Connect with us

Movie Reviews

There’s Something Fishy About ‘The Little Mermaid’ Audience Review Scores — Update — The Critics Must Be Crazy

Published

on

There’s Something Fishy About ‘The Little Mermaid’ Audience Review Scores — Update — The Critics Must Be Crazy

Updated 5/29/23 with a review below. Turns out I actually really liked this movie!

Something fishy is going on with The Little Mermaid’s Rotten Tomato user reviews. I fully expected this movie to fare better with critics than with audiences given how the culture wars normally work.

Instead, the critic score is just 67% as of this writing, while audiences are giving it a whopping 95%—significantly higher than The Jungle Book’s 86%. That film scored a 94% with critics.

Advertisement

This is actually quite similar to The Super Mario Bros. Movie, which scored just 59% with critics while 96% of fans reviewed the film positively on Rotten Tomatoes. But that’s reflected almost exactly over at Metacritic, where The Super Mario Bros. Movie scored just 46 with critics, but pulled in an 86 with audiences.

Meanwhile, Metacritic’s The Little Mermaid page reflects almost the complete opposite of Rotten Tomatoes:

Advertisement

This is much more in line with what I expected would happen with audience reviews since this movie has become so embroiled in culture war debates around race-swapping, “wokeness” and so forth, as well as just Disney fatigue. Many people not invested at all in the culture wars are nevertheless tired of the live-action remakes.

I find it utterly preposterous that this film would score that much higher with audiences than with critics. Critics, while not entirely politically aligned, are much more likely as a group to be sympathetic to social justice politics and less reactionary to changes made to beloved classics than the average moviegoer. I would expect this movie to have a pretty wide spread of negative and positive reviews, and a score within shouting distance of the critic score (a bit higher or a bit lower, but not almost 30 points higher!)

Indeed, the live-action remake of The Little Mermaid is now scoring much higher with audiences than the 1989 animated classic, which sits at 88% with audiences and 92% with critics. Are we to believe that moviegoers love the remake even more than the original? That certainly wasn’t the case with Beauty and the Beast, which fared better with critics and audiences as a cartoon by a wide margin.

Advertisement

Do I think Metacritic’s 2.1 is an accurate reflection of this film’s quality? Definitely not. CinemaScore has actual audience members giving this an ‘A’ grade, so it’s definitely being warmly received. Beauty and the Beast’s live-action remake also got an ‘A’ CinemaScore, but only clocked in at 80% on Rotten Tomatoes.

I know that Rotten Tomatoes is taking moderation of user reviews seriously, and tries to prevent review-bombing, but these scores seem inflated beyond what is realistically likely for a film that is getting such a lukewarm reception from critics. Peter Pan & Wendy, the most recent live-action Disney remake, scored just a bit lower than The Little Mermaid with critics (62%) but bombed completely with audiences at just 11%.

Even just casually observing forums and social media, you see a pretty wide range of reactions from wild praise to “meh, it was okay” to “this was hot garbage.” There is no way that Rotten Tomatoes’ 95% or Metacritic’s 2.1 are accurate reflections of what people are actually saying about this movie in the real world. Make of that what you will.

Finally, I should point out that what Rotten Tomatoes shows on its front page is ‘Verified Audience’ scores, but you can click on ‘All Audience’ and suddenly it’s a very different picture:

This seems like a more realistic reflection of what has become a very controversial film. Controversy drives negative reviews. (Note: The uncontroversial Super Mario Bros. Movie gets 95% with “All Audience” and 96% with “Verified Audience.”)

Similarly, if you click over to Top Critics rather than All Critics, you’ll see that the score drops to just 47%. That aligns even more closely with All Audiences. Curiouser and curiouser.

I haven’t seen it myself yet. This is not a review, obviously. I think it looks fine. My biggest concern with all of these live-action remakes is that they almost always lose at least some of the magic that the original animated versions had in spades. Even ones I’ve enjoyed, like Beauty and the Beast, I think to myself after, “Well, I’d prefer to just watch the original!”

And honestly: Wouldn’t you?

Advertisement

UPDATE:

The Little Mermaid Review: A Delightful Surprise

There’s a fun scene in the new Little Mermaid live-action movie where Ariel snags a hat for Prince Eric, plopping it on his head playfully after snatching it off the head of the street vendor. Later, Scuttle steals the hat in order to get the pair to follow the bird down to the lagoon so that they could serenade the would-be-lovers with a slightly altered version of Kiss The Girl.

Well, speaking of hats it’s time I ate mine. I was deeply skeptical about this latest Disney remake. I’ve been burnt out on the whole project for quite some time and thought this would be another soulless cash grab from the House of Mouse. I was wrong. The critics must be crazy, because this is an absolutely delightful picture and is quite possibly my favorite of all the princess live-action remakes.

Much of that is due to the powerful performance—and singing chops—of lead Halle Bailey as Ariel. She is wonderful throughout, perfectly capturing everything we loved about the original Ariel, but adding a little bit more depth and adventurousness to the character. She and Jonah Hauer-King as Prince Eric have splendid chemistry, which certainly helps. Indeed, the entire cast is marvelous and the remakes of the old songs are truly fun and delightful.

Advertisement

Is it a perfect film? Absolutely not. There are a handful of new songs and the only one I liked is the Scuttle rap, performed by Awkwafina with a bit of Sebastian harmonizing. Daveed Diggs is great as the grumpy crab majordomo also. But the new song for Prince Eric is forgettable, as is Ariel’s new number. They pale in comparison to Under the Sea and Part of Your World, both of which are wonderfully adapted here. Bailey’s singing voice really elevates Part of Your World to a whole new level. It’s brilliant. But I do miss the cartoon version of Under the Sea, with all the fish on their musical instruments.

Indeed, my biggest complaint is the fish. I don’t like the attempt to make Sebastian and Flounder (Jacob Tremblay) look “realistic.” You lose a lot of the fun expressiveness of these characters going this route. I’m thrilled the movie was so bright and colorful after the trailers made it look much less so, but I just sincerely dislike the art direction for the aquatic creatures.

Rounding out the cast we have Javier Bardem as King Triton where he does a very good job as the strict-then-relenting father. His emotional farewell to Ariel hit all the right notes. (His multi-racial brood of daughters makes you think he really got around under the sea, too).

I was skeptical of Melissa McCarthy as Ursula, but she does a terrific job as well, really capturing everything about the original villain perfectly. Her comedic timing and charm really pays off here.

All told, this ended up being a really pleasant surprise for me and my kids. We all went in a bit jaded and skeptical and we all left with smiles on our faces, though both my daughter and I cried like babies at the end. I’m a real crier when it comes to the father/daughter or father/son stuff and this tugged at the heartstrings just right. Probably the best of the Disney live-action movies, which I’m shocked—but happy—to report.

Advertisement

I guess you can lump me in with audiences on this one. It’s a treat. I’m still surprised it’s getting this high of an audience review score, but it’s really worth seeing on the big screen. I’m happy to have been wrong!

Let me know your thoughts on Twitter or Facebook.

As always, I’d love it if you’d follow me here on this blog and subscribe to my YouTube channel and my Substack so you can stay up-to-date on all my TV, movie and video game reviews and coverage. Thanks!

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Movie Reviews

A Real Encounter Movie Review: The blurry line between truth and propaganda leaves much to be desired

Published

on

A Real Encounter Movie Review: The blurry line between truth and propaganda leaves much to be desired
Story: A college student gets caught up in a terrorist attack and is killed in a police encounter. Was an innocent soul slain, or is there more than meets the eye?

Review: A Real Encounter attempts to intertwine real-life inspiration with a fictional narrative, drawing from Gujarat’s controversial anti-terrorism operations in 2002. The film centers around a dramatic encounter in which four terrorists are killed, including Muskan (Bratuti Ganguly), a seemingly innocent college student from Mumbai. The plot raises the pivotal question: Was Muskan an innocent victim of the circumstance, or was she unknowingly or willingly caught up in a terrorist plot?

The film’s premise is intriguing, exploring the blurry line between truth and propaganda surrounding police encounters that often remain shrouded in controversy. The central question about Muskan’s involvement—and whether she was a manipulated pawn, or complicit in the terror plot—has the potential for a nuanced exploration of the socio-political climate of the time. However, the execution leaves much to be desired.

While the film’s first half focuses on the intense police encounters, the second half shifts to a more personal, character-driven narrative about Muskan’s gradual descent into radicalism. This shift feels awkward and unconvincing, as the pacing becomes disjointed and struggles to maintain emotional engagement. There is little exploration into Muskan’s motivations or the external forces that may have shaped her decisions. A more thorough examination of her character and the socio-political pressures of the time could have made the film more impactful.

Sabir Shaikh’s direction lacks the necessary polish to carry the weight of the narrative. There is an overuse of close-up shots and shaky camera work that undermines the intensity of key action sequences. The poorly choreographed gunfights and lack of realism further detract from the dramatic tension. Additionally, abrupt jump cuts between scenes disrupt the flow, creating a disjointed viewing experience. The background score is another problem—loud and intrusive, it often clashes with the mood of the scenes, further intensifying the discomfort of watching.

Advertisement

Bratuti Ganguly, in her debut role as Muskan, delivers a competent performance but struggles to fully embody her character due to an underdeveloped script. The police officers—Ehsaan Khan (ADG Rathore), Shahbaaz Khan (Arjun Ranade), and Rishikesh Tiwari (Varun Barot)—are convincing but are constrained by their lack of complexity. Even Waseem (Akhilesh Verma), who befriends Muskan and plays a key role in her involvement with terrorism, follows a predictable character arc that lacks intrigue.

Supporting characters like Muskan’s uncle (Mushtaq Khan) and Raza Murad (the advocate seeking justice) are left underdeveloped, overshadowed by the film’s uneven pacing. Their presence feels more like an afterthought than integral parts of the narrative.

In conclusion, A Real Encounter is a missed opportunity. While the concept could have made for a thought-provoking and gripping film, the lack of cohesive storytelling, shaky cinematography, and overblown background score detract from its potential. This is definitely not the film you want to encounter this weekend.

Continue Reading

Movie Reviews

Kanguva Movie Review – Gulte

Published

on

Kanguva Movie Review – Gulte

2/5


02 Hrs 34 Mins   |   Action Adventure – Fantasy   |   14-11-2024


Cast – Suriya, Bobby Deol, Disha Patani, Yogi Babu, Anandaraj, Kovai Sarala, Redin Kingsley, Natarajan Subramaniam & others.

Director – ‘Siruthai’ Siva

Advertisement

Producer – K. E. Gnanavel Raja, V. Vamsi Krishna Reddy & Pramod Uppalapati

Banner – Studio Green & UV Creations

Music – Devi Sri Prasad

Advertisement

It’s been about two and a half years since Suriya’s film in a lead role was released in theatres. In an attempt to deliver an out-of-the-world experience to the audience, he teamed up with director, ‘Siruthai’ Siva for Kanguva, an action-adventure fantasy film with a period backdrop. It’s been a while since Suriya delivered a hit at the Box Office and he has pinned all his hopes on the film. After raising expectations with the teaser, and trailer, especially the release trailer which was released a few days back, Kanguva, was finally released in theatres today. Did it live up to the expectations? Did the director, Siva, come up with a memorable film for the fans of Suriya and movie lovers? Let’s figure it out with a detailed analysis.

What is it about?

Francis(Suriya), is a bounty hunter based out of Goa along with his Ex-Girlfriend, Angela(Disha Patani) and friend(Yogi Babu) During a bounty hunting job, Francis and his friend meet a kid(Zeta) who is on a run. Both Francis & Zeta find a strange connection between themselves. What is the connection between Francis and Zeta? Why is Zeta on a run? Who is Kanguva & Poruva? What is their connection with Francis and Zeta? Forms the rest of the story.

Advertisement

Performances:

Suriya as Francis Theodore looked a bit out of the place but he did well in the role of Kanga aka Kanguva. The way he used his eyes to perform in the role of Kanguva is fantastic. Disha Patani as Angela is wasted. All the sequences involving her are irritating.

Bobby Deol as Udhiran got a poorly written role with a very weird look and there’s not much to talk about his role. The child artist who did the roles of Poruva & Zeta did well. There’s a surprise cameo during the climax of the film by a ‘Most Loved Star’ but even the cameo did not work out. The cameo is used in the film just to give a lead to the second part.

Yogi Babu, Kovai Sarala and a few more notable actors are wasted in poorly written roles. Probably for the first time in the recent past, Yogi Babu’s comedy failed to evoke laughs.

Technicalities:

Advertisement

Vetri Palaniswamy’s cinematography is first-rate. The way he captured the lush green forests and the way he and his team shot the film during the night is fantastic. Cinematography is the only department that gave their hundred percent to the film. Devi Sri Prasad was disappointed big time with poor songs and a soulless & loud background score. Apart from the ‘Mannippu’ song and the background score during a sequence in the second half, his work is below par and works against the film. Nishad Yusuf’s editing is poor as well. His fast cuts especially in the first half were a pain to the eyes. There’s a lot of VFX used in the film but it is strictly average at best. Production values by Studio Green and UV Creations are grand but the producers would have invested a bit more to fine-tune the VFX part.

Director, Siva selected a very good core point but his lack of experience in executing a film of Kanguva’s scale and his tendency to overdo drama worked against the film big time. He and his writers would have come up with better writing. All we get to see in the film is one action sequence after another without a soul and emotional connection. His work overall is below par.

Thumbs Up:

Two blocks each in both halves
Suriya’s performance as Kanguva
Core Plot of The Film

Thumbs Down:

Advertisement

DSP’s Songs & Background Score
Weird Looks of Actors
Entire Goa Episode In The First Half
Lack of Emotional Connect In The First Half
Over-the-top drama

Analysis:

Since the release of Baahubali, many filmmakers across the country from multiple film industries have come up with ambitious films that are mounted on a huge canvas & interesting storylines to cater to the PAN India audiences but only a very few of those films worked out. Staying away from an overdose of local flavour is the basic rule that a PAN India filmmaker has to follow but unfortunately most of these filmmakers, especially the Tamil filmmakers inability to stay away from overdoing the local flavour is working against these PAN India films more often than not.

Kanguva has a very interesting plot and a setup that may have been very exciting on paper but the director, Siva and his team’s execution is loud, predictable and filled with an overdose of native flavour. Every actor in the film shouts and screams all the time for no reason. Along with the over-the-top execution and acting by almost all the actors, the weird looks designed for each of the actors, especially when the plot was set up in the year 1070, worked against the film.

The film starts on an interesting note with a monologue by an old woman in the year 1070 that questions the true purpose of each of us human beings’ birth, followed by another interesting sequence involving a kid named, Zeta at a lab in 2024. But, what follows after these two sequences in the first half is a mess filled with people screaming all the time and very predictable pre-interval sequences.

Advertisement

The second half of the film is marginally better compared to the first half with a couple of well-executed blocks but again, apart from those couple of blocks, remaining everything is unexciting. Also, the sequences Suriya, Disha Patani, Yogi Babu and others in the first half in the backdrop of Goa are forgettable. All those sequences are executed very poorly and test the patience of the audience.

It is the director who is to be blamed for wasting the potential of a very interesting plot with below-par execution barring four blocks. Another culprit is Devi Sri Prasad. Both his songs and background score are forgettable, to say the least.

Overall, Kanguva has an interesting plot but the below-par execution made it a disappointing film that may find it difficult to sustain at the Box Office. There’s a lead given during the climax of the film using a surprise cameo by a star hero for the second part but it is highly unlikely that the second part of the film will be made.

Verdict – Too Loud & Over-The-Top

Rating: 2/5

Advertisement

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Movie Reviews

'Heretic' Review – A Rube Goldberg Machine Dripping With Theological Boredom

Published

on

'Heretic' Review – A Rube Goldberg Machine Dripping With Theological Boredom

Hugh Grant as Mr. Reed in the psychological horror film Heretic. Photo credit: Kimberley French. Image property of A24.

Advertisement

Written and directed by Scott Beck and Bryan Woods (65, Haunt, writers of A Quiet Place), Heretic is a so-called psychological horror that is disappointing on all fronts. After only seeing the trailer once months ago, I initially thought that Heretic was a film about a serial killer (Hugh Grant) who used his crazy mouse trap-contraption house to lure in religious, door-to-door service people and kill them.

While that is partially the case, Heretic follows two missionaries from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; Sister Barnes (Sophie Thatcher, The Book of Boba Fett) and Sister Paxton (Chloe East, The Wolf of Snow Hollow). The two women go to the house of Mr. Reed (Grant) who has expressed interest in hearing more about their religion.

(L-R) Chloe East as Sister Paxton and Sophie Thatcher as Sister Barnes in the psychological horror film Heretic (2024), A24

As Sister Barnes and Sister Paxton make their way inside, they soon find themselves trapped in Mr. Reed’s bizarrely intricate home featuring electricity on a timer, a front door that supposedly won’t open again until morning, and metal construction that blocks cell phone signals.

Reed, a theology major with vast knowledge of all religions, claims to have found the one true religion. Whether the two women will escape or if Reed knows what he’s talking about all factors into the cerebral aspect of the film.

(L-R) Chloe East as Sister Paxton, Sophie Thatcher as Sister Barnes, and Hugh Grant as Mr. Reed in the psychological horror film Heretic (2024), A24

RELATED: ‘Venom: The Last Dance’ Review – New York Venom

Martin Freeman constantly looked miserable and bored out of his mind when he appeared in films like The Hobbit trilogy and the Sherlock TV series. He suddenly looked like he was having the time of his life when he shifted film genres, plunged into horror, and starred in the 2017 film Ghost Stories.

It seems to be the same case for Hugh Grant. While this isn’t his first horror film, Heretic is his first film in the genre in 36 years (Grant starred in The Lair of the White Worm in 1988). Grant is noticeably lively in his performance in Heretic though and seems downright giddy to be torturing people.

Advertisement

With cinematography by Chung Chung-hoon (Last Night in Soho, The Handmaiden), Heretic has two visually memorable sequences thanks to how they’re shot. When Sister Barnes and Sister Paxton first arrive, Mr. Reed leaves the room to check on his “wife.” While he’s gone, Barnes turns the candle he blew out and discovers what the scent of the candle is. As she slowly turns the candle, the camera turns with it.

Reed has a miniature duplicate of his house complete with little figures that represent Sister Barnes and Sister Paxton. In a sequence when Sister Paxton is trying to run away from Mr. Reed, we’re following her movements in the miniature but it seamlessly transitions from the model to the real thing when she enters the room and slams the door.

Sophie Thatcher as Sister Barnes in the psychological horror film Heretic (2024), A24

RELATED: ‘Kensuke’s Kingdom’ Review – Striking Animation That Plays It Safe

The method in which Heretic is written is somewhat odd. Not quite horrific enough to be scary with its religion-defying dialogue taking center stage, Heretic is essentially a two-hour sermon attempting to destroy your faith with some splashes of blood and a raggedy woman or two dying in a blueberry pie.  

It feels like if you walked into Heretic devoted to the Mormon religion, you’ll walk out of the theater a different person. Mr. Reed’s arguments regarding all religions stemming from the same concept are portrayed in a way that is believable and convincing.

Advertisement
Chloe East as Sister Paxton in the psychological horror film Heretic (2024), A24

He somehow rambles about Monopoly and board games, music, and vinyl records to demonstrate similarities between certain board games, how some songs are essentially the same tunes with different lyrics, and that all religions are more similar than dissimilar.

While the dialogue-driven film can be interesting, it’s also rather boring. There’s an unsettling aspect to Mr. Reed’s behavior that capitalizes on the tension in the film. But there are also these long stretches where nothing happens besides the next topic of conversation or a weak payoff where someone’s throat is cut with a box cutter or it builds up to a whisper.

Hugh Grant as Mr. Reed in the psychological horror film Heretic (2024), A24

Heretic is beautifully shot with a stellar performance from Hugh Grant, but its intriguing concept is drowned out by the desire to deconvert the audience and have a lukewarm reveal regarding whatever the one-true religion is. Watching the film is like being trapped in a church of a religion you don’t believe in with an overwhelmingly passionate pastor trying to dissuade you from ever coming back.

‘Memoir Of A Snail’ Review – Hilarity And Empathy Bundled In Stop-Motion Brilliance

Heretic (2024), A24.

PROS

  • Hugh Grant
  • Well thought out dialogue
  • Strong writing

CONS

  • Talks the audience to death
  • Horror aspect feels secondary
  • Gets dull during final act

Mentioned This Article: A24 Heretic Horror Hugh Grant Movie Review psychological

More About:Movie Reviews

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending