The Behind the Seeds Tour at Epcot's Land Pavilion costs $39 to $45 per person (depending on the day), plus tax.

That makes it the cheapest tour at Disney World, tied with Caring for Giants (which lets you see elephants at Animal Kingdom up close-ish).

That price point is a steal at Disney. Other tours cost considerably more:

• The Segway tour of Fort Wilderness costs $90 to $99 per person.
• Keys to the Kingdom, which takes you backstage at Magic Kingdom, starts at $149 a person.
• The SCUBA diving tour of Epcot's Seas Pavilion costs $229 or more.

And don't get me started on VIP Disney Tours, which cost between $450 and $900 per hour, with a minimum of seven hours required.

For those without a calculator, that's over $3,000 for seven hours — and that doesn't include park tickets or guide tip. (And yes, the 20% tipping rule is fairly standard for tours.)

Living With the Land is one of Disney World's most underrated attractions. The slow-moving boat ride takes you through a tour of Epcot's innovative greenhouses, which use unique growing methods as a test case for how we can more efficiently grow food to feed the world.

The Behind the Seeds Tour builds on that experience: You actually get to walk through those greenhouses with an expert tour guide, who lets you look at the plants, fruit, vegetables, and fish up close.

We got to peek into the aquaponic tanks, come face-to-face with massive gourds, and walk through the Living With the Land ride's famous "salad spinners" and conveyor belt-esque hydroponics system that grows plants without any soil.

Our guide was full of fun facts and able to answer all our wildest questions about why they grow tomatoes vertically or how they use parasitoid wasps to manage pests like leaf miners.

They shared some incredible facts with us, like how saffron is harvested (and why it's so dang expensive) and how we can reduce water usage when growing produce with specific techniques.

But by far the most impactful thing I learned is that it can take 1 pound of feed to yield 1 pound of fish, while it takes up to 8 pounds of feed to yield 1 pound of beef.

That can make fish significantly more environmentally friendly to farm than cattle. Although we still eat beef, my husband and I have specifically made sure we eat fish at least twice a week now, when we'd otherwise eat red meat.

The Behind the Seeds Tour wasn't all facts and figures. We also got to sample produce harvested that morning — and it was the freshest, tastiest cucumber I've ever had.

Though we weren't allowed to physically touch any of the plants and trees growing in the greenhouses (for their safety), our guide made one exception: Stanley, the most sensitive plant at Epcot.

Stanley is a Mimosa pudica, a plant that can close its leaves when you touch it, as a defense mechanism.

Each member in the group got to "pet" Stanley and watch his leaves close up quickly in response — it was a cool experience that made me feel more connected to the living world around me.

The Behind the Seeds Tour only lasts an hour, which means there's plenty of time to enjoy Epcot for the rest of your day, whether you want to ride the Guardians of the Galaxy coaster or down a couple of margaritas in the Mexico pavilion.

But in my experience, it will be the best hour you spend in the park. It may even be the highlight of your whole trip. And at $39, I also found it to be well worth the cost.

Although I may not be ready (or able) to fork over thousands for a VIP Tour, this positive experience motivated me to try others, like the Wild Africa Trek, during my next trip.

Taking Lightning McQueen (voiced by Owen Wilson) and Mater (Larry the Cable Guy) away from Radiator Springs and going international (plus making Mater a spy) didn't grab critics. This sequel became the first "rotten" Pixar movie on Rotten Tomatoes. Deservedly.

In the second movie ever released by Pixar, an ant named Flik (voiced by Dave Foley) sets out to find others to help save his colony against grasshoppers and ends up recruiting a unique group of allies.

Though the movie was successful at the box office, with the release of DreamWorks' "Antz" a month earlier, you're more likely to remember the Lasseter-Katzenberg feud than the films. 

Though the "Cars" movies are the least acclaimed of anything Pixar makes, the company continues to churn them out. "Cars 3" touches on some interesting themes like mortality and self-confidence, but it feels like everyone involved in the making of it was on cruise control.

Perhaps one of the more serious stories in the Pixar inventory, this coming-of-age tale about an Apatosaurus and his human friend Spot trying to return home didn't catch on nearly as much as Pixar's other release in 2015, "Inside Out."

Burnout may have been at play here, but mostly Pixar challenged its core audience with a darker story than they were used to.

With perhaps a little too much old-school Disney gloss, the movie nevertheless featured a princess who's one of the most strong-willed we've seen in an animated feature. But it just didn't work as well as Pixar titles before or since.

In this touching story that centers a family story in the fantasy world, we follow two elf brothers as they set out on a magical quest to bring their father back from the dead.

Like all Pixar movies, there's a lot of self discovery in this one that is hit or miss throughout.

"Lightyear" is the movie that Andy from "Toy Story" is obsessed over and what leads to him getting the Buzz Lightyear toy.

Wish we could say we were as obsessed over the movie as he was.

It's fun, and Chris Evans is great voicing the "real" Buzz. But it just misses that quality that makes the great Pixar movies so special.

Still, the action sequences are exciting and the theme music from composer Michael Giacchino is a standout.

The final Pixar movie that the company produced independently before being bought by Disney, "Cars" — a look at a hotshot racing car that finds humility and true friends in a dusty country town — was one of those for-the-whole-family, feel-good stories that was light on the clichés.

In the prequel to the popular "Monsters, Inc.," Pixar does impressive work to make the backstory of how Mike (Billy Crystal) and Sully (John Goodman) met as fun and original as the classic first film.

Setting the story in the college life of monsters opens the door to easy traps, but the movie mostly steers clear and has a strong ending.

In Pete Docter and Kemp Power's latest directing effort for Pixar, the two take us into the world of a struggling musician, who dies on the day of his big break.

On the verge of going to the great beyond, or an alternate universe for souls, he tries to get back into his own body.

Jamie Foxx is great voicing the main character, Joe. Tina Fey, as the difficult spirit 22, can get annoying at times, but that's likely the point of her bratty character who doesn't want to live on Earth.

The real hit of this movie, however, is the amazing digital animation that makes New York City pop.

Pixar has created its first ever rom-com with this touching story set around a girl made of fire and a boy made of water.

Directed by Peter Sohn ("The Good Dinosaur"), the movie has lots of layers like immigration, different cultures, tolerance, and family, as the movie sets around a family made of fire that has to try to live in a city that doesn't accommodate them. 

But at its core, the movie is a lighthearted look at young love. This is one that's going to make you feel good when you leave the theater.

This story of love and loss will pull at your heartstrings, as the titular young boy struggles with the loss of both his parents and must adapt to being under the care of his aunt, an Air Force major with ambitions of her own. Elio's wish to be understood is granted in the form of an extraterrestrial connection, though that, too, turns sideways when he must lead an intergalactic dispute.

Like every Pixar movie, "Elio" is fueled by a emotion. You'll want to hug your loved ones tightly after it's over.

After gaining an Oscar for her beloved short film "Bao," director Domee Shi delivers a moving look at what it's like to be a teenage girl in her directorial debut.

Following 13-year-old Meilin as she navigates being a teen and her overbearing mother, she also comes to learn that thanks to a family curse whenever she gets excited she turns into a giant red panda.

This one is definitely a mother-daughter watch.

Nine years after the Oscar-winning original, we're back inside the mind of Riley. Now 13, she's got a lot more swirling in her head besides "Joy," "Anger," "Sadness," "Fear," and "Disgust."

With puberty hitting, there's now "Envy," "Boredom," "Embarrassment," and "Anxiety."

Like the first movie, the sequel cleverly examines how emotions fuel our everyday lives, especially in our youth. Here, the main focus is Riley trying to fit in at hockey skills camp, which leads to a lot of anxiety and repressing her key emotions.

Though the middle of the movie gets a bit stale as Joy tries to race back before Anxiety goes too far, it gets points for having one of the better endings in the Pixar filmography.

Marking the first time Pixar based a movie around a holiday, director Lee Unkirch ("Toy Story 3") gives us a powerful story about family and never forgetting your past all set around Dia de los Muertos. Make sure to bring the tissues for this one.

Director Enrico Casarosa delivers a beautiful look at friendship and Italian culture with this movie that follows two boys who are sea creatures but long to explore above the surface. 

Looking like regular boys when they are out of the water, they embark on a journey through the small fishing town near where they live.

It results in an adventure that speaks to expanding your horizons and never being scared of change.

The first directing effort by Pete Doctor ("Up," "Inside Out"), "Monsters, Inc.," the story of how monsters use the screams of children to power their world, was a genius idea that was elevated by the performances of Crystal and Goodman as the leads. With laughs and a heartwarming story, the movie showed that Pixar had more up its sleeve than the "Toy Story" movies.

14 years after the hit original, director Brad Bird finally returns to continue the story of the superhero Parr family. Starting up right where we left off at the end of the first movie, the sequel has all the fun and thrills of the original while still cleverly keeping those family strife undertones that ground the story. (You have to have something for the parents to relate to.)

The highest-grossing animated movie of 2016, the sequel to "Finding Nemo" did not disappoint with audiences as we follow Dory (Ellen DeGeneres) on her journey to find her parents. With many characters from the original returning and some great new ones, Pixar proved the 13-year gap from when the original opened didn't affect their storytelling or our love for this world.

Pixar's Oscar-winner for best animated feature touches on all the things that have made its movies so beloved. The original story of a young girl growing up told through personified emotions, and the journey to finding one's true self, could've been corny. But Pixar's execution was flawless.

The second "Toy Story" puts Woody (Tom Hanks) in the clutches of a toy seller who's ready to ship the antique cowboy off for some major coin. Buzz (Tim Allen) and the rest of the toys have to figure out how to save him. Like the first time, the movie has some great drama and thrills that proved a lot more could be told about these plastic toys.

"Up" is a perfect example of the adult topics Pixar began to take on once it was on steady ground in Hollywood. Focusing on love and the inability to let go, the story of an elderly man's journey to a far-off land on his floating house after his wife dies is equally heartbreaking and life-affirming — a triumph that led to it getting a best-picture Oscar nomination.

Though many thought the third "Toy Story" was a beautiful close to the franchise that launched Pixar into a giant in the animation world, "Toy Story 4" doesn't do a bad job in trying to match up to its predecessor. Though it doesn't pull the emotional strings as dramatically as "3," it is definitely a worthy addition thanks to new characters like Forky and Duke Caboom, as well as a strong storyline for Bo Peep. 

Hailed by critics when it came out, and nominated for a best picture Oscar, the third "Toy Story" is the franchise's most emotionally charged to date. Woody, Buzz, and the gang find themselves mistakenly delivered to a day-care center, where they encounter some interesting new toys. 

Playing on the big Hollywood secret agent/superhero movies, Pixar's curveball turned off some who didn't want it meddling in the genre. But the story of a superhero past his prime and realizing he's even more powerful when his family is by his side indicated the emotional depths Pixar wanted to explore.

This touching examination of the sanctity of art and how it can be commercialized into watered-down muck — cleverly using the setting of a restaurant kitchen — is one of the most emotionally fulfilling movies ever made, Pixar or otherwise.

From the sarcastic comedy of Albert Brooks opposite the sweetly naive tone of Ellen DeGeneres, to the attention to detail in the gorgeous CGI-rendered underwater world, "Finding Nemo" provided a lot for everyone to love. And the giant box-office numbers speak for themselves.

The movie that started it all. Lasseter directed it and pretty much put all the company's chips into one basket. "Toy Story" elevated what kinds of stories animated movies could tell. And its computer-generated animation was the nail in the coffin for Disney's traditional hand-drawn work.

Director Andrew Stanton ("Finding Nemo," "WALL-E") gives us a remarkable story that celebrates old cinema (the silent movie, the musical) while delivering a message about the need to protect the planet (and our health) as flashy technology takes over.

Pixar is known for making us care about fictional creatures and objects, but with "WALL-E," that connection to the characters — the sense that they're living beings — is so intertwined with our experience of watching that you have to remind yourself it's just a story.

And that's the best kind of storytelling.

"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.