I went to see Disney’s live action remake of Snow White in London’s vibrant West End – and I was practically the only one.

The 2025 iteration of a well-loved fairy tale ruffled feathers long before it hit screens a week ago.

A number of unfortunate controversies – chief among them the use of CGI dwarves, remarks by star Rachel Zegler and apparent edits to the original story – have left the film in a storm of bad publicity, and left theatre seats empty.

Videos of deserted cinemas at Snow White screenings have flooded social media, with lonely theatre-goers panning to show rows upon rows of vacant seats.

And last week I was one of them, although at first I enjoyed the luxury.

Having an Art Deco-style Leicester Square hall to yourself isn’t a bad gig. I had my coat on one seat, my purse on another – the 48 ft wide screen could have been in my living room.

But once I nestled in to my recliner, the novelty wore off.

The film itself was enjoyable – Zegler’s singing was delightful, the dialogue wasn’t overly sentimental, the love story was sweet and there were even some funny moments.

But where there might have been collective chuckles or audible gasps from a full audience, here there was only silence – except for when I choked on a piece of popcorn.

In short, a barren wasteland doesn’t make for an enchanting viewing atmosphere, no matter how good the movie. 

And this movie, good though it is, will likely never get the chance to prove its value.

The resounding criticism of the new Snow White is of its ‘wokeness’ – its cringeworthy desire to never offend.

Casting Zegler – a woman of Colombian and Polish descent – has angered many.

Although the accompanying racist outbursts are tasteless and disappointing, I have to agree with the underlying sentiment that the story does not quite make sense with her in it.

In a half-hearted attempt to explain away the name Snow White, we are told that the title character survived an awful blizzard in her youth. Hm.

Inclusivity is certainly important. But Disney is all about the aesthetic. 

Its live action remakes are committed to the original costume, the original songs, the original story – with only minor tweaks here or there because viewers want to relive the powerful nostalgia of those first animated films.

It’s a shame because Zegler really dazzles in the role, although the 23-year-old has unwittingly acted as a strong deterrent to watching her own performance.

The West Side Story star called the original animated Snow White ‘dated’ and ‘weird’.

‘It’s no longer 1937,’ she said. ‘She’s not going to be saved by the prince and she’s not going to be dreaming about true love.’

Well (spoiler) she is. There are some miniscule adjustments to the love story but the irony is that, at its core, it has remained the absolute same.

Snowy falls in love with a handsome buck who saves her from the queen’s curse with true love’s kiss. Sound familiar? That’s because it is.

Well-meaning Zegler is just a product of her age. I know what she means – the woman doesn’t have to depend on the man and rely on him for salvation (etc etc). But at what point are we taking things just a bit too literally?

Love isn’t dated. What’s dated is feudalism, evil stepmothers, old men being infatuated with a woman roughly sixteen times younger than them – all of which feature in the 2025 remake, so why draw the line at romance?

Zegler has been openly supportive of Palestinian rights and Gal Gadot – the evil queen – served a two-year stint in the Israeli military.

So, the stars’ political differences have managed to alienate whole continents of viewers.

If her military past wasn’t controversial enough, Gadot’s acting did little to redeem her. Her cheekbones had more film presence than she did and her performance was dull.

As for the computer generated dwarves, there were two arguments.

Game Of Thrones actor Peter Dinklage, who has a condition called achondroplasia, said the casting of little people in a film based on a story he already thinks is ‘f***ing backwards’ would have been insulting to the disabled community.

And other disability campaigners felt actors with dwarfism should have been given the opportunity to occupy the role, as long as it was free from harmful stereotyping.

But Dinklage’s celebrity voice was the loudest, so the production team scrapped the whole thing and erred, they thought, on the side of caution.

When it came to it, the CGI dwarves were just unsettling. 

And while the technology was advanced it wasn’t a patch on real humans, which I have become rather accustomed to seeing in live action films.

But never fear! Disney quelled all anxieties by casting an actor with dwarfism elsewhere in the movie. You can almost imagine director Marc Webb tripping over himself to reach the pen and tick that box.

An insult, I think, to talented actors with dwarfism who have been reduced against the odds to a diversity hire.

As I sat dutifully in my assigned seat (although there was really no need) it became clear that had this film been released five years ago, it would have done its numbers and left the box office quietly, like other Disney live action remakes before it.

The film was expected to make around $100million across the first three days, but made $87million globally in the opening weekend, granting it below average status compared to other recent live action remakes.

It’s still top of the US box office for now, but that really doesn’t say much other than its beating other films currently showing in cinemas – a small win for a Disney film.

Nowadays, people really don’t have the stomach for tedious, woke virtue signalling that has nothing to do with morals and everything to do with appeasing the public.

People aren’t angry at the film – they’ll never watch it – they’re angry at the messy cocktail of political correctness that preceded it, and missed the mark every time.

If you’re still unsure whether you’ll go and see the movie – I recommend you do. You’ll have your pick of any seat in the house…