Every Disney Live-Action Remake Or Reimagining Of Animated Movies, Ranked

Once upon a time, Disney was best known for their animated films. (And let's be real, that's pretty much still their bread and butter.) But somewhere along the line, they learned that they could make bank by using their existing intellectual property in a new way — by taking their old, beloved animated films and plopping them in the world of live-action. After all, what worked in two dimensions with pen and paper has to be even better with real people, right?

By this point, it seems as though Disney should have learned that isn't always the case. It's not enough to have a cherished IP in live action — you also have to bring something new to the table. And there are some Disney live-action adaptations that work better than others. Some are legitimately good films in their own right, while others are, well ... less than magical.

People (and when we say people, we primarily mean the target demographic of Hot Topic) were willing to extend a certain amount of goodwill to Tim Burton's "Alice in Wonderland." But when the sequel "Alice Through the Looking Glass" came along, audiences were less enthused. The story, which takes place after the events of the first film but also sees Alice travel back in time to the Mad Hatter's (Johnny Depp) past, plays into all of Tim Burton's worst tendencies as a director. 

"Alice Through the Looking Glass" is loud, garish, and creatively empty, emphasizing style over even the barest hint of substance. Add in a chaotic (and not in a good way) Johnny Depp and Helena Bonham Carter, and you've got one of the biggest Disney misfires in quite some time. (And just between us, that's saying something.)

There's no kind way of saying this, so we might as well not beat around the bush: This thing is a straight-up calamity. Not to be confused with Guillermo del Toro's adaptation of "Pinocchio" which actually, you know, breaks new ground creatively and tries to put a fresh spin on the well-worn classic, Disney's "Pinocchio" is a fairly soulless retreat of the original animated film. 

Director Robert Zemeckis's track record of using CGI to bring his creepy, uncanny valley creations to life is unbroken, and even the considerable charms of one Tom Hanks as Geppetto aren't enough to save "Pinocchio." Out of all of the recent live-action Disney adaptations, the fact that "Pinocchio" brings absolutely nothing new to the table makes it one of the more unnecessary remakes. Sorry to the little wooden boy and all his friends, but off to the salt mines with this one.

The concept of a rehabilitated Cruella De Vil (Glenn Close) is an intriguing one. And indeed, after she's released from prison in "102 Dalmatians," it appears to the world at large that she's on the up and up. But although we'd like to think that everyone is capable of their very own redemption arc ... come on, this is Cruella De Vil we're talking about, and it isn't long before she's up to her old tricks in the puppy-murdering industry. Although Glenn Close really puts her back into the role, squeezing every ounce of quality she can find, "102 Dalmatians" feels like little more than a retread of its predecessor — and a lot less charming, at that. The fun sets, inventive costume design, and oodles of puppies can only go so far.

What, you don't remember this as part of the animated Disney canon? Alright, so "The Sorcerer's Apprentice" isn't exactly a live-action adaptation of a classic Disney film, but it is inspired by one of the most famous Mickey Mouse bits of all time — the sequence in "Fantasia" where Mickey is apprentice to a powerful sorcerer, only to get in way over his head when he attempts a few spells of his own. This version of "The Sorcerer's Apprentice," starring Nicolas Cage and Jay Baruchel, is ... less memorable. Dave (Baruchel) is just a regular guy — at least until he ends up working for Balthazar (Cage), a wizard who has to stop Horvath (Alfred Molina, who just cannot quit trying to destroy New York City). It was not well-received, and something tells us it isn't going to be getting a critical reappraisal anytime soon.

You know what the problem with the original "Dumbo" was? The sweet little animal suffering in it wasn't realistic-looking enough. If you're going to put a tiny little baby animal through hell, you might as well make sure it looks as much like the real thing as possible. The live-action adaptation of "Dumbo" failed for one major reason: Audiences didn't have the stomach for it. Disney, in their frenzy, to build off of every single scrap of IP, didn't realize that anyone who had an appetite for this — let's call it like it is — a heartbreaking story of animal abuse would simply watch the original. It doesn't help matters that the garish colors of the circus make the drab rendering of the actual animal characters even more evident. Even director Tim Burton hated the experience — adding that Disney is a "horrible big circus" and he was Dumbo. 

This quasi-live-action version of "The Lion King" puts all of its energy into rendering all of the wildlife of the African savannah in photorealistic quality, making them come across as real as technologically possible. But there are two problems with that. First, the focus on CGI means that "The Lion King" isn't particularly interested in taking a new approach to the actual story, making it feel a little superfluous. But more importantly: Do you remember how little Simba's face crumbled in the original "Lion King" when he lost his father, traumatizing an entire generation in the process? Well, real lions don't have those kinds of facial expressions, so you lose the emotional connection in the transference from animation to photorealism. But hey, numbers don't lie — audiences still flocked to see it, earning Disney $1.6 billion at the box office.

Maybe you had to grow up with this particular live-action version of "101 Dalmatians" to enjoy it, but in spite of its egregiously low rating on Rotten Tomatoes, it's actually a lot of fun. Jeff Daniels and Joely Richardson star as Roger and Anita, two lovebirds who meet through the machinations of their beloved Dalmatians, Pongo and Perdita. But their newlywed bliss is shortlived, after Cruella de Vil (a delightfully malevolent Glenn Close) schemes to kidnap and murder their growing brood of puppies. There's nothing particularly groundbreaking about this production in terms of narrative, but it earns a lot of favor from us with its amazing cast. Not only do you have Glenn Close chewing on the scenery as the ultimate Disney villain, but Hugh Laurie and Mark Williams steal plenty of scenes as her dim-witted henchmen, Jasper and Horace.

It's one thing to swing for the fences with one live-action adaptation of an animated classic where the villain is recast as the hero of the story, but to do all that and give it a sequel? That's just hubris. And yet that's exactly what we got with "Maleficent: Mistress of Evil," which sees everyone's favorite dark fairy Maleficent (Angelina Jolie) as an ersatz mother-of-the-bride in the lead-up to Princess Aurora's (Elle Fanning) wedding to Prince Philip (Harris Dickinson). But things take a turn when Aurora's evil mother-in-law (Michelle Pfeiffer) turns out to be ... well, actually evil. "Maleficent: Mistress of Evil" still has Jolie putting in a devastating lead performance, but as the sequel attempts to tackle a broader story beyond just Maleficent and her relationship with Aurora, it loses the emotional resonance that made the original such an unexpected delight.

Okay, so there are some problems with "Aladdin," the live-action adaptation of the 1994 Disney classic. First, and most glaringly, it's a recipe for disaster to expect anyone to be able to walk into the role of the Genie and not come across as a staggering disappointment after Robin Williams, even someone as eminently charismatic as Will Smith. And yes, we can make the argument that Guy Ritchie, best known for his clever and inventive action films, was perhaps not best suited to bring this adaptation to life. But despite its shortcomings, this version of "Aladdin" is still a lot of fun, with bright, energetic musical sequences and winning performances from the entire cast. (It's truly a shame that the film's star, Mena Massoud, hasn't had offers pouring in.) "Aladdin" was another smash hit for Disney, earning over $1 billion at the global box office.

There's really no reason for this movie to exist. Dogs can't act (well with very few exceptions), and this entire story is told through the lens of dogs, so the narrative gains nothing by having this in live-action rather than animation. But somehow, against all odds, "Lady and the Tramp" manages to be unexpectedly charming. Lady (Tessa Thompson) is a pampered indoor dog who, after her position of prominence in the household is usurped by the introduction of a new baby, falls for the Tramp (Justin Theroux), a street mutt from the wrong side of the tracks. Their unconventional adventures tap into the same likeability factor that made animal films of yesteryear like "Homeward Bound" and "Milo & Otis" so beloved, and by the time they're slurping down a plate of spaghetti, we're reluctantly forced to find all of this incredibly endearing.

If you had asked us what Barry Jenkins would do after "Moonlight," "If Beale Street Could Talk," and "The Underground Railroad," the live-action (sort of) prequel to "The Lion King" would not have been in our first 10 guesses. But this is the world we live in, so let's make the best of it.

"Mufasa: The Lion King" takes us back to the days of Scar (then named Taka) and Mufasa's childhood, after Mufasa is separated from his family and taken in by Taka's. Although the two become adopted brothers, alas, circumstances conspire to tear them apart. Jenkins brings in questions of traditional masculinity in the relationship between Taka and Mufasa, adding depth to what might otherwise be a paint-by-numbers origin story. The stunning animation has improved by leaps and bounds since "The Lion King," giving the characters an emotional expressiveness that was previously lacking.

There's a lot to like about the live-action version of "Alice in Wonderland." Tim Burton is the absolute perfect director to commit to such an undertaking, bringing a suitably zany kaleidoscope of color to the world of Wonderland at a point in his career just before it was all starting to feel gimmicky and old hat. Rather than opting for a straight re-telling of the classic Lewis Carroll story and the Disney film it was based on, it takes a different tack by having an older Alice returning to Wonderland several years after her initial adventure — although she has no memory of her last trip down the rabbit hole. We love the premise, and Mia Wasikowska is a compelling and reliable performer. If it has a weakness, it's that some members of the cast are simply going too hard in their efforts to out-weird one another.

Emma Watson is autotuned within an inch of her life, and some of the pieces of furniture skulking around the Beast's castle are a little creepy for our tastes. But other than that, this is exactly what a live-action version of a Disney animated classic should be aiming for. It features the same main story, where poor misunderstood village bookworm Belle (Watson) offers herself up to the Beast (Dan Stevens), who has taken her father prisoner after he bumbled into his cursed castle. But it also gives the characters an added richness that builds upon what we saw in the original "Beauty and the Beast" — even someone as fundamentally two-dimensional as Gaston (Luke Evans) feels more fleshed out. It even boasts four new songs, and the Beast's additional number, "Evermore," is a definite highlight.

You can't throw a rock in Hollywood without hitting someone trying to reinvent the "Peter Pan" mythos. The latest Disney adaptation comes from indie director David Lowery, whose previous film "The Green Knight" made a massive impression on audiences for its inventive visual palette. In "Peter Pan & Wendy," Wendy Darling (Ever Anderson) gets a little bit more agency, as she's the one who chooses to run away to Neverland to avoid being sent off to boarding school. But other than that, the film stays faithful to the original story — almost to a fault. But although there's nothing particularly new about this version of "Peter Pan," it gets extra brownie points for creating an absolutely gorgeous rendering of Neverland and giving us hope for the future of Disney live-action remakes (and for casting Jude Law as Captain Hook, because come on, we're only human).

Honestly, the costume design alone earns "Cruella" a pretty high spot on our list. In this reimagining of Cruella de Vil (Emma Stone) as a high-fashion, punk rock icon, we develop a new appreciation for the softer side of the character. Yes, her mother was tragically murdered by Dalmatians. Yes, she does have a dark, vindictive side — although her name is Estella Miller, her mother nicknamed her twisted half "Cruella." But she's not actually a puppy murderer, okay? She's just a fashion designer in training who is pushed to extremes and an eventual life of crime by a toxic boss. Who in the world hasn't been there before? "Cruella," as part of the COVID-19 Disney output, didn't really stand a chance, but it's a wild ride that deserves credit for how hard it's willing to go. Will we ever see the long-awaited Cruella sequel? Only time will tell.

So if you want to get all pedantic about it, "Rudyard Kipling's The Jungle Book" can probably be considered an adaptation of the classic adventure story more than it is a remake of the 1967 Disney film "The Jungle Book." But as a wise man once said, "Close enough." It stars Jason Scott Lee as Mowgli, a human who was raised in the jungle by wild animals. But when he is reacquainted with the world of man, they — predictably — conspire to ruin everything. The thing that stands out the most about this iteration of "The Jungle Book," aside from how compellingly it brings to life the original story, is its stellar supporting cast. Not only do we have Cary Elwes as the film's villain, but a young Lena Headey of "Game of Thrones" fame co-stars as Mowgli's childhood friend and love interest.

The failure of "Mulan," when it comes down to it, was a result of the COVID-19 pandemic rather than any fault of its own. Had it been given a theatrical release, it might not have become as well-loved as the original animated version, but it certainly would have caught on more than it did. This iteration of "Mulan" isn't a musical, but it still has plenty of visual flair and choreography, as Mulan (Liu Yifei) joins the Chinese army in her father's place and fights against an invading force. It also reinterprets the original film, adding a supernatural element to both the character of Mulan, who is able to tap into the power of Qi and her counterpart in the Rouran army. Still, some critics felt that this took away from the idea of Mulan as an ordinary young woman who succeeds through hard work, determination, courage, and resourcefulness.

"Christopher Robin" is filled with surprises. Surprise #1: Despite the fact that it's based on some of the most lovable children's book characters ever written, it's filmed in Zoloft-vision. Surprise #2: It somehow works?

In this film, set decades after the adventures of Winnie the Pooh that we know and love, Christopher Robin (Ewan McGregor) has transformed into a harried, middle-aged office drone, filled with a particularly potent combination of anxiety, anger, and existential malaise. He even yells at Winnie the Pooh! We honestly didn't think that was allowed. And although it's difficult to watch Christopher Robin lash out at the heartbreakingly subdued little bear, it makes the eventual payoff of his character arc all the more rewarding. More than anything else, "Christopher Robin" embraces the captivating blend of whimsy and melancholy, evoking a sense of nostalgia in all its viewers. 

When news of the new "The Little Mermaid" came out, it was met with some (largely racist) backlash, to the point that the original Ariel voice actor Jodi Benson had to speak out in defense of the film's star. But Halle Bailey, the young actress who was given the formidable task of bringing to life a new generation's version of Ariel, had the last laugh. She is given several chances to display her powerhouse vocals before her voice is stripped away, but even when she can't speak, her Ariel is a charming, infinitely curious creature, and it makes sense that Prince Eric (Jonah Hauer-King) falls in love with her. Interestingly, although in the original "Little Mermaid," all of the underwater sequences are the highlights of the film, here it's the opposite — there's a vitality to the scenes on land that makes its second act much more engaging.

"Cinderella" is at the front end of the most recent Disney craze of remaking everything they can get their hands on in live action, and for good reason — it's incredibly likable. A Disney princess (and one of the most famous, at that) is a perfect choice for a live-action fairytale remake, considering that most of the characters are human, and something is gained by seeing them brought to life with real actors. As Ella aka Cinderella, Lily James is basically a Hallmark card come alive, while Richard Madden is suitably dreamy as Prince Charming — the two have tremendous (if appropriately G-Rated) chemistry with one another. Director Kenneth Branagh doesn't reinvent the wheel with his staging of "Cinderella," but he doesn't have to: It's perfectly suited for a traditional adaptation of a beloved fairy tale, and audiences fell in love.

Maleficent is one of the most memorable Disney villains of all time, her terrifying headdress and pointed face now etched into the minds of "Sleeping Beauty" fans everywhere. But is she really all that bad? Maybe she had a point, after all. That's what "Maleficent" posits, anyway, giving us a reimagining of "Sleeping Beauty" that functions as a villain origin story. In this version, the young fae Maleficent (Angelina Jolie) befriends King Stefan (Sharlto Copley), only to be betrayed by him and have her wings torn out (a strikingly effective metaphor for sexual assault). And the film is successful in part because it taps into the maternal feelings that Maleficent grows to have towards Aurora (Elle Fanning), in spite of everything — their connection is unique in Disney canon and flies in the face of what we expect from the characters.

It was a tall order indeed to anthropomorphize the animals in "The Jungle Book" to such an extent that Mowgli (Neel Sethi) could believably interact with them, while still making them seem like real wild creatures. That's the triumph of the 2016 adaptation of "The Jungle Book," in how seamlessly its creators were able to blend live-action and CGI, while still preserving the heart and personality of the original Disney musical. This is Disney's photorealistic animal rendering done right, and its effectiveness pays dividends in creating a lush landscape of humans and different types of jungle animals alike. Also, a tremendous amount of credit has to go to Sethi, who at just 12 years old was given the challenging task of acting alongside CGI characters — which he accomplished seamlessly.