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!

Steve Jobs (2015) review

What more can be said about Steve Jobs, the co-founder of Apple, that hasn’t been said before? The man was one of the main pioneers of the personal computer revolution when he and fellow co-founder Steve Wozniak founded Apple Inc. in 1976 and produced the Apple II one year later. After that, Jobs would go on to develop numerous groundbreaking electronic products from the iMac to the iPod to the iPhone. He also helped invest in a computer graphics company when it spun-out from Lucasfilm in 1986; today we know that company as Pixar. Sadly Jobs passed away on October 5, 2011, leaving behind a legacy unmatched by many. A major part of that legacy is explored in director Danny Boyle’s new biopic, ‘Steve Jobs’. This is actually the second Steve Jobs biopic to come out in the last three years, the other being the 2013 film ‘Jobs’ starring Ashton Kutcher in the lead role. However that film was neither a critical or commercial success. ‘Steve Jobs’ on the other hand, which stars Michael Fassbender as Jobs, is a different story. Not only is it directed by an Oscar-winning director but the screenplay, based off of the official ‘Steve Jobs’ biography by Walter Isaacson, was written by renowned screenwriter Aaron Sorkin, writer of the hit TV series ‘The West Wing’ as well as another notable ‘biopic’ based around a technological breakthrough, ‘The Social Network’. The combined efforts of Boyle and Sorkin produce a highly compelling biopic that is as well-made as many of the products that its main subject produced.

‘Steve Jobs’ is set up as a three-act story, with each act of the film focusing on the moments leading up to the launches of three major products that Steve Jobs (Michael Fassbender) was associated with. The first act focuses on the launch of the Apple Macintosh in 1984 following the iconic ‘1984’ commercial that aired during Super Bowl XVIII. The second act of the film takes place in 1988, after Steve Jobs was removed from the company following the disappointing commercial performance of the Macintosh. He went on to found the company ‘NeXT’, which developed the ‘NeXT Computer’ in 1988. Finally, the film cuts to 1998, after Jobs was reinstated as Apple CEO, as he prepares to debut the iMac. In each of these three sequences, we see Jobs and his marketing executive Joanna Hoffman (Kate Winslet) prepare for each event while Jobs deals with situations involving some of his associates, including fellow Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak (Seth Rogen), who continuously requests that Jobs highlight the Apple II team in his speeches, and then-Apple CEO John Sculley (Jeff Daniels), whose father-son esque relationship with Jobs starts to falter when Jobs gets ousted from Apple. But perhaps the most pressing of dilemmas for Jobs revolves around him eventually trying to take responsibility as the father of his high school sweetheart Chrisann Brennan’s (Katherine Waterston) daughter, Lisa (played at different ages by Perla Haney-Jardine, Ripley Sobo, and Makenzie Moss).

For a film that is basically just three separate sequences showcasing what happened behind the scenes at product launches, without even showing any of the actual event itself, ‘Steve Jobs’ is a biopic that never misses a beat and never once feels repetitive. This is the result of two major forces; Sorkin’s writing and Boyle’s direction. These two elements help keep the film flowing smoothly and while Boyle’s artistic directorial style isn’t really on full display here compared to his other films, there are still quite a few instances of that style being present throughout. One of the primary examples of this is the fact that each of the film’s three acts were shot in a different film format (16mm for 1984, 35mm for 1988, and digital for 1998), which obviously connects perfectly with the technological advances that Apple achieved over that period of time. Ultimately though the real highlight of the film is Sorkin’s screenplay. While it’s been made clear that the film isn’t exactly historically accurate, that and I’m pretty certain that the dialogue Sorkin wrote wasn’t actually spoken, Sorkin’s writing helps us delve into the psyche of Jobs, primarily through his relationships with his co-workers, friends, and family. Not only that, but each act of the film, though set in different times, all feel strongly connected thanks to familiar beats that occur in each sequence (e.g. conversations that Jobs has with specific people).

‘Steve Jobs’ is a prime example of an actor’s showcase, with each member of the cast shining thanks to the strong writing of Sorkin. There’s been a lot of talk about how Michael Fassbender doesn’t really look like Steve Jobs but like with Tom Hanks in ‘Saving Mr. Banks’, it’s more about the actual performance than whether or not the lead actor/actress looks exactly like the person they’re portraying. And with that in mind, Fassbender delivers one of the best performances of the year. As Jobs, Fassbender perfectly captures the Apple co-founder’s vision and attitude, striving for perfection even if it means pissing everyone off to get to it. Like Sorkin’s version of Mark Zuckerberg in ‘The Social Network’, Jobs is someone who can’t be entirely painted as either a hero or villain. Because like Zuckerberg, he really did know what he was doing. As many people have pointed out, he was a master showman and his presentations were the technological equivalent of a rock concert. It’s just that it results in him being unable to work well with others. As noted earlier, a lot of the film revolves around the relationship with Jobs has with various people. We can sense a real brotherhood between Jobs and Steve Wozniak (Seth Rogen, in a rare dramatic turn, provides a more down-to-earth voice compared to Jobs’ more biting/calculating personality), the father-son like relationship that Jobs has with John Sculley (Jeff Daniels of course is a veteran when it comes to Sorkin’s writing having starred in his series ‘The Newsroom’), and the more personal relationships that Jobs has with both Joanna Hoffman (Winslet is the film’s other big standout as the only person who, for the most part, is able to put up with Jobs) and his daughter Lisa.

Just a quick disclaimer; at the time I am writing this review I have not seen the 2013 Steve Jobs biopic ‘Jobs’ starring Ashton Kutcher and given that film’s generally negative reception it’s probably unlikely that I’ll watch it anytime soon, especially after watching the much more acclaimed Danny Boyle directed, Aaron Sorkin written version. Suffice it to say, these two really went above and beyond in this well-made biopic that is a direct combination of the former’s direction and the latter’s writing talents. The end result is a highly engrossing biopic that explores the fascinating life of one of the world’s most famous technological pioneers, just like what Sorkin did with David Fincher (who at one point was even slated to direct this film) in ‘The Social Network’, while also showcasing that while he may have been hard to work with, he was clearly ahead of the curve when it came to knowing where technology would end up taking us in the future. And while Michael Fassbender may not look exactly like Steve Jobs, performance-wise he gives it his all alongside the equally terrific supporting cast. Needless to say, in a few months you can expect to see this film become a major player during awards season. Maybe even a few Oscar nominations?

Rating: 4.5/5

The Martian (2015) review

Ridley Scott is without a doubt one of the most prolific directors working today in Hollywood. He’s directed numerous cinematic classics over the span of nearly four decades, from a pair of critically acclaimed sci-fi films in 1979’s ‘Alien’ and 1982’s ‘Blade Runner’ to 2000’s Best Picture-winning swords-and-sandals epic ‘Gladiator’. But in recent years, some may argue that Scott’s filmography has experienced a decline in terms of quality. His 2010 collaboration with his ‘Gladiator’ star Russell Crowe, ‘Robin Hood’, ended up being a critical/commercial disappointment upon release. He fared better, for the most part, in 2012 with ‘Prometheus’, a ‘prequel’ to the ‘Alien’ franchise that he had originally kick-started, but the film has since become one of the most polarizing films of the last few years. After that, his next two films, 2013’s ‘The Counselor’ and last year’s ‘Exodus: Gods and Kings’, both ended up getting generally trashed by critics. This year, however, it looks like Scott has a major success on his hands with his newest film, ‘The Martian’. Based off of the 2011 novel of the same name by Andy Weir, ‘The Martian’ centers on an astronaut who must survive on Mars after he gets left behind by his crew. What follows is a highly engaging and smartly written story of survival highlighted by a terrific lead performance.

The film opens up with the crew of the Ares III while they are in the middle of a manned mission on Mars. When an intense dust storm hits their area, they are forced to evacuate. However, during the return to their ship, astronaut Mark Watney (Matt Damon) is separated from the group when he gets knocked away by debris. Presumed dead, the rest of his crew, led by Ares III commander Melissa Lewis (Jessica Chastain), end up leaving the planet without him. But, unbeknownst to both them and NASA, Watney actually did survive and is now trapped on the Red Planet. With no way of contacting NASA and being forced to deal with the limited resources of his crew’s artificial habitat, which wasn’t designed to last for the amount of time it would take for another NASA mission to return for him, Watney is tasked with finding a way to grow food ‘on a planet where nothing grows’. Being an experienced botanist, Watney begins to ‘science the s*** out of the situation’ while also working to get back into contact with NASA. Once he manages to achieve both of these goals, the staff at NASA, as well as Watney’s crew, begin working on a way to get Watney home safe and sound.

This film has been getting a lot of attention for being ‘scientifically accurate’, from the way that Watney is able to produce water while on Mars to a scene in which he has to patch up his helmet when it cracks. And while it’s undoubtedly a very smart film, it never tries to overcomplicate matters. Some of the film’s scientific elements may fly over the heads of some people but at the same time it never talks down to them. Also, for a film that’s, at its core, a story of survival against all odds in one of the harshest environments imaginable, it’s actually not that intense, at least when compared to 2013’s big space survival film ‘Gravity’. Yes the main character is in a difficult situation and there are definitely some tense moments layered throughout the film but it ultimately maintains a generally light-hearted tone throughout, which is primarily due to Watney’s optimistic attitude, his witty video logs, and his clear disdain for Commander Lewis’ library of disco music. All of this results in a film that’s actually quite funny at times, which is something that one wouldn’t normally expect from director Ridley Scott as most of his other films are much more serious in tone.  

Obviously the key to the entire film is Matt Damon’s performance in the lead role of Watney and Damon more than succeeds in that regard. Damon of course is on his own for the majority of the film’s run-time and pretty much single-handedly carries the entire film on his back. As Watney, he’s very likable, even when he acts rather cocky, and you genuinely do root for him to succeed. Damon’s so good in this that the film’s ‘weakest’ points are basically the instances where he’s not on-screen. Now, for the record, I’m not completely criticizing the scenes of the film that focus on either some of the major employees at NASA, including NASA head Teddy Sanders (Jeff Daniels) and engineer Vincent Kapoor (Chiwetel Ejiofor), or the other members of Watney’s crew (Chastain, Kate Mara, Michael Pena, Sebastian Stan, and Aksel Hennie). The ensemble cast is great all around but perhaps there are just a bit too many characters to keep track of. Sure the film actually does manage to credit all of the major supporting characters in the film but at the end of the day, it is Watney who gets the most amount of character development. Again I’m not holding that against the film too much but admittedly the best scenes are with Watney and when he’s not on-screen, that’s when this almost two-and-a-half hour film tends to drag.

‘The Martian’ is a science-fiction film that very much emphasizes science over fiction. It’s a very smartly-written story that conveys its science in a way that’s easily accessible to the audience without ever becoming too convoluted. The film is consistently compelling throughout its hefty 141-minute runtime and is even rather humorous due to its light-hearted tone and witty screenplay courtesy of Drew Goddard. But at its core, it carries the simple themes of optimism, ingenuity, and the will of the human spirit to overcome adversity even when the odds are stacked against them. And as I’ve stated earlier this year in my review of ‘Tomorrowland’, we definitely need more sci-fi films like that; ones that convey messages/themes of hope and optimism over fear of the apocalypse. Matt Damon absolutely shines in the lead role of Mark Watney and is backed up by an excellent ensemble cast, even if at the end of the day he’s the one that gets the most attention and scenes without him tend to drag a little. Simply put, ‘The Martian’ is easily the best film that Ridley Scott has made in years; a very well-crafted sci-fi adventure/survival film that might even compel future generations to take up an interest in space.

Rating: 4.5/5

(P.S. This film has one of the most perfect end-credit songs ever!)