Oh, Disney, why do you insist on doing live action versions of your classic (and even modern classic) animated movies? So many of them are, at best, lackluster, slavish remakes with real people (or realistic-looking animals) not quite living up to what had been done in hand-drawn form before. Now, I’d be lying if I said I didn’t like all of them. Some were at least passable. I actually really liked The Jungle Book, though that may have been helped by the fact the original animated movie’s plot is not as memorable as, say, any of the others so far. I haven’t seen the Malificent movies, and those at least seemed to be more original than most.
But now there’s Cruella, an origin story for Cruella de Vil from One Hundred and One Dalmatians., the memorable villain who wanted to make a coat out of dalmatian puppies. It doesn’t even really get into the story from the original movie, so it may actually work. Or it may not. Only one way to find out.
Born as “Estella,” the woman who would eventually become Cruella de Vil (Emma Stone) was being raised by a single mother in what looks like a more suburban part of England. Estella was born with a very distinctive hair color of black on one side and white on the other. Forced by circumstances to movie to London, Estella initially has dreams that, once there, she can make it a fashion designer, already showing a punk aesthetic from her earliest years as well as a vengeful side her mother nicknames “Cruella”. An incident at a party held by the Baroness (Emma Thompson), the most popular fashion designer in England, leaves Estella an orphan. She manages to make her way to London where she falls in with criminal orphans Jasper (Joel Fry) and Horace (Paul Walter Hauser). Together, the three and their dogs Buddy and Winky, they run scams until Estella manages to break into the Baroness’s fashion house. But the Baroness is about every awful stereotype there is about a haute couture designer possible, and she has some secrets of her own that are going to come out. The only way to fight that will be for Estella to become Cruella, and may God have mercy on anyone who gets in her path.
Now, personally, I don’t know much about fashion. It’s not my area of interest as anyone who has ever seen how I dress will attest. However, this movie does have a somewhat distinctive look. Set in the 1970s, there’s a clear contrast between Cruella’s more punk-look to the Baroness’s more classic style. That fits in a bit with the movie itself. Stone’s Cruella is as much a rebel as she is a fighter. She has a strong sense of personal grievance, and that comes out when the “Cruella” persona is on display, to the point where Jasper and Horace rather wish “Estella” would come back. Considering those two were treated more as interchangeable idiot henchmen in the original animated movie, it did help that they had something of distinct personalities here. Horace is basically the funny one, always looking for the angle while being a capable criminal. Jasper is here the smart one, an observant fellow who will be there to talk more to Cruella/Estella and, in a movie where the lead has no romantic love interest, may be the closest there is to one despite a complete lack of romance of any kind between the two. They just have some conversations, particularly as Cruella begins to take over a gang where the trio were once all equals.
But how was the movie itself? It was fine. Stone is a charming performer, and Thompson makes a delightfully cartoonish villain. I actually found the more heist elements of the story fun and bouncy. The fashion parts…well, they weren’t bad. They just struck me as less interesting. When Cruella was out dispensing revenge on everyone on her path or the Baroness was dropping snooty one-liners, the movie is enjoyable. When it gets into the more standard moments of Cruella feeling bad about how her mother died or her issues with the other members of her gang, it felt more cliche. Not that it was done badly, but it likewise didn’t seem very special.
Part of the issue is Cruella, as a character, is not played as sympathetically as she perhaps could be. She’s the wronged party, but she steamrolls over allies and enemies alike to get what she wants for a good portion of the movie. Much of that is because she has to learn to be a better person, but she likewise isn’t given the same level of pathos as the title character in a recent movie that this movie was greatly compared to: Joker. Though both movies are villain origin stories set in past eras to better evoke a feeling, I would argue Joker works harder to make a more evil character more sympathetic that Cruella does. That may have something to do with the target audience (this one is aimed for families whereas Joker clearly isn’t), but this movie was a lot more superficial in its story than the movie it was greatly compared to.
That said, it was still a different look at a well-known Disney villain, one clearly set up to perhaps make a sequel. Then again, this isn’t the first time we got a live action Cruella de Vil, so perhaps some characters are more resilient than others. For this movie, I will say I liked it whenever Thompson was onscreen or there were heists being pulled, but for the rest, it was fine and not much more. But man, did Thompson and to a lesser extent Stone elevate this one…
Now, Disney, can we get some original movies now?
Grade: B-
0 Comments