The Little Mermaid 2023

The movie mainly follows the original story and Halle Bailey was the best part of the movie.
Although her performance felt too broadway-ish at some moments, her voice is stunning and she shows a bubbly personality which makes it able to sit through this boring movie...
Why didn't they give her the iconic red hair though?!

The other characters are pretty bad too...
Triton is such a player... He has 7 daughters and I'm 100% sure they all have a different mother.
The blackwashing of Ariel is pretty obvious, and that wasn't enough for Disney either so Prince Eric is now adopted and has a black mother too.
I hate it when forced diversity is getting pushed down your throat!

Sebastian, Flounder, Scuttle, Flotsam and Jetsam all look hideous, what are they even thinking?!
Scuttle was annoying and they managed to make the worst Disney song ever called the Scuttlebutt.
The song makes your ears bleed, and it seems to never end!
Ursula doesn't look scary enough, Melissa McCarthy her face is just not fitting for the role, but I did like her voice and her vibrant tentacles. those look so awesome.
I did love Vanessa, she was absolutely epic!

The CGI is very bad, it looks incredibly fake. Many scenes are also just way too dark.
Disney has enough money and I'm sure they can do way better than this.
They wanted to make it look as realistic as possible but it just doesn't work!

I recently watched the original again and I laughed so many times and I was still so mesmerized by it all.
I wasn't with this live action version... I was so bored!
The only thing that kept me watching till the end was because I was curious to see if they added the giant Ursula scene.
It was all just one big disappointment...

It's hard to walk into a movie theater with a neutral mindset about the movie you're about to see when you've been reading and hearing about it for months; even more so when what is known about the film are the attacks against the leading actress or the design of one of the animated characters. With all that in mind I set out to see the adaptation of Disney's "The Little Mermaid." And while I couldn't help noticing the obvious discrepancy with the image of Ariel that Disney itself generated years ago, I didn't find the casting of Halle Bailey as the lead mermaid inappropriate; Also, she sings beautifully. However, there were some errors in her performance, which may be more the fault of Rob Marshall as director, especially in the musical number "Under the sea" with wandering eyes that do not focus on what she is supposed to be seeing; or the eternal lost gaze of her in front of Eric, that seems disconnected more than in love. The visual effects are generally good, although with some bugs. The color selection is great, especially the play with shadows that they use in various scenes. Javier Bardem did not convince me as Triton, which is different from Jonah Hauer-King as the prince. Of course they don't respect the story of the animated movie that we all know, but that film didn't respect the original story of Hans Christian Andersen either, so I didn't find a real problem with the little mermaid not being Danish, since I never understood where they were, I just I know the vibe is tropical island (the mentions of Venezuela, Colombia and Spain confused me). So, yes I thought it was good, it's entertaining, and it's quite visually pleasing. And yes, Jessica Alexander is great in her five minute screen time.

A Disappointing Departure from the Original - "The Little Mermaid"

"The Little Mermaid" remake missed the mark by altering the protagonist's core identity. The charm of the original was rooted in the character's journey as a young mermaid, navigating the complexities of two worlds. Unfortunately, this adaptation sidelined that essence, detracting from the emotional depth and resonance that fans cherished. The decision to veer from the character's defining trait felt like a missed opportunity to create a truly memorable and faithful retelling.

In the original tale by Hans Christian Andersen, the little mermaid's identity as a mermaid played a pivotal role in her growth and transformation. Her desire to become human stemmed from her longing to explore a different world, a world that seemed unattainable due to her inherent mermaid nature. This internal struggle was a driving force, highlighting themes of sacrifice, identity, and the quest for self-discovery. The movie adaptation's decision to overlook this crucial element left a void in the narrative.

By deviating from the character's core identity as a little mermaid, the film severed its connection with both the source material and the audience's expectations. It's understandable that adaptations aim to bring fresh perspectives to classic stories, but this shift felt more like a disservice rather than an enhancement. While some creative liberties can be welcomed, altering the fundamental nature of the main character seemed to undermine the very essence of what made "The Little Mermaid" story timeless.

Furthermore, the departure from the mermaid identity appeared to be a missed opportunity for the film to explore the intricate relationship between humans and the mystical underwater world. The interactions, conflicts, and eventual harmony between these two realms were central to the original's appeal. By neglecting this dynamic, the remake lost the chance to delve into the complexities of acceptance, understanding, and the beauty of diversity.

Additionally, this adaptation's alteration could be interpreted as a departure from the core messages of self-acceptance and embracing one's true identity. The original story celebrated the little mermaid's journey of self-discovery and her eventual decision to remain true to herself, even in the face of challenges. Straying from her mermaid identity diluted the poignancy of this message, which had resonated with audiences across generations.

In conclusion, "The Little Mermaid" remake's decision to overlook the character's identity as a little mermaid proved to be a significant misstep. While innovation and creative reimagining can breathe new life into classic tales, tampering with a character's core essence risks losing the heart and soul of the narrative. The absence of the mermaid identity undermined the emotional depth, thematic resonance, and the connection that fans had with the original story. This adaptation, unfortunately, fell short of capturing the magic that made the original "Little Mermaid" such a beloved and enduring classic.

"The Little Mermaid" remake missed the mark by altering the protagonist's core identity. The charm of the original was rooted in the character's journey as a young mermaid, navigating the complexities of two worlds. Unfortunately, this adaptation sidelined that essence, detracting from the emotional depth and resonance that fans cherished. The decision to veer from the character's defining trait felt like a missed opportunity to create a truly memorable and faithful retelling.

In the original tale by Hans Christian Andersen, the little mermaid's identity as a mermaid played a pivotal role in her growth and transformation. Her desire to become human stemmed from her longing to explore a different world, a world that seemed unattainable due to her inherent mermaid nature. This internal struggle was a driving force, highlighting themes of sacrifice, identity, and the quest for self-discovery. The movie adaptation's decision to overlook this crucial element left a void in the narrative.

By deviating from the character's core identity as a little mermaid, the film severed its connection with both the source material and the audience's expectations. It's understandable that adaptations aim to bring fresh perspectives to classic stories, but this shift felt more like a disservice rather than an enhancement. While some creative liberties can be welcomed, altering the fundamental nature of the main character seemed to undermine the very essence of what made "The Little Mermaid" story timeless.

Furthermore, the departure from the mermaid identity appeared to be a missed opportunity for the film to explore the intricate relationship between humans and the mystical underwater world. The interactions, conflicts, and eventual harmony between these two realms were central to the original's appeal. By neglecting this dynamic, the remake lost the chance to delve into the complexities of acceptance, understanding, and the beauty of diversity.

Additionally, this adaptation's alteration could be interpreted as a departure from the core messages of self-acceptance and embracing one's true identity. The original story celebrated the little mermaid's journey of self-discovery and her eventual decision to remain true to herself, even in the face of challenges. Straying from her mermaid identity diluted the poignancy of this message, which had resonated with audiences across generations.

In conclusion, "The Little Mermaid" remake's decision to overlook the character's identity as a little mermaid proved to be a significant misstep. While innovation and creative reimagining can breathe new life into classic tales, tampering with a character's core essence risks losing the heart and soul of the narrative. The absence of the mermaid identity undermined the emotional depth, thematic resonance, and the connection that fans had with the original story. This adaptation, unfortunately, fell short of capturing the magic that made the original "Little Mermaid" such a beloved and enduring classic.

I’m going to get right to the point. This movie was not great. It wasn’t the WORST Disney live action remake - that honor still goes to Alice In Wonderland (sorry Tim) and Pete’s Dragon. But I digress. I’ll get into everything wrong with it in a moment, but I always like to start out with the good. There were parts of the film that I truly did enjoy. First off, the scenes that deviated from the original source material worked really well. These moments added much-needed depth to the story - mostly because of the original’s short run time - fleshing out characters in a much more positive way and the plot took intriguing new directions. But don’t get too excited, because such moments were sparse as the film largely followed the original's script, just like the other remakes.
Another thing I absolutely loved was Art Malik’s portrayal of Grimsby. The character was thoroughly developed, which is more than I could say for the original, but Malik did such an amazing job with this supporting role, that whenever he was on screen, I was genuinely interested. I don’t see anyone talking about him, which is par for the course when you play such an underappreciated character, but I thought he was great.

The only other real praise I can give this remake is that, unlike Beauty and the Beast (2017), the majority of the cast can sing. I only heard one instance of autotune, which was prevalent in Jonah Hauer-King’s song. I know most people will give it a pass, but it was hard to listen to for me. But it’s nice to hear that at least the rest of the cast had great voices. For some of them, however, that’s where it ends.

Halle Bailey can sing. She has a wonderful voice. However…She doesn’t seem to understand what she is singing about. Part of Your World is a wistful, longing song about escaping from a place that makes you feel like you don’t belong. In the original, this emotion is captured in Ariel’s animation, by sadness, hopefulness and wonder. Halle decided to just showcase her voice. She took a meaningful song and turned it into an American Idol performance. I mean, it SOUNDS great, but so what? If you can’t act, what’s the point?

But she’s honestly the least of the cast issues. Javier Bardem, an Academy Award winning actor, gives the most bland and uninspired copy/paste performance I’ve seen in a long time. And I freakin’ love this guy, but holy hell…he was AWFUL!! Like first night of a high school performance of a Tennessee Williams play awful. Which brings me to Daveed Diggs, who does a fantastic job as Sebastian about halfway into the film and beyond. But the first half, which was just pretty much word for word the 1989 version, he tried SO hard to differ his performance from Samuel E. Wright that it came off as amateur and incredibly lacking. His performance was so underwhelming that I started to question whether this was the same Daveed Diggs in Hamilton. Fortunately, as the script expanded when they reached land, the universe seemed to course correct itself, and Diggs became more comfortable with the character, evident in his improved performance.

Awkwafina was Awkwafina. Comic relief. She delivered a solid performance, leaving no room for complaints..but I suppose we should talk about the scuttlebutt in the room…. Oy. Lin-Manuel Miranda needs to stop writing the same “song” over and over shoehorning it into movies where it may not be the best fit. The other two songs he wrote were exceptionally well-crafted and seamlessly integrated into the film. But The Scuttlebutt, was the most bone-chillingly uncomfortable addition to this film. You’ve heard of a rapping granny…now check out the rapping seagull and crab! Uch… like it’s bad.. It's challenging to find a more eloquent way to express this, as the scene didn't seem to consider the audience's intelligence, bombarding them with subpar content like this. There was a reason that Scuttle never had a song in the film and the two he had in the Broadway show are TERRIBLE! The character is funny is small doses - but the second you put them on screen for an entire song, you realize what a horrible mistake you have made I fail to understand why Disney repeatedly allows Lin-Manuel to taint the music in every feature, and I don’t think this needed to be said but: NOT EVERY FREAKIN MOVIE NEEDS A RAP!!!! IN FACT, MOST DO NOT! Okay..okay… moving on.

I need to talk about Under the Sea. This isn’t spoilers per se, but if you don’t want to read about the “staging” of this song and some questionable choices they made, then you can skip to the next paragraph, Okay, so what is Under the Sea about? Sebastian is trying to convince Ariel how amazing Atlantica is and showcase the amazing sea life that is far greater than anything she would see up on the surface. The scene turns into a huge party where all the sealife turns the screen into a bright, exciting dance of color and imagination. Well…in THIS version of the film. It’s basically just Sebastian and Ariel on screen the whole time, and each verse gets its own “sea creature” - The verse where Sebastian sings the word “fish” like 40 times, they decided that’s where dolphins would go…because dolphins are fish, right? There’s no ensemble, it’s not a party…it’s just Sebastian and Ariel (and by the way, Ariel singing the “ensemble part” feels like that SNL sketch with Will Ferrell and Ana Gasteyer, where they played that husband and wife music duo). Something about it was off. And that’s kind of the feeling of all of the undersea moments in this film.

There was nothing really exciting about the visuals - in fact there was a LOT of bad CGI that made its way into this film unnecessarily. Honestly, I have nothing to say about this as it’s expected at this point. Another reason why everything under the sea felt wrong. Everything except…

Uch, I hate admitting this because I can’t stand her usually. I really really do not think Melissa McCarthy is funny, nor do I think she is great in any role she’s ever been in that I’ve seen (with the exception of Cook Off! which was an underrated film, if you ask me.) But she was excellent in this. At first, I thought she was doing her best Pat Carroll impression, which made me think “oh here we go” - but she really did make Ursula her own. I loved her voice, I loved her intensity and even when delivering lines from the original script, she didn't seem constrained by trying too hard to differentiate herself from Pat's portrayal. She just…ya know…acted. And as much she really gets on my nerves, usually, she was a breath of fresh air in the under the sea bits. The only thing that really annoyed me was that when she turns into Vanessa, she still had to be played by some skinny actress. I don’t know why it couldn’t just be Melissa McCarthy? I mean, what’s the difference? Ariel learns who Vanessa is pretty quickly anyway, and she only really sees her from behind before she does. I don’t know… It struck me as an odd choice in a film that aims to promote inclusivity.

And that brings me to the final point. The changes to lyrics. Honestly, they weren’t that bad. They were completely unnecessary, as the lyrics they were covering up were really not offensive in any way, but hey, if it makes people happy, as long as they don’t change the original, I really don’t care. Now if they were going to go back and make changes to the 1989 film, then we have a problem, but this is what they want to do - go ahead. Do I like changing Howard Ashman’s lyrics? No. That’s on Menken. I have no stake in messing with anyone’s legacy, so I’m really not going to complain.

All in all, The Little Mermaid (2023) was fine, falling in line with most other Disney live-action films.. I typically find redeeming qualities in these adaptations. For instance, I thoroughly enjoyed Jungle Book and Cruella, and despite the strange criticism it received from...everybody…I loved Dumbo. This one is smack in the middle. Better than Lady & the Tramp and Mulan, but not as good as the ones just mentioned and even Aladdin, which I enjoyed. Unfortunately, the script's adherence to the original dialogue stifled any opportunity for a fresh take, resulting in a stale and lackluster delivery. Bardem's performance felt phoned in, and The Scuttlebutt was undeniably a disaster.. Nevertheless, the on-land sequences felt fresh and interesting, introducing intriguing characters within the castle, even if they weren't fully developed.. Daveed Diggs and Halle Bailey killed it in the second half of the film, but were utterly unwatchable at the beginning. Lastly, I must admit that I've never been so bored by a shark on screen…like ever.

The Little Mermaid was easily my favorite live-action adaptation since Cinderella in 2015!

The cast was wonderful - Melissa McCarthy really seemed to commit and relish in filling Pat Carol’s shoes as Ursula, and while she was not Pat Carol, I immensely enjoyed what she did with the character. Javier Bardem was a surprisingly introspective King Triton. And, of course, Halle Bailey as Ariel - how refreshing. Not only stunning as a redesigned icon, her voice floored me on “Part of Your World” and her performance was impressive, especially considering she can’t speak for half of the movie.

I absolutely adored the notes of Bahamian style and the British Virgin Islands in the production design - it fits perfectly, and lent the movie a tinge of “Once on This Island”, which is based on the same fairy tale.

I know that I can’t be the only one feeling Lin-Manuel Miranda fatigue; one new song (Scuttlebutt) has his fingerprints all over it, and I wish it had been cut as it feels out of place.

The CGI was really beautiful to look at, and Disney definitely took notes from the lack of expression on their animals in The Lion King and fixed a good amount of that issue here.

I could go on and on, but it’s super good! Go have fun!

The summary? It's an imperfect film but a perfect introduction to the incredible Halle Bailey!

Each member of the cast played their role brilliantly and the film was easy to watch. It didn't hurt it that the animal characters were given realistic appearances, as the voice actors were very charismatic.

The music and the visuals in the beginning were done smartly enough to make me sob in anticipation of Ariel. Her appearance and otherworldly singing had the same effect. She was very cute and sweet and perfectly played her part even when absolutely silent.

The colorful CGI at the Sebastian musical part was quite well-done.

I found the plot to be quite flawed. For one, there was absolutely no justification for the couple falling in love so quickly. He knew nothing of her and she had merely watched him save a dog and, like her, express the desire to be free.

Even after Eric and Ariel met, the animal characters were also forcing them to kiss, making the whole thing seem very artificial.
It's mostly because of this that the forced marriage involving Ursula did not contrast with the purportedly real love.

A major disappointment was that despite Halle being so perfect, she had to be quiet for what seemed like most of the film. A lot of wasted potential.

Triton was absolutely right about humans being savages in relation to the ocean life, but using this reasonable disdain for or fear of humans to portray it as closed-minded or even as a metaphor for things like racism was quite shallow.

Lastly, the CGI of Ariel's hair and movements underwater wasn't convincing, making it a relief when she was on the shore.

No real spoilers here, but also stuff I'd not want to have read before watching. If you're reading reviews before partaking personally, then you probably don't care as much about going in as blind as possible and not being influenced by other's takes. Just trying to be considerate without always marking everything as spoilers!

This was decent, but not entirely rewatchable. It could have been a lot better with some tweaks.

Triton’s character had an unfortunately small presence. His voice didn’t help. He needed a clear and strong one, but the accent he was given mucked that up. There were even a couple of times I saw a “Nicolas Cage” resemblance in his face. I’m afraid that doesn’t work for someone like Triton. (No offense, Mr. Cage.)

Sebastian’s voice was also a letdown. It just felt muted somehow and less than it should have been.

Flounder’s voice was fine, but regardless of what his kind of fish actually looks like in the real world, I wish they’d given him more color. He also didn’t seem to make enough appearances throughout.

I didn’t necessarily mind them turning Scuttle into a female, or a water diving bird instead of a seagull. Although it did feel as though there was something lacking.

"I can’t put my foot on it right now."

Then there’s Melissa McCarthy as the sea witch. For the longest time all I heard was an uproar about Ariel not being a white girl in the live action remake, but it took ages before I heard a word about who was going to be playing Ursula. It’s pathetic to think all the noise of the rest potentially drowned out such a fun fact. While I overall like Melissa, it really depends on the role, so I had no idea whether or not I thought I’d like her in this. Oh my god though, she was amazing. The look, the tone and inflections of her voice, both singing and not. She was my favorite part of this remake. As far as I’m concerned, she was worth the entire thing being made.

Now, having said some of the above, I do think the wildly various different races of the sisters was a weird choice. I know previously in the animated version that the sisters did strongly vary in hair and fin colors, but they were still all Caucasian. Having varying dark and light skinned tones would have made more sense if they wanted to go that route in the first place with Ariel’s character. Ariel was beautiful. I had no qualms with her appearance. I don’t recall it being a big deal in the 90s when we had Brandy play as Cinderella alongside Whitney Houston as her fairy godmother. But even so, it felt overkill that Eric’s mother was also black. It has nothing to do with her position of power, to be clear. A point is reached where one begins to wonder though, why not just have an all black cast? There’s also a white man and black woman coupling stereotype beginning to strongly emerge in more current media. I think there are 3 examples of it in this movie alone. I’m struggling to think of examples the other way around. My boyfriend finally came up with the movie Get Out and I came up with Save the Last Dance, albeit a bit older than what I meant. The Nine Perfect Strangers series as another more recent example. I may be wrong though, both about that being a thing at all and about the mother’s race being overkill when balanced with all the rest.

I did really enjoy how they showed Ariel and Eric sharing a sense of adventure and the same interest in collecting neat stuff. I really didn’t enjoy the changes made in the scene when Eric guesses Ariel’s name.

The "Scuttlebutt" song was a fun addition and the “bow chicka wow wow” bits.

The “Under The Sea” song: The visuals, hell yes. The singing, huge no.

Lastly, practically the entire watch time through I was thinking about the ending of the animated version and hoping for a specific. Could they really not have had King Triton raise his trident and spread a rainbow across the sky as the newlyweds sailed off into the sunset?

I can't tell you how many times I watched the animated version when I was a kid. There where times when I watched it every weekend so I had the highest of expectations for this live action remake and practically none of them where met.
Firstly: Halle Bailey was incredible. She had a beautiful voice and really brought Ariel to live. Ariel for me is this vibrant, innocent (almost naive), sweet character and Halle really nailed that. Sadly that is just about the only positive thing I have to say about the remake.

The added songs where awful. Melissa McCarthy (I loveeee her) tried her hardest and brought out a fun side to Ursula but to me it all felt very forced. Her voice not right for the part and especially in song it was very flat compared to her animated version. Eric was so dull and lifeless that I couldn't for the life of me understand why Ariel would even want to go up to the human world.. for him?? Ugh.
They cut one of the best songs. The added scenes did nothing for the story except drag it on. It was torture and halfway through I debated if I should quit but I kept hoping something would change for the better.

The battle with giant Ursula was done nicely in terms of darkness. Might not be suitable for all children but I did see they aged it 9 and up. In the animated version it is Ariel that is caught in a whirlpool with Ursula sending light bolts down at her and Eric is controlling the wreckage that destroys Ursula... I feel like they flipped the roles here for the sake of feminism and the whole 'woke' path Disney is on. Didn't add anything the story but didn't take away from it either.

Oh and we won't even get into the awfullll CGI. With a budget as high as they had... Once upon a time did better with less.

Glad it's over and I hope they won't ever try to remake The little Mermaid 2.

After watching the 2023 version of Disney's "The Little Mermaid," I feel like I've dived into shallow waters of disappointment. While Halle Bailey undoubtedly shines with her talent, the film fails to capture the essence of the beloved classic.

The dark lighting, seemingly aiming for "realism," only manages to dull the vibrant and colorful underwater world of Ariel. And let's not even get started on the CGI, which often feels subpar and detracts from the immersion. It was just AWFUL.

Melissa McCarthy's performance, which I had high hopes for, unfortunately, fell flat. It lacked the depth and charisma one would expect from such a seasoned actress, especially in a role as iconic as Ursula.

Why the decision to introduce unnecessary political and family subplots? Sacrificing iconic moments, like the hilarious chase scene with the Chef and Sebastian, for narratives that don't enrich the core story was a misstep. That scene in the original was a guaranteed laugh, and its absence is deeply felt.

Moreover, the film's geographical setting is puzzling. The Caribbean? While celebrating cultural and racial diversity is commendable, the choice of a "kingdom" with a medieval-looking castle on a Caribbean island feels out of place. I'm left wondering what role this setting plays in the narrative, and I feel a missed opportunity to delve deeper into the rich Caribbean culture.

Despite being touted as revolutionary, especially with the inclusion of a Black princess, the film doesn't bring anything new to the table. It feels like another attempt by Disney to revive their classics without truly grasping what made them special in the first place.

In short, if you're seeking the magic and simplicity of "The Little Mermaid," I'd recommend revisiting the 1989 version. This new adaptation, unfortunately, doesn't measure up to the cherished memories of the original.

Having not seen the original film, nor being a Disney fan in general, none of the nostalgic notes hit for me. While I'm not a fan of race-swapping for the mere sake of race-swapping (and this film did not change my mind), this movie is still fine and stands on its own as a good body of work.

My primary complaint is with Ariel not being particularly fleshed out as a character; we know that she likes exploring, but we don't know why, and although saving others is part of her character, she's rarely placed in scenarios where she can help other people. To be fair to the film though, this story is quite simple, so this doesn't do much to keep the film from being too interesting, especially once the second act begins.

My secondary complaint is with the conflict between Ursula and Triton. Not to get into spoilers, Triton is said to have sanctioned punitive measures against Ursula at some point, but there is no mention of why this happened, leaving the audience to wonder if Ursula was even in the wrong here. While this isn't necessarily bad, it was something I kind of wanted to know.

There is an upside though, as this lead to the film being perhaps a bit more philosophical piece of art than I was expecting. While the film itself is by no means Utilitarian, it explores the pros and cons of Utilitarianism and Kantianism in a way that is both impressive and balanced. The film's philosophical conclusion--which is, when there is no conflict between the two, utilitarianism should be chosen in order to maximize happiness--is a rather surprising one for a film targeted at children, although it's by no means a poor prescription.

Of course it should be fitting to praise the acting as well. Much of the acting was enjoyable. Even Awkwafina was bearable here, as this is probably her most perfect casting to date. All of the songs worked, and Halle Berry specifically stood out with her amazing vocal performances. I can see where complaints with the casting of Triton's character may be found, but I actually liked his performance here.

All in all, this is a good film, and I quite enjoyed it, even if at the end of the day it's not exactly for me. In five to ten years, the controversy will be forgotten, and initially miffed viewers are liable to come away with a far more positive impressionist upon rewatching the film, judging of on its own merits.