It's not bad, it's well done, but it's Disney

Rating: 8/10 (9 April 2017)

Not long ago while reviewing Moana, I wrote that, love them or hate them, Disney studios will always be Disney. Professional to the very last detail, but very shallow, and putting each and every story they treat through their well oiled machine.
I don't agree with those saying the CGI are below par, or simply creepy. I think they were expecting the old hand painted Disney magic, and when seeing their old characters in CGI were shocked by the outcome. I also think the acting was first class all the way through. I didn't even mind the songs too much. They always get in the way of the story, they're always way over the top, but I guess I got used to them.
On the other hand I do have an issue with the story itself. It does follow the old Disney version almost to the letter. That's because Disney studios believe that their version should be the only one. It's not such a big problem when the source material is well known and available to all those interested, like the stories of the bible or the Greek myths, I'm also willing to forgive these liberties with lesser known myths, but when they do it to literary masterpieces I'm not so understanding. I think the original Mary Poppins novel is so much better than what they made it, it's plain shame. I didn't like what they did with Peter Pan and Winnie the Pooh, but at least they did come close to the intended spirit of the original. They failed badly here, because they insisted on following their own footsteps. Have a look at the 1946 French B&W version and you'll understand what a story you're missing in this version.
So they had the opportunity to remake it as a real masterpiece, they chose to stick to their own old version instead. It's just plain shame even if it's not a real surprise.