With all the hype that's going around with Disney's live-action Little Mermaid, starring Halle Bailey as Ariel and co-produced by Lin-Manuel Miranda, it seems only fair to give an unbiased review. Usually, I tend to be fair with these things by including the pros and cons, jumping into what works, what doesn't, or what could be improved.

I have a lot to say about the new changes.

After watching the live-action Little Mermaid the first thought that came to mind was...

The movie's good, but it's not that good.

It could be better.

Now I'd like to jump into the strength of the film first.

To begin with, the film does a great job of setting up the environment and the overall sea-faring landscape. It opens, visually, very similar to the way the 1989 animated version does: on choppy waves, splashing back and forth over most of the screen. However, this didn't bother me at all. Because, unlike the animated version, the 2023 version had no gull cries, no cheerful piped opening tune, no dolphins gleefully jumping over the waves, only silence and the crashing of the waves. I love the use of the opening quote from Hans Christian Anderson

To me, this is a good choice that takes the film into a unique world, one where the ocean simply is and doesn't adhere to the world of men. Not only does the use of the crashing waves serve as the perfect backdrop for the quotation, but it also reminds those who are about to watch the film that this isn't going to be exactly the film viewers saw in 1989 – so you don’t know what to expect exactly, which felt incredibly reassuring. This was particularly the case with the Coral Moon meeting Ariel was supposed to attend with her sisters and Eric's introduction. Often, with live-action Disney remakes there's a copy and paste formula, with the source material obviously drawing from Disney's original cartoon version which leaves the plot predictable.

However, the nod to Hans Christian Anderson doesn’t necessarily have much relevance to the current film – there is no reference to Ariel’s inability to cry or feel. Ariel is not without the ability to cry in the live-action version– but she is unable to speak, and that silencing was happening even before she gave her voice to Ursula. The Ariel we see in the movie has been silenced by her own father, again and again, when she has tried to convince him to leave behind prejudices and fears that she knows to be wrong--a plot point which I will examine later. This film has the potential to set the tone by going back to the original fairy tale and finding some more of that depth, but I'm not quite sure it's there yet. I would go so far as to suggest that they could've afforded to draw more from the older, much darker fairy tale of Hans Christian Anderson. Now, granted this is a kid's film and they're not going to draw everything from the original tale (i.e. the little mermaid's tongue cut out by the sea witch, or her feet bleeding every time she walks--like "treading on sharp knives"). Anderson's tales notably have the protagonist enduring torture and promotes what many perceive as a cult of suffering, death, and transcendence for children rivaled only by what passed for the spiritual edification of children in Puritan cultures. Rather, I suggest that the filmmakers really take advantage of the original tale by incorporating key references such as the coming of age ceremony (when a mermaid turns fifteen, she is permitted to swim to the surface for the first time to catch a glimpse of the above world) and the grandmother figure.

In this version, Ariel is the youngest, most rebellious, daughter of King Triton and is fascinated with the human world despite never having seen it, as Triton forbade all merfolk from going to the surface. It's not quite clear his reasons for banning contact with humans-either because they devastated the underwater environment (i.e. wreckage from shipwrecks, harming marine wildlife-a visible nod to James Cameron's Avatar: The Way of Water and its theme of deep ecology) or because Ariel's mother was killed by a human, which isn't revealed until later. This is a very linear plot, almost easy to read and follow. And because it's easy to follow, it runs the risk of getting a tad boring to viewers and ruining the element of surprise. I was fairly confident all along that Triton's grudge against humans was because "they killed your (Ariel's) mother".

So, when the "reveal" scene came between Ariel and Triton in the cave, I wasn't surprised at all.

Overall, the story hasn't changed much. Next, I’d like to shift gears into characterization. Let's discuss a few in particular:

Ariel: Hands down, Halle Bailey's performance as Ariel is amazing.

Period.

She is more than a fit. I had no problems with her performance.

What is disappointing though, is that when Bailey's casting was announced last year, she received a torrent of abuse online, slamming her and Disney for recasting Ariel as a Black mermaid. No different from the racist backlash, that Ismael Cruz Cordova experienced when playing an Elven archer on Rings of Power. And because of this backlash, it ruins all chance of assessing the actress's performance based on merit and talent alone, rather than a pigment in your skin. It's a sad reminder of how racism can pervade the arts.

Bailey's casting is one of the few instances in which this new movie actually demonstrates some fresh thinking and a new angle. She's playing a teenager, but a teenager in an otherworldly/fairy creature-like body so she's notably going to have elfin or pixie features. Her singing voice is as lovely as the role demands, and she keeps you fully absorbed in Ariel's journey. She's free-spirited and not quite the damsel in distress. I can tell the filmmakers want her curiosity and independence to be an internal conflict for Ariel, and yet even more of Ariel's fascination with the human world could take this even further. During the sequence, where she's scolded by Triton and singing her iconic song "Part of That World" (brilliantly performed by the way!), I couldn't help but wonder, why exactly is Ariel fascinated with the human world? What is she wants to know specifically? The camera angles on her collected artifacts from shipwrecks as she peers at maps and skims through books. Does she want to learn a particular thing like healing? Perhaps there's some knowledge she seeks that is otherwise denied in the world of merfolk. It's specific wants and needs that will add more depth to her character. One thing that could've made Ariel more compelling would've been for her to have a maternal/mother-like figure and for the film to really entertain the possibility of incorporating the grandmother from the original tale to help guide her. There is something to this effect with Ursula, when she manipulates Ariel into considering her deal, suggesting that they both have told what to do by Triton and being subjugated by him

Ariel certainly has no problem telling Ursula off by saying "I don't need your help!". Instead of having Ariel forbidden from visiting the ocean's surface and told that humans are dangerous, what if the grandmother figure teaches her about the world of humans, telling her all she knows about ships and towns, people and animals? Not only that, but it would also reinforce the themes of Hans Christian Anderson (why a mermaid has no tears or hasn't got an immortal soul). This is just an idea to play around with, but it would make Ariel's goals and motivations clear as well as give her more conflict, leaving viewers a little more invested. Ariel certainly has a bit of wonderlust, just like Ariel, and it's a classic clinche similar to Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz, she wants out of her widowed father’s underwater kingdom and into a new, uncharted territory. If not the grandmother figure, then Sebastian could've perked up the question, "why do you want to go up there? Don't you like it down here, where you can swim like a fish?"

Something to this effect is done in the iconic song "Under the Sea" but doesn't quite hit the mark.

Eric: I haven't really been a fan of Disney princes,

But...

Jonah Hauer-King toggles between dashing and drippy as the hunky prince Eric. It's clear he's more of leader among men and immerses around the common folk. In this version, he's more of a real, vivid character. He's selfless, eager, and curious to learn more about the world, a commonality he shares with Ariel when they go pouring over old maps. This is also a coming of age story for him as well and of him understanding what it means to be a ruler. By himself, he has goals and motivations of his own. He wants to explore other lands. One of the first thoughts that came to mind with Eric, was the merchant adventurers surrounding Queen Elizabeth I's court-swashbuckling English pirates like Drake and Raleigh who had everything to do with England's advancement. Another thought, after having read The Fall of Numenor, was the tale of Aldarion and Erendis (the mariner's wife). Aldarion loves above all else, the sea and he pursues more sea voyages, against the wishes of his father, by founding the Guild of Venturers. Likewise, Eric wants to pursues sea voyages, against the wishes of his mother/stepmother, not only because of a sense of wanderlust but also so that his kingdom won't fall behind and hold onto old prejudices and fears of others.

This internal conflict of Eric's-of wanting to go out in pursuit of adventure-makes him all the more likeable. Relatability is the key to Ariel's and Eric's relationship. Both of them are saviors with Eric having saved his dog, Max, and Ariel in turn helping Max swim to safety and saving Eric from drowning. Personally, though, I would've replaced the dog with a crewmen, because it leaves viewers with a bit more of a punch--showing that he does care about his fellow men. The new stand-alone song, “Wild Uncharted Waters” gave Eric the much-needed character development he so desperately deserved.

Triton: Javier Bardem is a great actor. I can't quite put my finger on it, but there's something about Bardem being cast as Triton that feels just right. It was incredibly reassuring to not have the same, massive, well-muscular, white-bearded 1989 version that viewers are so familiar with. Although, still the same solemnly bearded ruler of Atlantis, saddled with some of the movie's not so great looking CGI, the costume does bear some resemblance to DC's Aquaman. Bardem keeps viewers absorbed in the intimidating presence of Triton by doing all the the king’s lamenting in Spanish-inflected English, however, his performance was crippled by the predictable dialogue from the 1989 version. His lines haven't changed much. He still uses the same lines, in conversation with Sebastian "Why, if Ariel was my daughter, I'd show her who was boss - I'd keep her under tight control" "You're absolutely right, Sebastian - Ariel needs constant supervision - to keep her out of trouble - And YOU are just the crab to do it" all while using his gargantuan thumb or fist to catch hold off Sebastian. Too often, I found myself wanting to grab hold of the hand, put it down, and say "stop!". One moment, viewers are in unfamiliar territory and then the next, we're back to the 1989 version of The Little Mermaid. It was hard for me to watch the film with a fresh take without hearing the 1989 movie play out in my head. This is a similar experience I often have with book-to-film adaptations, but in this case it makes the viewing very disruptive. I cannot stress this enough, Disney needs to learn to differentiate between the original animated version and the "allegedly new" live-action version. This will not only make the store more compelling and progress smoothly, but it will also make the viewer feel like they are charting unfamiliar waters. The film still does not create a distance between the animated version and the live-action, but rather parrots off of the same lines on a million-dollar franchise with new faces which is not something Disney should do.

Ursula: Melissa McCarthy puts a wickedly mischievous spin on Ursula. She seductively lures Ariel into plot when she first appears to the mermaid, taking on a motherly tone, "poor child". The sequence, "Poor Unfortunate Souls" had a unique spin all on its own, with the use of the setting where instead of a garden of transformed eel-like mermaids, the entrance to her cave is the skeletal remains of an unknown water creature, littered with the skulls of merfolk, almost in a similar manner to Hans Christian Anderson's original tale and Ursula's octopus-like qualities-drawing her body slowly along the walls like a noiseless patient spider, giving it that perfect freaky-teaky vipe. It could've been a little better. Ursula's role, like Triton, was crippled by the same familiar lines from the classic. A couple of very specific minor comments on the dialogue between her and Ariel, though, to make it even stronger.

"I will make you make a potion that will turn you into a human for three days. Got that? Three days? Now, listen, this is important. Before the sun sets on the third day, you've got to get dear old princey to fall in love with you. That is, he's got to kiss you. Not just any kiss. The kiss of true love": This is a dialogue that unfortunately I am all too familiar with, and it seems like a bit of parroting off from the original and interrupts the flow of the plot a tiny bit, so I would consider revising it to something that carries with it a bit more suspense and a smoother cadence. For example, "Yes, I can make a potion that'll turn you into a human. However you've only three days, dearie. Got that? Three days? And...since you've fallen in love with a prince, you've got to prove that you were made for each other. That is, he's got to kiss you. Not just any kiss, you understand. The kiss of true love. You can't get something for nothing, you know?"

Additionally, I don't feel like the potion-transformation has quite an impact. I feel that Ursula needs more scary - though still sensational - moments; she simply fades into the background a bit. It's scary. Even in the classic cartoon, when she summons "the winds of the Caspian Sea" and steals Ariel's voice with these long, gangly arms with her eyes enlarged, so I think I just wanted something with a little more "umph" for our sea witch gal. Although, I agree with NPR writer Justin Chang in his review, "Is it see-worthy? The new 'Little Mermaid' is not that bad ... but also not that good", "too often, though, she goes for easy laughs at the expense of real menace". Indeed, McCarthy's Ursula seems like she's having a fine time rather than Triton's banished, embittered sister. A couple of examples, where when she irons out the deal with Ariel ("I just gave you the premium package, kid...") and when Ariel transforms into a human and tries to swim up to the surface, while Ursula laughs, "look at her little sea legs!"

It made her less threatening.

It's pretty well known at this point, that Ursula was heavily inspired by the iconic drag queen, Divine – according to the 1989 film's composer, Alan Menken. However, the performance and makeup of Ursula has also received considerable backlash, notably from stars of Ru Paul's Drag Race, with one alum, Denali, adding that “[This is] absolutely why we should hire up-and-coming queer artists with a pulse on the present and a vision for the future more often”. Not that it's necessarily any fault on behalf of the makeup artist or Melissa McCarthy, who has done her research and spoken about how drag influenced her performance, but a part of me agrees with Denali. I can't help but feel that a queer or non binary actor should've played Ursula. Ursula is definitely a drag queen. If Alan Menken has come forward and admitted that the character was inspired by drag, and if it's in the public domain's knowledge, then it's probably safe to assume that Ursula is a drag queen or at least a character whose identity does not correspond with the norms.

As I said before, the film did a wonderful job of setting up many of the intricacies of the setting as a whole. They changed the setting of the story. Disney all but confirmed years later, that the movie is set in the Mediterranean (judging by Eric's castle and the human landscape itself). In the remake, Eric's castle is an island heavily implied to be on the Caribbean sea. Eric, who is notably white, is adopted by his mother, the Queen Selina (Noma Dumezweni) who is super alive in this, and she is black. That being said, and through no fault of the actress herself, this character was unnecessary and did nothing whatsoever to advance the plot. This relationship seemed a little bit artificial and forced and did not seem authentic given the strength of Eric's character development. Selina reveals background information on the humans and their relationship with the "sea gods/creatures" but it doesn't function very smoothly. It seems more like a briefing of information to the viewer and is never touched upon any further. It would transition smoother if Eric had both a mother and a father. That way, it'll give Eric more of a push and pull conflict. Maybe the father could stress the importance of running a kingdom, while the mother wants him to be happy and initially distrusts Ariel but then with the arrival of Vanessa, sees that he was happier when he was spending time with her.

I also didn't understand why Eric was adopted to begin with. And yes, because inquiring minds will want to know, I wondered if maybe the film's diversified-perhaps politically correct-agenda hinders the film rather that allows it to progress smoothly. To clarify, I'm not necessarily saying that's a bad thing in and of itself. On that contrary, as I have said before, the choice of casting Halle Bailey (a black actress) is one of the few instances in which this new movie actually demonstrates some fresh thinking. But what is the aim of the angle exactly, other than sprinkling in a bit of diversity?

This is important, culturally reparative work from a corporation that, lately, has found itself at war with the governor of Florida and his all-out war on "woke culture", where Disney World lives. This film, much like Bridgerton, offers a somewhat tricky handling of race, one where a colorblind view of society prevails. But it doesn't quite stick to this concept, and that inconsistency has clearly complicated interpretations of the film. The film features a mixed cast. Ariel's mermaid siblings are a multiethnic assembly that unfortunately is only shown through at least two scenes (I was uncertain as to whether they had the same mother or were from different parts of the ocean) and the island population is super diverse. They have a tropical climate with palm trees. And instead of waltzing when they visit the kingdom, Ariel and Eric dance to Caribbean music. When Eric shows maps to Ariel, he cites the names of South America countries, like Venezuela and Colombia, implying that the kingdom is closer to those countries than it is to Europe. He even cites Brazil, which supposedly dates the movie anywhere between 1822 and 1889. This was a nice, engaging touch that probably could've attracted even the most jaded viewers who love history! But again, viewers can't know for certain. It felt more like the character Jasmine from the live-action Aladdin film, where yeah, she's strong and tries to find the courage to speak out for her people and wants to know what goes on in her kingdom and reconcile the distance that has been created. However, this goal does not fully hit its mark as this idea is only touched upon briefly.

Additionally, I cannot help but wonder, since it's probably set in a period that seems like the 19th century, the diverse population of the island, the talk of ships and empire, Brazil and Cartagena, about the cargo on those boats. I understand, that in such a universe, where society has a genuinely colorblind structure, and most of the men and women start out on more or less equal footing, regardless of their skin tone and with color-conscious casting in mind, actors get to exist as a Black person in the world, focusing on Black joy and humanity, not on trauma. But this plot, according to the New York Times, gets tricky with a Black Ariel. When Ursula pulls a fast one and reinvents herself as Vanessa, a sexy rival who appears to be white and woos Eric with a siren song in Ariel’s voice, there’s a whole history of theft and music to overthink, too.

As noble as the film's diversified casts looks, Disney's live action Little Mermaid arguably never develops most of these ideas. It's a nice, novel idea that should be encouraged, but if Disney chooses to have the film going in this direction, its rendering needs to leave a mark on viewers. I would strongly encourage expanding these ideas to leave viewers with a bit more of a punch - there is a great command of fresh thinking, so bring that into play here! There was even talk of drawing from Black Mermaids of myth and folklore such as Yemonja or Mami Wata.

Purists and trolls have complained. They don’t want the original tampered with, even superficially. They don’t want it “woke.” The blowback is, in part, Bailey’s to shoulder. And her simply being here confers upon her a kind of heroism, because it does still feels dangerous to have cast her. Sadly, the haters don’t have much to worry about. Otherwise, the movie’s worried — worried about what we’ll say, about whether they got it right. That allergy to creative risk produces hazards anyway.

And we found this depth to this film and this story directly from Hans Christian Anderson.

There’s much more emotion, depth and stakes to what she’s trying to achieve