"Alice in Wonderland" has aged poorly, from its star to its aesthetic. It's been 15 years since it was released in 2010, and since then, director Tim Burton has only become less beloved by audiences ("Wednesday" on Netflix and the nostalgia of "Beetlejuice Beetlejuice" aside). His whimsical goth vision ages this movie — everything sort of looks like it came straight out of Hot Topic.

Additionally, Johnny Depp's performance as the Mad Hatter, which was grating at the time, now feels harder to watch after his myriad controversies.

This movie did make over $1 billion worldwide (enough to justify an even worse sequel in 2016, "Alice Through the Looking Glass"), but we venture to say if you turned this on now, you'd barely make it to Alice falling down the rabbit hole.

Point-blank, "Pinocchio" is scary to look at, and the less we say about this 2022 movie, the better.

Pinocchio, the character, has veered so far into the uncanny valley that it's hard to look at him. Add in a new (and unnecessary) seagull, aggressively voiced by Lorraine Bracco, the sanitation of the original movie's intentionally horrific Pleasure Island sequence, and some bad CGI … and this movie is just a dud.

It went straight to Disney+, so we'll never know how successful it actually was with audiences.

It doesn't help that a superior adaptation of the fairytale this is based on was released the same year: "Guillermo del Toro's Pinocchio." If you want to watch a talking puppet, we'd recommend you stick to that version.

You might not even remember that the 2010 film "The Sorcerer’s Apprentice" exists.

This is a loose adaptation, but we're counting it. It's based on a segment from the 1940 anthology film "Fantasia" and its 1999 sequel, "Fantasia 2000." In the original short, Mickey Mouse plays an impatient apprentice who is sick of doing chores and decides to steal his master's magic hat, to disastrous effect.

The 2010 live-action version stars Nicolas Cage as the wizened sorcerer, while Jay Baruchel takes on the role of the apprentice.

This movie's main issue is that it's forgettable. It suffers from being, above all else, boring. It has very 2010 action and special effects, and as a result, made $215 million against a $150 million budget, the Los Angeles Times reported in 2010.

This movie is also part of why director Jon Turteltaub and Cage never made "National Treasure 3" — at least according to Cage's 2022 interview with GQ — and we'll never be over it.

Was anyone desperate for a remake of the 1941 original "Dumbo," which has very questionable racial politics, a harrowing scene in which Dumbo, a baby elephant, gets drunk and hallucinates, and not much else? We think not.

The 2019 remake, once again directed by Tim Burton, pretty much does away with all of that. There are no crows, no Timothy Q. Mouse, or any talking animals at all — Dumbo is silent. Instead, the action is moved to entirely new human characters, who are all forgettable.

That's this movie's biggest sin — it doesn't justify its existence at all. And judging by its poor box-office numbers, audiences weren't sure what to think of it, either.

The original "Lady and the Tramp" from 1955 is another example of Disney's problematic past coming back to bite it. "The Siamese Cat Song," sung by cats Si and Am, is so racist that Disney added a disclaimer to the beginning of the film on Disney+.

So, the 2019 remake, which went straight to the streaming service, gets points for fixing that by adding two new cats, Devon and Rex.

Besides that, there's not much else to say about this live-action/CGI hybrid. Unlike "The Lion King" remake, Lady, Tramp, Jock, Trusty, Peg, etc., are played by real dogs and aren't just photorealistic creations. But we'd argue it's just not as fun to see two real dogs doing the famous spaghetti kiss.

This 1996 remake was the first true live-action adaptation of a Disney movie. We're not exactly sure why this remake of the 1961 animated film was Disney's first attempt, but we like it: It updates the setting to modern-day London, switching Roger from a composer to a video-game designer.

Glenn Close's deliciously unhinged performance as Cruella is what elevates this movie — it's probably why we got a Cruella prequel 25 years later.

This was a box-office success — grossing $320 million worldwide, according to Box Office Mojo — and spawned a 2000 sequel, "102 Dalmatians." Only Close returned from the main cast.

Instead of making a straight-up remake of 1959's "Sleeping Beauty," Disney took a different approach with 2014's "Maleficent."

Rather than centering on Aurora, aka Sleeping Beauty, this film is the story of Maleficent, who is only seen as an evil sorceress in the original. This movie gives her a backstory and a relationship with Aurora's father, Stefan.

While this sounds good in theory, "Maleficent" is perfectly average. Angelina Jolie gives it her all as Maleficent, but the special effects are dated, and the story isn't memorable.

It took five years for a sequel to come out ("Maleficent: Mistress of Evil"), and by then, the momentum from the financial success of "Maleficent" had apparently slowed.

It was only a matter of time before Disney took it all the way back to its first animated theatrical release: 1937's "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs."

Sure, Snow White is iconic as the first Disney princess movie, and "Whistle While You Work" and "Heigh-Ho" are permanently part of the Disney canon, but have you watched this movie recently, as an adult? It's boring! That made it ripe for an update.

Unfortunately for almost everyone, the 2025 update just isn't good. Aside from the many, many controversies that plagued this movie from the beginning, there are a few insurmountable problems with the film itself.

First: Gal Gadot. She was compelling in the (first) "Wonder Woman," but she's quite wooden in this role, nowhere near the deliciously evil villain performances we've gotten in other live-action remakes (e.g., Cate Blanchett in "Cinderella" and Melissa McCarthy in "The Little Mermaid). Instead it's what Vulture's Jackson McHenry aptly called a "remarkable anti-performance."

Other issues include the CGI uncanny valley dwarfs (a misguided attempt to reckon with the mistreatment and fetishization of little people across decades of pop culture), confusing (and pointless) lore updates, and new songs that would've been at home in "The Greatest Showman," not paired with songs written in the '30s.

If there's one saving grace in this movie, it's its star, Rachel Zegler. As usual, she is a winning presence on screen, radiating compassion and kindness in every frame. She also has an undeniably beautiful voice, which is more than we can say for some other people who have been cast in these musicals.

"Peter Pan & Wendy" proves that we should probably cool it on "Peter Pan" for a while; did you even know a live-action remake of "Peter Pan" starring Jude Law as Captain Hook, Yara Shahidi as Tinker Bell, and Jim Gaffigan as Mr. Smee was released on Disney+ in 2023?

It's a pity, because this movie is relatively OK. Law is locked in as Captain Hook, and director David Lowery showcases his talent for sweeping landscapes (as seen in "The Green Knight") in his version of Neverland.

Unfortunately, though, this movie just … isn't that interesting.

"Peter Pan" as a story might be cursed — "Hook" is only good if you have nostalgia goggles on; 2003's "Peter Pan" was a flop; "Pan" stars a white woman, Rooney Mara, as the Native American character Tiger Lily; and this adaptation is barely remembered.

Give these characters a break, Hollywood.

If this were a silent film, 2019's "The Lion King" would be an unparalleled achievement in special effects. But, unfortunately, it's not — making the characters photorealistic instead takes all the joy out of the film.

We were forced to sit through some of the most iconic musical sequences in Disney history, like "I Just Can't Wait to Be King," "Hakuna Matata," "Can You Feel the Love Tonight," and "Be Prepared," being sung by photorealistic animals who can't emote, in a relatively colorless virtual desert.

Part of the magic of animation is that you can make the animals do anything you want — that's why we love the 1994 original so much.

We'll always be thankful that we got Beyoncé's "The Lion King: The Gift" companion album out of this movie, but that's it. "Mufasa," the prequel that was released in 2024, wasn't anything to write home about either, even if it was slightly better.

Disney's latest live-action offering, "Lilo & Stitch," is a remake of the 2002 animated original — that makes it the newest animated film to get a live-action remake. And even though this movie is quite charming (in parts), there's an argument that we could've let another 20 years' worth of kids fall in love with the original movie, an underrated gem.

The live-action remake is fun, but it shares many of the same issues as the other remakes. The colors don't pop in the same way, and the character designs of the aliens don't translate to real life.

The biggest issue that many fans have with this movie is that the ending is completely different from the 2002 classic — we won't spoil it for you, but just know that the emphasis on ohana and no one getting left behind from the original is, well, undercut by the resolution the live-action movie finds.

"Beauty and the Beast," released in 2017, was the first of Disney's new wave of live-action remakes. As a result, it was graded on a curve at the time and made $1.2 billion, per Box Office Mojo.

But if you go back and watch this movie eight years later, you might notice something: Emma Watson, for all her charm, is simply not a great singer. And Paige O'Hara, who voiced Belle in the 1991 original, has one of the clearest voices in all of Disney's history.

There are a few other issues with this movie — it's so long, adds unneeded backstory, switches the amazing Beast song from the Broadway adaptation ("I Can't Love Her") in favor of the boring "Evermore," the underwhelming "exclusively gay moment" — but our biggest problem is Belle.

"Aladdin," released in 2019, also made $1 billion around the world. In this case, we have no qualms with Mena Massoud or Naomi Scott, who play Aladdin and Jasmine wonderfully.

Who we can't whole-heartedly support is Will Smith, who plays the Genie. Simply put, no one is competing with Robin Williams' iconic performance in the 1992 original. It's a tour-de-force, one of the best voiceover performances ever.

Smith was never going to be able to compete, and the off-putting design of his character and his rap-singing did him no favors.

Also, this movie was, for some reason, directed by Guy Ritchie. Ritchie is known for his action films, and he tried to inject as much action as he could into "Aladdin." But we'd argue this movie doesn't need it! It's a fairy tale about a street urchin falling in love with a princess!

Halle Bailey was a perfect choice for Ariel. She has an amazing voice, plays the physical comedy of voiceless Ariel well, and has great chemistry with Jonah Hauer-King, who plays Prince Eric. Melissa McCarthy also turns in a solid performance as Ursula.

What prevents this movie from being truly fun to watch is all the underwater stuff. Everything looks so fake and lifeless. The colors aren't bright enough, and we've once again run into the "Lion King"/"Lady and the Tramp" problem: Flounder, Sebastian, and Scuttle can't show any emotions on their faces. That's a shame when compared with the 1989 original, where Sebastian, especially, is hilarious in his exasperation and anxiety.

Plus, the new songs are so obviously written by Lin-Manuel Miranda (see "The Scuttlebutt") that they don't mesh well with Howard Ashman's originals.

"Mulan" is the live-action remake that was released during the COVID-19 pandemic, so we'll never know how it would have fared at the box office.

But we're betting it would have done well. "Mulan" is a true action movie, which fits well with the subject matter, as Mulan secretly takes her father's place in the Chinese army.

The 1998 original film has some of the best Disney songs ("Reflection," "I'll Make a Man Out of You," "Honor to Us All"), but the remake wisely removes them, as the tonal shift from hilarious songs to gritty action would be too jarring. Instead, the songs are subtly worked into the score.

We also like the addition of Xianniang, a witch who identifies with Mulan's feelings that she doesn't belong. Mulan has no female friends at all in the original, and while these two aren't friends, there's a kinship and respect between the two.

While a prequel establishing why Cruella de Vil hates Dalmatians so much doesn't sound fun, we'd recommend watching "Cruella," since it's bolstered by the lead performances of Emma Stone and Emma Thompson.

First of all, she actually doesn't hate Dalmatians — she kind of likes them. Does that make sense with the character's future? Not really, but it is fun to watch Stone commit so deeply to the 1970s English punk scene.

Her on-screen nemesis, Baroness von Hellman, as played by Emma Thompson, is a campy delight.

Stone's performance earned her a Golden Globe nomination, and a sequel is in the works. We're excited.

Jon Favreau directed both 2016's "The Jungle Book" and 2019's "The Lion King," but seemingly learned the wrong lessons from "The Jungle Book," which is a delight.

Mowgli, the lone human character in the film, gives viewers a face to center them as he explores a jungle filled with familiar voices, such as Bill Murray as Baloo, Ben Kingsley as Bagheera, Lupita Nyong'o as Raksha, Scarlett Johansson as Kaa, Christopher Walken as King Louie, and Idris Elba as Shere Khan.

The remake added beautiful effects and exciting action. And — spoiler alert — it also changed the ending so Mowgli could remain in the jungle with his friends.

Maybe we're cheating a little bit since 2018's "Christopher Robin" isn't a specific remake of any "Winnie the Pooh" film but instead, a semi-sequel that brings Pooh and friends out of the Hundred Acre Wood into the real world, but this movie is too good to leave out.

In it, Ewan McGregor plays a grown-up Christopher Robin who has left his friends Pooh, Tigger, Eeyore, Piglet, Rabbit, Kanga, Roo, and Owl behind. By chance, he reunites with them and is reminded of the important things in life.

It is always a joy to hang out with Winnie the Pooh, and a disillusioned adult returning to their fun-loving ways is a story Disney does so well, like in "Mary Poppins."

Additionally, the score for this movie rocks. It's so perfectly paired with the film.

Maybe this is because we just don't think the original "Cinderella" from 1950 is that good. Yes, "Bibbidi-Bobbidi Boo" is a banger, and the animation of Cinderella's dress turning from a ripped-up rag to a shimmering princess-worthy ball gown is beautiful, but that's really it.

The prince is barely a character, the other songs aren't that memorable, and Cinderella herself has little personality besides being sweet.

The 2015 "Cinderella" rectifies all that. Ella, as played by Lily James, is kind, funny, and has a very strong sense of right and wrong, while Prince Kit, played by a very blue-eyed Richard Madden, gets an arc and a loving relationship with his dad.

The famous blue ball gown is also one of the rare pieces of Disney iconography that looks just as beautiful in real life. We must also mention Cate Blanchett as a fully committed Lady Tremaine and Helena Bonham Carter as the dotty Fairy Godmother.

We'd go as far as to say that "Cinderella," at least for now, is the only true Disney remake worth your time.