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

[RomanesEuntDomus]

When it was first announced Cruella was intended to be a prequel to the live-action 101 Dalmatians from 1996, but since they decided to race-bend Roger and Anita they get to remake it as Cruella 2.

Disney often just repeats the plot of the first movie with a few minor changes, so that's always an option.

I assume a second part of this movie would twist and turn the plot of 101 Dalmatians around into Cruella being a misunderstood Anti-Hero... but then again, they made Anita and Roger "diverse", so they can't make them look bad in the sequel.

So I expect "Oh no, Mr. Snicketypants Fashionsnobington has arrived in our town and he's the bigshot now and oh no Cruella needs to prove herself again... OH NO Mr. Snobington is her father!". In short, a giant retread.

 

[wtfNeedSignUp]

Disney often just repeats the plot of the first movie with a few minor changes, so that's always an option.

I assume a second part of this movie would twist and turn the plot of 101 Dalmatians around into Cruella being a misunderstood Anti-Hero... but then again, they made Anita and Roger "diverse", so they can't make them look bad in the sequel.

So I expect "Oh no, Mr. Snicketypants Fashionsnobington has arrived in our town and he's the bigshot now and oh no Cruella needs to prove herself again... OH NO Mr. Snobington is her father!". In short, a giant retread.

Nah it's going be some white men that wants to massacre the Dalmatians and Cruella actually saves them by pretending she wants to make a coat out of them and kidnapping them.

It's the plain old "I was just pretending to be retarded" script.

 

[Overly Serious]

So is Cruella in theaters? Did it make any money?

It's done, okay-ish. Beaten out in cinemas by Quiet Place 2 but it's hard to properly gauge it as it got a simultaneous release on Disney+. Why pay $60 to take your kids to the cinema to see it when you can pay $30 and all watch it at home. Also, there's a bias towards adults going to the cinema over kids more than usual because of vaccination nonsense. So kids movies doing worse than usual. Forbes article on it.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2021/05/30/box-office-disney-cruella-with-emma-stone-nabs-so-so-26m-opening-weekend/?sh=3f054cbc70e8

Rotten tomatoes as with Joker and anything else that isn't Woke right now, critics don't like it and audiences do:

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/cruella

 

[The Valeyard]

This scene seems familiar.

Han, what?

 

[The Great Chandler]

My mom and sister watched it. They liked it, but they believe it would've been better if the name Cruella were dropped

 

[RomanesEuntDomus]

My mom and sister watched it. They liked it, but they believe it would've been better if the name Cruella were dropped

Haven't watched it, but that's a very strong impression I got from the snippets I saw online. It could be really good as its own thing, but in the context of 101 Dalmatians, it's... severely dragged down.

 

[TheAmbiguousLurker]

People are really keen to compare this to Joker. I've heard of trying to associate crap with better movies, but this film isn't even remotely like Joker outside of pretending to be about an existing villain, except this one is about how she wasn't the villain afterall.

 

[RumblyTumbly]

OK, I saw it.

Its not as much of a bastardization as Maleficent and its not as much of a soulless remake as The Lion King, but many of the issues in those previous failures are there.

If I had to praise anything about the movie, Emma Stone and Emma Thompson deliver wonderfully hammy performances that are fun to watch, there are some great visual eye candy moments like Cruella's concert and the garbage dress scene, and the song selection throughout the film is fun (if a bit over indulgent).

That said, all of that amounts to style over substance. The story is a mess with pointless twists and turns, hacky ways to connect Cruella to all aspects of the original 101 Dalmatians story, and they went out of their way to remove undesirable aspects of Cruella's character to make her seem more cool and edgy rather than faithfully adapt the character that already exists.

Some examples:

Spoiler: Cruella Spoilers

1. To illustrate how sloppy the story is, there is literally a point in the movie where the story hinges on dogs having to poop out a necklace. Also, there is a point where Cruella hot wires a car, but then admits to not knowing how to drive. Maybe I missed something but how the hell do you know how to hot wire a car and not drive? And the absolute convoluted way they get to Cruella getting the Baroness' fortune is too ridiculous to believe. The fact that everyone fell for it is also hard to swallow.
2. As far as connecting Cruella to every single aspect of the original story, she took ownership of Pongo and Perdita's mother and father (more on that later), she became childhood friends with Horace and Jasper, and she apparently got Roger and Anita together. This is the issue I have with a bunch of prequels where the obsession becomes explaining away every single goddamn thing that happened original, but ultimately making the story make less sense and taking away the magic and charm.
3. Cruella never becomes the irredeemable animal killing monster we knew originally, so the movie feels like a dishonest fan fiction. If you're going to do a Cruella origin movie, then you should absolutely have the character come to a point where she kills animals for fur. That is her whole motivation in the original film, so if we're going to get to that point, then it needs to happen in the origin, and I thought it was going too. She made friends with a dog, Buddy, and I thought we would get to a point where she sank so low that she'd kill the dog to make a dress, either as part of her revenge plot, or earlier on as a way to impress The Baroness. The original Cruella was a character that inspired fear in animals because she made them into fur. She should be like the thing that scares them the most, like Sid from Toy Story being the enemy of all toys. That's what she should be, but this would be like if Sid got an origin movie, acted like a jerk, but then befriended toys completely betraying what we know about the character. Say what you will about the Star Wars prequels, but at least we got to that point where Darth Vader/Anakin Skywalker kills fucking Jedi. It had to happen.
4. The post credit scene serves as a microcosm of everything wrong with the movie itself. So Cruella, for some reason, gave Roger and Anita their Dalmatians Pongo and Perdita, and also named them. They were, presumably, born of one of the Baraoness' old Dalmatians, which not only makes Pongo and Perdita brother and sister (yikes) but also raises all these questions about "Why would Cruella send Roger and Anita a puppy each? Did she even know Roger beforehand? Anita, sure, she owed her one, but why Roger?" "Is she clairvoyant and knows that the two Dalmatians are going to lead to Roger and Anita getting married?" "Why does she want that?" "Does she want the bastard incest puppies to kill and make coats out of?" "If so, why?" Also, why is Roger a song writer at the end of the movie when the story presented him as a lawyer?

Also, the movie is way too goddamn long to the point of being a bore. This was a movie that was in desperate need of a script doctor and a competent editor.


EDIT:

People are really keen to compare this to Joker. I've heard of trying to associate crap with better movies, but this film isn't even remotely like Joker outside of pretending to be about an existing villain, except this one is about how she wasn't the villain afterall.

I agree.

Cruella is basically Joker if Joker did everything wrong. If these people were making Joker under the same rules, Joker would never kill anyone, Murray would be a complete villain that he'd need to over come, and they'd fill it with moments where we are supposed to cry with Joker.

 

[Atatata]

I went and saw the movie and it wasn't actually that bad. It felt less like they were trying to do a live-action reboot of the original and more that they were doing what they used to do, taking existing properties and making a movie out of it.

The "Cruella" aspect felt more like a way to grab people and budget, plus an excuse for the 60's aesthetic. I also didn't really feel it was much of a "girl power" outside maybe trying to get the same type of feel of early 2000's movies. The movie didn't take itself seriously, the main character was a petty thief and vandal from the start and the antagonist who was a #girlboss was portrayed as a narcissistic pyschopath willing to murder people to avoid taking responsibility as a mother and kept trying to post-birth abort her child because she would intrude her social life. if anything, it portrays women as cannibalistic while men are seen as empathetic.

That being said, she really did seem like she wanted to make a dog coat. Not out of revenge, but she kept eyeing them and it was more of a "haha, unless..." I found it pretty funny, actually.

It was nothing like the Joker though. If anything, it feels like they were thinking of a "phantom thief"-esque franchise but didn't want to make any promises so instead they haphazardly smushed it into an existing property.

 

[JohnDoe]

People are really keen to compare this to Joker. I've heard of trying to associate crap with better movies, but this film isn't even remotely like Joker outside of pretending to be about an existing villain, except this one is about how she wasn't the villain afterall.

Agreed, the comparisons to Joker are pretty laughable. The point of Joker was to have the audience sympathize with Fleck, as he is a pathetic, damaged man - a wounded animal really. He's never portrayed as cool or admirable, he isn't put on a pedestal.

Cruella is all about showcasing how 'cool' and 'powerful' she is, showcasing her as a total 'girlboss' to be emulated and admired. She is put up on a pedestal, and combined with the ridiculous plotting and her batshit behavior makes it impossible to empathize or connect with her as a character.

 

[SteelPlatedHeart]

https://abbysucks.tumblr.com/post/653403194090749952

 

[ZMOT]

Haven't watched it, but that's a very strong impression I got from the snippets I saw online. It could be really good as its own thing, but in the context of 101 Dalmatians, it's... severely dragged down.

since someone linked the clip from solo, ironically the same could be said for that movie too.
imagine being so hung up on brand recognition to boost your movies that it hurts them in the end...

 

[murdered meat bag]

the 2 hours drag. neat visuals tho. music is great too.

 

[AmazingEagle]

Late here but this film feels like it was directed by Brook Houts.

 

[The High Prophet of Truth]

 

[Product Placement]

With name changes and changing the dalmatians to a different breed of dog, this movie could have been made without any links to 101 Dalmatians which could have made the movie a bit better as you wouldn't know what to expect as much. With that said it wouldn't have made it good, the script isn't great, acting is all over the place with most of the actors having a hard time picking between being hammy or serious. The good things I can say is the soundtrack and sets are very nice, outside the many poor quality cgi the movie overall looks fine as well.

Having a villain be one dimensional is fine, not every character needs to have a sad backstory or extra depth especially when a movie can only be so long. Let's take Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves, Sheriff of Nottingham has always been a one dimensional villain but instead of trying to add depth which wasn't needed, instead Alan Rickman ad libbed a number of great lines which well the character was still one dimensional made him enjoyable as hell and really stand out. No one cared that a charactes like Cruella in the original animated movie didn't have much depth because of how enjoyably evil she was, which is something Disney movie as a whole have been trying to get away from, which has lead to more boring villains overall compared to the past.

 

[SteelPlatedHeart]

 

[SmugAutist]

View attachment 2232981
View attachment 2232983

It seems like another Ghostbusters 2016 situation where they have to save face by announcing a sequel immediately.... then they say nothing until the conversation dies and when people ask about it a couple years later, it's shelved due to "issues".

 

[SteelPlatedHeart]

https://twitter.com/jonslongs/status/1407910671409455107?s=21

 

[Truthboi]