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

Mortal Kombat 2 Movie Review: Simon McQuoid’s Latest Is A Breezy, Bloody, Sometimes Baffling Time

Published

on

Mortal Kombat 2 Movie Review: Simon McQuoid’s Latest Is A Breezy, Bloody, Sometimes Baffling Time

Warner Bros. has a new movie to put in the ring. Mortal Kombat II, the sequel to the action-filled 2021 video game adaptation that at the very least got the gore right, is here. It’s a breezy, bloody entry that leans heavily on video game characters and logic, a move that should satisfy franchise fans, even if the actual narrative is too weak to win over new converts.

We’re in an era of regular, variably solid video game adaptations. Series like The Last of Us and Fallout, and films such as Sonic the Hedgehog and Werewolves Within, are exemplary, with stories that capture much of what works about the games. On the other hand, adaptations like Borderlands show that it’s still possible to get one wrong. The stakes remain high.

When director Simon McQuoid’s Mortal Kombat graced the screens and HBO Max, it was received with a sizable difference between fans (currently 85% on Rotten Tomatoes with over 5,000 verified ratings) and critics (55% with 299 factored in). It was refreshing to have fights that didn’t skimp on the game series’ violence, but some muddled plotting, a failure to fully capture the game’s feel, and centering the film on an original character (rather than a fan-favorite from the games) were ill-received.

Mortal Kombat II is a bigger and more faithful adaptation in many ways. The tournament actually feels deadly, and many of the fight sequences are sufficiently bloody to accurately reflect the games. The actual narrative falls apart somewhat when you think too hard about it, but it largely works, and certain characters (Kano, Johnny Cage) steal every scene they’re in. If you like your movies bloody with a side of silly, you’re in luck.

Mortal Kombat 2 Has Stellar New Additions

Warner Bros.

Mortal Kombat II doesn’t waste time in setting the stakes, with an opening fight between Eternia’s King Jerrod and Shao Kahn (Martyn Ford). The helmeted tyrant Kahn’s violent victory allows him to raise Jerrod’s daughter, Kitana, as he comes to rule Eternia thanks to his tournament victories. That backstory sets up the complex journey of adult Kitana (Adeline Rudolph), who fights for Kahn alongside longtime friend Jade (Tati Gabrielle), but has understandable reservations.

Advertisement

Another major element of this iteration is the addition of washed-up action star Johnny Cage (Karl Urban), who is recruited to fight for Earthrealm despite lacking powers. Cage has to fight under the tutelage of Lord Raiden (Tadanobu Asano), alongside mainstays including Sonya Blade (Jessica McNamee), Jax (Mehcad Brooks), Cole Young (Lewis Tan), and Liu Kang (Ludi Lin). Our heroes have to defeat Shao Khan’s warriors to save Earth, all the while preventing him from acquiring an amulet that would render him immortal. 

Urban is a stellar addition to the series, with a huge and charismatic personality that fits Johnny Cage and is fun to watch onscreen. Josh Lawson’s dirtbag mercenary Kano gets some fantastic scenes here, and the two add a lot of charm that some other characters may lack. Adeline Rudolph is empathetic and believably tactical as Kitana. Gabrielle’s Jade isn’t given enough key scenes to shine, but there’s clear potential for the character in future iterations. 

Baraka (CJ Bloomfield) isn’t the deepest character, but Bloomfield makes him memorable, and his relationship with Johnny Cage is always a fun watch. While Tan’s Cole Young has something to do in Mortal Kombat II, he’s much less of a focus here, as are returning favorites like Hiroyuki Sanada and Joe Taslim’s Bi-Han. 

There are new characters, many moving parts, and a narrative that’s more a string of battles than a traditional Hollywood tale, leaving some favorites underutilized. Because of the need to introduce new characters, most of the existing ones are relatively one-note. Kitana and Johnny Cage get ample screen time, even character arcs, and Kano, Baraka, and some others do get standout moments. Most characters, however, remain one-note figures.

Mortal Kombat II Doesn’t Fully Make Sense, but It Mostly Hits Hard

Lewis Tan as Cole Young in Mortal Kombat 2.
Warner Bros.

While Mortal Kombat 2 doesn’t have the biggest fights you’ll see this year (that would be The Furious), it does have quite a few memorable ones with great finishers. The final fight with Shao Kahn has a solid ending, and many get standout moments as the movie proceeds. Kitana, Baraka, Liu Kang, Hanzo Hasashi/Scorpion, and Kung Lao all get particularly unforgettable moments.  

A more faithful structure also makes this round’s fights feel a bit more like one is playing an actual Mortal Kombat game, which is welcome. Most are well-paced, though a few could use tighter editing. Unfortunately, the story is more than a little muddled. Shao Kahn wants a Maguffin to be unkillable, sure, but if the tournament rules allow an invasion of Earthrealm if and only if Earth’s champions defeat Outworld’s five times, isn’t an immortality-granting amulet the equivalent of steroid use? Where are the referees? 

Advertisement

Some characters (like Jade) change allegiances almost at random, with no consistency. There are several moments when characters make choices that don’t make sense, or at least we don’t have enough information to understand them.

Altogether, Mortal Kombat II learned from quite a few of the issues the first film had. It swapped out protagonists for one with a flashier personality, better replicated the game’s elements and structure, and had kills to boot. That’s largely enough to succeed for the kind of film it is, but it still has issues. 

There are too many characters to develop in any interesting way, the tournament rules and character plans don’t make total sense, and the pacing is quick in some moments and slow in others. Nonetheless, it’s a delightful outing and feels just like a big ol’ violent video game (complimentary). 

Final Rating: 7/10

Mortal Kombat 2 is playing in theaters.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Movie Reviews

1986 Movie Reviews – Dangerously Close, Fire with Fire, Last Resort, and Short Circuit | The Nerdy

Published

on

1986 Movie Reviews – Dangerously Close, Fire with Fire, Last Resort, and Short Circuit | The Nerdy
by Sean P. Aune | May 9, 2026May 9, 2026 10:30 am EDT

Welcome to an exciting year-long project here at The Nerdy. 1986 was an exciting year for films giving us a lot of films that would go on to be beloved favorites and cult classics. It was also the start to a major shift in cultural and societal norms, and some of those still reverberate to this day.

We’re going to pick and choose which movies we hit, but right now the list stands at nearly four dozen.

Yes, we’re insane, but 1986 was that great of a year for film.

The articles will come out – in most cases – on the same day the films hit theaters in 1986 so that it is their true 40th anniversary. All films are also watched again for the purposes of these reviews and are not being done from memory. In some cases, it truly will be the first time we’ve seen them.

Advertisement

This time around, it’s May 9, 1986, and we’re off to see Dangerously Close, Fire with Fire, Last Resort, and Short Circuit.

 

Dangerously Close

I would love to tell you what the point of this film was, but I’m not sure it knew.

Advertisement

An elite school has turned into a magnet school, attracting some “undesirables,” so a group of students known as The Sentinels take up policing their school, but will they go too far?

The basic plot of the film is simple enough, but there is an oddball “twist” toward the end tht served no real purpose and somehow turns the whole thing into a murder-mystery. Mysteries only work when you know you’re supposed to be solving them, and not when you’re alerted to one existing with 15 minutes left.

Decent 80s music, some stylistic shots, absolutely no substance.

 

Fire with Fire

Advertisement

Oh wait… I may want to go back and watch Dangerously Close again over this one.

Joe Fisk (Craig Sheffer) is being held at a juvenile delinquent facility close a high-end all-girls Catholic school. One day while running through the forest as part of an exercise he spots Catholic schoolgirl Lisa Taylor (Virginia Madsen) and the two fall immediately in love because… reasons.

This film is just so incredibly lazy. The ‘love story’ really can just be chalked up to ‘hormones.’

 

Last Resort

Advertisement

Once again I am baffled how Charles Grodin kept getting work so much through out the 1980s.

George Lollar (Grodin) is a salesman in Chicago in need of a vacation. He loads up the family and takes them to Club Sand, which turns out to be a swingers resort as well as surrounded by barbed wire to keep rebels out.

There are a lot of talented people in this movie such as Phil Hartman and Megan Mullally, but the film lets them down at every turn with half-baked ideas of jokes. Supposedly, Grodin rewrote nearly the entire script and I think that explains a lot about how this film feels like unfinished ideas. It’s a Frankenstein monster of a script with half-complete ideas that feel like they are from completely different movies.

 

Short Circuit

Advertisement

Lets just get this out of the way: What in the world was Fisher Stevens doing?

NOVA Laboratory has come up with a new series of military robots called S.A.I.N.T. (Strategic Artificially Intelligent Nuclear Transport). Following a successful demonstration for the military, Five is struck by an electrical surge and finds itself needing ‘input.’ After inadvertently escaping the lab, it wands into the life of Stephanie Speck (Ally Sheedy), who cares for animals and takes Five in. Dr. Newton Crosby (Steve Guttenberg) is trying to get five back, while the security team wants to destroy it.

Overall, the film is thin, but harmless. The 80s did seem to love a ‘technology being used for the wrong reasons’ theme, and this falls into that camp. What is mind-blowing, however, is Stevens as Ben Jabituya, Crosby’s assistant. Not only is he wearing brown face, but he’s doing a horrible Indian accent and later reveals he was born and raised in the U.S.

His whole character is mystifying.

Honestly, a couple of decades ago I may have recommended this movie, but it’s a definite pass now just for being offensive.

Advertisement

1986 Movie Reviews will continue on May 16, 2026, with Sweet Liberty and Top Gun.


Continue Reading

Movie Reviews

Movie Review: AFFECTION – Assignment X

Published

on

Movie Review: AFFECTION – Assignment X


By ABBIE BERNSTEIN / Staff Writer


Posted: May 8th, 2026 / 08:34 PM

AFFECTION movie poster | ©2026 Brainstorm Media

Rating: Not Rated
Stars: Jessica Rothe, Joseph Cross, Julianna Layne
Writer: BT Meza
Director: BT Meza
Distributor: Brainstorm Media
Release Date: May 8, 2026

 AFFECTION is an odd title for this tale. While it is about a number of topics and emotions, fondness isn’t one of them. Obsession, definitely. Love, possibly. The kind of general warm fellow feelings associated with “affection”? No.

Advertisement

There have been a lot of movies lately in which characters – mostly women – are grappling with false identities and/or false memories imposed upon them, mostly by men.

Let us stipulate that the protagonist (Jessica Rothe) in AFFECTION is not an android or in an artificial reality. However, we can tell something is way off from the opening sequence. A car is stalled on a tree-bordered highway. Rothe’s character is lying face down on the asphalt beside it, possibly dead.

But then the young woman rises, dragging a broken ankle. She experiences a full-body seizure. Fighting to recover, she sees oncoming headlights and tries to run, only to be hit by a car.

The woman wakes up in a bed she doesn’t recognize, next to a man (Joseph Cross) she likewise is sure she’s never seen before. One big confrontation later, the man says his name is Bruce – and that the woman is his wife, Ellie.

Ellie insists that her name is Sarah Thompson, and she is married to someone else, with a son. When she sees her reflection in a mirror, she doesn’t relate to the face looking back at her.

Advertisement

Bruce counters that Ellie has a rare neurological condition that causes her to block out her waking life and believe her dreams are real. This is why they agreed, together, to move to this isolated house, without the kinds of interruptions that can hinder Ellie’s recovery.

The set-up is presented in a way where we share Ellie’s skepticism. But Ellie and Bruce’s little daughter Alice (Julianna Layne) immediately identifies Ellie as “Mommy!” Alice appears to be too young to be in on any kind of deception, so what is going on here?

AFFECTION eventually explains this via a helpful videotape, though it’s so convoluted that viewers watching on streaming may want to replay the sequence to make sure they understand the exposition.

Writer/director BT Meza musters a sense of menace and lurking weirdness, as well as making great use of his location.

We still have a lot of questions, many of which are still unanswered by the film’s end. It may not matter to the points AFFECTION is trying to make, but a better sense of exactly how all this started might help our investment.

Advertisement

As it is, despite a heroically versatile performance by Rothe, a credible and anguished turn by Cross and appealing work from Layne, we’re so busy trying to piece together what’s important and what’s not and how we’re supposed to feel about all of it that it can be hard to keep track of the action as it unfolds.

Agree or not, Meza’s arguments are lucid and illustrated clearly by AFFECTION’s events. However, the movie is structured in a way that becomes more frustrating as it goes. We comprehend it intellectually but can’t engage viscerally.

Related: Movie  Review: ITCH!
Related: Movie  Review: HOKUM
Related: Movie  Review: ANIMAL FARM
Related: Movie  Review: OVER  YOUR DEAD BODY
Related: Movie  Review: THE WOLF AND THE LAMB
Related: Movie  Review: BASIC PYSCH
Related: Movie  Review: SCREAMS FROM THE TOWER
Related: Movie  Review: FUZE
Related: Movie  Review: LEE CRONIN’S THE MUMMY
Related: Movie  Review: HAPPY HALLOWEEN
Related: Movie  Review: NORMAL
Related:
Movie  Review: MOTHER MARY
Related: Movie  Review: FACES OF DEATH
Related: Movie  Review: EXIT 8
Related: Movie  Review: HAMLET
Related: Movie  Review: THE YETI
Related: Movie  Review: OUR HERO, BALTHAZAR
Related: Movie  Review: THE SERPENT”S SKIN
Related: Movie  Review: PRETTY LETHAL
Related: Movie  Review: READY OR NOT 2:  HERE I COME

Follow us on Twitter at ASSIGNMENT X
Like us on Facebook at ASSIGNMENT X

Article Source: Assignment X
Article: Movie  Review: AFFECTION

 

Advertisement

 

Related Posts:

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending