Film Review - "The Little Mermaid" (2023)

The Little Mermaid

Directed by Rob Marshall

Starring Halle Bailey, John Hauer-King, and Melissa McCarthy

Somehow, the Disney live-action remakes continue to survive in this new decade. For a hot minute, it seemed like they were going the way of the Disney Direct-to-Video Sequels, and becoming the Disney Direct-to-Streaming Remakes. Thanks to a little something called COVID-19, theaters no longer became the safest nor most ideal way to watch new releases. Disney and other studios had to try new ways to get their major releases to audiences. 

While releasing three live-action remakes to theaters in 2019 (Dumbo, Aladdin, and The Lion King), they decided to have the next one, Lady & The Tramp, go to their new streaming service when it launched later that year. About a year's worth of COVID later, Disney scrapped the theatrical release of the Mulan remake in the states, and dropped it on Disney Plus via Premier Access ($30 on top of the monthly subscription fee).

As time went on, the world started to bounce back, and more films were being released to theaters again. However, Disney remakes such as Pinocchio and Peter Pan & Wendy were unceremoniously dropped on Disney Plus, with no Premier Access fee, and to critical backlash (Shocking, I know...)

It looked like the Disney remake was going to slip into a state of obscurity, until last month when Rob Marshall's new take on The Little Mermaid became the first Disney remake released to theaters in four years. The film has done fairly well with critics and audiences alike...

...Now you're probably expecting what comes next is I do the usual tearing this film to shreds, and get on my soapbox about how these remakes are the death of Disney and cinema as we know it...No, I actually enjoyed this...well, most of it.

You know the story. I know the story. But for the sake of formality, The Little Mermaid tells the story of a young mermaid named Ariel (Bailey), who is the youngest daughter of Triton (Javier Bardem), the king of the sea. Triton forbids any contact with the surface world, which is unfortunate because Ariel is fascinated with it, and that only increases when she rescues Prince Eric (Hayer-King) from a shipwreck. While Ariel strives to be "part of that world", Ursula the Sea Witch (McCarthy) sees this as an opportunity to seize power from Titron and take control of the seas.

The Little Mermaid doesn't stray too far from the blueprint of the original until about the second-act, which is when the film really starts to stand on its own two legs (Heh). The films spends more time building up the relationship between Ariel and Eric. There's much more depth (Ha) to Eric's character this time around. He has more wants, more motivation, and importantly more of a real connection with Ariel. That's pretty much all the new ground Mermaid 2023 covers. There's hints about what happened to Ariel's mother (Allusion to the direct-to-video prequel Ariel's Beginning?) and a deeper connection to  Triton and Ursula (Borrowed from the Broadway musical) but neither additions are explored too much to leave an impact. Also there's a rather confusing addition to Ursula's spell that turns Ariel human that ultimately serves no purpose.

Halle Bailey is absolutely amazing as Ariel. She carries this film, and nails every aspect of the character. The innate curiosity and radiant positivity of the titular mermaid are all on display here. There's more agency and maturity to the character this time around, which I can admire and respect. Bailey is also a powerhouse of a singer. I'm ashamed to admit that her rendition of "Part of Your World" brought a tear or two to my eye. She commands the attention of the audience every time she's on screen. This is a career-making performance.

Casting has never been a major problem for these Disney remakes. Melissa McCarthy is an absolute delight as Ursula, and you can tell she's having a ton of fun playing one of Disney's most bodacious villains. Her performance is both inspired by the original Ursula, Pat Caroll, and her own unique take.

Daveed Diggs is a very charming and comical Sebastian. He has great comedic timing with Akwafina's Scuttle, who is also quite funny in her own right. Jacob Tremblay makes a fine and cute Flounder, but his role is rather limited in this film. John Hauer-King is great as Prince Eric and has undeniable chemistry with Bailey. His performance is almost as commanding as hers. Unfortunately the only cast member that did not work for me was Javier Bardem as King Triton. His performance is very wooden and a little too subtle for a character that has unchecked rage and the burden of being a single father to seven. Maybe it was the CGI and wire-work that stunted him. 

Speaking of CGI, let's talk about it. The hyper-realistic CGI animals in these remakes has always been questionable. I don't know how they pulled it off in The Jungle Book, it didn't work in The Lion King, and I didn't see Lady & The Tramp. Here...it's not that bad. Scuttle is very expressive. Sebastian it's about 50-50. Flotsam and Jetsam (Ursula's pair of eels) are pretty creepy, and rightfully so, but I'm sorry to say to all the Flotsam and Jetsam fans out there, that they get the "Iago in Aladdin 2019" treatment. They don't talk, and are more of a plot device than actual characters.  The CGI doesn't work at all for hyper-realistic, Jacob Tremblay-voiced Flounder, which probably makes it a blessing that he's not in the film very much. 

That's a perfect segue into the underwater effects of the film. It's pretty hit and miss. Sometimes its rather pretty, other times it's a little distracting. There are times where it's pretty clear the actors are just floating in front of a green screen. Also, the design of the underwater kingdom is pretty unimaginative. It's just generic coral reef. Conversely, the visuals on the surface world are pretty spectacular, particularly the fiery shipwreck scene, and the "Kiss The Girl" sequence. The sets for Eric's kingdom are all very impressive, and give off a nice combination of tropical and classical vibes.

Now we have to talk about the music. This is (mostly) some of the best music a Disney remake has had in awhile. Which isn't that high of a compliment because it's just the classic work of Alan Menken and the late Howard Ashman rearranged, but damn is it effective here. Again, Halle crushes "Part of Your World". McCarthy's rendition of "Poor Unfortunate Souls" is infectiously catchy. "Under The Sea" is again a show-stopper, but the visuals don't quite match the song's energy. "Kiss The Girl" is one of my favorite Disney songs and I'm happy to say I wasn't disappointed with it. 

Lin-Manuel Miranda was brought in to compose some new songs. Prince Eric's new song "Wild Uncharted Waters" is like a gender-swapped, Disney Princess"I want song", with grand orchestrations and sweeping camera movements. It's like an Alan Menken version of "Bet On It" from High School Musical 2. "For The First Time" is a new song for Ariel to sing when she gets on land, and it's a low-key bop. Scuttle and Sebastian's new...rap..."The Scuttlebutt"...is incredibly out-of-place and stops the film dead in its tracks. Just because you got two rappers in your cast and Lin Manuel doing the music doesn't mean you should, guys. You girl-bossed too close to the sun...

I can confidently say that The Little Mermaid is the most I've enjoyed a Disney remake since the 2017 Beauty & The Beast. I look at it very much in the same light. It's not a perfect film, but it is a lovely tribute to the animated original, and a fine cornerstone in its legacy. It has enough to warrant your time, including wonderful performances and new renditions of beloved Disney tunes. 

This is arguably the new gold standard for Disney remakes, wether they go to theaters or Disney Plus (Sounds like it's going to be a film-by-film basis). We can only hope they can be as respectful and entertaining as The Little Mermaid.

 

Film Review - "Chip n' Dale: Rescue Rangers"

Chip n' Dale: Rescue Rangers

Directed by Akiva Schaffer

Starring John Mulaney, Andy Samberg, and Will Arnett

I think most of the people reading this know I'm a big Disney fan. I grew up on it, and many of my younger days in the early nineties were spent watching the many animated series that were part of the Disney Afternoon lineup (and the Disney Channel. When it was good). My favorites I think were the same as many people's...DuckTales, Darkwing Duck, and Chip n'Dale: Rescue Rangers (If I had to pick a fourth it's a coin toss between Timon & Pumbaa or The New Adventures of Winnie The Pooh).

Chip n'Dale, like DuckTales, not only had an ear-worm of a theme song, but its leads were characters of Disney legend. I loved Chip n' Dale growing up, not just in Rescue Rangers, but in the classic shorts where they made Donald Duck's life a living nightmare. So like any millennial with an attachment to a classic old property, I got a bit defensive when the Hollywood Machine wanted to reboot/reimagine/revive whatever you wanna call it, Rescue Rangers. It's just the way of the world now. Originality in Hollywood is dead, "childhood ruined" and so on...

Now here we are, and I am so proud to say I was wrong. The Chip n' Dale: Rescue Rangers film is one of the biggest surprises and most fun film (Non-MCU) I've seen in awhile. 

The film is not exactly a direct continuation of the original series. Much like the world of Who Framed Roger Rabbit, Chip, Dale (Mulaney, Samberg) and all toons coexist with humans, and some are actors. In the nineties, Chip and Dale made a big name for themselves with aforementioned tv series, until Dale decided to leave the show to expand his career. Unfortunately, this got the series cancelled, and both chipmunks' careers took a hit. It's all very meta, and also I'm guessing in the reality of this film all the older Chip n' Dale shorts produced by Disney just didn't happen.

Cut to the present day, and Dale has had CGI-surgery (Love that bit) and living off the convention circuit, and Chip is working as an insurance salesman. A desperate call from their old friend and co-star Monterey Jack (Eric Bana) reunites the estranged friends. Turns out Monty has run afoul of a very dangerous gang that has been rumored to be kidnapping old toons, making them over, and forcing them to make bootlegs of classic animated films. Chip n' Dale reluctantly reunite to rescue Monty and crack the case, living out the glory days of The Rescue Rangers.

I'm sure the plot where estranged friends reunite on a case/quest/adventure sounds familiar. It's a plot that I think is almost tailor-made for a continuation of Rescue Rangers, decades after the original series ended. Regardless, I appreciate the film's approach to not making it a direct continuation of the series, but instead taking the Roger Rabbit angle. Really the only connections it has to the original series is its name, and the premise of "Chip and Dale solve a mystery".

The film is much more a commentary on animation, celebrity and Hollywood. The creative team definitely had a lot of fun making this. The attention to detail...you will need a second viewing just to catch all the Easter Eggs, visual gags, and cameos. So many wonderful cameos. It's unfortunate the internet was so quick to spoil the best one. The film is also incredibly funny. Not just in its sight gags there's a lot of clever, laugh-out-loud lines. You can tell this was a film made by fans, for fans. It's hard to not appreciate the sincere effort that's right on the screen.

We need to talk about the animation for a minute because it's all over the place stylistically and it's lovely. There's not just top-notch traditional animation and CGI. There's clay-mation (JK Simmons's Gumby-like detective, Officer Putty, looks amazing). There's horrific motion-capture/hyper-realistic animation in the manner of Cats and Beowulf. There's even puppets of both the Muppet and sock variety. There's so much being homaged here from every era of animation. This film deserves a Special Achievement Oscar. I will say the hand-drawn animation on some characters was a bit iffy for me at times, specifically Chip and Sweet Pete. I chop it up to 2D designs being brought into a 3D world so there's a bit of "transition period", and I could say the opposite for CGI Dale (But man that surgery bit is too good).

On paper, you wouldn't expect the voices of John Mulaney and Andy Samberg to work for classic characters like Chip n' Dale, but they really do here. They still capture the spirit and dynamic of the duo, with a modern twist, and their high-pitched voices are their "stage voices" here (Think Baby Herman). It's another fun bit. JK Simmons is amazing as Officer Putty. Will Arnett perfectly captures the spirit of Sweet Pete, who if you couldn't tell by the marketing is a bitter, aged-up Peter Pan. Kiki Layne is fine as Detective Ellie Stickler. She doesn't really add much to the film, and is sort of like the stand-in for the audience.

As much as I enjoyed this film...there are two things that just don't sit well with me. If you want to avoid any hint of spoilers I suggest you skip this next paragraph...

First, Sweet Pete's backstory is nearly identical to the real life story of child-star and original voice of Peter Pan, Bobby Driscoll. I say do your own research but, it's not exactly the nicest chapter in Disney history. This was either a very unfortunate coincidence or a very dark bit of parody. I'm not sure will ever know which. Second, while this is Chip n' Dale's films, it is sort of sad that the original supporting cast of the show is put on the back burner, and what they did story-wise with two of them...I'm not sure I'll ever recover from the trauma. If you know, you know...

Chip n' Dale: Rescue Rangers is not only a spiritual successor to Who Framed Roger Rabbit, it's Disney answer to the 21 Jump Street films. It's a very clever, fun, and heartwarming watch. Perhaps the biggest surprise of the year. It's an easy film to recommend, and I hope Disney, animation, and comedy fans alike give it the attention it deserves. Head on over to Disney Plus and add it to your watchlist (I wonder if they're kicking themselves for not putting it in theaters...)

...Now can we get a Darkwing Duck film please??

 

"Atlantis" & "Treasure Planet" - Disney's Unjust Failures

Last year I made the decision to rewatch all of the films produced by Walt Disney's Animation Studio, chronologically from beginning to end. So that means starting from Snow White & The Seven Dwarfs, and then going all the way to Raya & The Last Dragon Encanto. Yeah it's taken a bit longer than I expected...life, what can I say?

However I am approaching the end. So you're probably thinking "Oh so now he's going to rank them all." Lord no. That's sixty films, my guy. Some of the studio's earlier films I haven't watched in over year. Not a challenge I have the time and mental capacity for right now. 

No instead I've decided to write a couple think pieces, each focusing on a specific film or films. While I've seen many of these films numerous times, others I was watching for the first time in years, or believe it or not, for the first time ever.

Last week this House of Mouse Marathon brought me back to two films from The Experimental Era of Disney Animation (1999-2008), Atlantis - The Lost Empire and Treasure Planet. These two films are quite similar. They're both sci-fi adventure films, that blend hand-drawn and computer animation, and believe it or not, each feature a cast member from Frasier. Both films are products of their time, and in many cases are victims of it.

At the time of their respective releases, each received average-to-poor reviews from critics (Critics were nicer to Treasure than Atlantis), and turned out to be box office failures. Atlantis made very little profit, and Treasure didn't even break even. Fast forward to present day and many see both films as cult classics. 

So...what happened?

I think a lot factored into the unjust failures of Atlantis and Treasure Planet. Atlantis was released in June of 2001 and Treasure in late November of 2002, over the Thanksgiving holiday. They were some of the first films released by Disney Animation in the new millennium, and after the hot streak that would become known as The Disney Renaissance (1989-1999, so The Little Mermaid through Tarzan).

On paper, there are a lot of consistent threads throughout the films of The Disney Renaissance. They're all based on either fairy tales or classic literature, musicals, and family friendly (for the most part). Atlantis...is none of those things. It is Indiana Jones meets 20,000 Leagues Under The Sea, and a lot (A LOT) of people die in the action sequences. To be a background character in Atlantis is the Disney equivalent of being a red-shirt in Star Trek or a Stormtrooper in Star Wars. Treasure Planet is based on Robert Louis Stevensons's Treasure Island (Which Disney previously adapted in live-action in 1950), but like Atlantis is much more mature and heavy in its action.

Suffice it to say, these films were a stark contrast from the ones Disney released in the prior decade. Gone were the singing teapots, magic genies, and talking lions of the nineties. Atlantis and Treasure were weren't exactly what audiences had come to expect from Disney Animation, and could be seen as unconventional choices for the studio. But then again, so were Dinosaur, The Emperor's New Groove, and Lilo & Stitch which also came out in the same three-year period. This was a time when the studio was moving away from the animated musical formula, and trying new things (Hence the name The Experimental Era).

Atlantis and Treasure were definitely the most adult-oriented films that came out during this period, and I say that well aware of the fact there is an alien in Treasure Planet that speaks in fart ("Flatua" if you wanna get technical). Animation is not specifically for kids though (Say it again with me...ANIMATION IS NOT JUST FOR KIDS. Stupid Oscars.) Disney was already experimenting with more mature themes and ideas in their animated films prior to the 2000's, see The Hunchback of Notre Dame, Tarzan, and I guess Pocahontas. This was also a time when traditional hand-drawn animation was starting to decline in popularity, and computer-animation was on the rise. Disney for the longest time had become synonymous with traditional animation. As audiences became less interested in the medium, they became overshadowed by the likes of Pixar and bold new offerings like Shrek from Dreamworks, and Ice Age from Blue Sky. It is worth noting that Atlantis and Treasure both have great traditional animation that combines CGI elements beautifully. Atlantis does the blend flawlessly, while Treasure definitely has some shots where the tech hasn't aged well.

Atlantis came out the first year the Academy Awards decided to instate the Best Animated Feature category. Shrek would go on to win the Oscar, while Atlantis wasn't even get nominated. Treasure would secure a nomination alongside Lilo & Stitch, Ice Age, and Spirit - Stallion of The Cimarron, but the Oscar went to Hayao Miyazaki's Spirited Away, which is traditionally animated in the Japanese style. 

By that class of nominees alone you can see that there was still an audience for hand-drawn animation, although I wouldn't use the Oscars as the best example of it. In future years the Academy would nominate the likes of Shark Tale and...The Boss Baby.

At the box office, these two films were failures. Atlantis was released on June 3rd 2001, which sounds like a perfect release date for a film like it. Schools were getting ready to close for summer vacation, and it being a sci-fi adventure, it should have fit perfectly into the traditional blockbuster season. It came out the same weekend as Lara Croft: Tomb Raider starring Angelina Jolie, and came in second place to it. It wouldn't be fair to say they were competing for the same audience, although they are both adventure films. Atlantis also had to deal with the fact that Shrek had come out less than a month ago.Why would parents take their kids to see "another Disney cartoon" when all they've heard lately is how good Shrek is? Atlantis wouldn't have a chance to make up for lost profit over the summer, when films like Dr. Dolitte 2, The Fast & The Furious, Jurassic Park III, and Planet of the Apes came out in the following weeks. Ultimately it ended up in fifteenth place at the overall 2001 summer box office.

Now Treasure Planet...this film was set-up to fail. It released over the same Thanksgiving weekend as Die Another Day, the fourth and final film to star Pierce Brosnan. Not exactly a film it would be in direct competition with. It also had to go against another Disney film, The Santa Clause 2, which had already been out for a few weeks, delivered holiday cheer for the season, and already had an established audience because like Die Another Day it was a sequel. Speaking of sequels, what also came out earlier that month...was Harry Potter & The Chamber of Secrets...Treasure Planet had no chance.

What kills me is Disney didn't learn from this mistake and made a far worse decision nine years later when they released a new Winnie the Pooh film on the same day Deathly Hallows Part 2. But "oh no hand-drawn animation is dead! It's not our poor business decisions..."

Treasure Planet, also a sci-fi adventure like Atlantis, could've benefited from a release during summer blockbuster season. Of course these days blockbuster films get released all year round. Unfortunately, Disney also released Lilo & Stitch that year and gave it a June release. You could argue that because Lilo & Stitch came out a few months before, families might have had their fill of Disney Animation for the year. Why did they decide to release both in the same year? Who knows. Apparently Disney didn't do a lot of marketing for Treasure Planet either, which is sad when you remember the superb marketing for Lilo & Stitch. Those trailers where Stitch invaded iconic moments in other Disney films? Genius.

Did Disney even care about Treasure Planet? The story goes that legendary animation directing team Ron Musker and Jon Clements pitched the idea to Jeffrey Katzenberg after The Great Mouse Detective got the studio back on solid ground. Katzenberg pretty much went "Nah I don't care for it". Katenzberg is a sourpuss and a jerk, though to be fair Disney Animation was struggling back then, especially after the colossal failure of The Black Cauldron. Treasure Planet was probably seen of too much of a risk at the time (ironically, the film probably would have thrived in the eighties).

Over the next few years a pattern unfolded that pretty much went like this:

"Can we make Treasure Planet now?"

"No make The Little Mermaid."

*The Little Mermaid is a hit*

"Can we make Treasure Planet now??"

"No make Aladdin"

*Aladdin is also a hit*

"Can we make Treasure Planet now???"

"No BUT, if you make one more successful film (Hercules), then you can."

*Hercules does alright"

"Can we make Treasure Planet now????"

*Jeffrey Katzenberg has left the chat*

Although Katzenberg was long gone as chairman by the time Treasure Planet was made (He left in 1994, the film was released in 2002!!!), he and the studio honored his word, and Musker and Clements were finally allowed to make their passion project. We already know how it turned out. 

The fact that the man who allowed Treasure Planet to be made had already flown the coop well before its release gives you some sort of idea of how much the studio was invested in it...or does it? I mean Musker and Clements were clearly well-known and well-liked at Disney or they wouldn't have gotten this far. They even went on to make Princess & The Frog and Moana after this. Not to mention a sequel was in pre-production, and there were talks of a franchise. Willem DaFoe set to play the villain. These plans were scrapped when the film had a poor box office performance.

The crazy thing is, Disney also had similar plans for Atlantis that were canceled as well (No I didn't forget about Atlantis). A television series titled Team Atlantis was in the works, but was scrapped due to the film's poor performance. The few episodes that were produced were repurposed into a direct-to-video sequel Atlantis: Milo's Return. Here's a fun fact...both films were considered for the rebranding of the Submarine Voyage ride at Disneyland. Eventually they did find a film to rebrand it with, Finding Nemo, which seems more appropriate anyway. So Disney definitely saw franchise potential in both Atlantis and Treasure, and frankly why wouldn't they?

I've already mentioned who directed Treasure Planet and their body of work at length. They also wrote it alongside Ted Elliot and Terry Rossio, who together wrote Aladdin, Shrek, and rather fittingly, the Pirates of the Caribbean films. Atlantis was directed by Gary Trousdale and Kirk Wise, another iconic Disney duo. Together, Trousdale and Wise helmed Beauty & The Beast and The Hunchback of Notre Dame, and they also wrote the script with Joss Whedon (*Before* we knew he was garbage). Combine all this with the stellar animation and voice casts, each of these films had all the makings to be Disney classics, but sadly it wasn't meant to be.

Now I don't have a lot of memories of watching these films. I didn't see either of them in theaters. I was gifted Atlantis on VHS, and watched it a fair amount. Treasure Planet I didn't see until years later when kids I was babysitting had it on DVD and requested a viewing. Neither film really stuck with me through the years. Have my opinions on them changed with recent rewatches? Yes and no.

Atlantis has great animation, stellar action sequences, and a wonderful ensemble of characters. The protagonist, Milo Thatch (Micheal J. Fox), can be a little annoying at times, and Mole (Corey Burton)...he's just there for the kids I guess. Man though is Vinny (Don Novello) a riot. The voice cast is great, featuring Fox, Novello, James Garner, Cree Summer, and many more. The amount of detail that went into crafting the Atlantean culture is really impressive. I will say though that the plot and the villains, are a little cliche and predictable. That doesn't necessarily make it a bad film, but it does make it a bit less substantial. That, and like Trousdale and Wise's previous film Hunchback of Notre Dame, there's a bit of an uneven tone. It's not as bad as like the slapstick of the Gargoyles, but there is an imbalance. It's almost like how people complain when MCU films undercut a lot of serious moments with one line-OH MY GOD I FORGOT THIS FILM WAS WRITTEN BY JOSS WHEDON...Anyway, despite its flaws I think Atlantis is a solid viewing.

I never really went for Treasure Planet's "steam-punk gimmick". It's old, it's futuristic, just make up your mind. Now, I think it's pretty creative. You have to admire the detail that went into the world-building. The animation is also spectacular here, but like I said a bit dated in some shots. Some of the designs of the aliens are a little too off for me. Some are cute, some are ugly (I remind you of the one that speaks in fart), they cover all their bases. Thankfully the designs of all the main cast are appealing, and again this a wonderful ensemble of characters with a great voice cast. Young Joseph Gordon Levitt is great in the lead role of Jim Hawkins. Brian Murray is iconic as Silver. David Hyde Pierce, Emma Thompson, Laurie Metcalf are superb in their supporting roles. I hate to say it, but Martin Short as the robot B.E.N. is awful, and it's not his fault! The character just does nothing but yell and panic. It's a waste of Short's talents to cast him as Disney's version of Jar Jar Banks (Is that too harsh?). Other than that, my only real problem with Treasure Planet is the use of modern pop songs in the montage where Jim and Silver grow close, and the final scene. They just don't mesh with the rest of the film, and using "I'm Still Here" by John Rzeznik in the montage just helps gloss over important character development. It's not a non-traditional musical like Tarzan where there are songs throughout not sung by the characters. It's this one, isolated musical moment in a film that's not musical. That said, the music composed by James Newton Howard is amazing and I love the main theme.

So yeah, it took me a few years but I do enjoy and appreciate Atlantis and Treasure Planet. It took a lot of people a few years to appreciate them. Thankfully both are now part of the massive Disney Plus library, where they can find new audiences, and their part in the Disney Legacy can carry on. Do they have their flaws? Yes. Are they bad films? No, and Disney has made much worse. Forgive me for saying this but, these two are some of the very few Disney animated films that could *benefit* from a live-action remake.  

Atlantis - The Lost Empire and Treasure Planet had a lot working against them. Changes of taste in both audiences and filmmakers, poor release strategies, but it can all be summed up in one phrase: Bad Timing. They shouldn't be looked at as terrible failures of Disney, because they came out during a period when nothing that was coming out of their animation studio was really succeeding (except for Lilo & Stitch). Timing can be a B-word, but time can also have a way of working things out. Atlantis, Treasure Planet, and other Disney films from this era have thrived since their initial releases, been given second chances by audiences and achieving cult-classic status.

I wouldn't call either of these film failures...maybe just late bloomers, and as The Emperor in Mulan said "the flower that blooms in adversity, is the rarest and most beautiful of all"

...That's probably overselling it but you get it.

Film Review - "Cruella"

I bet you're expecting me to hate this film like I hated Maleficent. Well, guess what?!?

Cruella

Directed by Craig Gillespie

Starring Emma Stone, Emma Thompson, Joel Fry, and Paul Walter Hauser

I mean I wasn't exactly excited to see this film, despite loving the lead actress and the director's last film (I, Tonya). The reviews ended up being overall pretty positive, but a lot of people liked Maleficent too...and gave it a sequel. Regardless, I had every intention of giving Cruella a chance, and I finally caught it on Disney Plus last week. You know what? I had a pretty good time with it.

The film opens on young Estella having a gift for fashion, and causing trouble. Her mother pulls her out of school and moves to London to keep her out of trouble, but tragedy strikes leaving Estella an orphan. She makes friends with two con-artists/street urchins Jasper and Horace. Ten years later, Estella (Stone), Jasper (Fry), and Horace (Hauser) spend their days pulling schemes throughout the streets of London. 

On her birthday, Jasper and Horace give Estella a job at a prestigious department store...as a janitor. One night Estella drunkenly redecorates a window display in the store, and attracts the attention of prolific designer Baroness von Hellman (Thompson). The Baroness recognizes Estella's talent and offers her a job at her studio. As she grows closer to The Baroness, Estella uncovers a startling connection between them. This revelation sets her down a dark and immoral path that will turn Estella into Cruella.

First off I appreciate them trying to give Cruella de Vil a fully-fledged backstory, and an original one at that. They're not doing some revisionist history of 101 Dalmatians here. There was one questionable story choice that didn't sit with me, but I was able to get past it. Cruella was actually surprising and I wasn't sure where it was going to go. You're rooting for Estella but also not, if that makes sense. She's a likable character and you almost don't want to see her become Cruella de Vil. She's very much an anti-hero, and I dig that.

The film rests on Emma Stone's shoulders, and she carries it with ease. You can tell she's having a ton of fun with this role, and she flips between the light and the dark (the white and the black. Dalmatians!) of Estella/Cruella. Emma Thompson goes toe-to-toe with her as The Baroness. Thompson does great playing a dry, malicious antagonist. She probably could play Cruella de Vil herself if she wanted to. Joel Fry and Paul Walter Hauser are a great pair as Jasper and Horace. Fry brings a lot of heart to the film, which is surprising considering what Jasper was in 101 Dalmatians, but that's fine Jasper is Cruella's moral compass now I guess. Paul Walter Hauser steals every scene he's in as Horace. One of the best castings in a Disney live-action remake??

I liked the look of the film, bringing retro London to life. It fits right in with the style of the original animated 101 Dalmatians. There was some shoddy CGI in some scenes but it was minimal. What I didn't like is the film's soundtrack. It's like someone was skipping through a CD of "Now That's What I Call 70's", playing the most popular songs from the era. Don't get me wrong I like all the songs they used, and some of them worked, but some of them are so overused in film/television, they take you out of the viewing experience. Whatever happened to using original music to set a scene? Not as bad as the soundtrack in the original Suicide Squad, but just as noticeable.

So, why do I like this film and not Maleficent? Well while Maleficent tried to "redeem" its titular character, and as a result tare down a Disney classic, Cruella actually respects the source material. I mean, it does make a popular Disney villain a bit more sympathetic but she's still not a good person. Again, anti-hero. Again, Cruella doesn't fold into a retelling 101 Dalmatians halfway through. It does something original. 

*Mild spoilers* It doesn't take us right to the point where Cruella decides to kill puppies for fur coats, but it puts her in the right (or wrong) direction. It treads that line and I respect that. "Shockingly", there will be a sequel, and we'll have to wait and see what story that film tells (I think the credits scene can give us some hints) but for now, I'll remain cautiously optimistic.

Cruella is not without its flaws but it's a pleasant surprise regardless. It's a fun film with a strong lead performance. I had a good time with it. But Disney you're 1-1 on villain origin films. Let's not push it by trying to dive into the untold stories of Jafar or Gaston-oh no wait they are doing that one just as a miniseries on Disney Plus...anyway...