Disney's Cruella - because we need sympathize with the animal abuser

[Overly Serious]

The whole "dogs killed my mom" revenge plotline is impossible to take seriously

This literally isn't anything that is in the movie. At no point does Cruella take revenge on the dogs. At no point does she seek revenge on the dogs. And if you've truly watched the movie then you know that she steals the dogs and keeps them as her own pets by the end of the movie. This meme that her backstory is that dogs killed her parents so she hates dogs is not at all in the film itself.

What Disney and everybody else in the Entertainment Industrial Complex needs to do is stop recycling old material, write new characters and just let villains be evil. They don't all need relatable tragic backstories. Tripe like 'Cruella' sucks and makes no sense storywise.

The film has the explicit narrative that she was born evil and that the evil is part of her. I mean, it's literally stated that she has this evil side that she was taught to suppress by her mother. And that by the end of the film the evil side is in control and "it's her [the good side] turn to stay in a box and be allowed out from time to time."

I wish people would criticize a film based on what is actually in it. Honestly, this thread has become some inverse of the online feminists who continued to defend Ghostbusters 2016 even after it turned out to be burning crap.

 

[SteelPlatedHeart]

This literally isn't anything that is in the movie. At no point does Cruella take revenge on the dogs. At no point does she seek revenge on the dogs. And if you've truly watched the movie then you know that she steals the dogs and keeps them as her own pets by the end of the movie. This meme that her backstory is that dogs killed her parents so she hates dogs is not at all in the film itself.



The film has the explicit narrative that she was born evil and that the evil is part of her. I mean, it's literally stated that she has this evil side that she was taught to suppress by her mother. And that by the end of the film the evil side is in control and "it's her [the good side] turn to stay in a box and be allowed out from time to time."

I wish people would criticize a film based on what is actually in it. Honestly, this thread has become some inverse of the online feminists who continued to defend Ghostbusters 2016 even after it turned out to be burning crap.

Because the concept itself is stupid. Dogs literally push a woman off a cliff. Cruella is clearly made to be sympathetic, and that you’re supposed to cheer for her. Which is ridiculous, because it’s Cruella. And who the fuck cares if she adopts the dogs and loves them or whatever, she’s going to end up trying to kill all their decendants to make into a coat in the end anyway. You say that’s not in the story, but it doesn’t have to be because we all know where this story goes. And if you say “well, THIS Cruella doesn’t hate Dalmatians or want to kill them”, then why make a Cruella movie in the first place?

Eirher make a movie about Cruella being an evil bitch that’s actually evil, or tell an original story about an antihero striking back against the world and woman that ruined her life. But Disney wants brand recognition and wants to get the Malificent crowd, so now we get stuff like “Roger decides to write the song as a TRIBUTE to Cruella after she gives Pongo to him as a puppy.” They wanted it both ways and the film premise and story are laughable as a result.

It’s fine if you like the movie or enjoy it, but don’t start insulting people for mocking it. Because “cgi Dalmatians pushed my mom off a cliff to kill her” is the dumbest most hilarious backstory for Cruella De Vill I think I’ve ever heard.

 

[Shining Wit]

I took my significant other on a date to this dumpster fire.
Tldr it was really boring and odd.
The whole time I kept thinking this movie would have been a really interesting lady gaga musical instead of emma stone have lady gaga play cruella and made it like rocky horror picture show.

It'd have been unique at least
Camp is something sorely lacking from modern releases

 

[Cardenio]

Because the concept itself is stupid. Dogs literally push a woman off a cliff. Cruella is clearly made to be sympathetic, and that you’re supposed to cheer for her. Which is ridiculous, because it’s Cruella. And who the fuck cares if she adopts the dogs and loves them or whatever, she’s going to end up trying to kill all their decendants to make into a coat in the end anyway. You say that’s not in the story, but it doesn’t have to be because we all know where this story goes. And if you say “well, THIS Cruella doesn’t hate Dalmatians or want to kill them”, then why make a Cruella movie in the first place?

Eirher make a movie about Cruella being an evil bitch that’s actually evil, or tell an original story about an antihero striking back against the world and woman that ruined her life. But Disney wants brand recognition and wants to get the Malificent crowd, so now we get stuff like “Roger decides to write the song as a TRIBUTE to Cruella after she gives Pongo to him as a puppy.” They wanted it both ways and the film premise and story are laughable as a result.

It’s fine if you like the movie or enjoy it, but don’t start insulting people for mocking it. Because “cgi Dalmatians pushed my mom off a cliff to kill her” is the dumbest most hilarious backstory for Cruella De Vill I think I’ve ever heard.

Eh, I think it's a little overblown to say you can't make Cruella into an Anti-Hero, we all enjoyed Joaquin Pheonix being a psychotic Joker.

It can't be any worse than Malificient which was straight up unwatchable garbage. I don't know what boner Hollywood has for Angelina Jolie she hasn't been fuckable since Mr. and Mrs. Smith.

 

[Overly Serious]

Because the concept itself is stupid. Dogs literally push a woman off a cliff. Cruella is clearly made to be sympathetic, and that you’re supposed to cheer for her. Which is ridiculous, because it’s Cruella. And who the fuck cares if she adopts the dogs and loves them or whatever, she’s going to end up trying to kill all their decendants to make into a coat in the end anyway. You say that’s not in the story, but it doesn’t have to be

Person I replied to said the film was stupid because its a revenge story about her hating dogs because dogs killed her mother. So yes, it does have to be if the person I replied to is to be right. Note that I haven't been quoting and arguing with people who said the didn't enjoy the movie or found it boring. I'm calling out people who are talking bullshit. And she doesn't love the dogs who killed her mother - again you plainly haven't seen this film - she just doesn't care because they're fucking dogs to her. And I don't get the horror some people have here for the fact dogs jumped at her mother off a cliff. It's a 12 rated Disney movie. Do you want them to graphically tear her apart? What manner of her becoming an orphan is acceptable for you in a Disney movie, I have to ask? Yeesh!

Eirher make a movie about Cruella being an evil bitch that’s actually evil,

She is an evil bitch. That's how the movie ends.

or tell an original story about an antihero striking back against the world and woman that ruined her life. But Disney wants brand recognition and wants to get the Malificent crowd, so now we get stuff like “Roger decides to write the song as a TRIBUTE to Cruella after she gives Pongo to him as a puppy.” They wanted it both ways and the film premise and story are laughable as a result.

Okay, I call bullshit on you having seen this movie. I don't think his song is meant to be a tribute to her when it goes "...if she doesn't scare you, no evil thing will". And it's a fucking mid-credits joke.

It’s fine if you like the movie or enjoy it, but don’t start insulting people for mocking it. Because “cgi Dalmatians pushed my mom off a cliff to kill her” is the dumbest most hilarious backstory for Cruella De Vill I think I’ve ever heard.

And it's fine if you don't enjoy the movie. But I'm going to point out if a statement is factually wrong. She doesn't go out seeking revenge on the dogs at any point. Damning the film because you think something is stupid which isn't in the film, is, yes - retarded.

It can't be any worse than Malificient which was straight up unwatchable garbage. I don't know what boner Hollywood has for Angelina Jolie she hasn't been fuckable since Mr. and Mrs. Smith.

It's much better than Maleficent. Cruella remains bad unlike Maleficient and definitely can't see this Cruella pining after some man who betrayed her like in that other film. Also, Emma Stone's cheekbones aren't CGI.

 

[SteelPlatedHeart]

Eh, I think it's a little overblown to say you can't make Cruella into an Anti-Hero, we all enjoyed Joaquin Pheonix being a psychotic Joker.

It can't be any worse than Malificient which was straight up unwatchable garbage. I don't know what boner Hollywood has for Angelina Jolie she hasn't been fuckable since Mr. and Mrs. Smith.

i mean, if you go fully into the “she’s a shitty puppy murdering crazy lady who only cares about wearing animal fur”, then yeah, I think you could make a good movie about that. But Disney goes about 2/3rds of the way there and then pulls a “Malificent” in the home stretch. Which is almost worse, in a way.

 

[Overly Serious]

i mean, if you go fully into the “she’s a shitty puppy murdering crazy lady who only cares about wearing animal fur”, then yeah, I think you could make a good movie about that. But Disney goes about 2/3rds of the way there and then pulls a “Malificent” in the home stretch. Which is almost worse, in a way.

So two questions. Firstly, have you actually gone to see this movie. Secondly, what do you mean by "pulls a Malificent in the home stretch"?

 

[SteelPlatedHeart]

Person I replied to said the film was stupid because its a revenge story about her hating dogs because dogs killed her mother. So yes, it does have to be if the person I replied to is to be right. Note that I haven't been quoting and arguing with people who said the didn't enjoy the movie or found it boring. I'm calling out people who are talking bullshit. And she doesn't love the dogs who killed her mother - again you plainly haven't seen this film - she just doesn't care because they're fucking dogs to her. And I don't get the horror some people have here for the fact dogs jumped at her mother off a cliff. It's a 12 rated Disney movie. Do you want them to graphically tear her apart? What manner of her becoming an orphan is acceptable for you in a Disney movie, I have to ask? Yeesh!



She is an evil bitch. That's how the movie ends.


Okay, I call bullshit on you having seen this movie. I don't think his song is meant to be a tribute to her when it goes "...if she doesn't scare you, no evil thing will". And it's a fucking mid-credits joke.




And it's fine if you don't enjoy the movie. But I'm going to point out if a statement is factually wrong. She doesn't go out seeking revenge on the dogs at any point. Damning the film because you think something is stupid which isn't in the film, is, yes - retarded.




It's much better than Maleficent. Cruella remains a villain unlike Maleficient. Also, Emma Stone's cheekbones aren't CGI.

Okay, in 101 Dalmatians, she’s out to kill the puppies and make them into a coat, yes? If this prequel isn’t about her getting revenge on dogs, then why did the dogs have to be Dalmatians? It’s a revenge story because of what happens in 101 Dalmatians. That’s what makes it stupid, because it’s clearly implying she went after those puppies because Dalmatians killed her mom as a child. Once you put “Dalmatians killed her parent” as a major backstory and plot point for a villain famous because she wanted to kill a bunch of Dalmatians puppies to wear as a coat, you can’t criticize people for connecting the dots there.

 

[Overly Serious]

Okay, in 101 Dalmatians, she’s out to kill the puppies and make them into a coat, yes? If this prequel isn’t about her getting revenge on dogs, then why did the dogs have to be Dalmatians? It’s a revenge story because of what happens in 101 Dalmatians. That’s what makes it stupid, because it’s clearly implying she went after those puppies because Dalmatians killed her mom as a child. Once you put “Dalmatians killed her parent” as a major backstory and plot point for a villain famous because she wanted to kill a bunch of Dalmatians puppies to wear as a coat, you can’t criticize people for connecting the dots there.

That's the biggest load of bullcrap trying to invent reasons why you're still right I've seen since the last Fauci hearing. Someone says the movie has a dumb plot of her wanting to take revenge on dalmations for killing her mother. Someone who has actually seen the movie points out that she never does any of that. You get assmad about it and start arguing that we should think it's the case even if it's not in the movie because we should "fill in the dots". And you still haven't even seen this fucking movie. You're exactly like the Ghostbusters 2016 defenders!

 

[Cardenio]

i mean, if you go fully into the “she’s a shitty puppy murdering crazy lady who only cares about wearing animal fur”, then yeah, I think you could make a good movie about that. But Disney goes about 2/3rds of the way there and then pulls a “Malificent” in the home stretch. Which is almost worse, in a way.

Ah now I see. So it is a Malificent but this time with a sexually desirable actress.

The whole "Dalmations killed my mom" detail reminds me of a movie I remember my parents watching on TV sometime in the 2000s. It was about a bullrider family and at the very end the son is gored to death by a bull. At the very end the mother buys the bull that killed her son and gets it delivered to the ranch to execute it. But then she stops after realizing that it's just a simple animal that had no murderous intention. The act of killing it wouldn't bring any closure or even true revenge.

You could do the same Cruella, but then she's not a villian. So really what's the point except that Dinsey keeps pumping out soulless cash grabs because families keep buying it up?

 

[Overly Serious]

Ah now I see. So it is a Malificent but this time with a sexually desirable actress.

The whole "Dalmations killed my mom" detail reminds me of a movie I remember my parents watching on TV sometime in the 2000s. It was about a bullrider family and at the very end the son is gored to death by a bull. At the very end the mother buys the bull that killed her son and gets it delivered to the ranch to execute it. But then she stops after realizing that it's just a simple animal that had no murderous intention. The act of killing it wouldn't bring any closure or even true revenge.

You could do the same Cruella, but then she's not a villian. So really what's the point except that Dinsey keeps pumping out soulless cash grabs because families keep buying it up.

He's talking crap and hasn't even seen the movie. She doesn't seek revenge on the dalmations. She pretty much has the same attitude as the mother in your bullrider movie. She ends up owning them in fact.

She's only not much of a villain in this film because her enemy is also a villain. But she's a psychopath. She becomes "Cruella" at the end.

EDIT: But it's worth remembering that the rules of your bullrider movie don't apply here. It's a Disney movie. Animals are semi-sentient. I mean, isn't 101 Dalmations literally narrated by the dogs? "Cruella" the movie treads a sort of line between animals being animals and animals being people.

 

[wtfNeedSignUp]

The film has the explicit narrative that she was born evil and that the evil is part of her. I mean, it's literally stated that she has this evil side that she was taught to suppress by her mother. And that by the end of the film the evil side is in control and "it's her [the good side] turn to stay in a box and be allowed out from time to time."

That's a disturbing world view to say the least. It's not necessarily incorrect but you'd find it espoused by race realists than corporate whores. Also raises the question of whether it "excuses" Cruella from her actions.

 

[Übertroon]

How are people shocked that they went this route? It was never going to be like the Joker. Audiences do not respond well to movies with actual villainous women

This is the type of people this movie is for

"Inspire"
"Wholesome"
"Accessible"

 

[Overly Serious]

That's a disturbing world view to say the least. It's not necessarily incorrect but you'd find it espoused by race realists than corporate whores. Also raises the question of whether it "excuses" Cruella from her actions.

I agree. But it's also kind of refreshing to have a story where someone is just a "Bad Guy" again like in the old Disney movies. I don't need Cruella / Frolo / Maleficent / the Evil Queen / Rapunzel's mother / insert Classic Disney Villain to be some good person underneath. Sometimes an orc is just an orc.

Kids need a simple narrative sometimes. You can't start everyone off with moral relativism or you get a society of people who are never able to oppose evil. Wasn't it G.K. Chesterton who said: "Fairy tales aren't important because they teach us that dragons are real, they're important because they teach us dragons can be beaten." The problem is when people stop at that stage of development and understanding and never go beyond.

Anyway, that aside yes - it could be the same sort of logic that is used by race realists and other groups - that someone is just inherently evil. The problem is, inherently evil is magnetic storytelling. And that some people (not defined by group but individually) are mad, bad or dangerous to know.

In "Cruella" she has the chance of redemption. She's asked by Jasper whether it wouldn't be better to just walk away, forget about all this and have a good life that she wants. And she wavers for a second and then rejects it. The evil half wins out. That's the essence of Tragedy in the classic storytelling sense. Someone is doomed not through circumstance but by the flaws within them. At the start of the film, Estella makes a mean comment about her mothers clothes making and her mother replies: "That was cruel! Your name's Estella, not Cruella" and despite people ripping on it it's not a weird thing for a parent to say to a child. And it's established as a thing that her mother works at to keep her good, referring to her nasty side as Cruella and before her first day at school reminds her: "And what do we say when Cruella comes to visit?" with Estella replying: "Thank you, Cruella, but I don't need you today." (or something very like that). It's developed from the start with this little Nature vs. Nurture thing and the film settles on the idea that there is such a thing as Nature in a person, but that Nurture can try to help. And for a while it does until things happen that make her decide that Cruella is needed today, thank you very much.

The split personality thing is pretty good and I really think people should watch the film if they're interested but for those who really don't plan to or really don't care about spoilers:

Spoiler

At the end of the film, Estella is dead, empty coffin and funeral and all. Horace is crying because Estella is dead. Jasper is telling Horace: "you know she's not actually dead, right? She's [Cruella] right there". But in the logic of the film, Horace is actually right - Estella is gone. Cruella lives on.

As to "excuses her from her actions". Not really. She embraces "Cruella" at the end. We all have demons inside us. She stops trying to contain hers and lets it take over. So the Nature vs. Nurture thing, this movie's position is a little of both. Which is honestly perhaps the most true to real life.

How are people shocked that they went this route? It was never going to be like the Joker. Audiences do not respond well to movies with actual villainous women

This is the type of people this movie is for
View attachment 2218145
"Inspire"
"Wholesome"
"Accessible"

Well they're not wrong. The fashion elements in this film are really fun and one of the main themes / plot elements is that she's fantastically talented but kept out of using that talent because she doesn't have the connections. And if you know anything about the fashion world (or most of business) that's pretty accurate. It's who you know. And it's frankly a lot of fun seeing the way Cruella goes about breaking down those barriers that stop her.

 

[wtfNeedSignUp]

I agree. But it's also kind of refreshing to have a story where someone is just a "Bad Guy" again like in the old Disney movies. I don't need Cruella / Frolo / Maleficent / the Evil Queen / Rapunzel's mother / insert Classic Disney Villain to be some good person underneath. Sometimes an orc is just an orc.

Kids need a simple narrative sometimes. You can't start everyone off with moral relativism or you get a society of people who are never able to oppose evil. Wasn't it G.K. Chesterton who said: "Fairy tales aren't important because they teach us that dragons are real, they're important because they teach us dragons can be beaten." The problem is when people stop at that stage of development and understanding and never go beyond.

Anyway, that aside yes - it could be the same sort of logic that is used by race realists and other groups - that someone is just inherently evil. The problem is, inherently evil is magnetic storytelling. And that some people (not defined by group but individually) are mad, bad or dangerous to know.

In "Cruella" she has the chance of redemption. She's asked by Jasper whether it wouldn't be better to just walk away, forget about all this and have a good life that she wants. And she wavers for a second and then rejects it. The evil half wins out. That's the essence of Tragedy in the classic storytelling sense. Someone is doomed not through circumstance but by the flaws within them. At the start of the film, Estella makes a mean comment about her mothers clothes making and her mother replies: "That was cruel! Your name's Estella, not Cruella" and despite people ripping on it it's not a weird thing for a parent to say to a child. And it's established as a thing that her mother works at to keep her good, referring to her nasty side as Cruella and before her first day at school reminds her: "And what do we say when Cruella comes to visit?" with Estella replying: "Thank you, Cruella, but I don't need you today." (or something very like that). It's developed from the start with this little Nature vs. Nurture thing and the film settles on the idea that there is such a thing as Nature in a person, but that Nurture can try to help. And for a while it does until things happen that make her decide that Cruella is needed today, thank you very much.

The split personality thing is pretty good and I really think people should watch the film if they're interested but for those who really don't plan to or really don't care about spoilers:

Spoiler

At the end of the film, Estella is dead, empty coffin and funeral and all. Horace is crying because Estella is dead. Jasper is telling Horace: "you know she's not actually dead, right? She's [Cruella] right there". But in the logic of the film, Horace is actually right - Estella is gone. Cruella lives on.

As to "excuses her from her actions". Not really. She embraces "Cruella" at the end. We all have demons inside us. She stops trying to contain hers and lets it take over. So the Nature vs. Nurture thing, this movie's position is a little of both. Which is honestly perhaps the most true to real life.


Well they're not wrong. The fashion elements in this film are really fun and one of the main themes / plot elements is that she's fantastically talented but kept out of using that talent because she doesn't have the connections. And if you know anything about the fashion world (or most of business) that's pretty accurate. It's who you know. And it's frankly a lot of fun seeing the way Cruella goes about breaking down those barriers that stop her.

I vehemently disagree. There is a clear difference between an "evil" monster race and humans. And for evil humans, they are evil because of their actions, no need for justification or excuse why they do what they do. Considering the whole film is about the character of Cruella, having the justification for her being that she was "born evil" is just fucking lazy and nonsensical in the extreme. No one sane calls themselves "evil", they will always attempt to justify their actions. If the writers wanted for her to be evil then have her start as a vain bitch rather than have a tragic backstory. But my guess is that having her be a consumerist whore hit too close to home for the writers.

I doubt any kids will want to watch this shit, that's made specifically for manchildren who were taught to buy what they recognised. But the decades of having media with subjective moralism fucked an entire generation of people who will protect indians rights to burn widows with their husbands at the pyre.

 

[Luz Noceda]

This literally isn't anything that is in the movie. At no point does Cruella take revenge on the dogs. At no point does she seek revenge on the dogs. And if you've truly watched the movie then you know that she steals the dogs and keeps them as her own pets by the end of the movie. This meme that her backstory is that dogs killed her parents so she hates dogs is not at all in the film itself.



The film has the explicit narrative that she was born evil and that the evil is part of her. I mean, it's literally stated that she has this evil side that she was taught to suppress by her mother. And that by the end of the film the evil side is in control and "it's her [the good side] turn to stay in a box and be allowed out from time to time."

I wish people would criticize a film based on what is actually in it. Honestly, this thread has become some inverse of the online feminists who continued to defend Ghostbusters 2016 even after it turned out to be burning crap.

She clearly

Spoiler

renamed the mansion to Hell Hall at the

end of the film.

 

[Overly Serious]

I vehemently disagree. There is a clear difference between an "evil" monster race and humans. And for evil humans, they are evil because of their actions, no need for justification or excuse why they do what they do. Considering the whole film is about the character of Cruella, having the justification for her being that she was "born evil" is just fucking lazy and nonsensical in the extreme. No one sane calls themselves "evil", they will always attempt to justify their actions. If the writers wanted for her to be evil then have her start as a vain bitch rather than have a tragic backstory. But my guess is that having her be a consumerist whore hit too close to home for the writers.

So to sum up, I have one person who hasn't seen the film losing their shit because it gives her tragic events that could excuse her behaviour; and another person who hasn't seen the film angry because the tragic events aren't the reason for her behaviour!

Yeah, regards "nobody sane calls themselves evil," she's not sane. She's Cruella De'ville, That's kind of the point. This is later someone who we presume goes on to skin dogs to make a coat. She grew up trying to be good and eventually, and tragically, decides that doesn't work and embraces her evil side.

As regards the difference between an evil race and an evil individual? Yes, obviously there is a clear difference - one says sweeping generalizations are fine; the other says some people are born different. You keep using these words "justification" and "excuses". I don't know why. Did you hate Joker because you thought it excuses his murders?

Also, having her start as a "vain bitch" isn't exactly going to entertain or draw in audiences. That would be like having Macbeth start as a regicidal tyrant. It's the journey that is magnetic.

I doubt any kids will want to watch this shit, that's made specifically for manchildren who were taught to buy what they recognised. But the decades of having media with subjective moralism fucked an entire generation of people who will protect indians rights to burn widows with their husbands at the pyre.

It's pretty suitable for children. No gore, no sexual content, not too much moral ambiguity. It's not a comedy but there's enough fun stuff for kids in there (dogs disguised as rats, roof top chase, etc.). If they can watch Harry Potter they can watch this.

 

[cactus]

I agree. But it's also kind of refreshing to have a story where someone is just a "Bad Guy" again like in the old Disney movies. I don't need Cruella / Frolo / Maleficent / the Evil Queen / Rapunzel's mother / insert Classic Disney Villain to be some good person underneath. Sometimes an orc is just an orc.

Kids need a simple narrative sometimes. You can't start everyone off with moral relativism or you get a society of people who are never able to oppose evil. Wasn't it G.K. Chesterton who said: "Fairy tales aren't important because they teach us that dragons are real, they're important because they teach us dragons can be beaten." The problem is when people stop at that stage of development and understanding and never go beyond.

Anyway, that aside yes - it could be the same sort of logic that is used by race realists and other groups - that someone is just inherently evil. The problem is, inherently evil is magnetic storytelling. And that some people (not defined by group but individually) are mad, bad or dangerous to know.

In "Cruella" she has the chance of redemption. She's asked by Jasper whether it wouldn't be better to just walk away, forget about all this and have a good life that she wants. And she wavers for a second and then rejects it. The evil half wins out. That's the essence of Tragedy in the classic storytelling sense. Someone is doomed not through circumstance but by the flaws within them. At the start of the film, Estella makes a mean comment about her mothers clothes making and her mother replies: "That was cruel! Your name's Estella, not Cruella" and despite people ripping on it it's not a weird thing for a parent to say to a child. And it's established as a thing that her mother works at to keep her good, referring to her nasty side as Cruella and before her first day at school reminds her: "And what do we say when Cruella comes to visit?" with Estella replying: "Thank you, Cruella, but I don't need you today." (or something very like that). It's developed from the start with this little Nature vs. Nurture thing and the film settles on the idea that there is such a thing as Nature in a person, but that Nurture can try to help. And for a while it does until things happen that make her decide that Cruella is needed today, thank you very much.

The split personality thing is pretty good and I really think people should watch the film if they're interested but for those who really don't plan to or really don't care about spoilers:

Spoiler

At the end of the film, Estella is dead, empty coffin and funeral and all. Horace is crying because Estella is dead. Jasper is telling Horace: "you know she's not actually dead, right? She's [Cruella] right there". But in the logic of the film, Horace is actually right - Estella is gone. Cruella lives on.

As to "excuses her from her actions". Not really. She embraces "Cruella" at the end. We all have demons inside us. She stops trying to contain hers and lets it take over. So the Nature vs. Nurture thing, this movie's position is a little of both. Which is honestly perhaps the most true to real life.


Well they're not wrong. The fashion elements in this film are really fun and one of the main themes / plot elements is that she's fantastically talented but kept out of using that talent because she doesn't have the connections. And if you know anything about the fashion world (or most of business) that's pretty accurate. It's who you know. And it's frankly a lot of fun seeing the way Cruella goes about breaking down those barriers that stop her.

Why are you sucking this movie's dick so hard? Who cares if they haven't seen it, they find the premise stupid and find it enough reason to shit on it. Nevermind Cruella never hated dogs or Dalmatians in the first place, she liked the pattern of the dog's fur and was only going to use puppies because the adult's was too coarse, she even says as much in the movies.

 

[NyQuilninja]

It'd have been unique at least
Camp is something sorely lacking from modern releases

I miss comedy.
it's been dead for a very long time now

 

[Overly Serious]

Why are you sucking this movie's dick so hard? Who cares if they haven't seen it, they find the premise stupid and find it enough reason to shit on it. Nevermind Cruella never hated dogs or Dalmatians in the first place, she liked the pattern of the dog's fur and was only going to use puppies because the adult's was too coarse, she even says as much in the movies.

Eh, I just dislike bullshit. I'm not arguing with anyone says they didn't find it fun or whatever. The reason I pick up on people not having seen it is because they're complaining about things that literally are not in the movie.

EDIT: And yes - you're right about her not hating dogs. She doesn't in this, either. Which is why it's so dumb people keep talking about "the reason she hates dogs".