101 Dalmatians - Live-Action Film Series Retrospective

Over the past few years, I’ve spent a lot of time discussing Disney’s recent line of live-action remakes of their iconic animated films. However, what some Disney fans might not realize is that while 2010’s Alice in Wonderland is generally considered to be the film that started this current trend for the studio, it technically wasn’t the first time that a live-action Disney remake was made. Instead, that honor goes to 1994’s Rudyard Kipling’s The Jungle Book, which was released 22 years before Jon Favreau’s big-budget reimagining of Disney’s 1967 animated classic in 2016. However, for the purpose of today’s retrospective, we’ll be focusing on the other major live-action Disney remake that was made in the ’90s, 101 Dalmatians. It all began, of course, with Disney’s 1961 adaptation of author Dodie Smith’s The Hundred and One Dalmatians. Upon its release, the film proved to be the much-needed hit that the studio needed after 1959’s Sleeping Beauty ended up being a bit of a commercial dud for them. Part of the reason why was due to One Hundred and One Dalmatians sporting a much smaller budget by comparison thanks in large part to a new animation process known as xerography. Developed by Walt Disney’s long-time collaborator Ub Iwerks, this system allowed for the direct transfer of the animators’ drawings to animation cels, thus avoiding the inking step of the classic ink-and-paint process, and while this method did result in the film’s animation not being as polished as other Disney films, it was exactly what the studio needed to keep production costs down. And with an overall lifetime gross of around $303 million worldwide (a total that skyrockets up to over $936 million when adjusted for inflation) and strong reviews from critics, One Hundred and One Dalmatians still stands as one of Disney Animation’s most highly acclaimed films.

But for many people, one of the biggest reasons for the film’s success was its legendary main antagonist, Cruella de Vil, a sinister heiress who kidnaps all but two of the titular 101 Dalmatians so that she can use their fur for coats. Since then, Cruella has easily been one of Disney’s most iconic villains, and sure enough, when it comes to the original film’s live-action remake, many would agree that the best thing about it is Cruella herself, portrayed by the legendary Glenn Close. In fact, I think it’s safe to say that for an entire generation or two, Glenn Close’s take on Cruella de Vil is generally regarded as the definitive interpretation of the character. But this week, we have ourselves a new spin on the iconic villainess as Emma Stone takes on the role in Disney’s latest live-action reimagining, Cruella, a prequel-style story that delves into the events that made Cruella de Vil… well, Cruella de Vil. Glenn Close will still be involved, however, as an executive producer, and so, in honor of the new film’s release, today we’ll be looking at the two films that gave us just one of the numerous iconic performances in Close’s career; the 1996 live-action remake of 101 Dalmatians and its 2000 sequel, 102 Dalmatians. Now, as per usual with these franchise-based retrospectives that I do, we’ll only be focusing on theatrically released films, which means that we won’t be covering any other installments of the 101 Dalmatians franchise. This includes both of its animated TV shows (the 90’s series created by Doug creator Jim Jinkins and the newer 101 Dalmatian Street), the direct-to-video sequel 101 Dalmatians II: Patch’s London Adventure, or Cruella’s appearances in shows like Once Upon a Time and the first Descendants film. And so, without further ado, it’s time to start playing Roger Radcliffe’s classic song that reminds us that “if she doesn’t scare you, no evil thing will” as we look at one of Disney’s initial attempts at making a live-action remake out of their animated filmography.

But first, just for fun, let’s go over the original…

ONE HUNDRED AND ONE DALMATIANS (ANIMATED – 1961)

As longtime visitors of this site will no doubt recall, I covered this film back in 2016 in the 1960s/1970s installment of my Disney Retrospective series. Back then, I noted that I found the film to be solidly entertaining even though I admittedly found its second half, when Pongo and Perdita head out to rescue their puppies, to be better than its first half. And when I ranked all 55 of the then-currently released films made by Walt Disney Animation Studios (this was right before the release of Moana, for the record), I ended up placing it right around the middle of the list at #34. Upon my most recent re-watch of the film for the purposes of this retrospective, I found that my thoughts on it hadn’t changed too much. That said, though, while I still think that the film’s best moments come in its second half since that’s where many of the best humorous bits occur thanks in large part to Cruella and her bumbling henchmen Horace and Jasper, I’m a lot more positive about the first half of the film than I was a few years ago. At the very least, it does have its moments and it does a nice job of setting everything up (the relationships of both Roger and Anita and their dogs Pongo and Perdita, building up Cruella and her evil plans, etc.). And despite the whole thing about the xerography method of animation producing much less refined visuals compared to other Disney films, I think that this film’s animation is still quite good, for the most part, as it helps give it a charmingly old-fashioned look that fits in nicely with the story’s London setting. With all this in mind, it’s easy to see why the original Hundred and One Dalmatians is still widely considered to be one of Disney’s most beloved films. While it may not be one of my ‘top’ favorite Disney films, there’s no denying that it’s a delightful comedic romp headlined by an unforgettable villain and that indisputable Disney charm.

Rating: 4/5

101 DALMATIANS (LIVE-ACTION – 1996)

Looking at this film in 2021 after all the other live-action Disney remakes that have been made since then, one of the first things that comes to mind is how relatively modest it is as a remake. Basically, just like what the remakes of Beauty and the Beast and Aladdin did, this one presents a straightforward retelling of the original where the biggest changes are cosmetic in nature, such as Roger being a video game designer instead of a musician and Cruella being Anita’s boss rather than her old schoolmate. And unlike nowadays where it’s more common to see filmmakers using CGI animals to avoid getting into any situations that could put real animals in harm’s way, this film utilized as many real dogs as it could with only a few instances of CGI and some animatronics from Jim Henson’s Creature Shop. Really, it’s sort of more interesting to note some of the folks who worked on this film behind the scenes such as director Stephen Herek, who made the first Bill and Ted film and had become a regular director at Disney at that point with films like The Mighty Ducks and Mr. Holland’s Opus, and writer/producer John Hughes. Yes, this was one of many projects that Hughes worked on in the ’90s, although admittedly, this was at a point where many critics felt that his work was starting to delve into more juvenile territory given the overly slapsticky nature of most of them. And yet, while this film certainly has some of those moments, I don’t think they’re as apparent as they are in some of his other 90’s films. In short, the live-action 101 Dalmatians is a lot like its animated counterpart. The second half is better than the first, Cruella is still a delightfully over-the-top villainess, and Jasper and Horace (played here by Hugh Laurie and Mark Williams, respectively) are just as hilariously bumbling as ever. Overall, I consider this to be one of the weaker live-action Disney remakes because it doesn’t do as much as some of the others to truly differentiate itself from the original, but it’s still a solid watch, especially if you’re amongst the crowd that grew up with it in the late ’90s.  

Rating: 3.5/5

102 DALMATIANS (2000)

Despite its mixed reception, the live-action remake of 101 Dalmatians was a major success at the box office, grossing over $320.7 million worldwide. Thus, a sequel was put into development soon after with most of the primary production crew returning save for John Hughes since the studio that he formed with Disney, Great Oaks Entertainment, ended up shutting down in 1997. It also saw a notable change in director since, just like Stephen Herek, Kevin Lima is another filmmaker who’s done quite a lot of films with Disney over the years. This is, after all, the same director who made one of the biggest cult classics of the ’90s, A Goofy Movie, co-directed the final ‘Disney Renaissance’ film, Tarzan, with Frozen’s Chris Buck, and helmed 2007’s live-action/animated smash hit Enchanted. And yet, while John Hughes may not have been involved with this film, 102 Dalmatians is, ironically, the much sillier of the two, thus tying into the whole thing that I mentioned earlier about Hughes’ work taking on a campier tone in the ’90s. Simply put, a film that includes, among other things, a talking bird named Waddlesworth (voiced by Eric Idle) that believes he’s a dog can get incredibly damn goofy at times. But while this does mean that the film is basically geared more towards younger audiences, it’s still a decently entertaining family flick that has its charming moments. Plus, whereas the first film’s strict structural adherence to the plot of the original animated film meant that Glenn Close had a more limited screen-time than those who haven’t seen it might expect, this one gives Cruella a more prominent role in the story, thus giving us more of Close’s delightfully over-the-top antics.

But to me, one of the most unique aspects of this film… is the fact that I have more of a history with it than I do with its predecessor. A few years back when I did a retrospective on Disney’s Honey, I Shrunk the Kids franchise, I noted that I technically had more experience with that franchise’s direct-to-video sequel Honey, We Shrunk Ourselves than I did the original Honey I Shrunk the Kids since the former frequently aired on Disney Channel. As for the original, my first proper viewing of it… was when I watched it for that retrospective. And yes, folks, we have an eerily similar situation with these live-action Dalmatians films. While I do believe that there’s a strong possibility that I did watch the first film when I was younger (even though I honestly can’t remember at this point), I watched 102 Dalmatians quite a lot back then. Granted, I don’t exactly recall seeing it in theaters (again, maybe I did, I don’t know…) but it was one of the first films that I distinctly remember owning on DVD along with its video game tie-in for the Game Boy Color, 102 Dalmatians: Puppies to the Rescue. So, with that in mind, I’ll admit that there may be some nostalgia-based bias when it comes to my thoughts on this film given everything that I just talked about, but overall, I think that 102 Dalmatians is a genuinely harmless follow-up that’s largely on par with its predecessor. Like I said before, though, this is also one of those instances where younger audiences will most likely get more enjoyment out of it than adults.

Rating: 3.5/5

And that concludes Rhode Island Movie Corner’s retrospective on the live-action 101 Dalmatians films (plus a quick reappraisal of the 1961 animated classic). Admittedly, it will be a little while before I publish my review of Cruella given the current backlog of posts that I’m working on, but I promise that it will come eventually. Until then, thanks for following along and be sure to sound off in the comments below with your own personal memories of these films.

TODAY'S RETROSPECTIVE HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO YOU BY KANINE KRUNCHIES!

Mortal Kombat (2021) review (Theatrical/HBO Max)

 

In 1992, Midway Games released a new arcade fighting game, Mortal Kombat. Created by Ed Boon and John Tobias, the game was originally set to be an adaptation of that year’s sci-fi action film Universal Soldier starring Jean-Claude Van Damme; but, when that idea ultimately went nowhere, it was transformed into a more fantastical fighting game defined by its incredibly graphic finishing moves known as ‘Fatalities’. And while those Fatalities ended up putting the game in some major hot water with certain crowds to the point where it was largely responsible for creating North America’s video game rating system, the ESRB, it also helped make Mortal Kombat an instant staple of both the arcade and home consoles once the game was adapted to the latter format. Since then, the series has spawned numerous follow-ups and spin-offs that have sold around 54 million copies worldwide, and in 1995, it was brought to the big screen courtesy of director Paul W.S. Anderson. Upon its release, the first Mortal Kombat film did incredibly well financially, and despite a generally mixed critical reception, mainly due to it being a heavily toned-down take on the series so that it could maintain a PG-13 rating, it was enough of a hit with fans that, even nowadays, it is still considered to be one of the better films based on a hit video game. However, the same can’t be said for its 1997 sequel, Mortal Kombat: Annihilation, which, despite boasting a budget nearly double the size of the original, somehow ended up being an all-around cheaper production that promptly killed any chances for a third installment.

Yes, because of how disastrous Annihilation turned out, a planned third installment spent several years stuck in development hell. It wasn’t until 2010 after Warner Bros purchased the franchise rights from Midway when the latter declared bankruptcy when this proposed threequel was finally shelved in favor of a full-on cinematic reboot. Originally, the project was set to be developed by director Kevin Tancharoen and writer Oren Uziel, who garnered a lot of attention that year when they made an eight-minute fan film, Mortal Kombat: Rebirth. The short proved to be such a big hit that Warner Bros and NetherRealm Studios granted Tancharoen the opportunity to make a web series based on the franchise, Mortal Kombat: Legacy, which ran for two seasons from 2011 to 2013. And while Tancharoen was then officially tapped to direct the reboot, he ultimately backed out of the production a month after Legacy’s conclusion. Thankfully, this wouldn’t be the end for the new Mortal Kombat film as James Wan (who, at the time, was steadily becoming one of the most prominent directors in the industry) signed on to produce it in 2015 with commercial director Simon McQuoid stepping in as its new director. And now, nearly two and a half decades after the franchise’s previous cinematic incarnation fizzled out, the new Mortal Kombat film is upon us and promises to be a far more faithful take on the franchise, especially due to its R-rating. As you might have guessed, this means that we finally get to witness the Mortal Kombat franchise’s infamous ‘fatalities’ in this all-around crowd-pleaser that may be far from perfect but still manages to deliver on some utterly satisfying fan service.

For the past several centuries, the fate of humanity has been dependent on the results of an intense tournament known as Mortal Kombat that involves warriors from Earth, AKA Earthrealm, and the dark and mysterious dimension known as Outworld. Unfortunately, for the people of Earthrealm, Outworld has won the last nine tournaments, and if they win the next one, said victory will allow the sinister sorcerer Shang Tsung (Chin Han) and his constituents the opportunity to conquer Earthrealm. Thus, with the threat of Shang Tsung’s wrath more prevalent than ever before, Lord Raiden (Tadanobu Asano), the god of Thunder and protector of Earthrealm, begins to assemble a varied collection of warriors, including Shaolin monk Liu Kang (Ludi Lin) and vicious mercenary Kano (Josh Lawson), to train for the tournament. Another notable recruit is Cole Young (Lewis Tan), an MMA fighter who learns that he has a significant connection to Hanzo Hasashi (Hiroyuki Sanada), a warrior from 17^th century Japan who was killed by one of Shang Tsung’s warriors, Bi-Han AKA Sub-Zero (Joe Taslim). As the Earthrealm crew soon discovers, however, Shang Tsung has no intent on playing fair as he unleashes his minions upon them to ensure that no one can get in the way of their conquest.

One of the first questions that I’m sure a lot of people have about this film is if it manages to deliver on Mortal Kombat’s trademark violence in ways that the 1995 film didn’t, and simply put, it does. Now, obviously, it doesn’t go ‘all out’ with its violence to avoid getting hit with the dreaded NC-17 rating (which means that it’s objectively less violent than the games themselves), but still, what’s there is presented in all its ridiculously messed-up glory thanks to the film’s excellent action sequences that, for the most part, help to make up for its narrative shortcomings. For one thing, given that this is clearly meant to be a ‘franchise starter’ film, it starts off on a bit of a slow note (not counting the excellent pre-title sequence that sets up the conflict between Hanzo Hasashi AKA Scorpion and Bi-Han AKA Sub-Zero, arguably the franchise’s most popular characters) in its efforts to set up the plot and the world of Mortal Kombat. It also doesn’t help that, when it comes to said plot and character development, it’s a lot of generically basic material, especially when it comes to the film’s main protagonist Cole Young, a film-exclusive character who’s mainly just your typical audience surrogate. Despite all this, however, it all comes together nicely in the film’s second half since that’s where all the best action sequences occur along with some great nods to the franchise, including a pitch-perfect utilization of the franchise’s iconic theme song, ‘Techno Syndrome’ by The Immortals. In short, it’s a lot like what happened with the first Avengers, which also had a basic plot and started off rather slow but then got going at just the right time to deliver on exactly what fans had come to see.   

When it comes to the previous live-action Mortal Kombat films, their casting efforts admittedly garnered mixed results. While the first film featured standout performances from the likes of Christopher Lambert as Raiden and Cary-Hiroyuki Tagawa as Shang Tsung, the rest of the cast could be hit or miss, which only proceeded to get worse with the sequel, Annihilation, especially since more than half of the main protagonists were recast. Thankfully, this isn’t the case with the 2021 reboot, which spawns a much better all-around ensemble. Despite what I said earlier about his character being a basic audience surrogate who is largely overshadowed by all the other classic Mortal Kombat characters, Lewis Tan does headline the film nicely as Cole Young. The same goes for Jessica McNamee in the lead female role of Sonya Blade, who gets a bit more to work with as her arc revolves around her efforts to prove herself since she’s not immediately tapped as one of Earthrealm’s heroes. Ultimately, though, the biggest standouts of the cast are its supporting players such as Ludi Lin and Max Huang as the duo of Liu Kang and Kung Lao and Josh Lawson, who’s a full-on comedic riot as the hilariously scummy Kano. And then there’s the duo of Sub-Zero and Scorpion who, despite their enduring popularity, were mostly underused in the original Mortal Kombat films. It’s a much different story in this film, though, with Joe Taslim being perfectly intimidating as Sub-Zero and Hiroyuki Sanada getting some of the best dramatic moments in the film even if Scorpion isn’t in it as much by comparison.    

I’ll be the first to admit that I don’t have much of a history with the Mortal Kombat games. In fact, to be perfectly honest, the build-up to this film’s release was the main reason why I’ve even started playing them recently since my only real experiences with the franchise beforehand was via the original films and the rare instances where I came across an MK game in an arcade. And when it comes to the latter, I do mean ‘rare’ since once I was old enough to legitimately show any kind of interest in the franchise, it was at a point where most arcades began to rely more on newer games rather than older ones. Nevertheless, I was well aware of the franchise during my teenaged years, which then led to me watching the undeniably flawed but largely entertaining 1995 film adaptation… and its infamously horrendous 1997 sequel. And now that I’ve seen this new one, I can safely say that 2021’s Mortal Kombat is the series’ best film adaptation yet and one of the best video game films ever made, even if the latter half of that statement isn’t saying much given most of the other films in the genre. Now, don’t get me wrong, it’s far from perfect; it takes a while to get going and is as basic as you can get from a narrative perspective. And yet, thanks to an awesome second half that gives us much of what has made this the smash hit of a franchise that it is, this is very much the snazzy and highly faithful big-budget cinematic take on Mortal Kombat that fans have been waiting to see for years. As such, I’m sure I’m not the only one who would love to see this get a sequel that, should it follow the example of the best parts of its predecessor, could be an even better showcase of everything that is MORTAL KOMBAT!!!

Rating: 4.5/5