The best, worst, and soon-to-be-released live-action Disney films

You likely expected a “Jungle Book” movie on here, but maybe you don’t remember this one. Yes, the first time Disney rebooted one of their animated movies as a live-action film was way back in 1994. What’s distinct about this take on the Rudyard Kipling book is the fact the animals don’t talk, which kind of spoils the whole point of “The Jungle Book.”

The first time Disney found success with a live-action reboot was with the first “101 Dalmatians.” First, they got Jeff Daniels as Roger, a character that is largely a blank in the animated movie. Then, they got Glenn Close to play Cruella de Vil. The eight-time Oscar nominee really chews the scenery as Cruella.

“101 Dalmatians” made $320 million off of a $75 million budget, so naturally they decided to make a sequel. Then again, how exciting is it to add one more dog into the mix when you already have 101? At least Close came back as Cruella. Without her, it simply wouldn’t be worth it. Of course, they didn’t make a third, so clearly they were out of ideas here.

It took a full decade before Disney got back to the live-action adaptation game. They brought out the big guns as well. Tim Burton was brought in to direct the film, with Johnny Depp as the Mad Hatter. While a lot of people thought Burton’s “Alice in Wonderland” was all style and no substance, but it made over $1 billion worldwide, so Disney clearly wasn’t going to complain.

Was anybody interested in the life of Maleficent, the villain from “Sleeping Beauty?” Perhaps, because they decided to make it into a movie. Of course, maybe it’s because they got Angelina Jolie to play the baddie who went after Aurora. They tried to give Maleficent some depth and make her a more tragic antihero than pure villain, and for some, it must have worked, though the critical consensus was middling at best.

It feels like this “Cinderella” adaptation has been completely forgotten. It’s one of the most famous fairy tales of all time, though the original version is quite wild compared to the Disney animated movie. They got Kenneth Branagh to direct and the luminous Cate Blanchett to play the Wicked Stepmother, but there has been no staying power to this movie. Perhaps the clock struck midnight on it?

Jon Favreau and Disney have a great relationship. It all started when he directed “Iron Man,” which birthed the MCU. Now, Marvel is owned by Disney, and so is Star Wars, which includes Favreau’s “The Mandalorian.” In the midst of all these blockbusters and important intellectual property, he made a lavish adaptation of “The Jungle Book,” one that feels more like an animated movie than the 1994 version.

Hey, “Alice in Wonderland” made over a billion bucks, so naturally, they made a sequel. Sure, it took six years, and this time Burton wasn’t back on board. That being said, Depp was back as the Mad Hatter, Anne Hathaway returned as the White Queen, and Helena Bonham Carter played the Red Queen. However, this one was way less successful, not even clearing $300 million on a $170-million budget.

This is the one that felt like it really sparked the Disney remake renaissance. Maybe that’s because it came after “The Jungle Book” so it started to feel more like a trend. Perhaps it’s because people care more about “Beauty and the Beast” than “The Jungle Book,” and also it felt more resonant since it was a remake of a movie from the early ‘90s. Or, you know, maybe it’s because it starred Emma Watson and is the 10th highest-grossing movie of all time. You just knew this wouldn’t be the last live-action remake after that.

This one technically counts! It’s about a grown-up Christopher Robin, played by Ewan McGregor. He’s losing his imagination, which means his childhood chums like Winnie-the-Pooh and Eeyore are being lost as well. This one is more a movie made for adults who grew up on Winnie than a remake to try and grab audiences young and old, so it gets points for originality at least.

Tim Burton is back! While he did not return for the “Alice in Wonderland” sequel, he decided to get back in the remake game with “Dumbo,” which takes a 64-minute animated film about an elephant who can fly into a 112-minute epic reuniting Michael Keaton and Danny DeVito. At least those crows weren’t back.

Alright, so when we say “live-action” we have to accept some CGI. You can’t really bring Genie to life without some special effects. Speaking of Genie, “Aladdin” was hard-pressed to try and live up to the iconic vocal performance of Robin Williams. They decided to go and get one of the few movie stars left in Will Smith, which means we did indeed get a rapping genie.

Technically, this is a “photorealistic computer-animated” film for the most part, with some live-action mixed in. However, on an intuitive level, this doesn’t “feel” animated. They wanted it to look as realistic as possible. The animals aren’t cartoonish. “The Lion King” is not supposed to be viewed as an animated movie, so we definitely count it. Jon Favreau returned to direct again because Disney loves him. Oh, and Beyonce lends her voice to it.

Jolie is back as Maleficent in a movie that involves way more lore than anybody who has only seen “Sleeping Beauty” will know. It feels as much indebted to “Game of Thrones” as a fairy tale, only without the gratuitous violence and nudity. It’s a bit of a spoiler, so be forewarned, but it’s pretty weird that in this film Maleficent is the adoptive mother of Aurora. That’s world-building, we guess.

“Lady and the Tramp” kind of got lost in the shuffle. It was the first of these films directly released to Disney+. However, this was still pre-pandemic, so that was the plan. Perhaps the hope was that “Lady and the Tramp” would bring viewers to the burgeoning app. Instead, it was just met with a shrug. We don’t even know anybody who has seen it.

“Mulan” was supposed to be a big, epic theatrical release. Unfortunately, it got eaten up by the pandemic.  Instead, Disney had to try and salvage it by dropping it on Disney+. We will say that “Mulan” feels more different from its animated predecessor than any of these films that are more straight remakes, which removes the likes of “Maleficent” from that list.

Speaking of “Maleficent,” Cruella de Vil seems primed to get the same antihero makeover with Disney’s return to the big screen. Emma Stone steps into Close’s shoes, shoes presumably made from some sort of animal. We aren’t sure how, or why, they are giving Cruella her own film, but we’re definitely curious, even if that curiosity is a bit morbid.

A remake of "Pinocchio" starring Tom Hanks as Geppetto doesn't sound like the worst idea. However, he was joining forces with Robert Zemeckis. Once a guy who delivered hit after hit, he got preoccupied with technology and gave us stuff like "The Polar Express" and "The Witches." Zemeckis' "Pinocchio" is aesthetically unpleasant, and even the story feels like it's simply not working.

David Lowery's "Peter Pan" movie was pushed...and pushed...and pushed, and then it dropped on Disney+ sans a theatrical release in 2023. If this were one of the movies that Disney quietly removed from the service, we wouldn't be surprised. Evidently, it's still there. Frankly, "Peter Pan" is overvalued as a storytelling basis, and this movie is about as "nothing" as a movie gets. Hey, that's better than a "Pinocchio"-style trainwreck, at least.

"The Little Mermaid" was something of a canary in the coalmine for the potential of these live-action remakes losing steam. Or, more accurately, the "seagull voiced by Awkwafina in a coalmine" such as it is. The movie is unremarkable but fine, and they did cast somebody who can since in Halle Bailey as Ariel. Melissa McCarthy probably had fun. Also, "The Little Mermaid" made $569.6 million worldwide, but the budget was $240.2 million, and when you throw in heavy-duty marketing, Disney probably wanted a decidedly bigger hit.

Disney is thanking the worldwide audience for its affinity for photorealistic lions and meerkats, because international audiences saved "Mufasa" from tanking. Not that the film deserved it, as it's a lesser offering, even more so than "The Lion King" remake that birthed it. Though it is telling something of a "new" story, it's not a good one. It made $254.6 million domestically, ninth most of 2024 films, but the $467.4 million it made elsewhere did leave "Mufasa" a hit.

Oof. What happens if you have a half-thought-out take on "Snow White," audiences are tiring of Disney remakes, and your film has two stars who just can't get out of their own way from a PR perspective? Well, you get 2025's disastrous "Snow White." The movie was panned, and audiences did not bother coming out to see what all the ardor was about. It's the kind of disaster that may leave both Rachel Zegler and Gal Gadot unviable as leads for quite some time.

Since Stitch was destined to be animated into a live-action space, this was perhaps not the most-obvious choice for this remake process. Of course the original "Lilo & Stitch" was the closest Disney gets to an "underdog" story, so why count the alien and his human buddy out? This is a cutesy kids story outside the parameters of most of these remakes. Then again, that means relying on child actors to shoulder the load. It could go either way.

As discussed adaptations have quietly fallen from the schedule, "Moana" remains. Now that the animated "Moana 2" has come and gone while leaving behind a trail of mild disappointment, Disney might even be regretting this one. The genie (not Genie) is out of the bottle, though. "Moana" has been filmed and it has a release day for the summer of 2026, so it's happening. At least in this instance Disney was able to get Dwayne Johnson, the voice of the animated Maui, to play the live-action take on the same character.