The live-action version of “Mulan” has clearly forced Disney and the filmmakers to dodge lots of obstacles over the years. In its early stages, it faced a petition pleading with Disney to hire Chinese actors rather than whitewash the cast. It lost one central character that was deemed offensive to Chinese audiences and lost another to avoid a romance between a young woman and an older man with authority over her. It changed the story both to be more culturally sensitive and to more actively deal with issues of female empowerment.
And after its lavish March 9 premiere at the Dolby Theatre in Hollywood, it lost its theatrical release to the coronavirus, ending up as a Disney+ release. The big-budget remake of the 1998 animated film won’t be shown on the big screen for which it was designed, but now might make lots of money for the subscription service, both in new subscribers and in the $30 fee Disney is charging on top of the subscription.
You can certainly argue about whether “Mulan” is worth the extra money, but the production seems to have steered clear of the other pitfalls and delivered a satisfying movie that veers further from its source than any of the studio’s other recent live-action remakes of its animated films.
This “Mulan” is darker in tone and more mysterious than its predecessor; at times it’s more violent (it’s the first remake of an animated film to land a PG-13 rating), and at other times more contemplative. With the songs taken out and the goofy dragon sidekick banished, it’s a more mature take on the story and one that might not be the ticket for families who figure that their $30 ought to provide an experience that satisfies their youngest kids.
Where “The Lion King,” “Beauty and the Beast,” “Aladdin” and “The Jungle Book,” among others, devoted a lot of time to recreating a “live-action” version of their animated predecessors, New Zealand director Niki Caro’s version of “Mulan” finds a unique take on the story. By tiptoeing through the minefield laid by the original film’s Disneyfied, Westernized take on the centuries-old Chinese folk tale, she has created a film that plays less like a remake than a rich new interpretation.
Of course, in its bones, this is still “Mulan.” The title character, played by Liu Yifei after a worldwide casting search, is still a headstrong young woman who chafes at the idea of becoming a subservient wife. When the Emperor conscripts one male from each family to join the imperial army and fight off the northern invaders, she disguises herself as a man and joins in place of her aging and injured father.
And for the rest of the film, Mulan must strive to become a true warrior, and then battle an invading army whose leader relies on a shape-shifting sorceress to give them otherworldly skills. (For one thing, they can run straight up walls, a trick that’s easier to buy in an animated film than a live-action one.)
The characters in this version of “Mulan” never break into song, and Mulan’s talking-dragon sidekick Mushu (which Chinese audiences felt showed disrespect for a powerful image in their culture) has been replaced by a phoenix that floats above the action at key moments but never speaks or directly engages with Mulan. The comic character of the grandmother is also missing, as befits a film that downplays the comedy in favor of large-scale battle scenes.
Those battles are brutal without being bloody, and lengthy enough to ensure the unusual (for Disney) PG-13 rating. They’re both the most spectacular part of the film and, at times, the most troublesome: Its $200 million budget notwithstanding, the film could have smoothed out the rough edges in some awkward visual effects that draw unwanted attention to themselves.
At times, as Mulan’s squad leader tells her “The Chi is powerful (in you)” or the evil sorceress invites her to “join me – we will take our place together,” there are echoes of “Star Wars”; at other times, as Mulan reveals her true identity and rides into battle in slow motion, her hair streaming in the wind, it’s gloriously corny.
It’s also unabashedly feminist, and dedicated to proving that Mulan’s father doesn’t know what he’s talking about when he says, “Chi is for warriors, not daughters.” Even the bad guys emphasize that point: Bori Khan (Jason Scott Lee) would be nothing without the power of his shapeshifting sorceress Xian Lang (Gong Li), but he’s dismissive toward her because she’s a woman, which turns out not to be the wisest move.
The emphasis on empowerment is certainly in keeping with the original “Mulan,” and with the original Chinese story, but this version takes it further, as a movie made in these times must. Niki Caro’s “Mulan” is an epic in scale but a personal story at heart, and a naturalistic take on the legend even with the massive VFX budget.
Yes, it should be viewed on a big screen, the way it was designed to be seen. And yes, $30 is a lot to play for one movie when you’re already paying for the Disney+ subscription. But if you strip away the things that make this such an unusual release in such an unusual year, you’ll find a pretty good movie and one that approaches this story with heart and with fresh eyes.
All 19 Disney Live-Action Versions of Classic Animated Characters, Ranked from Worst to Best (Photos)
Over the last few decades, Disney has increasingly dipped into its own well of nostalgic favorites. Specifically, they’ve been taking their beloved animated classics, remaking them in live-action (or mostly live-action), and producing one blockbuster smash after another. Let’s take a look at all of the live-action remakes of Disney’s animated classics, going all the way back to the 1990s, to explore which films improved on the original and which ones came up short.
19. "The Jungle Book" (1994)
The first live-action Disney remake of an animated Disney classic is, somehow, still the worst. Stephen Sommers (“The Mummy”) directs this frustratingly inert take on Rudyard Kipling’s stories, which strips the animals of their characterizations and highlights instead the bland experiences of British colonizers, who condescend to Mowgli (Jason Scott Lee) at every turn. Some of the supporting performances, especially by Cary Elwes and Lena Headey, are noteworthy, but the rest of the movie is a sloppy throwback to a mercifully bygone era of adventure filmmaking, full of backwards mentalities and underwhelming action.
18. "Christopher Robin" (2018)
The beloved stories of A.A. Milne have been previously adapted by Disney into several beautifully animated and heartwarming motion pictures. So it’s especially cloying that Marc Forster’s “Christopher Robin” just plops these timeless characters into a tepid and cookie-cutter family flick about a dad who -- gasp! -- spends too much time at work, and rediscovers his inner child thanks to the return of his old, magical friends. Ewan McGregor shines as the adult version of Christopher Robin, but the melancholy cinematography, underdeveloped screenplay and creepy VFX renditions of Pooh and his friends make “Christopher Robin” a rough slog.
Disney
17. "Alice Through the Looking Glass" (2016)
James Bobin’s sequel to “Alice in Wonderland” certainly looks like an improvement on the original, with vibrant production design and weird visual effects, and a tone that’s mercifully less grim. But the time-travel storyline, which sends Alice back to the early days of Wonderland (sorry, “Underland”) to become the cause of all its miseries (including a genocide), retroactively injures the original film, which had a boatload of problems in the first place.
Disney
16. "Beauty and the Beast" (2017)
Despite the excellent source material and a decent cast, Bill Condon’s remake of “Beauty and the Beast” has the unfortunate distinction of being the only live-action Disney remake that has absolutely no new interpretation of its material. It’s just the exact same story but longer, and only because of unnecessary additions that arbitrarily pad the running time, confuse the characters’ motivations, and shoot holes in the already thin plot. Add in some ugly character designs and an utterly forgettable new song, and you’ve got a film which made Disney a lot of money, but artistically has no particular reason to exist.
Disney
15. "Maleficent: Mistress of Evil" (2019)
Maleficent is back, and this time she's meeting Aurora's future mother-in-law, Queen Ingrith (Michelle Pfeiffer), who frames the sorceress for an assassination attempt and tries to commit genocide against Maleficent's fairy kind. Jolie is as sharp as ever but the movie gives her precious little to do or say. The plot is a leaden bore that's just an excuse to end in a big climactic battle (which gets hastily brushed off) and at the center of it all is the dumbest pipe-organ solo in cinema history. "Mistress of Evil" alsocompletely contradicts the story and message of the original, making both films worse as a result.
Disney
14. "Alice in Wonderland" (2010)
Tim Burton’s blockbuster retelling of “Alice in Wonderland” is unnecessarily murky and violent, and -- worst of all -- devoid of Lewis Carroll’s signature wit. Mia Wasikowska stars as Alice, who has forgotten all about Wonderland (sorry, “Underland”) and returns years later, only to find it taken over by darkness, a problem that can be solved only by more war. The film comes across like a cynical attempt to make a classic story edgy and marketable, but at least there’s an interesting attempt to transform Alice into a modern and active heroine, and the film’s ensemble cast boasts some real highlights, including Helena Bonham Carter as the Red Queen, Anne Hathaway as the White Queen, and Stephen Fry as the Cheshire Cat.
Disney
13. "The Lion King" (2019)
Unlike "The Jungle Book" -- which has at least one human character -- the new "Lion King" couldn't even be considered "live-action" in the most generous use of the term, but for the sake of conversation we'll include it anyway. This is an ambitious visual spectacle, re-creating the African savanna of the original 2D-animated movie in photorealistic CG detail as it tells the story of a lion cub who avenges his father's murder and brings order back to the ecosystem. When Jon Favreau's film works, it's a visual marvel. But when it fails, which is most of the time, it's because the film's literalist animation style is directly at odds with the arch, fantastical story and characters. Style may be the selling point, but too often, it gets in the way of the substance.
Disney
12. "Mulan" (2020)
Niki Caro’s adaptation of “Mulan” sands down the queer edges of the original Disney classic, transforming a tale with a distinct and relatable point of view into a generic action spectacle. The wit is absent, the commentary is rote, the protagonist’s plight is more easily digestible than ever, and although the film boasts detailed art direction and costume design, the epic action is undone by humdrum editing which rarely gives the action the space it needs to impress. A frustratingly Americanized, mediocre presentation of a classic tale.
Disney
11. "Cruella" (2021)
This revisionist prequel to the “101 Dalmatians” movies reimagines attempted puppy mass-murderer Cruella de Vil into an eccentric and precocious young woman, whose journey from obscurity to fashion celebrity borrows liberally from “The Devil Wears Prada,” “The Count of Monte Cristo,” and "Mannequin.” It should be fun -- Emma Stone and Emma Thompson sure seem to be having a lot of it -- but the film’s hypocritical appropriation of 1970s punk aesthetics only calls attention to how conformist the story is. “Cruella” gives Disney characters credit for an artistic movement which couldn’t be more anti-Disney if it tried, superficially evoking images of rebellion while never being anything more than mass-marketable.
Disney
10. "102 Dalmatians" (2000)
Kevin Lima’s sequel to the hit “101 Dalmatians” remake is strange and cartoony but, in its defense, completely unapologetic. Glenn Close returns as the despicable Cruella de Vil, now rehabilitated via brainwashing and eager to rescue puppies instead of murdering them. When her programming wears off, she resumes her wicked ways. There’s not much more to it than that, but the film’s astounding costume design and Close’s pitch-perfect performance make “102 Dalmatians” an amiable, if shallow, piece of children’s entertainment.
Disney
9. "Maleficent" (2014)
Disney’s “Maleficent” isn’t so much an adaptation of “Sleeping Beauty” as it is quasi-family-friendly riff on Abel Ferrara’s “Ms .45.” Angelina Jolie stars as a fairy who gets betrayed and violated by her human lover and left physically and emotionally scarred, so she plots her revenge against him by cursing his daughter, played by Elle Fanning. The cinematography is hard to make out a lot of the time -- and once you do get a good look at some of the CGI creatures, you’ll wish it stayed that way -- but the bold new interpretation of the source material and Jolie’s exceptional performance elevate “Maleficent” above its shoddy VFX and extremely sloppy storytelling.
Disney
8. "Aladdin" (2019)
Guy Ritchie's remake of "Aladdin" sucks out all the personality the filmmaker could have possibly brought to the project, instead simply rehashing the original in a mediocre but mildly enjoyable way. Mena Massoud and Naomi Scott are wonderful as Aladdin and Jasmine, and Will Smith plays the Genie like he's the ultimate fantasy wingman. It's like watching the original "Aladdin" acted out in the middle of a parade: Cheerful, well-intentioned and fleeting.
7. "Lady and the Tramp" (2019)
Take away all the animated magic of "Lady and the Tramp," and all you've got left is two dogs making goo-goo eyes at each other. And it turns out, in Charlie Bean's modest remake, that's just fine. Tessa Thompson and Justin Theroux are amiable mismatched lead voices, the story of love crossing class divides is just as simple and effective as ever and Bean's new film makes the whole story more inclusive (and wisely jettisons one of Disney's most problematic songs). The CG animation on the dog's faces, to make them talk more like humans, is distractingly subpar, but everything else is sweet. Unambitious, but sweet.
6. "The Sorcerer’s Apprentice" (2010)
Except for an obligatory scene with some dancing mops, Jon Turteltaub’s “The Sorcerer’s Apprentice” has very little in common with the classic Mickey Mouse segment from “Fantasia.” Jay Baruchel stars as a young science nerd who is destined to become a sorcerer, and Nicolas Cage has to train him before evil sorcerers can raise an army and take over the world. It’s a perfectly watchable fantasy adventure, but nothing about “The Sorcerer’s Apprentice” makes a lasting impact. It’s practically the textbook definition of “average.”
Disney
5. "101 Dalmatians" (1996)
Stephen Herek directed a trio of live-action Disney hits in the 1990s -- “The Mighty Ducks,” “The Three Musketeers,” and “101 Dalmatians” -- and they’re all satisfying family-friendly romps. Jeff Daniels and Joely Richardson play humans whose dogs fall in love and have oodles of puppies, and Glenn Close portrays Cruella de Vil like a pitch-perfect 1960s “Batman” villain. The film devolves into brainless, non-stop “Home Alone” slapstick in the second half, but it’s never less than fun, and Close gives such a gloriously unhinged performance that she’s practically Oscar-worthy.
Disney
4. "Dumbo" (2019)
Tim Burton’s second live-action remake of a Disney animated classic is more clever, more emotional and significantly more subversive than his “Alice in Wonderland.” It’s still the story of a baby circus elephant with giant ears that help him fly, but this time his circus is purchased by a theme-park entrepreneur played by Michael Keaton, who proceeds to lay off most of the workers after the merger and to exploit his newly acquired IP beyond reason. Disney has often turned heartless capitalists into their villains, but in “Dumbo,” the studio seems to be pointing the finger at itself, giving Burton’s richly realized fantasy an unexpected and impressive sting.
Disney
3. "The Jungle Book" (2016)
Jon Favreau’s “The Jungle Book” uses so much CGI that calling it “live-action” is probably a misnomer; there’s only one character who isn’t motion-captured, and even the realistic environments were digitally rendered. But either way it’s an excellent film. Favreau eschews the laidback, episodic structure of the original in favor of a more focused adventure, with Mowgli (Neel Sethi) gradually taking responsibility for rescuing the jungle from the deadly Shere Khan (Idris Elba). An all-star cast of mo-cap animal characters keeps the film lively, although Christopher Walken is a distractingly strange choice for King Louie.
Disney
2. "Pete’s Dragon" (2016)
Another nebulously defined “live-action remake,” since the original “Pete’s Dragon” was a mostly live-action musical fantasy with one animated title character. David Lowery’s remake does away with all the classic songs (which ranged from adorable to weirdly violent) and also throws out the wackier storylines. Instead he highlights the emotionally sincere story of a lost boy whose only friend is a giant dragon. When Pete is discovered and brought back to the human world, his dragon, Elliot, comes looking for him. Lowery makes room for comic shenanigans, but he’s mostly interested in exploring our contemporary capacity for wonder. He transforms a formerly eccentric tale into something beautiful and, possibly, timeless.
Disney
1. "Cinderella" (2015)
Disney’s original “Cinderella” is a masterpiece of animation, but it’s also a narratively thin piece of wish-fulfillment. Kenneth Branagh’s live-action remake keeps the original, classic storyline in place but amplifies the characters, giving the wicked stepmother (Cate Blanchett) a meaningful motivation for her treatment of Cinderella (Lily James), giving Cinderella a set of clearly-defined principles that justifies her every decision, and giving the prince (John Madden) enough time with Cinderella that they can actually fall believably in love. Romantic, beautiful and -- from a story perspective, at least -- an undeniable improvement on the original, “Cinderella” is the crown jewel of Disney’s live-action remakes. For now.
Disney
1 of 20
How does ”Cruella“ rank among the studio’s remakes of its animated hits?
Over the last few decades, Disney has increasingly dipped into its own well of nostalgic favorites. Specifically, they’ve been taking their beloved animated classics, remaking them in live-action (or mostly live-action), and producing one blockbuster smash after another. Let’s take a look at all of the live-action remakes of Disney’s animated classics, going all the way back to the 1990s, to explore which films improved on the original and which ones came up short.
