Like the Maleficent movies before it, Cruella is Disney's latest installment in their campaign to rehabilitate the images of the studio's most evil characters. The problem is that despite the film's best efforts I can't empathize with the title character because I know going in that she'll eventually try to murder dozens of puppies for no other reason than to drape herself in "cutting-edge" fashion. In an age in which socialites routinely have paint thrown on them -- and their fur coats -- how did a story that places cinema's most notorious hound-killer as its protagonist even get made? This redemption spree is exactly the kind of thing that has led to such a lack of accountability in the world today. What's next? Will we learn that Scar shouldn't be blamed for Mustafa's death? Will the Jafar origin movie put all of his actions in an entirely different context that proves that he's simply misunderstood?
Estella, which we learn from is her given name, is bad from the start, prompting her mother to blame the misbehavior on an alter-ego. And almost from the start, the film blames other characters for Cruella's self-inflicted misfortunes: retaliation is spun as bullying; and she initially holds her dog responsible for her mother's untimely demise (which happens immediately following attempted blackmail on her part) -- even though said dogs were released on Cruella herself because she'd crashed a party. What do you do when your central character is irredeemable? You invent an even worse person to challenge them. In this case, it's de Vil's boss, Baroness von Hellman. Maybe the screenwriters next project will be attempting to resurrect Rudy Guiliani's political career.
There's even a revisionist take on the events of 101 Dalmatians in the form of a suggestion that Cruella, that story's antagonist, never intended to actually skin the titular pooches but had threatened to do so as a publicity stunt in order to stoke her reputation. She's not really a monster, she simply has a carefully-orchestrated public persona. Riiight.
Head-scratching decisions abound in this flick. For instance, you'd think that Cruella de Vil would be the poster-girl for cat ladies but inexplicably, her best friend in the world is a stray canine named Buddy. And her Sia-inspiring black-and-white tresses are her natural hair color and not another ill-conceived fashion statement designed to command attention. Also, it's revealed that Cruella can hotwire a car and be gone in 60 seconds but she doesn't know how to drive. Make it make sense.
Moral ambiguity aside, Cruella is just no fun to watch. If the 1960s/70s setting complete with the period's horrendous fashion weren't bad enough (browns and pea-soup greens everywhere), the washed-out palette gives everything onscreen an ultra-drab look. By the end of this overlong snooze-fest (a mind-numbing two hours and 14 minutes), you'll be begging to see any animated movie with bright, vivid colors that you can get your hands on just to balance it all out.
You'd think the folks at Disney would've learned a lesson from their last $200 million-plus, unnecessary origin story, Solo (the only Star Wars movie to lose money). Like that barrel-fire, there's also a pointless scene in which the main character obtains a last name in a ridiculous way. And Han Solo's genesis isn't the only cinematic inspiration for this mess; the screenplay "borrows" heavily from All About Eve and The Devil Wears Prada. This Joker rip-off (a notorious and flamboyant villain is revealed to have had a monumentally terrible mother) is a horrible movie about horrid people. 2015's Cinderella is still the best live-action Disney remake -- partly because the evil stepmother remained just that. Don't waste your money or your time on this dishwater.
No comments:
Post a Comment