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!

Tomorrowland (2015) review

If I were to list my Top 10 favorite directors currently working today, Brad Bird would definitely be at the top of the list. While this former animator’s directorial filmography is rather short with only four films to his name before this year, he’s like Christopher Nolan or post-‘Alien 3’ David Fincher in that he’s yet to make a bad film. And quite frankly, all of his films are pretty much masterpieces. His directorial debut, ‘The Iron Giant’, unfortunately was a flop at the box-office when it was first released in 1999 but thankfully has gotten the attention it deserved in recent years. Thankfully his next two films were much bigger hits as he cranked out two of Pixar’s best films to date, 2004’s ‘The Incredibles’ and 2007’s ‘Ratatouille’. And in 2011, Bird made the bold leap from animation to live-action, immediately striking gold with his live-action debut, ‘Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol’. Now he’s back with Disney and teaming up with ‘Lost’ creator Damon Lindelof for ‘Tomorrowland’. No, it’s not a film that’s based off of the themed land found in most Disney parks. It’s instead a tale of optimism inspired by Walt Disney’s vision of the future, resulting in a truly original film… that at the moment is getting generally trashed by critics. This film currently has just a 49% rating on Rotten Tomatoes. Well believe me when I say that this is not a ‘49% on RT’ film… far from it. It’s a bold, ambitious and, most of all, truly captivating sci-fi film that provides us something that we’ve sort of lost in recent years… hope.

During the 1964 New York World’s Fair, aspiring kid inventor Frank Walker (Thomas Robinson) tries to show off his newest invention, a jetpack, to the heads of the fair. While his creation is generally ignored, he attracts the attention of a young girl named Athena (Raffey Cassidy), who leads him to a futuristic utopia known as ‘Tomorrowland’. In the present day, optimistic teen Casey Newton (Britt Robertson), the daughter of one of NASA’s engineers (Tim McGraw), gets into trouble with the law when she attempts to prevent NASA from taking down the Cape Canaveral launch site. When she gets out on bail, she finds a mysterious pin among her things which, unbeknownst to her, was ‘given’ to her by Athena. When she touches it, she finds herself ‘transported’ to the same fantastical world of ‘Tomorrowland’. But after the pin ‘runs out of power’, she tries to find a way to ‘get back’. Her quest ends up leading her to the grown-up Frank (George Clooney), who’s become fairly pessimistic and disenchanted with the place as it is revealed that he got ‘kicked out’ some time ago. When the two of them suddenly find themselves being hunted by robotic ‘police’, Casey and Frank, along with Athena, begin searching for a way to return to Tomorrowland. Along the way, Casey soon learns that she could be ‘the one’ who is capable of fixing the future of Earth as we know it before time runs out.

First of all, let me make something clear. Despite being called ‘Tomorrowland’, this film is not about the theme park land that shares its name. In fact, I’m pretty sure that the futuristic utopia in this film is never once actually referred to by name as ‘Tomorrowland’. Not only that, but despite being inspired by Walt Disney’s ideas of the future, Disney himself isn’t brought up once by name either despite what certain advertisements of the film, especially an international trailer that made it seem like the theme park ‘was just a cover for the real thing’, may have claimed. So if you’re thinking that this is just nothing more than a ‘marketing gimmick’ by Disney to promote the company… it isn’t. Instead, ‘Tomorrowland’ is an enthralling sci-fi story based around the ideals of optimism and hope for the future, two things that have definitely been lacking in our current society in recent years.  At the same time, Bird and Lindelof also made sure not to rush into things too quickly when it came to the utopian world that they created. In other words, this film is more about the journey to the location than it actually is about the location itself. As a result, this film was solidly paced and had great build-up. I was completely engaged by it from start to finish.

On that note, let’s talk about the third act of this film, which has basically been the most divisive aspect of the film amongst critics. This seems to be a recurring thing with Damon Lindelof’s work… his endings always piss people off (see ‘Lost’ and ‘Star Trek Into Darkness’ for further proof of that). Now while I’ll concur that the final pay-off may not have necessarily been as strong as the filmmakers had hoped, personally I don’t see why this ending is ‘as bad’ as some people have been claiming it is. From what I’ve been reading online, apparently a lot of the backlash towards this ending is due to the reveal of who the main ‘villain’ is. But the thing is… I kind of already knew who it was going to be going in anyway because there were certain articles online that were building the character up as such. Ultimately, the real problem with this reveal is that the character in question only plays a generally minor role in the overall story. This character is seen at the beginning of the film and then is not seen again until the third act. So in short, this film’s villain is fairly underdeveloped. But it’s not like it ruins the movie or anything as everything else in the film more than makes up for it. It’s just like with the Marvel Cinematic Universe films and their villains. The villains of the MCU may not necessarily be the most memorable or well-written villains ever but it’s not like the films are supposed to be all about them. And to me the same rule applies with ‘Tomorrowland’. Everything else in the film is so great that I can forgive the film for not having the ‘best’ of endings.

This film just has so many great talented people working on it, both behind and in front of the camera. The latter of which is especially true when talking about this film’s excellent cast, especially its trio of leads. Of course we all know that George Clooney is going to be good in this film because, well, he’s George Clooney. And he is great in this, as he really gets into the role of the generally pessimistic curmudgeon that is older Frank while still managing to maintain his trademark charm. But it could argued that the biggest standouts of the film are actually his two younger co-stars. Britt Robertson truly shines in the role of Casey, perfectly capturing the character’s unbreakable sense of optimism while also giving her charm and spunk, which leads to some fun back-and-forth banter between her and Clooney. The other major standout is Raffey Cassidy as Athena, a total bad-ass of a character who, according to Cassidy herself in a featurette for the film, is basically ‘like a ninja’. In other words, Athena may just be the best character in the entire film. Hugh Laurie, who plays David Nix, the ‘Governor’ of Tomorrowland, is good as well though he’s not really in the film that much… which may or may not tie back to what I was talking about earlier.

So sure, ‘Tomorrowland’ may not be the absolute best-written sci-fi film ever made. I do understand that a lot of people were frustrated with this film’s third act but me personally, while I do concur that it’s a little under-developed, I don’t think that it ruined the movie at all. Everything else about the film more than made up for it. That includes, among other things, the beautiful cinematography by Claudio Miranda, the excellent score, as expected, from Michael Giacchino, Bird’s, also expected, top-notch direction, and a spot-on cast highlighted by two excellent performances from its young leads, Britt Robertson and Raffey Cassidy. But perhaps the most important aspect of ‘Tomorrowland’ is its great message of hope and optimism for the future. And let me tell you folks, based on what I see here on the internet on a daily basis, that is something that we sorely need right now. So because of this, I highly recommend, hell I implore you to go see this film. I assure you that it is nowhere near as bad as its 49% rating on Rotten Tomatoes suggests. In other words, this is definitely going to end up being one of the most underrated and underappreciated films of the summer. I know I’m going to be in the minority on this but I don’t care. Not only is this one of the best films I’ve seen so far this summer, but this is also one of the best films that I’ve seen so far this year. How appropriate then that it came from one of my favorite directors currently working today; Brad Bird. And if you can, just like his last film ‘Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol’, try to see it in IMAX because this film’s gorgeous visuals are truly a sight to behold on those big IMAX screens.  

Rating: 5/5!