2025’s “Snow White” is a live-action reimagining of Walt Disney’s “Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs,” which itself is based on the 1812 fairy tale “Snow White” by the Brothers Grimm. Photo courtesy of Disney Enterprises, Inc.
 3.5 out of 5 stars This review may contain spoilers for “Snow White”, released in theatres on March 21, 2025. |
Henry Sincic | Contributor
“Snow White” is not the live-action abomination that you’ve heard it to be. While not perfect by any means, the film shows an admirable dedication to expanding upon the animated original in plot and characterization. This seems especially brave considering the inevitable backlash any remake of this caliber seems destined to receive.
Don’t even get me started on the legions of inflammatory internet drones who seem to exist only for the benefit of decrying every new Disney project as being “too woke.” To those people, and everyone else, I am here to say this: the new “Snow White” isn’t bad at all.
The film has a notable pedigree to uphold. The original “Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs” is an animated classic, a true monument of ingenuity and innovation for 1937. The animation? Sumptuous. The designs? Classic. The music? Immortal. Yet for all of its historical importance, one would have to admit that the film has its faults.
There’s practically no plot, for one. Sure, Snow White meets a group of fittingly named dwarfs in a magical wood after escaping assassination by her jealous stepmother, the queen. But there’s really nothing elevating it beyond that which could already be found in copious Disney animated shorts, plot-wise. Snow White herself is practically a blank slate, personality-wise, and the film’s rushed climax practically has our heroine “accidentally” get herself out of trouble. There’s definite room for improvement.
Enter the remake, a mere 88 years, and six and a half Disney CEOs later. Many (myself admittedly included) have lambasted Disney’s apparent creative bankruptcy in their incessant need to push out live-action, “uglified” versions of their classic animated films instead of totally new ideas. But there are reasons for these things in the cinema world.
“The movie industry is having a hard time with rising prices after COVID, so they don’t want to take risks,” said Hope Bernard, WCC film instructor. “They don’t want to go out on a limb, because that means that they could possibly lose money.”
The movie might be playing it safe for the sake of earning money, but it has its redeeming elements.
First of all, and to state the obvious, live-action mixed with CGI isn’t as appealing as hand-drawn animation. But the filmmakers really went out of their way to create real sets that were visually appealing, and the costume work is truly top-notch.
The uncanny valley starts to creep in when the forest animals enter the picture, although there are fortunately not too many of them. The CGI is only inexcusably bad when the plastic lawn gnomes, I mean, seven dwarfs, get introduced.
The rest of the movie is widely appealing. Snow White has evolved a bit as a character, now having more of an impact in driving the movie along through scenes of conflict.
Her love interest has more screen time and development than the original, which is to say, more than none at all.
The actors all do a pretty good job with their roles, although Gal Gadot seems a bit disinterested as the evil queen.
Additional plot beats and scenes flesh out the movie’s slightly longer runtime, and each song, new and old alike, is catchy and appealing.
The movie still suffers from being slightly shallow, and one would’ve hoped for more development in Snow White’s character after 88 years. But as an enchanting adventure for kids goes, you could certainly think of much worse than this one.
