contemporary sensibilities. When Rachel Zegler, a burgeoning star who, fresh off the success of her towering breakout turn in Steven Spielberg’s West Side Story, was cast as the titular character, one would think that perhaps this one could be special. Disney isn’t making these for artistic gains but purely commercial ones. However, if I’m to view these remakes, it’d be great if they would at least infuse some life and excitement into their productions when many of them fail to recapture a magical feeling or, at the very least, tickle a child’s imagination, just like the animated originals continue to do so for the people who discover them for the first time. 

The best example of this is Jon Favreau’s photorealistic remake of The Lion King, one that strips the soul and artistry that made the original movie stand the test of time. It was only made for monetary reasons, and guess what? It was one of the highest-grossing movies of 2019. That’s why we had the Barry Jenkins-directed prequel (a step above the Jon Favreau film), and that’s why we now have the 2025 version of Snow White finally gracing our screens this weekend. My hopes for the remake weren’t terribly high, but Zegler’s casting certainly piqued my interest. She is a bonafide natural talent whose work on West Side Story deserved so many more accolades that Zegler received, but we all know she’s poised to become one of the biggest stars in Hollywood, no matter the quality of the movie she stars in. 

Rachel Zegler as Snow White in Disney’s live-action SNOW WHITE. Photo courtesy of Disney. © 2024 Disney Enterprises Inc. All Rights Reserved.

If anything, Snow White is only worth watching for her. It’s incredible how much heavy lifting she does every single time the protagonist appears on screen, making us forget about its dreary visuals, garish CGI dwarves and animals, and thinly written supporting characters that add very little in this otherwise lifeless affair. Zegler’s singing voice is so powerful that even the biggest cynics can’t fully say the movie is an affront to everything cinema stands for, especially when she deftly captures the essence and vibrant energy of the character readapted through families by Disney’s transposition of the Brothers Grimm’s story in 1937. 

It’s hard not to smile at Zegler’s rendition of “Whistle While You Work” during a rousing number in which she inspires the Dwarves – Doc (Jeremy Swift), Bashful (Titus Burgess), Dopey (Andrew Barth Feldman), Grumpy (Martin Klebba), Sneezy (Jason Kravits), Happy (George Salazar), and Sleepy (Andy Grotelueschen) – to have a more positive outlook on life, even if the computer-generated characters are petrifying to look at. We almost forget we’re watching Zegler sing inside a fully synthesized environment, with little to no movement and expression in Mandy Walker’s photography (a crushing disappointment for a usually great cinematographer, whose work in Baz Luhrmann’s Elvis should’ve won the Academy Award in 2023). That’s how good she is, and in infusing the movie with so much positive energy, she inspires us to keep watching, even when everything around her doesn’t work.

Advertisement

To be fair, the modernization of the story by way of Wilson’s screenplay isn’t entirely bad. Snow White isn’t relying on a prince to save her; that character is reinterpreted more as a friend than a romantic interest for a good chunk of the runtime, and how she unites everyone to defeat the Evil Queen (Gal Gadot) does possess an uplifting, inspiring message that resonates with the current times we live in. Unfortunately, Webb’s execution of these ideas is so poor that one thinks we’re watching a Snow White fan film, not a $270 million Disney blockbuster. Where is the money on the screen? Where’s Walker’s usually expressive cinematography that should theoretically transpose the imaginative frames of the animated original in an entirely new light through live action? I have no idea because we instead get entirely artificial, sludgy, colorless digitized locations and photography with zero depth of field that turns everything into pure mush. This ultimately puts us at arm’s length with Snow White’s friendship formed by either the dwarves or the prince known as Jonathan (played here by Andrew Burnap).

Gal Gadot as the Evil Queen in Disney’s live-action SNOW WHITE. Photo courtesy of Disney. © 2024 Disney Enterprises Inc. All Rights Reserved.

While their arc evolves in a more romantic light as the movie progresses, the two possess little to no chemistry together. Burnap can’t, sadly, match Zegler’s ineffable, effervescent charm as Snow White. The writing certainly doesn’t help him – he barely gets a form of development other than being a member of a group of bandits who want to reclaim the kingdom to what it once was before the Evil Queen took over. Unlike Snow White, whose arc is fully formed and possesses enough agency for young girls to latch onto and be inspired by, we don’t get to know him at a cellular level. Zegler genuinely lights up the screen, but she can only go so far when the camera is never positioned to serve her, the computer-generated dwarves are nightmarish, and Gal Gadot is so terribly miscast as the tale’s legendary Evil Queen. 

The Wonder Woman star seems to be in an entirely different picture than her lead star and possesses none of the emotional texture and range to position herself as a formidable foe for Snow White. Even when playing the old lady who gives the protagonist the poison apple (“true love’s kiss” is still the antidote, even if Wilson overhauled the prince and made significant changes in their romantic storyline), the contrast between Zegler and Gadot is far too great, especially when both sing. The difference is so notable that one can easily spot autotune in Gadot’s interpretation of “All is Fair,” while Zegler requires none.

While we’ve had many Evil Queens reinterpreted away from the Disneyfied version of the character, most recently (brilliantly) played by Charlize Theron and Julia Roberts, Gadot’s version had the chance to bring the ultimate version of the Disney villain to life in ways none of the animators who worked on the original film would think possible. Sadly, the only memorable aspect of her iteration is Patrick Page’s Magic Mirror, whose note-perfect intonations give real gravitas to one of Snow White’s most memorable visual aspects.

This version of Snow White has no tangible image that will stick with us long after the credits have rolled, let alone last 97 years in the public consciousness. Worse yet, this remake contains no memorable songs, at least the original ones written by Benj Pasek and Justin Paul. Even if Zegler sings her heart out and imbues her performance with so much raw emotion that explaining it in words will not do justice to just how incredible she is, none of the newer songs will ruminate in my memory as much as “I Always Wanted a Brother” did for Mufasa: The Lion King. Say what you will about Jenkins’ film, but it at least tried to give expressivity and create visual poetry through a technology that strips an artist of his individual touch. Jenkins was challenged and wanted to prove to everyone that making art with these limitations was possible. That artistic statement made it surprisingly moving. 

But Marc Webb doesn’t have an artistic statement or vision, no matter if he surrounds himself with highly gifted artists behind the camera (Walker as cinematographer, Sandy Powell as costume designer, and Kave Quinn in the production design department). That’s why his remake of Snow White will have little to no lasting effect on audiences beyond the cementing of Rachel Zegler as a true talent within Hollywood, one who deserves to enjoy a fruitful and hopefully storied career in film, television, and theater, whose performances will touch generations to come as she deservedly becomes a star. That alone can’t make me entirely mad, irrespective of how mind-numbingly boring this remake is, reaching a new low for Disney’s live-action IP-milking canon.

Advertisement

Watch it for Zegler – and Zegler only.

SCORE: ★1/2

Advertisement

Movie Reviews

‘Hoppers’ movie review: Big ideas and smart emotional beats fuel a great adventure

Published

on

‘Hoppers’ movie review: Big ideas and smart emotional beats fuel a great adventure

In cinema logic, sharks, especially great whites, make excellent characters in animation. From Bruce in Finding Nemo to Mr Shark, the master of disguise in The Bad Guys, these apex predators turn their great gummy mouths with many pointy teeth into jolly good fellows.

In Hoppers, the 30th animation film from Pixar, there is a great white called Diane (Vanessa Bayer), who, despite being a scary assassin, has such sweet, shining eyes and a warm smile that one cannot help but grinning back.

Hoppers (English)

Director: Daniel Chong

Voice cast: Piper Curda, Bobby Moynihan, Jon Hamm, Kathy Najimy, Dave Franco

Storyline: A fierce animal lover uses a new technology to converse with animals and save their habitat from greedy, self-serving humans

Advertisement

Runtime: 104 minutes

We first meet Mabel (Piper Curda) as a little girl trying to set all the animals in school free and being sent home for her pains (and also because she bites one of the teachers trying to stop her). Her busy mother drops Mabel with her grandmother (Karen Huie) who shows her the peace and quiet that can be hers if she only stops to listen.

The glade where grandmother Tanaka teaches her this valuable life lesson becomes a special place for Mabel. Years later, after her grandmother has passed, 19-year-old Mabel is a college student and still fighting for animal rights.

Matters come to a head when the mayor of Beaverton, Jerry Generazzo (Jon Hamm) plans to blow up the glade to build a freeway. Mabel tries to get signatures from the citizenry to stop the freeway plans, but that comes to naught as people quickly turn away from the zealous Mabel.

Frustrated, with no recourse in sight, Mabel chances upon a beaver making its way to her university’s biology lab. First worried that her biology professor Sam (Kathy Najimy) is doing some unspeakable animal experiments, Mabel is nonplussed to find that Sam, with her colleague Nisha (Aparna Nancherla) and graduate student Conner (Sam Richardson), have developed a revolutionary technology to transfer human consciousness to robot animal.

Advertisement

Mabel uploads her consciousness into a robot beaver and sets off to thwart the mayor. Seeing the world from the animals’ perspective gives Mabel a unique point of view. Hoppers has jokes, chases, largeness of heart and solid science — not consciousness-switching with robot animals or flying shark assassins but the fact that beavers are the environmental engineers of the natural world.

The voice cast is wonderful, from Bobby Moynihan as the beaver king, George to Dave Franco as Titus, the prickly butterfly who becomes the insect king after Mabel accidentally kills his mum — the Insect Queen, played with terrifying grandeur by Meryl Streep.

The animals are delightfully delineated, from the spaced-out beaver, Loaf (Eduardo Franco) to Ellen (Melissa Villaseñor) the grumpy bear. The animation is lovely, with each of the animal and human characteristics clearly outlined. From the mayor’s grasping to Sam’s brilliance, Mabel’s fervour to Loaf’s stillness, and the different animal monarchs’ regality, it is all given marvellous life.

ALSO READ: ‘The Bride!’ movie review: Maggie Gyllenhaal’s glam-goth Frankenstein can’t hold its stitches

The “pond rules” ensure that the animals are not completely anthropomorphised — a sticky point in animation films where carnivores and herbivores hang together without even a sneaky licking of lips!

Advertisement

Smart, funny, exciting, honest, and touching, Hoppers is the kind of film you can watch with the bachcha party and elders alike, with a happy grin. And then there is Diane of the red, red lips and sparkly white rotating teeth — yes, Hoppers boasts that level of detailing.

Hoppers is currently running in theatres

Published – March 06, 2026 07:08 pm IST

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Movie Reviews

Is ‘Josie and the Pussycats’ (2001) Really Even A Rock N Roll Movie? (FILM REVIEW) – Glide Magazine

Published

on

Is ‘Josie and the Pussycats’ (2001) Really Even A Rock N Roll Movie? (FILM REVIEW) – Glide Magazine

The satirical romp Josie and the Pussycats (2001) is a fun movie. But is it a great rock ‘n’ roll movie?
Eh, not so fast on that second one. Welcome back to Glide’s quest for what makes a good rock ‘n’ roll movie. Last month, we looked at Almost Famous, a great launching pad because it gets so much right. And every first Friday, we’ll take another look at a rock ‘n’ movie and ask what it means in the larger pantheon. This month, the Glide’s screening room brings you Josie and the Pussycahttps://glidemagazine.com/322100/almost-perfect-why-almost-famous-sets-the-gold-standard-for-rock-movies/ts. The film is a live-action take on the classic comic-and-cartoon property of a sugary, all-girl rock trio that exists in the world of Riverdale, a.k.a. fictional home of the iconic Archie Andrews.

But this Josie has next to nothing to do with Riverdale and is instead a satire of consumerism and ’00s boy bands. A worthy target, and a topic that has stayed worthy in the quarter-century since Josie dropped. The film was not a hit, but it has become something of a cult classic (like many movies featured in this series).

The plot is fairly simple. Wyatt Frame, an evil corporate type, is making piles of money off boy band Du Jour. They start to wise up to his evil scheme and have to be… taken care of. Frame needs a new group to front his plot, which revolves around mind control to push consumer culture. Enter Josie and the Pussycats, who are about to have a whirlwind ride to the top. And along the way, foil a plot with tentacles so far-reaching they have ensnared… Carson Daly?

Josie is a fun, clever movie, but it doesn’t have a whole lot to say about real rock ‘n’ roll, unless you want to simply accept a perspective that it’s just another cynical consumer-driven product. Even that is an argument that can be made, as long as you’re willing to ignore underground and indie scenes and passionate artists making amazing music.

And it is true that this is a theme of Josie. The band triumphs at the end via their authentic music. But it somehow doesn’t feel authentic, which makes it something of a hollow victory. Let’s consider the criteria already established for a good rock ‘n’ roll movie, and how Josie delivers on that front. The first is in the characters department. The film dodges the previously established Buckethead Paradox, which states that “The real-life rock stars are so much larger than life that you can’t make up credible fictional versions. There is no way someone like Buckethead would come out of a writer’s room and make it to a screen.”

Advertisement

For better or worse, Josie dodges the Paradox by essentially embracing it. The characters themselves are cartoons, and there’s no effort at realism. Given that intent is a huge part of art, it seems unfair to call these characters “cartoons” as a criticism, and it should probably be a compliment. At the same time, they aren’t particularly memorable, which is not a great quality.

And—as a bonus—Tara Reid is perfectly cast as drummer Melody Valentine. Josie was a few years after her turn in Around the Fire (1998), an unintentionally hilarious classic that plays like a jam band afterschool special from the producers of Reefer Madness (look for this amazing film in an upcoming piece).
The acting in general is good, with Rachel Leigh Cook as Josie McCoy and Rosario Dawson as bassist Valerie Brown rounding out the band. And Alan Cumming almost steals the show as sleazy corporate weasel Wyatt Frame.

The character of Wyatt is the film’s funniest riff on a rock ‘n’ roll archetype: the sleazy, corporate manager accompanied by assorted crooked accountants. From Colonel Tom Parker to Albert Grossman to The Great Rock ‘n’ Roll Swindle. It’s all about the benjamins. Which is where the music comes in. If the music is good, that’s what makes it worth it. And Josie’s music has aged particularly well. It’s well-recorded, produced and executed. The songs are particularly catchy. The vocals are by Kay Hanley of Letters to Cleo. Much of the soundtrack sounds like a lost album from The Muffs, and one wonders why Kim Shattuck wasn’t involved.

There’s an argument that power pop was never supposed to be dangerous, and that the Muffs aren’t dangerous either. Fair on the surface, but they played real punk clubs and came from a real scene. There’s not even a hint of that in Josie. So an argument that they play pop punk (which they kinda do) is really lacking the punk part.
And it was produced by Babyface, of all people. While that doesn’t seem like it should lead to great rock ‘n’ roll, sometimes preconceptions are wrong.

That said, this is a very commercial product and sound—as catchy as it is—so maybe it’s not a misconception. Maybe the right question to ask is whether it’s all too perfect? And that’s what gives this ostensibly rock ‘n’ film a smoothed-down edge? After all, the basic ingredients are there. But part of what makes good rock good is that it feels actually dangerous. Maybe there are some actual subversive messages, or a genuine counterculture scene. And Josie simply isn’t that film. The soundtrack is fondly remembered enough that Hanley appeared live and performed the songs at a screening in 2017. That appearance also included the film’s stars Cook, Dawson and Reid.

Advertisement

It’s worth noting that while Cook and company obviously lip sync to the songs in the film, their performances are credible. They went through instrument boot camp, so they pull off the parts.

In the end, the film is primarily a satire of consumer culture. And even more strangely, is loaded with actual product placement. Clearly, the joke was intended to “hit harder” with real products, but having Target in the film constantly makes it feel like more of what it is parodying than a parody. Where’s the joke if the viewer actually pushes to shop at Target while watching the film? And if the filmmakers actually took money (which they almost certainly did)?

And perhaps that is the lesson for this month: a great rock ‘n’ roll movie needs to have something to say about the larger meaning or culture of the music. And while Josie may have a lot to say about culture in general, and it may say it in a fun and likeable way, it’s just not very rock ‘n’ roll. There’s no grit. Now, does it have some things to say about being in a band? Yes, though they are arguably true of most collaborations.

If someone in a hundred years wanted to understand early 21st century rock, Josie and the Pussycats is a bad choice. It doesn’t show the sweat of a performance or the smell of beer. But it’s a great choice for anyone looking for a light-hearted, fun watch with a great soundtrack. We could all use some sugar in our lives these days.
Join us again next month, when we’ll look at one of the inspirations for Josie, A Hard Day’s Night, the legendary first film from The Beatles

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Movie Reviews

Peaky Blinders: The Immortal Man review – Tommy Shelby returns for muddy, bloody big-screen showdown

Published

on

Peaky Blinders: The Immortal Man review – Tommy Shelby returns for muddy, bloody big-screen showdown

After six TV series from 2013 to 2022, which caused a worrying surge in flat cap-wearing among well-to-do men in country pubs, Peaky Blinders is now getting a hefty standalone feature film, a muscular picture swamped in mud and blood. This is the movie version of Steven Knight’s global small-screen hit, based on the real-life gangs that swaggered through Birmingham from Victorian times until well into the 20th century. Cillian Murphy returns with his uniquely unsettling, almost sightless stare as Tommy Shelby, family chieftain of a Romani-traveller gang, a man who has converted his trauma in the trenches of the first world war into a ruthless determination to survive and rule.

As we join the story some years after the curtain last came down, it is 1940, Britain’s darkest hour and Tommy is the crime-lion in winter. He now lives in a huge, remote mansion, far from the Birmingham crime scene he did so much to create, alone except for his henchman Johnny Dogs, played by Packy Lee. Evidently wearied and sickened by it all, Tommy is haunted by his ghosts and demons: memories of his late brother, Arthur, and dead daughter, Ruby, and working on what will be his definitive autobiography. (Sadly, we don’t get any scenes of Tommy having lunch with a drawling London publisher or agent.)

But a charismatic and beautiful woman, played by Rebecca Ferguson, brings Tommy news of what we already know: his malign idiot son Erasmus Shelby, played by Barry Keoghan, is now running the Peaky Blinders, a new gen-Z-style group of flatcappers raiding government armouries for guns that should really belong to the military. And if that wasn’t disloyal and unpatriotic enough, Erasmus has accepted a secret offer from a sinister Nazi fifth-columnist called Beckett, played by Tim Roth, to help distribute counterfeit currency which will destroy the economy and make Blighty easier to invade. Doesn’t Erasmus know what Adolf Hitler is going to do to his own Romani people? (To be fair to Erasmus, a lot of the poshest and most well-connected people in the land didn’t either.)

Clearly, Tommy is going to have to come down there and sort this mess out. And we get a very ripe scene in which soft-spoken Tommy turns up in the pub full of raucous idiots who cheek him. “Who the faaaaaack is ‘Tommy Shelby’?” sneers one lairy squaddie, who gets horribly schooled on that very subject.

Advertisement

In this movie, Tommy Shelby is against the Nazis, and he can’t get to be more of a good guy than that. (Tommy has evidently put behind him memories of Winston Churchill from the first two series, when Churchill was dead set on clamping down on the Peaky Blinders.) The war and the Nazis are a big theme for a big-screen treatment and screenwriter Knight and director Tom Harper put it across with some gusto as a kind of homefront war film, helped by their effortlessly watchable lead. Maybe you have to be fully invested in the TV show to really like it, although this canonisation of Tommy is a sentimental treatment of what we actually know of crime gangs in the second world war. Nevertheless, it is a resoundingly confident drama.

Peaky Blinders: The Immortal Man is in out on 6 March in the UK and US, and on Netflix from 20 March.

Continue Reading

Trending