After the high box office grosses of movies like Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs and Cinderella, it would have been easy for Disney to make sequels to try to cash in on the success . But he didn't want to do this, instead moving on to different challenges - including new movies, television programs and the Disneyland theme park - instead of making Cinderella II: the Revenge of the Wicked Stepfamily. This might not sound remarkable, but in an era when properties are milked by studios - including Disney - for all they're worth, it is noteworthy. Old-school Disney, even into the VHS era, periodically rereleased its animated classics to keep them special.

In recent years, Disney has made theatrical or straight-to-video remakes of, sequels to and spin-offs from many of its animated features. The most recent of these, now in cinemas, is Aladdin, a live-action and CGI remake of the already heavy sequelised and spun-off 1992 animated feature.

The score is augmented but the story is essentially the same as its predecessor - street thief Aladdin meets a disguised princess and falls for her while coming into possession of a magic lamp whose genie gives him three wishes: complications, naturally, ensue.

There was some beaten-up controversy over "whitewashing" since actor Billy Magnusses had a role: it turned out to much ado about nothing as his part was tiny. But there were also other, probably inevitable, accusations of racism, Islamophobia and Orientalism: it seems difficult to make any film nowadays without offending somebody.

The location of the land in which the film is set is left vague and the cast is a melting point of various ancestry with African, Indian and Middle Eastern actors in the mix, though that might not be considered inappropriate: the original story was apparently Chinese and versions have come from various cultures.

On the plus side, the cast is likeable, there's a bit more depth to the characters - princess in this version is given a lot more to do (she even gets musical numbers of her own) - and there are some nicely choreographed action and dance scenes (including a Bollywood-style number under the credits). A blue-tinted, CGI-enhanced Will Smith wisely doesn't try to compete with Robin Williams' inimitable performance as the Genie but does his own thing, quite effectively.

On the minus side, the film is overlong (just over two hours) and feels, essentially, unnecessary, like all of these redos. Walt Disney might have liked the theatrical adaptations of the animated films, but the remakes, probably not so much.

Also new is Brightburn, a movie which could be given the high-concept pitch "It's Superman meets The Omen and The Bad Seed".

Its premise: What if the Superman who came to Earth used his powers for evil instead of good? The idea is full of interesting possibilities but the filmmakers travel a pretty standard, if reasonably atmospheric, horror movie route. A childless Kansas farming couple, Tori and Kyle (Elizabeth Banks and David Denman) see a spaceship land with a baby in it and decide to raise him as their own. Fast-forward 12 years and young Brandon (Jackson A. Dunn) starts behaving very antisocially and revealing he has many strange powers. And he starts wearing a cape and mask, but not to make a fashion statement.

Tori keeps refusing to believe he might be bad, chalking things up to puberty and not investigating even as things get worse (and bloodier). Why do the potential victims in horror movies almost always behave foolishly?