‘Pinocchio’ has wood for a good remake, but the Disney + movie burns very quickly

There was a time, not so long ago, when Disney kept all their movies under lock and key in his safe to make the public go through the box office as many times as possible. If they didn’t put out, say, ‘Peter Pan’ in physical format, they could re-release it every six years and make sure it was always going to make money in this never-ending cycle. In the end, the company gave up, but that does not mean that they have given up on continuing to make money with their classics beyond domestic exploitation… doing his live-action remakes.

Ctrl + C, Ctrl + V

No one can say that ‘Pinocchio’, which the production company launches for Disney+ Day, has disappointed them, because it’s exactly the same as the vast majority of live-action remakes released in recent years: a brazen, scene-by-scene copy of the original film, surprising with superb production design (those clocks, that decadent amusement park) but it doesn’t even try to reach the level of the animated film.

The 2022 adaptation of Walt Disney’s masterpiece has its ups and downs: on the one hand, Keegan-Michael Key as Honest John, with a vocal performance full of anachronistic improvisations (some of them made me laugh out loud, that’s more than I bargained for!) headlines a handful of changes that give characters more depth. For example, Geppetto has one more reason to want a real boy and Stromboli has to do with his team. They are small details that will drive anyone who expects a carbon copy traced crazy, but it stays at that: drops in an ocean. ‘Pinocchio’ is an exercise in mimicry that could have been what he wanted and has settled for an unbearable laziness.

Pinocchio 2

Sadly, Robert Zemeckis is hesitant to take a firm step in the direction to make a unique adaptation and just leave a couple of nuances here and there. The rest of the film follows the same line as the original, move by move, shot by shot, song by song, to an exhausting point. To get an idea: it looks more like the new version of ‘The Lion King’ than that of ‘The Jungle Book’. Copy and paste something else.

an oak health

And it’s a shame, because when ‘Pinocchio’ lets his hair down, it’s spectacular: The amusement park arrival sequence on Games Island, for example, is a case in point that updated remakes can make sense if played right. The problem is that the vast majority of the film exudes conformity: Knowing that there is an audience that wants to consume the same breaded chicken, they don’t bother to prepare something else, just in case.


‘Pinocchio’ is a film that lives directly in the Disturbing Valley due to questionable artistic decisions, to say the least. Logically, Pinocchio and Jiminy Cricket have to be created in CGI, and up to that point we all agree, but… Was it necessary that Figaro, the cat, also be created and animated by computer? It is neither real nor cartoon, nor does it do normal cat things or cartoon crazy things, placing itself in an uncomfortable middle ground. The same goes for each of the non-human characters in the play, who turn it into a nightmare of Tom Hanks living in a world of computer-generated creatures.

A Tom Hanks who, by the way, signs one of the worst papers of his career, more akin to a parody of Geppetto than the character himself. He is overacting, disoriented, he doesn’t know where to look and his interpretation doesn’t seem worked enough: It’s a mistake in a sea of ​​mistakes which – and this is worst of all – obstructs its potential in an absolutely intentional way.

Misfortune with legs

Yes ok some winks are sure to arouse sympathy in the viewer (the watches with Disney characters), the film is still a moral tale that, to top it off, does not get into the mud as much as the original did: many wondered if the scene with Pinocchio smoking would be in this one and the solution you won’t be surprised. Sadly, by whatever means they have, this film is a watered down version, fearful and unoriginal I don’t think it has many fans.

Seeing the financial results of his latest live-action films, it is normal that Disney decides not to risk more than necessary. Why, if by doing the minimum you already have the love and money of your most loyal audience? The company, as a company, is already producing new remakes like churros (‘The Little Mermaid’, ‘Snow White’, ‘Peter Pan and Wendy’ or ‘Hercules’ will soon arrive), regardless of whether they are good, bad or the opposite: what matters is that they resemble the original. Then we will fill in the gaps.

Disney: these are all the live-action remakes that will hit theaters and direct releases to Disney +

If Walt Disney’s magnificent original version of ‘Pinocchio’ paid no attention to Carlo Collodi’s original work, why, eighty years later, Robert Zemeckis believes that he should pay homage to animation to the point of practically tracing it? Basically, all these remakes are not so different from the experiment that Gus Van Sant carried out with ‘Psycho (Psycho)’, but without trying to make the viewer reflect: just to frustrate everyone who hoped to find some originality in the desert of the new versions made in Disney. Yet another failed attempt.

‘Pinocchio’ has wood for a good remake, but the Disney + movie burns very quickly