I’m sure we’re all aware of the inevitable live-action remakes Disney has been profiting off of since The Jungle Book (1994). These slapped-together retellings have existed as thorns in many film critic’s sides as the multi-billion dollar company becomes less and less creative with their projects. The bland and modernized features stunt the innovation of bright-eyed artists entering the industry, being put on the fourth redo of 101 Dalmatians. The latest phenomenon plaguing our theaters (or rather streaming platforms) is Pinocchio, with at least 13 English films already, three different Pinocchio movies have come out from 2021 to 2022 alone. There is no known reason for this recent influx of Pinocchio films but god is it infuriating as a movie fanatic. However, perhaps many have been too quick to judge, maybe these remakes are better than we thought with the preconceived notion of the fact they are remakes. The sequels are never as good as the originals right? Putting these perceptions aside, I decided to watch the Disney rendition of Pinocchio, something I would avoid usually.

Opening with the 4th wall breaking narration/ dialogue of Jiminy Cricket, a still amusing character who’s charisma translates well with the southern-esc drawl and sarcastic quippy air to his demeanor. I thoroughly enjoyed his presence on screen which is why it was saddening that he was shoved off to the side for the majority of the movie. Pinocchio on the other hand is less amusing as his design is eerie as pasted on eyes removed from their supposed wooden look. His personality wasn’t much to work off in the first place as he is characterized by his innocence and new life but the shrill voice and conversation quickly pushes the heroine’s innocence to insolence. This is illustrated by the choice to have his actions quickly forgiven with zero punishment in contrast to the hardships the initial Pinocchio went through to spite his mistakes. 

Although the movie presents itself as a remake rather than a retelling of Pinocchio (1940) there are many changes to the plot, both adding and removing context. For example, the entire movie is in fact a musical, something certainly unexpected to add to the movie. Another extension would be the side character Fabiana, a disabled black woman working for Stromboli. While the representation is certainly refreshing and I see how many find her character relatable, my plight with Fabiana is that she is in the movie Pinocchio and not her own. She was not in the original movie, nor as far as I can tell, in the original story, holding no importance to the furthering of the plot. Scenes were rewritten around her like a roadblock. How can we make it seem as if she isn’t just a shoe-in for representation, woke capitalism? This is especially frustrating seeing how her character really is enjoyable but wasted as a glorified tangent in the film. These additions to the movie, Fabina, Sophie the seagull, the scenario of Geppetto not selling his clocks (at his clock shop?) and more are useless entertainment aside. 

Looking at the excluded material, a disappointing but not surprising exempted detail is the drinking and smoking present in Pleasure Island. The crucial point in the exploration of morality in the original movie is now root beer and “vapor monsters” to keep the rating of PG. This censorship is another example of the money-driven ideology corporation that is Disney as well as the atmosphere many modern parents have created for children’s entertainment industries. Pinocchio (1940) included smoking, drinking, and vandalism to show the youth watching, these activities are not just uncool, but seriously dangerous as the children doing such horrifically transform into howling donkeys and thrown into cages as they scream for their parents whom they previously cursed. A cautionary tale if you may, is now confusing for children watching, wondering if A&W is really on par with shoplifting. Children don’t understand subtext or these references thrown at them which is exactly why the original story is so blunt with the matter. Ultimately the idea of such things as ‘political’ are harmful and essentially what the story warned of in the first place.

In accumulation of all of these criticisms and praises, for someone without any clue of the referenced material I’m sure this movie was more than adequate but with knowledge, it could easily be seen as yet another cop out on creativity within Disney. Personally, I believe there are many faults, more so than strengths yet reasoning for the film is no more than to make money and on that part they indeed did. All considered this feature included nothing I would find especially innovative and I believe I will continue to ignore future remakes or classics.