Cruella

The Cruella was talked about as a film strongly inspired by, for example, Joker or also The Devil Wears Prada. I don't know if anyone fell for it, as Disney movies are fundamentally harmless entertainment for the whole family and mostly sterile affairs. Before I get to the prevailing positives, this film is truly unwanted and unnecessary, and as a big fan of the children's classic 101 Dalmatians (the live-action version with Jeff Daniels, which I've seen countless times), I was completely displeased by the blatant denial of the original prototype. However, once the film really got going after, for me, the bitter half-hour, some changes in the character of the main protagonist, as I remember her, didn't really upset me too much, and I enjoyed the company of the absolutely perfect Emma Stone, who convincingly plays a character ten years younger than she is and is undoubtedly the centerpiece of this unexpected hit. Actually, the only thing that occasionally irritated me in the film were the disgustingly digital and horribly evil Dalmatians, who, while certainly significantly impacting the film's budget, nowadays, no one will probably risk filming with often disobedient live animals. Which is a shame, because the film from 1996 worked great and any potential remake would be fully CGI. Which reminds me that I'm actually really glad they didn't take on that remake and instead opted for one of Disney's old fairy tale villains. Although it is a really craved film, thanks to the excellent screenplay and the excellent direction of Craig Gillespie, I enjoyed the film so much more than I could have ever hoped for. Fashion meant nothing to me when I was growing up, and just as little now, but that's not the point here at all, so don't worry about it. (2021-06-15)

As Disney's version of Joker, Cruella forges its own path (unlike Disney's previous live-action remakes) telling the origin story of the de-mon-ic lover of black-and-white polka dots in a slyly, almost mischievously funny way. I liked how they managed to incorporate various motifs that would later appear in the Dalmatian sequel (I loved Roger and Anita). From an audiovisual point of view, it is a spectacular piece with a decent soundtrack and a plethora of gorgeous costumes, though at times the overly artificial visual effects (the dogs) spoiled the impression a bit. Emma Stone is likeable, Joel Fry and Paul Walter Hauser are funny second fiddles, and the whole thing was superbly capped by the coolly elegant Emma Thompson. The plot twists are all predictable, but what the hell, I had fun in the cinema and thoroughly enjoyed the black and white quest for revenge. (2021-06-12)

A family drama, a thriller, a heist, a comedy, and a bit of an action movie too. Craig Gillespie has mixed an admirable genre palette, which, along with the divine Emma Stone, is ruled by a polished audiovisual style. It's the kind of "juicy" film where you know from the exposition that you're going to enjoy pretty much every shot. And I couldn't help but notice that for a Disney production, it felt a little too cruel and evil in places, which of course was purely a benefit. In short, it's not a predictable Disney movie, because you don't see such an appealing and cool origin of one iconic (non-)villain that often. [75%] (2021-06-28)

Unlike 101 Dalmatians, Cruella has a significantly darker atmosphere. It might have been even better if it hadn’t been made by Disney, a company I’m not particularly fond of (just like the KGB, CIA, and the censors who oversee political correctness). Anyway, I was mightily surprised by how much I enjoyed the film throughout. Emma Stone was excellent, Emma Thompson was a perfect villainess, and the others did their best to support them, as the two Emmas stole the movie for themselves. I really enjoyed this one. (2021-10-09)

It's a lot better than I expected. It's more of a glamour movie than a Disney movie, the costumes are fantastic, Emma Stone is my kryptonite, and it's decently paced until a good two thirds in. But then there's everything else. Cruella doesn't have many reasons to justify not being an animated film. The actors act like a cartoon and the internal logic of the film is like a cartoon: everyone has infinite energy, they don't sleep, they do things overnight and unnoticed that normally take teams of people weeks and months to work on, the protagonists have a blank check for everything, there's no causality, and nothing happens in the world unless it's in a given scene. The environments are CGI for the most part anyway, and the camera flies around in them regardless of physical obstacles. And my eye truly ached whenever it beheld digital dogs. What puzzled me most, though, was why the film was practically about the fight against Cruella, who was supposed to be the main character. Here Emma Stone plays the usual slightly dodgy juvenile girl with a tragic past while Emma Thompson, her nemesis, is the one with all the makings of the classic Cruella. After all, the character has always been a model of the cynical establishment, while here, WTF, they make her a parlor anarchist standing in some kind of resistance to the system. So why does Disney entice us to see a movie with a classic baddie in the lead role when they leave nothing but the barest of the character and instead serve up the most hackneyed, annoying story with a family twist without a microscopic shred of moral ambivalence? Rhetorical question. I know, because Disney. Disney, who can buy the rights to any song, from the Rolling Stones to Nina Simone to the Stooges, and then pepper them one by one without taste or balance into a monstrous 100-200M original intended for a tween audience from the wealthy American suburbs. Well gee, I’ve gotten all worked up again. (2021-09-08)