Review: 'Wish' is the latest failure from no-luck Disney

December 11, 2023

AaronP/Bauer-Griffin / Contributor | Getty Images

Kevin is an award-winning writer who focuses on long-form literary nonfiction and investigative reporting.

Editor's note: This article was originally published on TheBlaze.com.

Disney has had a terrible birthday. To celebrate the mega-corporation's 100-year anniversary, you can buy special-edition beanies and commemorative dollhouses and tiny Disney-character statues at McDonald's. But the fairy tale of Disney is nearing its end. Because Disney is on a hell of a losing streak. By nearly every metric, the company is failing. It’s like watching a gifted athlete pull his hamstring and, when he tries to keep running, you hope he survives the death-rush.

Disney is on a hell of a losing streak.

On a recent earnings call, Disney CEO Bob Iger admitted, “Quantity can be actually a negative when it comes to quality, and I think that's exactly what happened: We lost some focus.”

He has admitted that Disney’s films have become too obsessed with social causes. As he told Aaron Ross Sorkin at the DealBook Summit:

Creators lost sight of what their No. 1 objective needed to be. We have to entertain first. It's not about messages.

The latest example is “Wish,” a movie that was supposed to serve homage to 100 years of Disney magic but that instead reveals the spectacle of activism: a hacky, uninspiring work of political snobbery too neutered to offer us nobodies anything more than a nodding-off or a swipe of the remote.

The failure of “Wish” is emblematic of the ongoing decline of Disney as a monopolistic empire of creativity.

It’s a movie for activists, by activists; for childless Millennials, by childless Millennials. And, to be clear, there’s nothing wrong with being a childless Millennial. But it’s probably not a great idea for Disney, which has succeeded as a result of young families, to pack its staff with people who don’t participate in, or who even oppose, the institution of family.

It’s a movie for activists, by activists; for childless Millennials, by childless Millennials.

Well, no-luck Disney bet on the wrong side, because the childless Millennial demographic isn’t big on spending, or at least not as much as family audiences are. And another question the Activist Class cannot answer: What long-term political benefits are to be had from an entire generation of childless voters?

Culturally, Disney is homeless, rejected by conservatives and ignored by a growing number of liberals (who also don’t buy Bud Light).

So the predictable take here would be for me to call Disney woke and celebrate its collapse, which is an entirely justified stance. My angle, however, is more about hope — my hope that Disney survives its own prolonged tragedy, that it pulls itself together or, at the very least, that there are a few more lovely moments before it croaks.

For me, this is personal: My house is full of Disney princesses.

In fact, one of my toddler’s favorite phrases is “I love all of the princesses!” We have no doubt seen all of the Disney movies — with the exception of “Strange World,” with its awful reputation, and "Bambi 2," because I’m not falling for that again.

My wife and I know literally every word of "Frozen." Few movies are as personal as it has been — my toddler owns an Elsa version of any imaginable household item, and some of our most beautiful moments involve her dancing in sunlight to “Let It Go.”

Our band-aids are Disney, so when one of us is hurt, we say, “Get me a princess!” As I write, at a desk covered with Disney princess stickers, “Ralph Breaks the Internet” is playing behind me.

Culturally, Disney is homeless.

And this has been a fairly normal American -- even global -- relationship to Disney. Acceptance of every kind. The Forrest Gump of brands, unstoppable in its cultural power.

Disney’s mistake, it turns out, was a series of decisions that gutted it of its political neutrality.

Even my toddlers grew bored with "Wish" after two minutes.

“Wish” hasn't landed well with critics or, more importantly, with audiences, for good reason. It’s a truly bad movie. Hokey. Cheesy. Boring. Part of this is the result of what Bloomberg described as Iger’s “princess problem.”

It goes down as one of the worst Disney animated feature debuts. The “Trolls” movie, which is stronger and more musically adventurous, scored about the same numbers despite having been released one week earlier.

It’s a truly bad movie. Hokey. Cheesy. Boring.

My toddlers, who will stop for nothing but Disney, grew bored with the movie after two minutes. This is unprecedented. Only a week earlier, we attended the latest “Paw Patrol” movie — a much greater movie, from Nickelodeon (Paramount) — and they lasted about 45 minutes before reaching the same level of restiveness.

Anecdotal example, yes, but I can’t think of a clearer metaphor to describe the misguidedness of the activist mindset ruining Disney. A fantastic review of "Wish" by Alan Ng for Film Threat led me to the reality that Disney's dysfunction is deep-seated and activist-driven.

A common activist blunder: Place activism so far ahead of anything else that the supposed medium gets completely neglected.

"Wish" suffers from muddy plotlines and fear of committing any offense.

“Wish” was co-written by Jennifer Lee, the first female chief creative officer of Walt Disney Company, executive producer of “Raya and the Last Dragon,” as well as head of creative leadership for most of the Disney animated feature hits since 2012. She has shaped the latest generation of Disney.

Disney's dysfunction is deep-seated and activist-driven.

Despite the well-deserved acclaim for her part as director and writer of the "Frozen" films, Lee’s legacy could become linked to the growing trend of her work: muddy plotlines — full of dazzle — that spend so much time on quirks that the story gets rushed.

The film centers on Asha, played by Ariana DeBose, a decorated actress, a breathtaking singer, and a rabid activist whose foundation Unruly Hearts Initiative boasts connections to the Trevor Project, Point Foundation, and Covenant House, where DeBose holds a spot on the board. Which — who cares, but also, if the charities were conservative, Hollywood wouldn’t find DeBose’s efforts so laudatory.

The film was designed to drop Easter eggs like rainfall, but the references were mostly distractions. Asha’s seven sidekicks are a throwback to the dwarfs from “Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs,” Disney’s first animated film. (A much better example of meta-Disney is the middle section of "Ralph Breaks the Internet," which has its own shortcomings, but at least they’re hidden beneath outstanding animation, reliable comedy, and decent storylines.)

The central crisis of the film is the duality of power. On Rosas, the Mediterranean island where Asha lives, each person is allowed to materialize one wish, on his 18th birthday. It’s not clear why the people are only allowed to have one wish, and as other critics have observed, many of these wishes are more “goals,” which any person could accomplish.

Nevertheless, the powerful King Magnifico has total control of the blue orbs that contain the wishes. King Magnifico uses a state of exception (“Is it tyranny if it’s for your safety?”) to convince his citizens that he’s a wise, good-hearted, impeccably handsome ruler.

The central crisis of the film is the duality of power.

It’s not clear what Magnifico is protecting citizens of Rosas from. Why is he so stingy with his wish-granting? He certainly does become frightening. “Wacky” is probably a better word. He builds his power by crushing the wishes of his citizens — each time, it kills a part of them, robs them of their essence, and transforms them into a sad, bare life of the evil sovereign.

(For many reasons, the power-obsessed authoritarian king is actually an apt metaphor for Disney as an artistic institution.)

Who’s the real villain, though? If it’s fear that motivates him, fear that his people will suffer from not having their wishes granted, then we have the kind of padded version of evil mocked in an episode of “It’s Always Sunny In Philadelphia,” where the only safe villain is a weather disruption, like climate change.

The power-obsessed authoritarian king is actually an apt metaphor for Disney as an artistic institution.

In other words, the worst-case outcome of Magnifico’s terror is that people feel a tad more bummed out than usual, which has become a reality of modern life.

What is a 17-year-old peasant like Asha to do? Beg for help from the sky. Just like that, a beautiful goofball of a star named Star torpedoes down and starts granting wishes and giving animals the ability to speak. (Symbolically, the star represents the magic of Disney, which has given voice to the voiceless, like animals.)

But “Wish” is terrified of committing an offense. There’s no room for irreverence — and life without irreverence always leads to a weird new kind of profanity. In a neutered world, there’s no room for creation. No room for invention.

"Wish" created a meaningless villain.

Disney can be harsh with its villains, gutting them into nothingness (Gaston, Ursula, Cruella de Vil). But it can also treat them with tremendous compassion — as with Te Kā, the lava monster in “Moana.” “Wish” is so conflicted in its meaningless normative absolutism that it accomplishes neither.

In a song with a beat and hook possibly ripped from the Knife’s brilliant “One Hit,” “Knowing What I Know Now” spells out what exactly makes Magnifico so villainous.

In this truly catchy song, Asha sings that Magnifico is:

More vicious than I could have ever comprehended / When I made a wish and Star came down / This is not what I expected or intended / But now that it's happened I don't regret it / 'Cause now I've seen / Him show his true colors in shades of green / Saying that your wishes aren't safe because of me and / That's a lie, lie, lie, lie.

Beyond the somewhat cringe-inducing lyrics, this song implies that Jiminy Cricket’s entire mission, his wish upon the star, is one of activism.

So why is Magnifico “more vicious than [Asha] could have ever comprehended?” Well, for one, he doesn’t grant every single wish, and that’s just not fair. Also, his tone. Very harsh. He’s also quite mansplainey.

Triumphantly, the peasants stomp, chanting: “I don't think he's prepared for what's coming / A revolution hit the ground runnin’.” This “revolution” winds up being the political equivalent of a child shouting “go away, you silly ghost” as a tornado guts a town. Basically: “We have to steal the king’s power. He doesn’t deserve it. So we have to overthrow him.” On a deeper level, what these privileged writers are likely actually saying is, “I want you to believe that capitalism makes me sad!”

One obvious assumption is that every peasant’s wish is kind-hearted. This is a mistake that Karl Marx made about the proletariat. He assumed all the bourgeois were evil and all the peasant class were inherently good. By rebelling against the king — together — the peasants can overthrow him. Because that’s how oppression works in the wishful mind of a professional activist.

One obvious assumption is that every peasant’s wish is kind-hearted. This is a mistake that Karl Marx made about the proletariat.

So King Magnifico is shrunken into a mirror, then thrown into a dungeon — to be fair, this is the exact fate of Bowser in the (far superior) "Super Mario Bros. Movie." But here it just feels so social-justicey, so hypothetical, too ready to fire into a shower curtain after a glass of wine: The peasants incarcerated the man! (Head explodes, launching neon-dyed hair like shrapnel.)

If activism will save Disney, it's activism against its current activist mania.

The problem with this sort of absolutism is that it can easily be flipped against itself. “Zootopia,” for instance, tells the story of a society secretly controlled by sheep, an attack on predators in the name of safety. This (literal) conspiracy is universal enough to affirm the exact racist or misogynistic or anti-Semitic movements the film’s message assumes to confront.

The same goes for “Wish.” Is it really a figuration of egalitarianism, or is it rather a promotion of a kind of freedom that only capitalism can offer?'

The problem with this sort of absolutism is that it can easily be flipped against itself.

“You’re only allowed to have one wish, and it probably won’t come true” doesn’t exactly sound like Adam Smith. It does, however, evoke imagery of a dying Soviet Union where life itself became a whittled-down promise, a call to be sacrificed that people can’t decline.

The film’s attitude clearly sides with the more collectivist ideology, which flexes the undifferentiation of socialist societies, the inevitable decline into sameness. There is, however, a sense of personal responsibility: “Make your own wishes happen; don’t let a king decide.” Which is a fairly conservative stance.

The film’s attitude clearly sides with the more collectivist ideology.

And oddly enough, activism might very well be the force that saves Disney — but an activism against its current activist mania. “Activist investor” Nelson Peltz wants to pull the company back toward the center.

But for now, Cinderella's castle keeps rotting. “Wish” isn’t going to sell T-shirts or Halloween costumes, let alone branded toothbrushes and fruit snacks. So to whoever will follow in Disney’s Goofy-sized footsteps: Keep hacking at that ugly marble.

***

Thank you for reading. Feel free to send corrections, rants, notes, and outpourings to kryan@mercurystudios.com and follow on X

Antifa isn’t “leaderless” — It’s an organized machine of violence

Jeff J Mitchell / Staff | Getty Images

The mob rises where men of courage fall silent. The lesson from Portland, Chicago, and other blue cities is simple: Appeasing radicals doesn’t buy peace — it only rents humiliation.

Parts of America, like Portland and Chicago, now resemble occupied territory. Progressive city governments have surrendered control to street militias, leaving citizens, journalists, and even federal officers to face violent anarchists without protection.

Take Portland, where Antifa has terrorized the city for more than 100 consecutive nights. Federal officers trying to keep order face nightly assaults while local officials do nothing. Independent journalists, such as Nick Sortor, have even been arrested for documenting the chaos. Sortor and Blaze News reporter Julio Rosas later testified at the White House about Antifa’s violence — testimony that corporate media outlets buried.

Antifa is organized, funded, and emboldened.

Chicago offers the same grim picture. Federal agents have been stalked, ambushed, and denied backup from local police while under siege from mobs. Calls for help went unanswered, putting lives in danger. This is more than disorder; it is open defiance of federal authority and a violation of the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause.

A history of violence

For years, the legacy media and left-wing think tanks have portrayed Antifa as “decentralized” and “leaderless.” The opposite is true. Antifa is organized, disciplined, and well-funded. Groups like Rose City Antifa in Oregon, the Elm Fork John Brown Gun Club in Texas, and Jane’s Revenge operate as coordinated street militias. Legal fronts such as the National Lawyers Guild provide protection, while crowdfunding networks and international supporters funnel money directly to the movement.

The claim that Antifa lacks structure is a convenient myth — one that’s cost Americans dearly.

History reminds us what happens when mobs go unchecked. The French Revolution, Weimar Germany, Mao’s Red Guards — every one began with chaos on the streets. But it wasn’t random. Today’s radicals follow the same playbook: Exploit disorder, intimidate opponents, and seize moral power while the state looks away.

Dismember the dragon

The Trump administration’s decision to designate Antifa a domestic terrorist organization was long overdue. The label finally acknowledged what citizens already knew: Antifa functions as a militant enterprise, recruiting and radicalizing youth for coordinated violence nationwide.

But naming the threat isn’t enough. The movement’s financiers, organizers, and enablers must also face justice. Every dollar that funds Antifa’s destruction should be traced, seized, and exposed.

AFP Contributor / Contributor | Getty Images

This fight transcends party lines. It’s not about left versus right; it’s about civilization versus anarchy. When politicians and judges excuse or ignore mob violence, they imperil the republic itself. Americans must reject silence and cowardice while street militias operate with impunity.

Antifa is organized, funded, and emboldened. The violence in Portland and Chicago is deliberate, not spontaneous. If America fails to confront it decisively, the price won’t just be broken cities — it will be the erosion of the republic itself.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

URGENT: Supreme Court case could redefine religious liberty

Drew Angerer / Staff | Getty Images

The state is effectively silencing professionals who dare speak truths about gender and sexuality, redefining faith-guided speech as illegal.

This week, free speech is once again on the line before the U.S. Supreme Court. At stake is whether Americans still have the right to talk about faith, morality, and truth in their private practice without the government’s permission.

The case comes out of Colorado, where lawmakers in 2019 passed a ban on what they call “conversion therapy.” The law prohibits licensed counselors from trying to change a minor’s gender identity or sexual orientation, including their behaviors or gender expression. The law specifically targets Christian counselors who serve clients attempting to overcome gender dysphoria and not fall prey to the transgender ideology.

The root of this case isn’t about therapy. It’s about erasing a worldview.

The law does include one convenient exception. Counselors are free to “assist” a person who wants to transition genders but not someone who wants to affirm their biological sex. In other words, you can help a child move in one direction — one that is in line with the state’s progressive ideology — but not the other.

Think about that for a moment. The state is saying that a counselor can’t even discuss changing behavior with a client. Isn’t that the whole point of counseling?

One‑sided freedom

Kaley Chiles, a licensed professional counselor in Colorado Springs, has been one of the victims of this blatant attack on the First Amendment. Chiles has dedicated her practice to helping clients dealing with addiction, trauma, sexuality struggles, and gender dysphoria. She’s also a Christian who serves patients seeking guidance rooted in biblical teaching.

Before 2019, she could counsel minors according to her faith. She could talk about biblical morality, identity, and the path to wholeness. When the state outlawed that speech, she stopped. She followed the law — and then she sued.

Her case, Chiles v. Salazar, is now before the Supreme Court. Justices heard oral arguments on Tuesday. The question: Is counseling a form of speech or merely a government‑regulated service?

If the court rules the wrong way, it won’t just silence therapists. It could muzzle pastors, teachers, parents — anyone who believes in truth grounded in something higher than the state.

Censored belief

I believe marriage between a man and a woman is ordained by God. I believe that family — mother, father, child — is central to His design for humanity.

I believe that men and women are created in God’s image, with divine purpose and eternal worth. Gender isn’t an accessory; it’s part of who we are.

I believe the command to “be fruitful and multiply” still stands, that the power to create life is sacred, and that it belongs within marriage between a man and a woman.

And I believe that when we abandon these principles — when we treat sex as recreation, when we dissolve families, when we forget our vows — society fractures.

Are those statements controversial now? Maybe. But if this case goes against Chiles, those statements and others could soon be illegal to say aloud in public.

Faith on trial

In Colorado today, a counselor cannot sit down with a 15‑year‑old who’s struggling with gender identity and say, “You were made in God’s image, and He does not make mistakes.” That is now considered hate speech.

That’s the “freedom” the modern left is offering — freedom to affirm, but never to question. Freedom to comply, but never to dissent. The same movement that claims to champion tolerance now demands silence from anyone who disagrees. The root of this case isn’t about therapy. It’s about erasing a worldview.

The real test

No matter what happens at the Supreme Court, we cannot stop speaking the truth. These beliefs aren’t political slogans. For me, they are the product of years of wrestling, searching, and learning through pain and grace what actually leads to peace. For us, they are the fundamental principles that lead to a flourishing life. We cannot balk at standing for truth.

Maybe that’s why God allows these moments — moments when believers are pushed to the wall. They force us to ask hard questions: What is true? What is worth standing for? What is worth dying for — and living for?

If we answer those questions honestly, we’ll find not just truth, but freedom.

The state doesn’t grant real freedom — and it certainly isn’t defined by Colorado legislators. Real freedom comes from God. And the day we forget that, the First Amendment will mean nothing at all.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Glenn Beck joins Megyn Kelly LIVE — One night ONLY in Fort Worth!

Get ready for sparks to fly. For the first time in years, Glenn will come face-to-face with Megyn Kelly — and this time, he’s the one in the hot seat. On October 25, 2025, at Dickies Arena in Fort Worth, Texas, Glenn joins Megyn on her “Megyn Kelly Live Tour” for a no-holds-barred conversation that promises laughs, surprises, and maybe even a few uncomfortable questions.

What will happen when two of America’s sharpest voices collide under the spotlight? Will Glenn finally reveal the major announcement he’s been teasing on the radio for weeks? You’ll have to be there to find out.

This promises to be more than just an interview — it’s a live showdown packed with wit, honesty, and the kind of energy you can only feel if you are in the room. Tickets are selling fast, so don’t miss your chance to see Glenn like you’ve never seen him before.

Get your tickets NOW at www.MegynKelly.com before they’re gone!

What our response to Israel reveals about us

JOSEPH PREZIOSO / Contributor | Getty Images

I have been honored to receive the Defender of Israel Award from Prime Minister Netanyahu.

The Jerusalem Post recently named me one of the strongest Christian voices in support of Israel.

And yet, my support is not blind loyalty. It’s not a rubber stamp for any government or policy. I support Israel because I believe it is my duty — first as a Christian, but even if I weren’t a believer, I would still support her as a man of reason, morality, and common sense.

Because faith isn’t required to understand this: Israel’s existence is not just about one nation’s survival — it is about the survival of Western civilization itself.

It is a lone beacon of shared values in the Middle East. It is a bulwark standing against radical Islam — the same evil that seeks to dismantle our own nation from within.

And my support is not rooted in politics. It is rooted in something simpler and older than politics: a people’s moral and historical right to their homeland, and their right to live in peace.

Israel has that right — and the right to defend herself against those who openly, repeatedly vow her destruction.

Let’s make it personal: if someone told me again and again that they wanted to kill me and my entire family — and then acted on that threat — would I not defend myself? Wouldn’t you? If Hamas were Canada, and we were Israel, and they did to us what Hamas has done to them, there wouldn’t be a single building left standing north of our border. That’s not a question of morality.

That’s just the truth. All people — every people — have a God-given right to protect themselves. And Israel is doing exactly that.

My support for Israel’s right to finish the fight against Hamas comes after eighty years of rejected peace offers and failed two-state solutions. Hamas has never hidden its mission — the eradication of Israel. That’s not a political disagreement.

That’s not a land dispute. That is an annihilationist ideology. And while I do not believe this is America’s war to fight, I do believe — with every fiber of my being — that it is Israel’s right, and moral duty, to defend her people.

Criticism of military tactics is fair. That’s not antisemitism. But denying Israel’s right to exist, or excusing — even celebrating — the barbarity of Hamas? That’s something far darker.

We saw it on October 7th — the face of evil itself. Women and children slaughtered. Babies burned alive. Innocent people raped and dragged through the streets. And now, to see our own fellow citizens march in defense of that evil… that is nothing short of a moral collapse.

If the chants in our streets were, “Hamas, return the hostages — Israel, stop the bombing,” we could have a conversation.

But that’s not what we hear.

What we hear is open sympathy for genocidal hatred. And that is a chasm — not just from decency, but from humanity itself. And here lies the danger: that same hatred is taking root here — in Dearborn, in London, in Paris — not as horror, but as heroism. If we are not vigilant, the enemy Israel faces today will be the enemy the free world faces tomorrow.

This isn’t about politics. It’s about truth. It’s about the courage to call evil by its name and to say “Never again” — and mean it.

And you don’t have to open a Bible to understand this. But if you do — if you are a believer — then this issue cuts even deeper. Because the question becomes: what did God promise, and does He keep His word?

He told Abraham, “I will bless those who bless you, and curse those who curse you.” He promised to make Abraham the father of many nations and to give him “the whole land of Canaan.” And though Abraham had other sons, God reaffirmed that promise through Isaac. And then again through Isaac’s son, Jacob — Israel — saying: “The land I gave to Abraham and Isaac I give to you and to your descendants after you.”

That’s an everlasting promise.

And from those descendants came a child — born in Bethlehem — who claimed to be the Savior of the world. Jesus never rejected His title as “son of David,” the great King of Israel.

He said plainly that He came “for the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” And when He returns, Scripture says He will return as “the Lion of the tribe of Judah.” And where do you think He will go? Back to His homeland — Israel.

Tamir Kalifa / Stringer | Getty Images

And what will He find when He gets there? His brothers — or his brothers’ enemies? Will the roads where He once walked be preserved? Or will they lie in rubble, as Gaza does today? If what He finds looks like the aftermath of October 7th, then tell me — what will be my defense as a Christian?

Some Christians argue that God’s promises to Israel have been transferred exclusively to the Church. I don’t believe that. But even if you do, then ask yourself this: if we’ve inherited the promises, do we not also inherit the land? Can we claim the birthright and then, like Esau, treat it as worthless when the world tries to steal it?

So, when terrorists come to slaughter Israelis simply for living in the land promised to Abraham, will we stand by? Or will we step forward — into the line of fire — and say,

“Take me instead”?

Because this is not just about Israel’s right to exist.

It’s about whether we still know the difference between good and evil.

It’s about whether we still have the courage to stand where God stands.

And if we cannot — if we will not — then maybe the question isn’t whether Israel will survive. Maybe the question is whether we will.

Glenn's Show Prep