The new “Snow White” film has become the lowest-rated movie in Disney history, scoring an incredibly low 1.6 out of 10 on IMDb. But does the film truly deserve such a wave of hatred? Or is it all due to political factors: Rachel Zegler`s skin color and her controversial statements? Let`s find out in this review.
Disney`s live-action remakes are often seen as a soulless and cheap way to capitalize on nostalgia and their famous brand. The studio repeatedly uses this formula, drawing criticism from both critics and audiences, yet seemingly learns nothing from this cycle. Could “Snow White” be the exception and finally break this trend?
It would be fitting, as Snow White is a unique and pivotal princess in Disney`s legacy. “Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs” wasn`t just another animated movie; it was Walt Disney`s first full-length animated feature. It`s possible that without it, the studio might have remained focused on short films and later television.
This is why the remake of “Snow White” has provoked a stronger reaction than previous live-action adaptations. While many cherish “Mulan,” “Aladdin,” and “The Little Mermaid,” “Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs” is more than just beloved by fans. It represents a crucial milestone in animation history.
The filmmakers were under immense pressure to get it right, and they knew it. In their attempt to avoid any missteps, they tried to cater to every possible direction, ultimately failing to create something meaningful. The film is confused about its identity: should it be a faithful, albeit potentially outdated, classic, or a progressive, feminist statement that sacrifices the essence of the original? Consequently, the remake fails on both fronts, seemingly disliked by everyone.
The original cartoon and fairy tale`s plot is likely familiar to most. The Evil Queen, envious of Snow White`s beauty, seeks to kill her. Snow White finds refuge in the forest with the dwarfs. The Witch eventually locates her and poisons her with an apple, only to meet her own demise with the dwarfs` help. The Prince awakens Snow White with a kiss, and they all live happily ever after.
The remake generally follows the same storyline, but with changes. However, these alterations are perceived as both disrespectful by traditionalists and insufficient by those seeking progressive representation.
Indeed, the primary change isn`t particularly novel. Reimagining Snow White from a passive damsel in distress to a more active character—be it a rogue, warrior, or leader—is a common trope and understandable in modern adaptations.
Disney`s original Snow White embodied the ideal woman and role model of her time: beautiful, domestic, and obedient. She cooked, cleaned, cared for children, and patiently awaited her prince, taking no initiative herself—an ideal for the 1930s. When Walt Disney began the cartoon, American women had only recently gained voting rights, and the concept of “Let It Go” was decades away.
It`s natural for contemporary creators to aim for a more proactive heroine. Embracing strong female characters is commendable. Many hope for princesses who forge their own “happily ever after” rather than passively waiting for it.
Disney is capable of creating such characters—resourceful, curious, determined, and brave. Yet, these qualities are often absent in their live-action remakes. This Snow White transforms from a homemaker into a rather dim, privileged character who expects deference simply due to her birthright.
The filmmakers` zeal to discard outdated patriarchal stereotypes led them to neglect giving the heroine any compelling traits in return. In the original, Snow White, upon entering the dwarfs` home, cleans and cooks for them, reminiscent of Monica Geller or Sheldon Cooper. Later, she encourages them to practice hygiene and bakes pies.
In the remake, Snow White still enters their home uninvited but immediately goes to sleep. She doesn`t cook for them and leaves the cleaning to them.
The creators also aimed to portray her as brave. In the original, the princess is terrified in the forest, imagining horrors. In the remake, she defiantly faces danger, yet still hallucinates monsters. The scene`s intended impact is lost.
It`s clear the film wants to emphasize that Snow White is a legitimate heir who must overthrow the Evil Queen to rule. However, she demonstrates no qualities that justify such power. Her proposal to improve citizens` lives is offering them pie, a Marie Antoinette-esque suggestion that even the villain finds absurd, pointing out the people`s more pressing needs.
This Snow White does nothing to earn her claim to the throne. The film mentions everyone has forgotten her. Soldiers readily side with her; people simply follow her. Even the Evil Queen`s demise is self-inflicted, not a result of Snow White`s actions.
This approach might suit a simple love-at-first-sight fairy tale. But the filmmakers aimed to present a princess as a revolutionary leader against tyranny, resulting instead in a weak palace coup where a tyrant is replaced by an ineffective ruler.
Ironically, this “Snow White,” whose original theme was “Someday My Prince Will Come,” removes the prince entirely and cuts the iconic song. “Waiting on a Wish” replaces it—a decent song, and while Rachel Zegler faces much criticism (mostly unrelated to the film), her singing is commendable, unlike Gal Gadot`s, who also faces social media scrutiny. This is just based on personal listening preference.
Criticizing the acting seems unfair given the weak script. However, Gal Gadot`s exaggerated expressions during her musical number were unintentionally hilarious, making it the film`s comedic highlight and undermining her villainous portrayal. Zegler acted mostly against green screens and mannequins—perhaps even imaginary snakes—limiting her performance.
The prince is replaced by Jonathan, a former wandering actor turned bandit. His non-royal status reinforces the revolution theme, as he`s depicted as a loyal soldier to a true king—perhaps Snow White`s father.
On the positive side, Jonathan has more screen time than the original prince, who briefly appeared at the beginning and end. Jonathan`s relationship with Snow White develops slightly more organically, moving from “instant marriage” to “two conversations then marriage,” hardly a developed romance.
Jonathan is simply handsome, a charming rogue with appealing looks. The film trades 1930s stereotypes for 1950s ones.
The purpose is unclear. Perhaps Jonathan highlights Snow White`s future as a benevolent queen, shown by her kindness curing Simpleton`s muteness. In the original, he was non-verbal. It`s debatable how this is received in terms of inclusivity—does it diminish disability representation?
It`s doubtful anyone watched “Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs” longing for Simpleton`s storyline. A romance between him and Snow White might have been more interesting—there`s certainly more chemistry than with Jonathan. Such a film might be worth watching, though perhaps not for this website.
This is a strange addition, seemingly just for novelty.
Regarding the dwarfs, their CGI appearances are unsettling. Still photos are passable, but in motion, they are horrifying. The decision to use CGI instead of actors with dwarfism is questionable, likely to avoid offense, though someone would likely be upset regardless. The film includes one actor with dwarfism, possibly as damage control.
Beyond the dwarfs, the sets don`t look like $270 million was spent. There`s no immersion into a fairytale world, which was a strength of previous live-action remakes—their visual appeal. Here, it feels like watching a low-budget children`s play through a neural network filter.
Years ago, two Snow White films were released in the same year. Both reinterpreted the tale, aimed to empower the heroine, and were profitable but unremarkable. Crucially, both had a clear identity: “Snow White: A Tale of Terror” was comedic, and “Snow White and the Huntsman” was dark fantasy.
Disney`s new “Snow White” lacks this clarity. It desperately clings to the original cartoon`s imagery, leeching nostalgia for profit, not out of love or respect. It exploits familiar elements to draw in viewers and their children.
Similarly, its progressive and feminist posturing is superficial, merely a checklist to avoid social media backlash. The filmmakers seem indifferent to genuine progress.
Ultimately, the film is disliked by both conservatives and progressives. It pointlessly degrades the original`s merits without offering anything compelling in return. Is it as bad as other 1.6/10 films? Technically, no. Much of the criticism is unrelated to the film itself. But does it deserve such a low rating? Absolutely.
P.S. Rachel Zegler is of Colombian and Polish descent, so her skin is not “white as snow.” However, even if she were paler, it wouldn`t improve the film.
Finley Holt