Cruella *SPOILERS*

[ComicJunkie21]

Watched Cruella last night and easily was one of the best movies of the year and easily the best live action they've done. Surprisingly it didn't feel like a Disney movie at all. Emma Stone NAILED the role! The film was a little over 2 hours but didn't feel like it. The story telling was great and the sarcastic writing was great. Suprisingly it was a good crime mystery too. The dogs were also hilarious.

I would summarize this film as Disney meets the Devil Wears Prada.

I want more of these films from Disney, no more repetitively bad live actions remakes. Make films from the villain's perspective where there's more freedom and invest in the writing like in this one.

Forgot to add that kids may not enjoy the film as it seems it was made more for the older audience that grew up 101 dalmatians that will catch the sarcasm in the dialogue.

[Wildling]

Yeah not being a modern Disneyphile this might be my most pleasant surprise watch of the year.

Funny how Disney didn't allow Cruella to smoke on screen, but getting herself blackout drunk was okay.

[Immortal Weapon]

I didn't like this one at all. I don't see how this character becomes the Cruella from 101 dalmatians. I couldn't get over that.

[AdamFTF]

I saw it. I thought it was a lot of fun. Basically Disney's take on a crime/revenge film. I mainly came to see Emma Stone chew scenery and I got that. Ranking it next to Disney's other modern live action/fantasy films, I liked it way more than Dumbo or Mulan or The Nutcracker and the Four Realms but not as much as Christopher Robin or Cinderella or Pete's Dragon.

The thing with Cruella though, and my mind immediately clicked into this mode the minute I realized she was telling the story herself, is that it all works better if you assume the movie is lying to you. Cruella DeVil as we know her would be an unreliable narrator at best. So, if Cruella's working the spin, then a lot of choices suddenly make more sense. Like making one of her first friends a little dog to try and defuse her "Cruella hates dogs" reputation. Or including that otherwise pointless bit about Roger getting fired by the Baroness and blaming her for it. That's her rationalizing why he wrote that song about her and why he "spitefully" wouldn't let her have any of the puppies. Or the mid-credits scene (which I won't spoil). Or just all the times the movie seems to go out of its way to tell you that Cruella is "brilliant". The entire movie is Cruella trying to convince you she's some kind of roguish iconoclast hero.

[Wildling]

I saw it. I thought it was a lot of fun. Basically Disney's take on a crime/revenge film. I mainly came to see Emma Watson chew scenery and I got that. Ranking it next to Disney's other modern live action/fantasy films, I liked it way more than Dumbo or Mulan or The Nutcracker and the Four Realms but not as much as Christopher Robin or Cinderella or Pete's Dragon.

The thing with Cruella though, and my mind immediately clicked into this mode the minute I realized she was telling the story herself, is that it all works better if you assume the movie is lying to you. Cruella DeVil as we know her would be an unreliable narrator at best. So, if Cruella's working the spin, then a lot of choices suddenly make more sense. Like making one of her first friends a little dog to try and defuse her "Cruella hates dogs" reputation. Or including that otherwise pointless bit about Roger getting fired by the Baroness and blaming her for it. That's her rationalizing why he wrote that song about her and why he "spitefully" wouldn't let her have any of the puppies. Or the mid-credits scene (which I won't spoil). Or just all the times the movie seems to go out of its way to tell you that Cruella is "brilliant". The entire movie is Cruella trying to convince you she's some kind of roguish iconoclast hero.

When you put it that way, Roger''s lyrics about her right before showing dark clouds in the horizon (a theme though the whole movie) did make me wonder.

[Gray Lensman]

So, how long do you think it will be before Disney makes a film about how Cinderella's dad has done his second wife wrong and that justifies the cruelty of the animated film?

[titanfan]

So, how long do you think it will be before Disney makes a film about how Cinderella's dad has done his second wife wrong and that justifies the cruelty of the animated film?

I actually would watch a story about Cinderella's Step-Family *after* she gets married and lives happily ever after and leaves them behind.

[Frontier]

I actually would watch a story about Cinderella's Step-Family *after* she gets married and lives happily ever after and leaves them behind.

I feel like this was one of the stories in Cinderella 2.

[choptop]

It was okay but not that great to be honest.

[Robotman]

I don’t like these movies (or tv shows) that have a focus on a certain breed of dog. It always causes a huge surge in people trying to get one. Dalmatians are so over bred that it’s difficult to find one that isn’t deaf or blind (or both). Plus they are very hard to train (which is probably attributed to the inbreeding).

After Game of Thrones became popular there was a big uptick in people trying to adopt huskies because they wanted their own dire-wolf. Huskies are very challenging dogs to take care of because of their high energy, intelligence (which means they get bored easily and that leads to them destroying their surroundings), and the fact that they can easily over heat. Guess what? Animal shelters were overflowing with huskies for years because people adopted them and once they found out that they’re challenging to take care of, they got rid of them. GoT actors even started to do PSAs urging people to not adopt the dogs unless they were truly prepared. I hope Disney does something similar.

[Username taken]

I haven’t seen it but Disney pictures (not Marvel or Pixar or Star Wars) has been notoriously horrible at making movies.

With the exception of The Pirates series and their remakes, their movies have been huge failures and just terrible.

I hope Cruella is better.

[Guy1]

I don’t like these movies (or tv shows) that have a focus on a certain breed of dog. It always causes a huge surge in people trying to get one. Dalmatians are so over bred that it’s difficult to find one that isn’t deaf or blind (or both). Plus they are very hard to train (which is probably attributed to the inbreeding).

After Game of Thrones became popular there was a big uptick in people trying to adopt huskies because they wanted their own dire-wolf. Huskies are very challenging dogs to take care of because of their high energy, intelligence (which means they get bored easily and that leads to them destroying their surroundings), and the fact that they can easily over heat. Guess what? Animal shelters were overflowing with huskies for years because people adopted them and once they found out that they’re challenging to take care of, they got rid of them. GoT actors even started to do PSAs urging people to not adopt the dogs unless they were truly prepared. I hope Disney does something similar.

[AdamFTF]

I haven’t seen it but Disney pictures (not Marvel or Pixar or Star Wars) has been notoriously horrible at making movies.

With the exception of The Pirates series and their remakes, their movies have been huge failures and just terrible.

I hope Cruella is better.

Walt Disney Studios (or Walt Disney Pictures or whatever their name is right now) is a studio that made its name on smaller, entertaining family films. In baseball terms, movies that were solid base hits and not home runs. It was either adaptations of books (20,000 Leagues Under the Sea, Swiss Family Robinson, Treasure Island, etc), family comedies (The Absent-Minded Professor, The Parent Trap, Freaky Friday, etc), kids' sports movies (The Mighty Ducks, Little Giants, Rookie of the Year, etc) or remakes of their family comedies (Flubber, The Parent Trap-1998, Freaky Friday-2003, etc). The thing about doing it that way for so long is that they were thoroughly unprepared for a movie scene largely dominated by IP-centered blockbusters. The kinds of movies they normally made would now be considered streaming fodder. They tried to get in on that with movies like Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time, John Carter and The Lone Ranger but none of those movies performed the way they wanted. The hits that did come like National Treasure and Pirates of the Caribbean proved difficult to replicate. Their live action reimaginings of animated movies are the only ones that seem to do blockbuster numbers more often than not. And try as they might to make it a "fantasy" thing rather than a "remake thing" with movies like The BFG, A Wrinkle in Time and The Nutcracker and the Four Realms, people just don't seem to be going for it.

[Vakanai]

Walt Disney Studios (or Walt Disney Pictures or whatever their name is right now) is a studio that made its name on smaller, entertaining family films. In baseball terms, movies that were solid base hits and not home runs. It was either adaptations of books (20,000 Leagues Under the Sea, Swiss Family Robinson, Treasure Island, etc), family comedies (The Absent-Minded Professor, The Parent Trap, Freaky Friday, etc), kids' sports movies (The Mighty Ducks, Little Giants, Rookie of the Year, etc) or remakes of their family comedies (Flubber, The Parent Trap-1998, Freaky Friday-2003, etc). The thing about doing it that way for so long is that they were thoroughly unprepared for a movie scene largely dominated by IP-centered blockbusters. The kinds of movies they normally made would now be considered streaming fodder. They tried to get in on that with movies like Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time, John Carter and The Lone Ranger but none of those movies performed the way they wanted. The hits that did come like National Treasure and Pirates of the Caribbean proved difficult to replicate. Their live action reimaginings of animated movies are the only ones that seem to do blockbuster numbers more often than not. And try as they might to make it a "fantasy" thing rather than a "remake thing" with movies like The BFG, A Wrinkle in Time and The Nutcracker and the Four Realms, people just don't seem to be going for it.

Honestly, Disney should rely more on making animated classics - not remaking their old ones for live action.
Hell, when was the last time Mickey Mouse was even in a theatrical movie?

[AdamFTF]

Honestly, Disney should rely more on making animated classics - not remaking their old ones for live action.
Hell, when was the last time Mickey Mouse was even in a theatrical movie?

Well, Disney Feature Animation seems to be doing fine as is. The real issue is Walt Disney Studios, which is their legacy live action studio (you know, the live action studio that was born in Disney proper rather than being purchased like Lucasfilm or Marvel Studios. A reminder that Disney isn't just Disney. It's made up of parts and divisions). Or are you suggesting that they should dissolve Walt Disney Studios and dump all of their resources into Disney Feature Animation so that they can make more animated movies. I kind of feel like that might have happened if the reimaginings of the animated stuff didn't do well or the Pirates movies stopped making bank in China. Or they'd have their resources cut and be repurposed as a division just devoted to making Disney+ content.

Honestly, this whole thing gets kind of complicated. Especially when you realize that 90% of Disney's money probably doesn't come from movies or TV. It comes from their hospitality businesses. Essentially, the money is in the parks and the hotels attached to the parks. And the main purpose of the movies is to create new IP they can populate the parks with.

But we've gone a bit off-topic.