Disney’s live-action remake of their 1989 animated classic “The Little Mermaid” feels completely lifeless — a staid, overlong waste of time, retelling a story that already wasn’t particularly exciting. To take “The Little Mermaid” out of its animated form is to take away what made it work to begin with: its grand, colorful, dynamic animation complemented by its energetic musical numbers.
One of the more baffling choices made for this remake is the attempt to extend the story in an attempt to add some semblance of depth with an extra 52 minutes of runtime. "The Little Mermaid"’s narrative has always been a bit slight, but it's never been the draw of the film. Trying to add more character-building moments bogs down the pacing because it isn’t dramatically engaging in the slightest, and it loses the audience the longer it makes them wait for the next musical number. A few new songs are added to bridge the gaps between the old classics, but the additions, particularly those with lyrics by Lin-Manuel Miranda, are unbearable to listen to and clash sonically with the classical Broadway style of Alan Menken and Howard Ashman’s original hits.
After the release of “Avatar: The Way of Water” last year, it's going to be tough to look at any film that spends a significant amount of its runtime underwater the same again, but “The Little Mermaid” doesn’t even attempt to make its underwater sequences look halfway convincing. This really shouldn’t be a huge surprise, director Rob Marshall is no James Cameron when it comes to visual stylization, but some effort would have been nice to see. Instead, all we see is hair floating errantly and tiny specks aimlessly moving around the screen. The composition of shots, particularly conversations, just looks like two people talking while standing or sitting in a greenscreen void. It’s lazy and empty filmmaking, a travesty given how dynamic and alive the original animation feels.
A comparison of the “Poor Unfortunate Souls” sequence in both films is the best encapsulation of why the filmmaking in this new version feels so dull and lifeless. The most important aspect that the new version lacks is movement — both of the characters and the camera. In the original, as the song begins, Ursula is twirling around and moving closer to Ariel in a mysterious and seductive manner. We understand why Ariel might be successfully manipulated because, through Ursula’s movements and facial expressions, her message to Ariel becomes more alluring. In the new version, Melissa McCarthy is sitting through this entire verse, the camera trying to make up for her own motionlessness by aimlessly pushing in and out.
Take the climax of the song, too, when Ursula sings “The boss is on a roll.” In the original animated version, the “camera” pulls back and tilts up as Ursula rapidly spins around and floats high above Ariel, conveying the power she now has. In the new version, Melissa McCarthy simply throws her head back and the camera remains static. It’s boring to look at, and it isn’t helped by the lighting, which keeps everything dark minus a few dimly colorful background objects. There’s barely any contrast in the entire sequence, every image looks the exact same. We’re never given those gorgeous pinks, oranges, and blues that menacingly light Ursula’s face.
I may be being too harsh on a film that is made specifically for children. The kids in my theater seemed fairly excited and engaged throughout — especially one young girl who seemed like she was having the time of her life, clapping and cheering during all her favorite parts. But we shouldn’t want children to be satisfied by something this devoid of risk and creativity. It teaches children to desire what they already know they like. It doesn’t challenge them to take chances or explore new possibilities. Movies like “The Little Mermaid” prime children to be consumers of content instead of art.
