Showing posts with label Disney. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Disney. Show all posts

Monday, June 14, 2021

#Movie #Review #Cruella

(Spoilers included!)

Disney's Cruella open to mixed reviews in late May, 2021, but it is well worth seeing and works as an Origin Story for this dastardly Disney character.

We first see her as Estella, a young girl who is born with her trademark black and white hair. From the beginning, she is a difficult child for her widowed mother, who puts her in a boarding school, where she is warned to be Estella, not a "Cruella."

She does not heed the advice, and gets in fights and causes other problems which results in her being expelled.

After her mother's death at the hands of a mysterious person living in a grand mansion, Estella ends up in 1970s London.

She quickly falls in with two young boys who earn their way in life as pickpockets and thieves. The two 12-year-old actors do an admirable job playing the Dickensian characters.

She stays with the young scamps over 10 years, and they become her surrogate family. But she wishes and hopes for more than the petty theft that keeps them alive, knowing that she has a great skill: designing clothing. One day, she's instantly hired by a designer, but is just put to work, Cinderella-like, scrubbing floors and toilets.

Frustrated, and in a drunken stupor (in a Disney film!) one evening after work, she re-does the front window of the fashion house's department store.

When the Baroness, who runs the fashion line "House of Liberty" (played by Emma Thompson) sees the dramatic window display the next day, she instantly hires Estella.

The relationship between the two Emma's is strained from the beginning. If anyone has seen The Devil Wears Prada, they will recognize the dynamic as one very similar to that between Anne Hathaway's Andrea and Meryl Streep's Miranda Priestly. But the difference here is that unlike Miranda Priestly, the Baroness has a grudging admiration for Estella's talent as a designer from the start. 

But the tide turns when Estella realizes that the Baroness is responsible for her mother's death, and later learns who she actually is.

Surprisingly perhaps, for a Disney film, there is amazing depth of character here in the two leads.

The baroness character is the villain in the piece, rather than Cruella, who comes across as conflicted and sympathetic.

This is a big change from previous incarnations of the character by Disney. In the 1961 animated film 101 Dalmatians, she is portrayed as evil incarnate, hell bent on turning dogs into a coat. 

The live-action film of the same name in 1996, starring Glenn Close, stayed true to the storyline of a maniacal woman who wanted to turn the dogs into coats. That film, unlike this recent one, was deliberately over the top in its character portrayals, basically making it a live-action cartoon. An interesting bit of trivia is that Glenn Close was an executive producer of Cruella, as was Emma Stone.

But this film, which should be seen more as a reboot than a sequel or prequel to the previous Disney efforts, has the lead character explicitly telling another character that she did not turn the Baroness's three Dalmatians into coats, despite wearing a suspiciously dotted coat during one of her fashion events.  In fact, the character loves dogs in this film, and even has one as a pet.

She chalked it up to a malicious rumor when asked about it, one no doubt she was promoting herself in order to boost her image as a ruthless designer.

That kind of sophisticated thought coming from a character in a Disney film isn't really expected. But because she actually didn't kill the dogs, or even attempt it, we are allowed to sympathize with her plight as an orphan who has been wronged.

No doubt adhering to new Oscar rules, the film includes a diverse cast, including Kirby Howell-Baptiste, as a starry eyed reporter who knew Estelle as a child, and John McCrae, who plays an effeminate second-hand clothing store owner who befriends Estelle, and later helps her when she becomes Cruella.

The film is a veritable linen closet of film tropes from the past. As mentioned above, the almost obvious nod to The Devil Wears Prada, but since this is an origin story of an orphan whose parent has been killed, one could also say Batman can be found here as well. And like Batman, and other superheroes, Cruella struggles internally here with hatred for her foe, a hatred that she knows is changing her.

Cruella is therefore a Scarlett O'Hara figure, who latches onto people and does what she needs to do to survive. Because she has not crossed the line and actually murdered her opponent, or the dogs, she can remain sympathetic to audiences.

I have to mention the wonderful soundtrack to this film, which takes place in the 1970s. One film reviewer noted, "A punk song in a Disney film! Punk is dead!" 

Artists included Queen, Supertramp, The Doors, Ike and Tina Turner, Blondie and The Clash. Actor John McCrae recorded a cover of The Stooge's raucous 1969 song, "I Want to be Your Dog," for the film's soundtrack.

Expect at least one sequel, which is already in development.

Wednesday, June 10, 2015

#Tomorrowland #Movie Review: Magical Visuals, Marred by Violence, Plot Holes & Absurdities


(This contains MAJOR Spoilers! Be Warned!)

In Disney's Tomorrowland, three police officers are shot and killed in cold blood. The fact that it's done by robots (and death rays, which vaporizes them) doesn't make it any more acceptable.

Which is sad, because I'd been VERY MUCH looking forward to this film for weeks, and it disappointed.

Some good first: The young actresses here are wonderful. We'll be seeing a lot more of both Britt Robertson (Casey Newton) and Raffey Cassidy (Athena.)

My opinion of Hugh Laurie (David Nix) is colored by his amazing role as the lead character on House, MD, but in truth his acting was only fair, and I believe any actor – known or unknown – could have better played Frank Walker, portrayed by George Clooney, who was wooden and whose role was poorly written.

The first act is magical, and spectacular. The discovery of the pin and the wonderful place it exposes is amazing. The visuals are captivating – and this is what appeared in the previews. The nostalgic and accurate-feeling 1964 World's Fair was beautifully rendered and Frank's youthful wonder (played sufficiently by Thomas Robinson) pours forth from the screen.

And then the film goes haywire.

For starters, the film's science is absurd, and the way they eventually get to Tomorrowland is even more absurd (no, it's not a bathtub, as hinted at in the TV ads, nor the devise that takes them to Paris, which could have simply beamed them to Tomorrowland!)

Instead, we get numerous plot holes and absurdities that destroy even the internal logic of the film.

Just a few of the mind-numbing number of unanswered questions and plot holes:

For WHOM is the negative/realistic Frank Walker and the optimistic Casey recording the video in the opener? And why is he so negative? Clearly he can't be negative after the events of the film have unfolded, because everything seemingly worked out and new animatronic children are being sent out to revive Tomorrowland. But if it's filmed beforehand, why is he recording a video at all, and again, FOR WHOM?

What has Tomorrowland ever done for the world? That seriously is never addressed. That's why I thought we were getting this movie. It never materialized. We learn instead that a rather bleak looking Tomorrowland now exists, and probably existed like that when Frank was expelled when he was a teenager (in the early 1970s?) So what has it ever done for humanity to warrant its existence?

If, in 1964, a friendly robot device existed that could create bridges in the sky (and fix Frank's jet pack early in the film) why wasn't such a device sent to earth to repair and build roads and sky-bridges HERE? The sad answer lies in the same depressing conclusion: Tomorrowland has helped no one. Ever.

Why have the robots kill ANYONE if the world was ending in a month or so, anyway? Didn't they get the memo?

If Gov. Nix could have expelled Frank to a deserted island (where he would have died in a few years) using that transporter device, then why didn't he do that years ago, instead of putting him in a house and using the threat of killer robots to pacify him?

Tomorrowland was clearly being built in the 1960s. So HOW and WHY was the Eifel Tower being constructed in the 1880s as an inter- dimensional ship? And WHERE was it going, exactly? This ship's very existence is completely illogical and seemingly exists only to insert a bit of cool-looking Steampunk into the film.

If Nix could see the future, surely he could have seen his own demise, and Frank's return?

The moment when Casey has the revelation, standing in front of the portal to the island, I thought INSTANTLY that this film would make a wonderful U-turn, giving Nix and Tomorrowland a chance to redeem themselves. If spreading gloom and doom about humanity's problems doesn't work (and we see it NOT WORKINqG all around us) why don't they simply change the message of what's being sent out to the earth? But "destroy the array" is the answer, leading to two deaths almost instantly. What a way to end the film on a downer, making the later 'new army' of robot recruiters a poor "Plan B."

Finally, how did the 30-odd-day "end of the world" get fixed, by Casey wishing it away? By her positive energy? That's magic, not science. That someone has Midichlorians that can affect the universe is from another franchise, even if Disney DOES now own it.

Overall, the film's second and third acts are a huge disappointment, marred by unnecessary violence and numerous absurdities. Which is a shame, since the film could have shown the world being positively affected by those working together in harmony to build a better future. THAT was Disney's vision, after all, not just one more stupid movie-themed ride at the parks' Tomorrowlands.

This review appears on IMDB.com here: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1964418/reviews-271