Back in the 1990s and early 2000s, Disney went on a run where they were remaking many of their movies made in the 50s, 60s and 70s. Some of these remakes included The Parent Trap, That Darn Cat, The Shaggy Dog and Flubber. But some of the most well known of these films were Disney's strange attempts to remake some of their animated films. It was a very confusing time for Disney, as they seemed to not need to cash in on these films. After all, the parks were doing great (apart from Disneyland Paris), Disney's film studios were pumping out hits and they were smash hits on television, home video and even Broadway. But, nevertheless, they pressed onward and remade two previously animated movies into live action films. Rudyard Kipling's The Jungle Book was first and it was...it was a mess. It had more in common with the story of Tarzan than it did The Jungle Book. Mowgli was aged up to be a man, he had a relationship with a woman from high society and the animals weren't exactly evil. Heck, even Shere Khan seemed uninterested in Mowgli until the last few moments of the film when he simply accepts him as part of the jungle before running off.
But in 1996, Disney released their one and only perfect remake. No, it wasn't a flawless film. Far from it. But whereas the remakes coming out now are nothing more than cheap cash ins on animated films from our childhood because the Iger/Chapek run Disney is creatively bankrupt, this one seemed to come from the heart. It isn't a lazy commentary on modern film aesthetics. It's just a simplified yet welcomed retelling of one of Disney's most beloved animated films. And I will gladly take a bunch of remakes like this over the worthless remakes from 2010-2021 and still going...
Plot: Fashion Designer Anita (Joely Richardson) and Video Game Designer Roger Dearly (Jeff Daniels) meet one another in the park and find their Dalmatian dogs, Pongo and Perdita, have fallen in love. The couple gets together and moves in together in a small flat in London, much to the dismay of Anita's employer, fashion mogul Cruella De Vil (Glen Close). What does entice Cruella, however, is the fact that their dogs are going to have puppies in a few weeks. Obsessed with spots as a new fashion trend and furs in general, Cruella offers to buy all fifteen puppies that Perdita has for a small fortune, but Anita and Roger angrily turn her down. Cruella departs, but soon contracts her goons in Jasper (Hugh Laurie) and Horace (Mark Williams) to steal the fifteen puppies. Distraught parents Pongo and Perdy use the infamous Twilight Bark to relay the news of their missing puppies to every dog from London to the English Countryside, ultimately uncovering that they were being kept in an abandoned old house far off from London.
It's soon revealed that not only had those fifteen puppies been stolen, but an additional eighty-four had been taken from various families, adding up to ninety nine Dalmatian puppies were under the watchful eyes of Cruella's goons. Why? Well, Cruella desired to kill the puppies and make a fur coat out of their hides. Soon, all of the animal kingdom is up against Cruella and her henchmen in a race against time to save the puppies and out Cruella for the monster she truly was.
What's Bad?: The biggest flaw I have with this film is that there is a lot of moments of filler in this film. Which isn't something these Disney Remakes aren't used to, but with this one it's a little much in terms of how much extra things are added to the story that don't really feel like they're saying anything. But the filler is supposed to be funny, as yes, this film is a John Hughes comedy, so it's more forgivable than the scene of the mouse running around for 90 seconds in The Lion King (2019). I think the hardest scenes for me to sit through in this film are the ones where the comedy just falls completely flat, like with most of the scenes between Jasper and Horace while in the manner. Maybe it's because the original film uses so much slapstick that I was expecting something a bit more profound? I don't know. But one thing I do know is that if this is the biggest flaw the film has, it's surprisingly okay in my books.
One last pet peeve of mine. He does give a fairly decent performance, but Jeff Daniels is so horribly miscast as Roger in this movie. In a movie that takes place in London, you would think they'd want the lead human male to have a British Accent? Even a little bit? Or did Jeff Daniels think he was Kevin Costner in Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves and he didn't need an accent. Fortunately, Daniels is a decent comedic and heartfelt actor and his scenes aren't that distracting. It's just odd that so many British actors are in this movie and he's just there being Middle America guy living in the heart of London.
What's Good?: One thing I noticed during a recent rewatch of the original movie is just how seriously both movies take the theft of the dogs. This was initially going to be a flaw of mine, as I feel that they put a little bit too much stock into the dogs wellbeing (constantly thinking Scotland Yard was going to be calling them with updates and stuff like that), but since it's a consistent take the film has with the original, I have to give it a pass.
The comedy in the movie is very hit and miss, but I will concede that it's on the better end of post-Home Alone John Hughes movies. As many of you know, after striking it big with Home Alone, John Hughes stopped making the smartly written comedies like Planes, Trains and Automobiles or heartfelt teenage flicks like The Breakfast Club in favor of lowbrow comedies like Baby's Day Out, Beethoven, Flubber and the Home Alone sequels. But this one has a bit more cleverly written and cleverly acted out dialogue that makes those other movies all the more challenging to sit through. I think it has more to do with the original movie and the acting performances in this one which are still fairly strong. It does have some groaner worthy lines and situations like with Jasper and Horace trying to jump the electrical fence on a flimsy tree branch and knowing what was about to happen, but for the most part, the comedy is a step above the other lesser John Hughes movies.
Oh yeah, let's talk about Glen Close as Cruella De Vil. To me, the greatest Disney (or basically any movie studios) villains and their performances are the ones where the actor portraying the villain is having so much fun being evil and twisted that you cannot help but appreciate the effort. The first few that pop into my head are Dustin Hoffman as Captain Hook in Hook, Vincent Price as Professor Ratigan in The Great Mouse Detective, Pat Carroll as Ursula in The Little Mermaid and of course Ian McDiarmid as Emperor Palpatine in the Star Wars series. Glen Close not only matches this bar in her performance as Cruella, but also heightens the expectations so high that I don't think any villain will ever reach the sheer bonkers cruelty she possesses in this movie. I always used to fear big time actors taking over roles that stage and TV actors did so well in these animated movies, but Glen Close proves that it can be done. There is not a single scene Cruella is in that she doesn't steal the show. When she's reserved, obsessive, enraged or downright apoplectic, she is the star of this movie and it really shows. She gave one of Disney's greatest villains so much love and I appreciate every second of it.
One last thing I enjoyed is how much they changed about the movie, while keeping to it's original tone. Roger is a Video Game Designer instead of a songwriter, but he still manages to have his big hit of a game at the expense of Cruella as his songwriting did in the original film. Anita is shown to be in Cruella's good favor until she starts doing things her demented boss despises. And one of the best takes this movie had was making none of the animal characters talk. Sure, it's a bit strange to have these dogs have to carry much of the picture, but I prefer this a million times over CGI dogs talking and repeating lines from the original film.
Overall: The film is goofy and silly when it needs to be, even to some extent being a little over the top. But that I think was the tone they were looking for in this one. It isn't a character drama about a villain you want so desperately to make a good guy (ahem). It's a simple story about a family of Dalmatians trying to survive the machinations of a fur obsessed lunatic and all the chaos that ensues from that. It's unapologetic about what it is, and considering all of the garbage remakes I've sat through for Disney, this one is definitely top of the class.
As you can clearly tell, I REALLY don't want to review Cruella. Like, I REALLY don't want to. But it will have to come eventually. But not now. I've got a few other projects I have to take care of first, beginning with wrapping up the MCU (at least the ones I choose to see, which is everything up to Endgame)
No comments:
Post a Comment