Top 5 Disney Sequels and Remakes (That Would Not Suck)

For those handful of you who haven't Disney's annual gutting of your childhood in the form of a mess of a remake named Beauty and the Beast (2017) (Does anyone else find it surreal that we now have to identify these films as their own separare entities by year releases?), you would find that I absolutely despised the film, despite it not being as awfully made a film as many other sequels and reboots have been for franchises (Fan4Stic and Dumb and Dumber 2 come to mind).  But the reason I hated this film more than any of the other reboots Disney has come out with or any other company for that matter, is because unlike their most tolerable remake (Cinderella (2015)), the film did not even attempt to make itself a different film from the Walt Disney Classic we all grew up with.  It covered all of the basic areas the 1991 film did, without adding anything soluable or useful to the plot and instead relied more on already established things about the original film and tired and overused cliches (such as the death of a parent we never get to know or meet, or the abusive parents etc.).  But the one thing I hated the most about this film was this undeserved sense of arrogance that this film permeates, that it was clearly doing something no film had ever attempted, save for the film of the same fucking name released twenty five years earlier.

Whether you found the film good or not, you cannot deny that this year's film represents a crossroad that the studio is going to cross this year.  While all of the previous remakes had some things in common with the original, they didn't wholeheartedly rip off moments from the films and even added their own layers to already well made films and stories.  Cinderella, for example, added depth to the character of the Wicked Stepmother, no longer making her out to be some generic hellspawn, but a layered three dimensional character.  Beauty and the Beast had no shame directly stealing from the 1991 film in many ways and still retaining the arrogance that it was doing something different and was a deeper film than it really was.  But the crossroads does not end at just directly stealing from a film.  They also go towards whether or not Disney will make sequels or reboots to films that aren't held in as much high regard.  So far, with the possible exceptions of Pete's Dragon and Maleficent (as many fans have mixed feelings regarding Sleeping Beauty), all of the Disney remakes have been based on their most well known and beloved films, rather than films they didn't exactly get right on the first try.  And looking ahead doesn't bode too well for other remakes, as the future remakes being announced have been for all fan favorite films like Mulan, Mary Poppins, The Lion King, and Aladdin, but no love or respect for other lesser known Disney content, such as The Sword in the Stone or Treasure Planet, both films that could use serious retooling as reboots that could perhaps be better than the original films that were, at best, average Disney films.

In the following article, I will highlight five Disney films/properties that could seriously use a reboot or sequel that could add lots of depth and realism to films that, to be quite frank for some, lacked any sense of it.

But first, here are a few honorable mentions:

Treasure Planet (2002): Granted, I've never been the biggest fan of this 2002 box office disaster for the Disney Studios, but I will admit that this film has some of the best characters in any film released at that time.  The science fiction retelling of Robert Louis Stevenson's "Treasure Island" could easily reinvigorate people to a medium that is currently being dominated by Star Wars.  Though Disney might not want to jeopardize their monopoly over Sci Fi (with Star Trek almost certainly going to get rebooted again, and both Avatar and Terminator struggling to be made or find audiences respectively), they could also revolutionize a film that is in serious need of fixing.

Hercules (1997): Disney may not view their 1997 telling of the Greek Myth as a good film to capitalize on, but the Marvel Cinematic Universe cannot last forever, and when that eventually dries up, there won't be much competition for a superhero movie for the DCCU (provided they get their collective shit together themselves).  An action packed retelling of their film or even just telling a more faithful adaptation to the story of Hercules could perhaps generate the next age of superheroes for Disney, especially if told and executed correctly.

Mickey and the Beanstalk (1947): Going back to a simpler time, the second act of Fun and Fancy Free was originally supposed to be it's own full length animated feature, but was scrapped with the US entering World War II.  A full length story of Jack and the Beanstalk could be an interesting take for Disney (this is an honorable mention, because this has been confirmed to be an upcoming Disney Animated Feature).

Without further ado, here are my five choices:

5. A Sequel to Fantasia

And no, I'm not talking about a "back patting" sequel to this legendary Disney Classic like Fantasia 2000 was.  An authentic and genuine sequel to The Concert Feature would prove to me that Disney was not only able to make a competent sequel to one of their most cherished films, but that their animation was forever going to remain a top the food chain, with Pixar and Dreamworks forever eating off their tablescraps.  Ditching all that didn't work in Fantasia 2000 (the pointless celebrity cameos and the time and budget slashing), and giving audiences a genuine look at their great animation through classical music (even if the animation is CGI).  They have done excellent work with their musical shorts, such as The Little Match Girl, and even did some great work on some of their pieces for Fantasia 2000.  There are still some very famous pieces of music they haven't touched, such as Ride of the Valkyries and Swan Lake that I think could make for excellent pieces if done correctly and not botched like Carnival of the Animals and Beethoven's Fifth were.  Keep it genuine and the film should be another addition to Disney's cavalcade of classics.

4. A More Serious Peter Pan 

After the disaster of Pan at the box office (we'll get to that shit show in time), it has become abundantly clear that the only company that can do anything positive nowadays with the cast and stories of James Barrie is Disney.  After all, the darkest part of their show Once Upon a Time is the cruelness and dark stories behind Peter Pan and his treatment of Lost Boys and those who grow up on him.  My personal favorite take on Peter Pan is the 2003 film, mostly because of how dark it was willing to go with their designs for Neverland and their takes on Captain Hook and other key parts of the story.  It wasn't overly cute fluff like the 1953 Disney Version.  Seeing as how there were more Peter Pan and Wendy stories beside their run ins with Captain Hook, Disney can be at an advantage if they were to remake their film and make it a more action and much darker take on the story, to better diversify from their previous film.  I would be more than excited to see a darker take on Peter Pan (being a fan of the books myself) and would be more than happy to see Disney stop being overly safe and try something new...

3. The Sword in the Stone 

Though this one has been teased for a long time, I will not take this request back until it is fully confirmed as an upcoming reboot.  Disney's take on the Legends of King Arthur were, unique, to say the very least.  Very few stories cover Arthur's youth or even learning about how to become a good king and focus on his wars and the Knights of the Round Table and it made their 1963 film a very unique take.  If only The Sword in the Stone had been a more consistent film.  Even if you want to turn this into the full Legend of King Arthur, you can still cover most of the original film while still bringing up things about the Arthur Legend we all would like to see on screen again.  With there being a huge gap in terms of Fantasy Franchises on the big screen right now (see #1 for this fact as well), Disney could swoop in and claim the genre for themselves.

2. A More Adult The Hunchback of Notre Dame 

Virtually every time Disney has tackled some sort of retelling of Victor Hugo's dark tragedy (with obvious exception of the DTV sequel) since the 1996 film's release to theaters, their versions have been darker, more adult, and more complex than even their highly acclaimed animated version.  A deeper and darker retelling of their animated film (a film that has continued to sky rocket in acclaim and adoration), would be a welcome surprise to all of the reboots they've been attempting to show us.  I personally doubt that Disney has the gumption or guts to release such an adult film in their library again, especially seeing the films they have selected and the subsequent results of their "reimaginings", though I think we could safely say that the remake of The Hunchback of Notre Dame would be the best of them all, without a doubt in my mind...well...with one exception...

1. The Chronicles of Pyrdain 

The film that was supposed to put Disney Animation back on the map, ironically decimated the studio and almost caused the studio to be shut down.  And yet, the book series was arguably the most acclaimed of all Fantasy Literature for Children before Harry Potter came along.  It had great action, well written characters, great morals and stories and an overall charm to it that few other stories could relate to.  Disney swung and missed badly in their first attempt to make this film work, but if they actually put effort into making as good characters as they did visual effects, they could perhaps jump start Fantasy Films into a place that they were just a decade ago.  And the place I would start first is with The Chronicles of Pyrdain (AKA The Black Cauldron).  It would forever put to bed this sickening feeling the company has towards this film and would allow Disney to avenge their past mistakes by making a film that could appeal to all audiences and be its own thing, whereas Disney's last Fantasy Franchise was forced into being the next "Lord of the Rings".

Film Review #124: Beauty and the Beast (2017)

Considering the best of these Live Action reboots was almost absorbed by it's own attempts at turning a somewhat progressive character into a walking melodramatic mush of a character, my expectations for Beauty and the Beast were at an all time low.  And let's face it, my personal connections to this film are significantly greater than all of the previous reboots that Disney has done since 2010.  After all, Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, and The Lion King are my three favorite movies that this company has made and have been significant parts of my childhood.  But critics adored this film and the soundtrack (which was released on YouTube) was at the very least tolerable, so I decided to see this film on the day it came out.  

My faith in the critics has fallen to an all time low and I now have literally no faith that any of the future Disney reboots will be any good.  If you wanted to see a Cliffnotes version of the 1991 animated film (WHICH WAS NOMINATED FOR BEST FREAKING PICTURE), then you are probably going to like this film.  But if you wanted to see a film with a unique take on a classic fairy tale with some allusions to arguably the Greatest Animated Film of All Time, one with pathos, emotional connections, strong characters, brilliant lighting and cinematography, and of all other things: HEART, you will absolutely loathe this film.  I don't think my heart has ever been broken by a film faster than this one did to me.  And I'm not joking.  

Plot: Once upon a time, a selfish prince rejects a haggard old woman who sought shelter from the bitter cold.  In response, the woman transforms into an enchantress and turns the prince into a hideous beast and his servants into household objects.  She grants him an enchanted rose that would wither away unless he could learn to love and earn love in return.  

We then cut to Belle, a beautiful woman in a village that does not appreciate her uniqueness, except for the hunter Gaston, who seeks to woo her and make her his wife.  But Belle rejects him and returns home to her father, who is a music box creator and is leaving to sell his music boxes.  While on his journey, he comes across a mysterious castle in the woods and enters.  When he accidentally takes a rose from a garden, he triggers the wrath of the Beast, who imprisons him in the dungeon, where Belle finds him later.  Belle offers to exchange her life for his, to which the Beast agrees.  The enchanted staff of the Beast's Castle tries to make Belle at home, hoping that she can one day break the spell that surrounds them by falling in love with the Beast.  

Meanwhile, Belle's father begs people in the village to help him, but only Gaston offers to help (hoping to get Maurice's approval to propose to Belle).  But when that fails, Gaston decides to have him committed to an insane asylum, while Belle and the Beast slowly develop a closer bond between each other.  

What's Wrong?: This film is almost, point for point, a complete rehash of the original film.  Whereas you can say that the other films at least tried a handful of things to make themselves standout from the original, this film does almost nothing different save for irrelevant plot points that cause more confusion than anything else.  Almost all of the important plot points, from the petals falling off the rose, to Gaston's plot to commit Maurice, to Belle being a quirky outsider in their village, to Gaston's plot to kill the Beast, all of those moments are brought back to life in this 129 minute film that feels like 329 minutes.  This films drags in so many places that it actually hurts this film in the long run, for one specific reason, arguably the biggest flaw this film suffers from.  

Heart.  If there is one thing this film lacks that the other film had was heart.  This film suffers from the same issues that failed love stories like Attack of the Clones and Twilight suffered from: by telling us that these two are falling in love instead of showing it.  In the original film, there were several scenes where Belle and the Beast showed signs of maturing as people during Belle's time in the castle, the best scene in the film being their ultimate argument after he saves her from the wolf attack.  This film glosses over the important romantic building blocks, because they felt it was more important to tell us that these two are in love instead of showing it.  And when you cannot show people falling in love, you clearly cannot write a love story.  And it's especially jarring to fail at telling arguably the greatest love story ever told.  

Also, the casting in this film is incredibly hit and miss.  Luke Evans was a hilariously inept Gaston, I don't know what kind of accent Ewan McGregor was trying to pull off as Lumiere, and arguably the worst casting of them all was Emma Watson as Belle.  Sure, she looks like Belle and attempts to act like her, but she lacks almost all of the charm the original character had, again falling into that "show, don't tell" thing that this film suffers through.  Plus, she can't sing.  Not exactly Russell Crowe in Les Miserables bad, but definitely not on par with Paige O' Hara or any of the other Disney Princess singers for that matter.

Not for nothing, but this film needed Kenneth Branagh as it's director.  I remember how amazing the cinematography was in Cinderella, and for a movie that was being remade from one of the most beautifully stylized animated films of the Disney Renaissance, this film looked gross half the time and the other half looked more pandering than Cinderella's first few minutes did.  The stylistic designs used in the 1991 film are unique in their own light, such as the green lightning bolts used during the clash between Gaston and the Beast, or the fact that only Belle or the Beast wore blue in the entire movie (seriously, go watch the original film again and let me know who else other than Belle or the Beast wore the color Blue in that film).  But this film could not have missed it more in terms of cinematography and style.  

One last thing that bugged me (trust me, I could write an effing essay on why this film didn't work), was the complete pointlessness of turning Le Fou gay.  I've always said that if you are going to write a character that is homosexual, there should be a point to it.  Don't just write a character that is gay just for the sake of it.  That is why I am one of the staunch vocals opposed to making Elsa from Frozen gay, because I have always been a subscriber to the theory that a gay character's homosexuality should not be a part of their character and should be as much a part of someone's character as a normal relationship is in a normal movie.  I don't think of Bob Parr's relationship with his wife as a part of his character in The Incredibles, nor should I think of Anakin's relationship with Padme as part of his character.  It adds to their development, and nothing more.  Forcing the issue down and doing almost everything stereotypically incorrect when it comes to portraying a gay character (as they did with Le Fou here), actually does more to hurt the LGBT community than it does help it.  

What's Good?: I never thought I would say this after such an abysmal film like Wild, Wild West, but the best performance in this movie goes to Kevin Kline as Maurice.  Of all of the actors in this film, he has the most humanity and the most HEART.  I don't know where Kevin Kline learned to act in the last few years, but he certainly has reversed his career after such duds as his performances in Wild, Wild West or as Phoebus in The Hunchback of Notre Dame.  

Overall: I consider this film to be THE WORST of the reboots, by far.  No, it didn't completely miss the point of the book like Alice in Wonderland did.  No, it didn't mix random plot points together and call it a remake like Maleficent did.  And it didn't even have the constant tone problems The Jungle Book did.  But this film was worse because there was almost nothing new in it, nothing that I could say was done superior to the original film, and the film has an ego about it that it's something completely different yet the exact same at the same time.  An unwarranted ego, by the way.  And once again, if you can't remake a film better, WHY THE HELL WOULD YOU REMAKE IT AT ALL?  I have complete faith now, that Jon Favreau's The Lion King will be an absolute disaster, as will the prequel to a live action reboot of both 101 Dalmatians and Aladdin, and has safely proven to me that the only movies of quality this studio can make are either animated (Feature Animation or Pixar), Marvel Cinematic Universe movies, or Star Wars films.  

Final Grade: F

Film Review #123: The Jungle Book (2016)

Cinderella gave me hope that, with a competent film crew with some good actors, these frustrating Disney reboots would not be torturous to sit through as we draw closer to the coming releases of Beauty and the Beast and other films.  And while I do like the animated versions of Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty, and Alice in Wonderland all well, none of those films crack my personal Top 10 Disney Animated films.  The Jungle Book does, however.  With it's great songs, incredible charm and delightful characters, Walt Disney turned a deeply interesting and thought provoking story of Tarzan in India into a lighthearted comedy that was the most successful Disney film in their canon until The Little Mermaid in 1989.  So naturally, I was skeptical at first when this film was slated to premiere.  But, like Cinderella before it, the film seemed to be in good directorial hands (Jon Favreau of Iron Man and Elf fame), and had a cast of incredible actors at it's disposal (Bill Murray, Scarlett Johansson, Ben Kingsley, Idris Elba, Christopher Walken, among others), and seemed to be taking a more literal interpretation of the book, which I was fascinated to see.

And yet, the film was literally nothing like I expected it to be.  With tone problems ranging throughout, fairly bizarre performances from otherwise great actors and the most CGI-looking CGI I'd seen since the freaking Star Wars prequels, this film was a mess from start to finish.  Not quite as bad as Alice in Wonderland, but a big step backward from Cinderella.

Plot: A "man-cub" named Mowgli is raised amongst the wolves in the jungle after a panther named Bagheera brought him to them as an infant.  But his life is thrust into danger by the man hating tiger named Shere Khan, who returns to the jungle and warns that once the "water truce" between the animals comes to an end, he would come after Mowgli and kill anyone that stood in his way.  To protect the pack, Mowgli and Bagheera leave for a man village where he would be safe from Khan's wrath (as Khan sustained major injuries to Man and his "Red Flower").  After a brutal encounter with Khan, however, Mowgli and Bagheera are separated as Mowgli is forced to confront the hypnotic snake named Kaa himself, only to be rescued by a lazy sloth bear named Baloo.

Infuriated that Mowgli escaped his wrath, Khan kills the Wolf Pack's leader and threatens to take complete control of their lands until Mowgli is brought to him.  Bagheera arrives to warn Baloo of this, prompting the bear to try and send Mowgli away.  As Mowgli discovers more and more about Man and the power of the Red Flower, he begins to wonder whether or not he is capable of using it and if he could perhaps use it's power to keep his loved ones safe and stop the tyranny of Shere Khan once and for all.

What's Wrong?: As mentioned above, the film has quite a few flaws, my personal biggest flaw being the film's immense tone problems.  The film cannot seem to decide whether it wants to be a serious retelling of the original Rudyard Kipling story or a comedic retelling of the 1967 Disney film.  Both things are in themselves, mutually exclusive things.  Bill Murray's comedic antics about stealing honey from bees does not gel well with the next scene of Khan throwing Akela off a cliff.  It's not just scenes like this though.  There is a pointless scene where Shere Khan seems to threaten a wolf cub in front of his mother, around the same time as when Bagheera calls out Baloo on his humorous lies to Mowgli about Sloth Bears hibernating.

The film's CGI is also abysmal.  Like Dinosaur, the film was made with semi-real backgrounds and CGI characters to go with the one human character in Mowgli.  However, the characters were made comedically larger than in real life in comparison to the actual sized Mowgli.  Ergo, virtually all of the animals are freaking huge in comparison to Mowgli, whereas in real life, those animals aren't nearly as big.  Not only that, but if the animal characters are supposed to evoke real life animals, they hardly do so.  The only character that looked anything close to an actual version of his animal was Shere Khan.  But the rest was skewed at best.

What's Right?: Well, the casting of this film is pretty solid.  Idris Elba makes for a chilling Shere Khan and Ben Kingsley as Bagheera seemed almost ideal casting.  Even the kid they got to play Mowgli captured the essence of both jungle boy and little boy that the character was supposed to evoke, though I will say that the rest of the cast was, at best, interesting.  Bill Murray was a passable Baloo, but I always knew it was Bill Murray as Baloo instead of the character from the original.  Scarlett Johansson's "sexualized" Kaa was weird and need I say more about Christopher Walken as King Louie?

Overall: While not as big a mess as Alice in Wonderland, the film does suffer through a lot of what made that film and the other mediocre reboots so frustrating: if you cannot remake the film better, then why remake it at all?  The tone is all over the map, the casting is a mixed bag and the CGI is almost laughable, even in 2016.  This film was certainly not as good as the original 1967 film, and definitely does not bode well for the film I am going to see tonight...especially seeing how I hold the original version of this film better than The Jungle Book.  Man oh man, is Beauty and the Beast going to be a wild ride...

Film Review #122: Cinderella (2015)

The amount of flak girls give to the character of Cinderella always astounded me and still does to this day.  They say she's anti-feminist and promotes the fallacy that waiting around and wishing for your problems to go away is something all women should do in order to get a "Happily Ever After".  I'm here to defend one of my personal favorite Disney Princesses, here, as she doesn't have those qualities entirely.  This argument against her ignores the fact that her stepmother and stepsisters kept her isolated in the chateau with little to no interaction with the outside world of the kingdom.  It also ignores the fact that while she is on screen, she is always working her ass off and only breaks down when (I must stress this point), when her stepsisters completely shred apart her dress as she was preparing to go to the ball, the one time of year she was allowed to leave (as far as we know as an audience).  I've never had a problem with that and the 1950 Disney Classic remains to this day one of my Top 15 Favorite Animated Films of theirs.

To put it bluntly, the 2015 re-imagining of Cinderella did a lot of things right, making it (as of February 2017) the best of these remakes by a longshot.  However, like it's contemporaries, the film also did a lot of things significantly worse than the original, including a few things that (in my opinion) make the "new feminist" ideals women want in their leads fall back a couple of decades.

Plot: A family lives together in a beautiful chateau in a small kingdom long ago.  They all seem happy until the mother passes away of an unknown illness.  Some time later, the father remarries a woman named Lady Tremaine and invites her and her daughters, Anastasia and Drizella, to live with him and his daughter Ella in their home.  Despite a relatively pleasant lifestyle, things change when the father dies while off on a business trip, prompting a change in tone for Lady Tremaine, who gradually reduces Ella's role in the house to that of a scullery maid and takes complete control of the home, even allowing her daughters to call her "Cinderella".  Despite this, Ella maintains a kind disposition.

While out in the fields, she comes across a handsome young man whom she believes to be a servant who works in the Royal Palace.  After hitting it off a bit with him, it is announced that a Ball is to be held in the hopes that the sickening King of the land would be able to marry his son off and have a successful transition to him as king.  While Ella tries to prepare for the Ball, her stepfamily keeps her so occupied that she cannot work on her dress for the ball.  But the mice and birds she had assisted in the past help fashion for her a dress, only to have the stepsisters rip it in several places.  Devastated, she is only alleviated by the appearance of her Fairy Godmother, who fashions for her a coach and beautiful dress to go to the ball.  She meets the man of her dreams and the two dance the night away until the clock strikes midnight, prompting her to flee the ball, leaving behind one of her glass slippers, prompting the servant (who is actually the Prince) to begin a nationwide search for the girl who would fit this glass slipper.

What's Wrong?: The film's most major flaws ironically come from one of the places fans praise it for the most: the "progressive" take on Cinderella herself.  The movie makes her out to be a far more proactive character in the plot of her own movie who utilizes her brains instead of her looks to get her places.  The issue with this is the plot gives Cinderella (I know her name is Ella but the name has been engraved into my psyche) numerous attempts to be a more proactive character but instead takes huge steps backward in the hopes of not alienating this Cinderella from the 1950 incarnation.  Such scenes that are in this film and absent in the 1950 film include a scene where she goes into town (where she learns about the Ball for the first time) and is asked why she can't just leave the misery she suffers through under her stepmother, to which she replies that she stays because it is her father's house (yet she has no problem abandoning the home when she meets with the Prince?).  Secondly, the scene in which the Stepsisters tear apart her dress is a completely watered down version of the original film (where the dress is literally unwearable, but the dress here is still at least salvagable).  This, as in the animated film, makes Cinderella collapse emotionally, though it is far from earned in this scene.  The last, FAR MORE FRUSTRATING scene is near the climax when, in a twist from the original, Lady Tremaine actually discovers the glass slipper on Cinderella's person and tries to blackmail her into moving into the palace and continuing to dominate over the girl's life, but Cinderella refuses and does nothing to try and escape as the stepmother locks her in her room and plans to sabotage the Prince alongside the Duke in a plot to (and I'm not kidding here) KILL CINDERELLA.  Ordinarily, this isn't a problem, but the original film had Cinderella literally begging at the door for her Stepmother to free her and for her friends to help her (even going against her own better judgement to have her dog go after the cat for stopping the rescue attempt).  This one, however, does literally nothing in the film's climax until the VERY LAST MINUTE.

The acting in this film is also all over the map.  While the leads in the film (specifically Lily James, Cate Blanchett and Richard Madden) all do fairly well in their respective roles, the supporting cast is all over the map in over the top acting and "under the bottom" restrained acting (if that's even a thing).  While I fully expected Helena Bonham-Carter to be a good version of Bellatrix Lestrange as the Fairy Godmother, it was actually Haley Atwell's (Agent Carter in both Captain America and her TV Show named after her) performance that annoyed me the most.  As I had previously known her in a strong leading role, her incredibly over the top joyous personality as Cinderella's mother rubbed me the wrong way all throughout the film.

Lastly, the callbacks in this film really started to irritate me.  Whereas both Alice in Wonderland and Maleficent kept the callbacks to the original at a minimum, this film has plenty of unnecessary callbacks to the 1950 classic, including the pointless and really awkward scenes of Lucifer the cat chasing and harassing the mice (a part that while looked fondly upon by fans of the original, was a detriment to the original in terms of character development for Cinderella and the Prince).  Just because you are remaking a film does not mean you need to have constant callbacks to the original (which would definitely become a trend going forward).

What's Good?: Aside from what I've mentioned above, the rest of the film is pretty damn good.  The cinematography is just wonderful, and I do give credit to Kenneth Branagh, as his Shakespearean training in directing this show/film comes into full light in this film.  If ever there was a person who seemed tailor made to direct a Fairy Tale with depth and realism in it, it would be him.

The characters also seem more real (with some argument against Cinderella herself).  They filmed a really sad scene near the beginning that turned Lady Tremaine into the cruel woman she is throughout the majority, as both Cinderella and her father talk about missing her mother, prompting her to realize that no matter how much she loved her husband or how well she treated Cinderella, she would never be viewed as a mother and only as "second place".  While I personally gravitate towards the more menacing performance Eleanor Audley gave back in 1950, this more realistic take on her is one I can safely say I had positive things to say about after seeing this.  And while it was very easy to build off a relationship based on relatively nothing in the original film, the relationship between Cinderella and the Prince is a very genuine one, hearkening back more to the Disney Renaissance relationships than the ones of older Disney films.

Overall: While Disney's reboot fetish doesn't seem to be going away for a while, if this is the best we are going to get, I guess this will do as a tolerably good film with a few major flaws.  It was certainly worth the time I spent watching it, though I will still hold onto my copies of the 1950 film.  Maybe it's due to nostalgia or maybe the 1950 film really is on the whole a superior film.  All we can say is that this film is far and away the best of the films and until proven otherwise, will be the cornerstone of this new age of Disney film production.

Final Grade: B- or 80