Despite having been born in the 80’s, I did not watch many of the Disney classics way until I was older than their intended target audience. As an example, I saw films like León: The Professional, The Silence of the Lambs, or Pulp Fiction before I saw Peter Pan, Bambi, or Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. Although the cinephile within me got an early wake-up call, I had no idea what the other kids in the playground were talking about when they discussed anything released by the House of the Mouse.

I did not see Hercules until a couple of years ago. I was not traumatised by the death of Bambi’s mother, as I already knew what happened before we got familiarised with the concept of a spoiler. I saw Road to Perdition at the cinema instead of Lilo & Stitch. I was not afraid of Claude Frollo… but of meeting Kevin Spacey’s character from Se7en in a dark alley. Frankly, I would also be a bit scared to encounter the real Spacey anywhere, let alone in any type of dimly lit, deserted street.

But, before any reader with quick arms and too much time on their hands to be offended by everything and anything starts to scream, I did see Dumbo, 101 Dalmatians, Cinderella, and others like The Lion King, The Hunchback of Notre Dame or Toy Story when they were released. The fact that I was a bit -quite a bit- behind on Disney’s back catalogue, meant something more than not having a topic of conversation with my classmates at school, as, occasionally I discovered the original film once its sequel had been released, generally Direct-to-Video, or the -then- shiny DVD format.

Oh, the days before the internet!

With the exception of Toy Story 2, most of the sequels to films like Aladdin, Pocahontas, Tarzan, or the aforementioned The Lion King, failed to match the quality of the originals. However, if, by any chance, a child with little-to-no-knowledge of why someone like Belle is hanging out with house appliances that talk, and a huge, hairy animal with the manners of an English gentleman, watches Belle’s Tales of Friendship, at the very least, he or she could go on to the local Blockbuster and rent Beauty and the Beast.

These sequels were obviously designed to continue telling the stories of legendary characters cash-in, attract and entertain younger audiences, but it is difficult to be mad with these kinds of films, as they are generally unambitious and completely self-aware efforts that are as harmless as a snail with a pair of nunchucks. As I see it, the legacy of each and every single one of the original films was still untouched, as no matter how bad a sequel, or a remake is, the original will always remain what it is, a classic.

In the recent years, as we all know, Disney has been hell-bent on remaking its own films -using real actors instead of animation-, which I think has to be way easier than coming up with a script for a sequel… just make a copy of the already existing script and use a sharpie to put a note on the cover that reads “SAME BUT WITH REAL PEOPLE, NOT CARTOONS!! 😉“. Whether they are better or worse, more or less faithful, and/or successful, we have seen live-action adaptations of 101 Dalmatians, Alice in Wonderland, Beauty and the Beast, Cinderella, The Jungle Book, The Lion King, Dumbo, Aladdin, or Cruella... and that is not all, as -with or without the supervision of Mr. Mickey Mouse-, in the coming years we will see new versions of The Little Mermaid, Hercules, and of Snow White – even though the audience is starting to grow tired of this trend, as it has been made evident, considering how their latest remake, this time of poor, innocent Pinocchio has premiered straight away in Disney+ (i.e., the modern equivalent of a DVD).

With a plot which follows that of the 1940’s version, Pinocchio follows the story of a man (played by Tom Hanks, who tries to save himself, considering he has to work with a script that uses him mostly to monologue as an exposition machine) who singlehandedly creates a puppet he is able to move around at his will, until it develops a life of his own, becomes a miracle, and Hanks’ character finds himself unable to control it. So, kind of like Baz Luhrmann’s Elvis… but with Jiminy Cricket (voiced by Joseph Gordon-Levitt) and songs like When You Wish Upon a Star, instead of with Priscilla Presley and Suspicious Minds.

Directed by Robert Zemeckis, it would be hard to fault this film on a visual level, as Pinocchio looks faithful to the original and ridiculously cute -more adorable than Steven Seagal with two low ponytails… entertain that thought for a minute, would you?-. Everything in Gepetto’s shop looks whimsically well made (although I loathed the self-referential clocks showing other Disney properties like Toy Story, or even Zemeckis’ own Roger Rabbit), and also the design of all animals, creatures, and different locations are done by capable people, familiar with the film released 82 years ago. But, if I remember correctly, neither of the recent live-action adaptations have been hideous to look at (maybe, or maybe not with the exception of Mulan, which I cannot bring myself to watch), and, as in with those other films, the question remains the same: “What is the point?”.

There are not many new and relevant changes in Zemeckis’ take on the story, and the changes that have been made are only for the worse.

Take this couple of scenes as example: in one, the easily impressionable and wide-eyed Pinocchio, still unfamiliar with the world, accidentally drops an apple near a meadow muffin, and we can see how the special effects shine, as both Pinocchio and the cowplop look so real that the diminutive relative of Woody Harrelson would have fainted, had the Blue Fairy (Cynthia Erivo) given him some functioning nostrils. A mistake on her part, an advantage for the child made out of leftover parts from a broken bookcase in that moment. The other scene that differs a bit from the original (though, not absent on that film), is when Pinocchio encounters Honest John (voiced by Keegan-Michael Key), and the latter pretty much lists the advantages of the life of an influencer, imitating he has a phone in his hand, erm, paw, and even suggests changing the boy’s -woody puppet’s?- name to Chris Pine. Yes, that happens, and I wish I could mention more changes, but my brain has filled the gaps with images of some trees, and of the animated film… which if you have seen, you know how this film is going to go. So, then again, “What is the point?”.

Perhaps, the point is that there is no point. Nobody is forcing anybody to watch Zemeckis’ Pinocchio. It has already been dumped with not a lot of funfare in Disney+, where it will be forgotten in the not too distant future, and where it has met its fiercest competitor: Disney’s own classic Pinocchio, the animated film, you know the one without real people, the company’s second ever feature film, the one that helped the company be where they are at now; the one that will not be forgotten, the one that has a heart.

However, to end up on a more positive note, one good thing that could be said of this film (which has more nightmare-inducing material than another film I saw on the same day, David Cronenberg’s Crimes of the Future, and in this one there are organs being removed and autopsies being performed in front of a live audience), and that is that seeing how Zemeckis’ Pinocchio is almost afraid to differ from the story we know, it increases my enthusiasm to see Guillermo Del Toro’s take on the character, which will premiere later this year in Netflix – especially keeping in mind the last time I mentioned the names of Zemeckis and Del Toro in the same article.