Critics’ reviews

The Little Mermaid (1989)

11 reviews from 11 publications. Critics’ score 75: 7 positive, 4 mixed, 0 negative.

Back to our review of The Little Mermaid

75
Positive
7
Mixed
4
Negative
0

Most critics like it, and several treat it as the point at which Disney animation recovered its nerve. The praise clusters on the music: Alan Menken’s score and Howard Ashman’s lyrics come up repeatedly, and “Under the Sea” is named more often than any other sequence. The animation is called lush and fluid, and Ursula’s design is picked out as the visual high point by more than one reviewer.

The reservations are about story rather than surface. Empire finds the prince dull and the ending hurried, and Collider agrees the storytelling is the weak part while judging the charm enough to carry it. The AV Club, though warm, calls the film thin. The one real dissent comes from Slant Magazine, which finds it calculated and cloying, though even there Ursula is welcomed as relief. The spread is otherwise narrow; nobody argues it is less than good entertainment.

Radio Times
★★★★★ · Kilmeny Fane-Saunders
100

Fane-Saunders celebrates the film as the start of a new golden age for Disney features. She praises its impressive animation and Alan Menken’s catchy, show-stopping score, especially “Under the Sea.”

Read the full review →
The AV Club
11 October 2006 · A- · Noel Murray
90

Murray finds the film thin and visually shallow, but says its spirit of renewed entertainment remains infectious. He singles out Howard Ashman’s wit and the rousing “Under The Sea” sequence for praise.

Read the full review →
The Independent
5 September 2013 · Ben Walsh
80*

The review finds the film charming and beautifully paced. It particularly praises its energetic adventure and lasting appeal despite newer animation surpassing it.

Read the full review →
Total Film
17 July 1998 · ★★★★ · Total Film
80

The critic praises the film as Disney at its best and calls it wonderful entertainment. The songs and characters stand out, while its humour keeps the story from becoming too sugary.

Read the full review →
Variety
31 December 1988 · Variety Staff
80*

The review considers it Disney’s strongest animated feature in years and gives a clearly positive verdict. It praises the lush, fluid animation and singles out Ursula’s design as a visual highlight.

Read the full review →
Empire
1 January 2000 · William Thomas
78*

Thomas calls the film a charming, sparkling family classic that delivers laughs, scares and songs. He praises its memorable music, comic sea-life characters and imposing Ursula, while noting the prince is dull and the ending hurried.

Read the full review →
The New York Times
15 November 1989 · Janet Maslin
65*

The article is identifiable as a review of the 1989 film, but its verdict and specific praise or complaints are unavailable in the page provided.

Read the full review →
Time Out
· CM
65*

The available page identifies this as a film review but provides no critic’s verdict. Its description highlights the adaptation’s calypso rhythms and sweeping ballads.

Read the full review →
RogerEbert.com
64*

The page could not be accessed, so the critic’s verdict is unavailable. No praise or complaint can be verified from the supplied text.

Read the full review →
Slant Magazine
5 October 2006 · ★★/4 · Eric Henderson
50

Henderson gives the film a sharply negative assessment, calling it calculated and emotionally overbearing. He singles out Ursula’s flamboyant performance and design as a welcome diversion from the film’s cloying tone.

Read the full review →
Collider
19 October 2013 · Rob Vaux
75*

Vaux finds that the film’s shortcomings are outweighed by its enduring charm and legacy. He especially praises the songs and animation, while noting weaknesses in the storytelling and some character portrayals.

Read the full review →

Ordered by the weight we give each publication, then by score. Scores are normalised to 100; * means inferred from an unrated review. Summaries are ours, not quotations; follow the links for the reviews themselves. How we rate