The Dispatch: More from CWR...

Snow White survives the discourse

The new and controversial Snow White may not be the fairest of them all. But it’s no poisoned apple either.

Detail from the poster for "Snow White" (2025). (Image: Wikipedia)

After months of online uproar that tagged the new Snow White as everything from “woke heresy” to “committee-made mush,” I braced for impact.

So imagine my surprise when I found myself… enjoying it. Is it perfect? No. But is it a mess? Also no. It’s a visual spectacle with just enough heart to earn its happily-ever-after status.

The Mouse House hasn’t exactly been a friend of tradition over the last decade or so, often reimagining its classics in ways that stir more debate than nostalgia. But with a story like Snow White, the heart of it—beauty, envy, danger, rescue, love—still shines through. It’s almost like God can draw straight, even with a quirky group of studio avant-garden types. No matter the update, true love survives.

The new Snow White drags in the early scenes. There is a slow build before the story hits its stride. But once it does, the magic kicks in. Rachel Zegler may have stumbled (or worse) through the press tour, but on screen, she is Snow White. She brings sincerity and spark to the role, somehow making a line like “a place of fairness for all” feel like more than a Twitter—er, X—debate.

Beyond her star power, what makes this live-action version so appealing is the way it pays homage to the original 1937 animated cels—not just in story, but in visual echoes. The watching eyes carved into the dwarves’ staircase, the shadows they cast as they march off to “Heigh Ho”—these details recall the hand-drawn artistry that defined the thrill of early Disney.

That craftsmanship feels all the more fitting here, as the studio finally gives the live-action treatment to its signal classic—the one that started the entire enterprise (the original 1937 film was, for 55 years, the highest-grossing animated film).

The new songs by Benj Pasek and Justin Paul blend in well, adding a dash of wit while respecting the vintage score. Especially given the online umbrage, I thought I’d miss the excised “Someday My Prince Will Come.” I didn’t. The new material feels right at home, striking a balance between nostalgia and update.

Gal Gadot’s Evil Queen is dry but imposing, and delivers statuesque, campy fun with a sweeping gown, scary tiara, and talons to shame Edward Scissorhands. And despite early rumors that the prince had been written out, Andrew Burnap makes for a strong male lead who comes across as genuinely princely when he wakes Snow White with a kiss. For all the apparent efforts to recast the story, it’s still a male savior who takes an arrow for her at the climax. Say what you will: deep down, Snow needs a man.

Sure, Disney makes some odd calls. The seven dwarves, rendered as CGI, are a problem. At one point, Grumpy even barks, “If you don’t hush, I’ll take this brush and shove it where the sun don’t shine”—a crass moment in what’s otherwise G-rated escapism. Then there’s “Good Things Grow,” the opening number that leans more socialist parable than fantasy musical.

As for the ensemble, it’s a classic case of diversity-by-committee. But in this stylized setting, it mostly works. The “merry band of rebels” is introduced as, yes, out-of-work actors, so it’s no surprise if a bit of West Coast messaging sneaks into the subtext of a fairy tale that is 109 minutes long.

But enough carping already. When Zegler twirls through the classic “Whistle While You Work,” and when confetti rains down in a finale that looks like a Disney princess threw a pop-up wedding in a West Elm showroom, even skeptics may catch themselves smiling.

This new Snow White may not be the fairest of them all. But it’s no poisoned apple either.

It’s fun, strange, and earnest—all while exuding that all-but-lost commodity: charm.

Don’t be Bashful. It’s okay to go see it.


If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!

Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.


About Joseph F. Martin 5 Articles
Joseph F. MartinPhD, is a professor of Communication and Rhetoric at Montreal College in NC. He has also written essays and reviews for Word, Books and Culture, and other publications.

13 Comments

  1. This was an excellent and spot-on review. I wasn’t sure what to expect but I found it to be a delightful film,easy on the eyes and ears. If there is a woke-meter in existence this would barely move the needle, if at all. Definitely worth a viewing!

  2. Lenin thought that post-Revolution Russia was a “place of fairness for all.” I have a feeling that is what the indoctrinators in this production have in mind.

  3. As Rodentcorp braces for a $300 million loss due to this film (which currently has a lower IMDB score than “Manos: The Hands of Fate), I’m sure the execs will be reassured by your review that it was money well spent.

    As for me, I have better places to spend my money.

    • Funny how some readers apparently want their buttons to be pushed, even when they aren’t being pushed. The reviewer liked the movie, over against others who don’t. The horror, the horror! Heaven forbid that people arrive at different conclusions about rather subjective things.

  4. The “odd calls” are because Disney scrambled behind the scenes to correct a movie that was drowning in wokeness, once they realized it wasn’t as popular as they’d hoped. As for the rest, I mean…come on. The fact that she’s “the fairest of them all” because she’s a good little socialist didn’t register with you, eh?

  5. This review is completely counter to numerous insightful and detailed reviews online that skewer this film for wokeness, socialist pablum, and the usual Hollywood denigration of men and female “empowerment” nonsense. Check out The Children’s Literature Podcast on Youtube for a savage review of this film, one that should be avoided by all intelligent people.

  6. It might be useful to read the commentary in First Things on April 4, “How Disney Killed Snow White” for another perspective. The removal of the prayer scene that was in the 1937 version is noted: “in the live action film, there is no prayer for love and marriage. Not only that, desiring such things is ridiculed.” A new song, Waiting on a Wish, “mocks the concept of wishing, hopes, and dreams altogether. Snow White’s characteristic joy is replaced with depressed sarcasm.” In the new version she doesn’t sweep but has a dwarf do it (“the Snow White in the original is defined by cheerful acceptance of such duties—performed in gratitude for the dwarves’ hospitality—and hopeful optimism in the face of hardship and persecution”). The end of the article, on the ultimately divine meaning of true love and marriage, show how very empty the new version is.

  7. “Snow White survives the discourse”

    Knowing that, we’ll all be able to sleep soundly tonight.

    If any wants to read a (now dated) well-written book on fairy tales, check out psychiatrist Bruno Bettleheim’s work entitled, “The Uses of Enchantment: the meaning and importance of fairy tales.”

  8. Lol, I mean Rachel Zegler told us straight up that this is the feminist Snow White. Believe them when they tell you. No way I’m gonna be supporting this.

    • “Snow White, a remake nobody asked for, is a debacle on EVERY LEVEL. The 1937;film version wasn’t atogether true to the original source material either, but it contained charm to spare, something (among many other virtues) this one altogether lacks.

Leave a Reply to DeaconEdPeitler Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.

All comments posted at Catholic World Report are moderated. While vigorous debate is welcome and encouraged, please note that in the interest of maintaining a civilized and helpful level of discussion, comments containing obscene language or personal attacks—or those that are deemed by the editors to be needlessly combative or inflammatory—will not be published. Thank you.


*