Lilli e il vagabondo

The main impression - this live action version is only a multicultural manifesto, using as pretext only, the original Disney animation. I am not a fan of the live action versions because each of them is far by the poetry of the original. In this case, the sacrifices for a multicultural manifesto are too many and too much. And this is an obvious sin. In my case, for the lost of the beautiful - spices song of the Siamese cats. The virtues - the beautiful opening, F. Murray Abraham, Rose as the expected Lady and, sure, Yvette Nicole Brown performance.

I'm sorry but whoever voiced Lady was the wrong choice. Lady was supposed to be be soft and gentle and this just bugged me the entire film!!! My 5yr old son however didn't care and loved it. He hasn't seen the original.

Once again Disney's live action remake of a classic animated movie hits the "well alright" mark. This definitely isn't an awful movie. The opening is actually pretty lovely, and overall the movie has a lot of nice aesthetic to it throughout. The few songs are honestly fine. Not really cringy or anything, they don't waste time on these really. The CGI of the dogs is kind of hit or miss. Some scenes it's actually pretty believable and looks great, others it can be a bit wonky. But the movie also lacks what visual luster an animated film brings, not to mention that this version is a bit longer than the animated, so the movie ends up feeling a bit laggy and drawn out. A few chuckle worthy moments, and it does pick up a bit near the end, but overall a very meh, good for playing in the background during casual night, movie. Remember this is a straight-to-video release, and you won't really face much disappointment.

What is the purpose of making a remake if it's way worse in absolutely every way? The animation is atrocious, the voice acting is lousy and annoying and the writing is just terrible and utterly cheesy. Furthermore, this remake is politically correct garbage all the way. What's with the role hand-outs to black people? I mean, half the cast is black and the Lady's owners are a black and white couple. Is that supposed to be a truthful representation of the early 1900's (and the remake) which this movie is set in? I really wish Disney would just stop making garbage like this. It's kind of like when Kim Jong-un removed his uncle from all pictures he was in. It was supposed to be like he never existed but was obvious what had happened. This is kind of similar but worse. The pinnacle of this idiocy being that aunt Sarah criticizes Jim Dear for being a musician while his wife is a house keeper all the while they live in a rather nice house. Also, if there was one thing they should've changed it should've been those ridiculous names Jim Dear and Darling. This remake is just dumb, pointless and especially annoying to watch.

Not a bad film, had a few nice moments and wasn't as awful as i expected. However, it is when you consider the amount of money wasted on making a beautiful but inferior remake of an already amazing film.

It is clear they had initially filmed this for theatrical release, as there's a real mishmash of cinematic scenes withTV show. Some of the scenes also looked incomplete. The cats looked incredibly fake and their new song was somehow both cringy and forgettable. I understand why they ditched the siamese song, but this new addition should've just been scrapped from the get go.

Imagine if Disney actually used their resources to make some original movies these days.