Want to help support this channel? Check out my books on Amazon: www.amazon.com/Will-Jordan/e/B00BCO7SA8/ref=dp_byline_cont_pop_ebooks_1 Subscribe on Patreon: www.patreon.com/TheCriticalDrinker Subscribe on Subscribestar: www.subscribestar.com/the-critical-drinker
You've kind of become a Disney review channel. We get it. Disney is stupid. Can we move on to more interesting cinema now? Maybe talk about Bone Tomahawk. Or discuss Midnight Express. Or how about The Big Hit? Biloxi Blues? The Fan? Freddy Got Fingered? Training Day? A nightmare on elm street? Sniper? Blair Witch 2? Anything is better than hearing you whine about Disney video after video.
Disney made the mistake of trying to make it an antihero movie, when what they really should've done is to make it a "villain's journey" movie where young and idealistic girl eventually turns into an irredeemable monster. Thats why people praise Breaking Bad and Joker, they become genuinely bad people in the end, it doesn't get sugarcoated nor does the stories give any excuses for the protagonists.
It's because Cruella is a woman and the protagonists of Joker amd Breaking Bad are men. People, including the audiences who watch these movies and the people who make them, are uncomfortable with a movie or other piece of media taking a woman to rock bottom the way Joker does, only to have her rise as the villain. Authors and movie makers flinch at the prospect of tearing a female character down until she has nothing left, so they almost always pull a few of the worst punches. Even when those same authors and movie makers wouldn't flinch at doing the same to a male character.
@@5h0rgunn45 interesting I don’t think I’d be uncomfortable with that, everyone starts somewhere and if that means starting at the lowest of lows a few times then so be it. Everyone has been there. And she kind of did hit “rock bottom” in the movie but obviously that didn’t make her evil. It made her love the dogs that killed her fake mom 😂😂
It’s amazing how Disney forgot in the original she was not even a fashion designer. Just a wealthy woman who dressed nicely. Even in 101 Dalmatians 2 she refers to herself as “as over-financed heiress”
They didn't forget, it's just that the tragic backstory cannot work with loads of wealth. They cannot have a hero who's rich and evil, so they changed it all.
So...having Cruella tumble out the back of a garbage truck wearing a dress made of trash is supposed to be part of a triumphant montage displaying her super-totes-amazing fashion design skills? Because back in 2001 when _Zoolander_ showed us 'Derelicte,' we were supposed to be _laughing_ at the idea of literal garbage being glamorized as high fashion.
Didnt Cindy Lauper do this in the 80s with garbage, like literal garbage clothes? I only found it memorable because of a skirt made from shredded newspapers. And yeah...rain...or just...I mean..shredded anything. Maybe I was watching to much pr1n at the time. Seemed like a plot device for some...never mind. But still...trash.
That's because Zoolander is actually a legitimately brilliant comedy, a genuine high water mark for a lot of reasons, that had the great misfortune to come out right around September 11 2001 and not really get the recognition it deserved.
- Is named "Maleficent" - turns out to have been misblamed and tortured and actually cares for the heroine. - Is named "Cruella" - turns out to have been mistreated and had her mother killed by dalmatians. Can't wait for the Snow White adaptation, where the villain literally named "Evil Queen" will turn out to be a misunderstood mirror maker whose mother was killed by a snow avalanche or some bullshit like that.
Between “there was no plan for the Star Wars sequel trilogy” and “Cruella’s tragic backstory is that Dalmatians killed her mother”, I hope every indie creator who has ever experienced self-doubt over their storytelling skills and/or professional competency is feeling very reassured.
I really am. I have kept a lot of books a secret not even allowing my husband to read them much to his frustration, but there seems to be a plague of terrible story making that leaves me feeling perhaps I am wrong for keeping an "ok" story from even my husband until I feel like it is at least good.
Literally why I started writing and publishing my own sci-fi novels. That and the cynicism of "if we can't take care of earth, we shouldn't go anywhere else" which totally ignored how environmental technology boomed after the space-race. I figure I can't do worse than Lightyear.
You know they had a committee of writers who sat for hours around a conference table eating Panera Bread trying to figure out what made Cruella so evil. I mean she wants to kill puppies for their fur, does it really need a backstory?
@@tankerd1847 No, it didn't. And their reasoning for Cruella wanting the dogs's fur for the sake of revenge is some of the cringiest, bottom-of-the-barrel storytelling which is so prevalent in the writer's rooms these days. It's actually another story that Once Upon a Time did much better; and Cruella's reason for doing what she did was the simplest and vest explanation you could give to a character like her: she's just a bad person. What other reason do you need than that? Short, sweet, and to the point.
"Because in this world fashion designers are so powerful they can orchestrate murders, manipulate police and local officials, and act like political officials in their own right" Ah, so this takes place in the Zoolander cinematic universe
To this day, one of my favorite parts is David Duchovny as the World's Greatest Hand Model. "A finger jockey. We don't think the the same as the face and body boys; we're a whole different breed."
@@margarethmichelina5146 Joker isn't the same at all. He's never touted as being a hero in the movie, he just cracks under the weight of everything and lashes back at society for the way it is. There's nothing heroic about it. Nor does he "get ahead in life", his life spirals into madness. You don't "get ahead in life" by murdering people on public television because you've lost your sanity.
@@margarethmichelina5146 Yeah. Because nothing says "I made it!" quite like being locked up in a mental institution and killing your mother, your idol, and your psychiatrist at the end of the movie.....
In the live action Toy Story reimagining, Sid develops a thirst for revenge against toys after his dad is killed by a box of toys falling onto his head at his factory job.
“Her mother was killed by evil Dalmatians” That’s so stupid I can’t even process it. Edit: having watched the movie, I actually kinda enjoyed it but this plot point is still stupid
This movie was SO obvious in its intent. After the crazy success of Joker, this was Disney's attempt to cash in by doing basically the same thing with a female villain.
@@Mr.Ekshin You see the key difference that Disney missed is that by the end of joker you are supposed to understand joker, you are not supposed to like joker.
Will they now also make a prequel about the Baroness and how she really wasn’t evil, but had a tragic childhood that made her that way? Why can’t we just have normal villains? Cruella, daughter of some upper class douches, who always lived a privileged life and wants more and more power as she grows up. And she won’t stop even if it means killing puppies.
@@thingfish000 It can work like in the case of Joker. But they wrote him in a tragedy where he embraces being a clown and villain to society, not as some antihero like Cruella.
When I heard that Cruella’s mom was pushed off a cliff by Dalmatians I thought it was a parody. I’m still trying to pick my jaw up off the floor after that clip.
Worst part about it is that she only pretends to make a coat out of the 3 adult dalmatians. So adult dogs kill her mom, not enough for her to use them to make a coat. Yet she has no problem using a hundred puppies to make one. That doesn't make any sense. In the original she clearly just was a heartless fur coat lover, didn't needed more than that to make it a good movie with a good villain.
Cruella hating Dalmatians because they throw her mom off a cliff is one of the funniest things I’ve heard in my life, Disney really puts no effort on their products now.
I didn't watch a movie yet. But I had hearded even stranger thing's. Or to put it better, that even tho she supousydly "hated" dalmation's. She gived two of them to Anita, and Roger. And those Dalmation's where sibling's. And if this film is somehow an "prequel" to the original story, you known what that mean's.
Goodiesfeats Remember that it’s the same company that made Fantasia, the original Dalmatians movie, Alice in Wonderland, Snow White, Bambi, the Lion King, etc.
Yet apparently her hatred of dalmatians never comes up again... meaning this absolutely bonkers attempt at a sympathetic motivation was created for nothing
The evil dalmations thing killed me. The worst writing of all time. "How do we make the dogs the villains so it is okay she wants to turn them into fur coats later?". Disney has some hacks for sure.
In one of my writing books, it said to never kill off the pets, people will hate you. They leveraged that in John Wick to make the audience hate the villain. But I think there should be a corollary: Never make the dogs the villains.
@@jellyfishi_ Yeah I liked Joker, but as you said Joker is really just the title. I hardly consider it a comicbook character movie, the movie could have been titled anything tbh.
@@MariusWales yeah but Cruella didn't hate the dogs that murdered her "mother". She let them live with her. They went to her funeral, and moved in with her into the mansion. They even hung around long enough to have puppies
Do what I do, don't buy into anything Disney directly/indirectly. Stop giving them money and they might just loose enough market share to fire some people.
That is exactly the idea you would get for cruellas backstory if an extremely out of touch idiot put exactly 5 seconds of thought into it and slapped it into a move for money. And look it exists! AND PEOPLE WILL WATCH IT AND GO HUH THAT WAS PRETTY GOOD CAUSE THEY ARE FUCKING STUPID FHJKASDFHJKLHJKLASDFHJKLDFADSF queue 1000 more of these garbage films i hate all of you film is dead
@@JosephArata Yes I am the same. I am lucky in a way because my kids were never that interested in Disney movies and I am not that interested in any Disney properties. I liked Star Wars back in 1977 but the Prequels made it somewhat lame and I just decided I didn't need more of that universe.
@Macky Mark Same here. She seems like an at least alright person irl but she seems stuck doing these male hating projects lately. Her upcoming Yorgos Lanthimos film is the same man hating BS her last two films were. I guess go where the money is but still. She's better than that.
She's certainly is a good looking 32. The women I know who are almost the same age, my own girlfriend include, (34) are looking the age they have. Maybe because it's very cold and dark here and it's not exactly florida or california and it wear people before their time but she's good looking and have more charisma than the bland actresses that Disney usually choose (ginger plank of wood)
There is a clearer way to describe the difference between Cruella and Joker: Joker didn't try to make him a hero. He is simply the protagonist in a tragedy.
One could also think of Magneto and X-Men First Class, and how he basically became the man that killed his mother at the end. The thing is Erik Lehnsherr has never been a full out villain, but a social leader who will do anything, by any means necessary, to protect his kind. Just like Malcolm X.
Cruella wasnt shown to be the hero either tho. She thought of skinning dogs coz she thought their fur would make a good coat , she is evil , just like the original , she just didn't start killing puppies in this one, this is before that happened
This movie confuses the hell out of me. Knowing the character's history I'm not sure how the writers expected to create a tragically flawed, yet sympathetic character that people could "relate" to when said character has a history of murdering puppies, for fun. Makes me wonder if the writer's have a history of murdering puppies themselves.
The part where Cruella jokes about turning the Dalmatian into a coat made the audience of my function clapp like wtf should I feel good about animal abuse?
It's ironic. The original film was kind of a critique of the fashion industry and these shallow, fashion-worshipping fashionistas. But the remake wallows in the fashion industry.
You can't really expect modern screenwriters and studios to actually understand the themes and messages of the much better stories they attempt to cannibalize. That would require actual effort and intelligence.
We all know why Disney made this movie: they needed a Harley Quinn, so they tried to make Cruella a Harley Quinn like character, but it just doen't work like that.
You're right, as a few others have also glommed. They even went as far as getting the nearest thing to Margot Robbie they could find, in the form of Emma Stone, and managing to completely blind-side themselves to the stunningly bad casting choice in the process. What utter morons must be running the show in show biz now.
Joker is a tragic film about a man going mad and becoming a monster. Through basically the whole third act you are hoping to see some kind of better ending, or at least someone stopping Arthur before he hurts any more people. Cruella is a power fantasy about how a woman carves out a place of power in the world by becoming the very monster she fought against.
And it is a very dumb reason like if she died by Dalmatians bite then it would make much sense but still a dumb reason mainly for she used them as a f*cking coat like wtf
What is with this Disney obsession with justifying or redeeming their female villains? They’re bad people, period. End of story. Their being women has nothing to do with their villainy, their choices as people do.
But women are always the victim.. at least that's what the media have been force feeding everyone for years now... I'm surprised it wasn't a white male in a dalmatian costume that was the real villain.
Because a white woman (the most empowered being in the history of earth) can't be shown as wholly evil. There must be a "reason" It's society's fault. It's her parents fault. Never her own decision.
The Disney Villains are popular. They have merchandise and their own branding. People are legit fans of them. Hell, *I* like them. I'm not rooting for the villain to win, but they're always the most fun character in their movies. Disney wants to mine that for IP, but they can't bring themselves to do a movie from the villain's point of view. They could never do a Joker. So they try to switch it up so the villain is actually the misunderstood hero... However, NOBODY LIKES THE VILLAINS BECAUSE THEY'RE MISUNDERSTOOD HEROES. They like the villains BECAUSE THEY'RE VILLAINS. Nobody wanted the story of Sleeping Beauty to be "opposite day" where Maleficent was actually the hero. Maleficent is cool BECAUSE she's evil. We wanted the story of why she's so evil, not why really she's the good guy.
An OBVIOUS attempt at a cash grab. After the crazy success of 'Joker', this was Disney's attempt to cash in by doing basically the same thing, but with a female villain.
It wasn’t just Dalmatians that made her crazy for fur. She was obsessed with skinning rare or endangered species. Hence the white tiger in the first live action. And one design lead her to wanting to skin puppies for a fur coat. She moved from endangered exotic animals to domestic animals which became a scarier twist to her personality. This film shows non of that…
Fuck they could have done that with Ursula. Whole big family conflict between her and triton that leads to her banishment and subsequent revenge. Would have worked way better than the villain who just likes furs.
That's what I was thinking the whole time a women who is pushed around and hates her boss has a big personality change and makeover and goes on a crime spree. I was like this feels like joker months ago.
@@whitemoonwolf13 An Ursula movie would also have the added benefit of being prime material for a black female lead. You have a good story there, on top of the diversity quota lol
The thing is, they have such poor understanding as to WHY the Joker is a villain, not by what he does, but the reason behind it, in that he's trying to get Batman to break his rule by embodying Chaos, while Bats embodies Order. But no, they see a man wearing makeup, killing people, and laughing, and their single digit IQs go "Huh, man kill man make good movie character."
I just have to say that I hate that they turn Cruella into some kind of outcast. She is pretty clearly a queen bee type in the original -- the leader of the pack that no one should question. In fact, it seems like Anita was only her friend because it was much easier than being against her.
“Because apparently in this world fashion designers are so powerful they can orchestrate murders and manipulate police and local officials” Zoolander prequel confirmed?
It's like unnecessary prequel movies are cursed to overexplain every little character quirk we've seen in the original movie. Bonus points if the explanation doesn't actually make sense (Cartoon Cruella only wanted to kill the puppies because they'd make for a nice coat; that's it, really).
She doesn't even blame the dalmatians though (blames herself for provoking & leading them to her mother). Not to mention later on it's revealed that it was actually the Baroness character who set the dalmatians on her mom with a dog whistle. Y'all just blindly hating for the sake of it.
Unpopular Opinion: The whole “misunderstood antihero” trope is getting annoying and overused. Not every antagonist needs a sad backstory. Some people are just evil. Plain and simple.
And at the very least, if a writer is going to try adding a sad backstory for an iconic villain, one should keep these in mind: 1.) Understand how much the audience should reasonably sympathize with the character, at each individual moment. 2.) Provide a backstory that could logically lead to someone becoming that type of villain. And do not undermine the villain’s sense of agency, by only having the character’s circumstances heavily factor in and not also the character’s own decisions/flaws. 3.) Make the sure the backstory adds to a character’s complexity, rather than consuming the character to the point of “Flanderization”. 4.) When the character becomes that iconic villain, be sure to maintain some of that same appeal, charisma, menace, etc. which made the villain great in the first place. 5.) In general, actually tell an interesting story in the process.
Wait, they seriously pulled the "Dalmatian killed her parents" thing? I honestly thought that was a meme. Disney needs to get it's shit kicked in for insulting us with writing this bad.
Watch the movie. This guy is just twisting things. Watch and you'll understand. She did not even hate the dalmatians from start to finish, the movie was partially an ode to dogs actually.
Disney Executive: Which one of our classic villains should we give a sympathetic POV? Disney employee 1: How about someone who wasn't that evil in the source material like Hades? Disney Executive: No Disney employee 2: How about someone who was arguably worse in the source material? Disney Executive: GENIUS! The moral of the story is don't use the cocaine before a board meeting
I'm waiting for a disney movie called "Adolf" which is the backstory of a german child in 1900s who has been bullied in highschool and is facing depression and learns to empower his flaws and becomes the leader of Germany.
Cruella's parents were unattentive rich snobs who literally referred to her as "allowable tax excemption schedule C Line 4" And she's obsessed with dalmatians because they would never buy her one. This movie isn't canon.
Dude, 101 Dalmatians doesn’t have “canon”. It’s an animated Disney movie that had one somewhat well received live action version. It’s not like there’s lore here 😂 I can’t believe you have to call this “not canon” as if this exists in some multi-story universe. No one ever, and I mean ever, will watch the original animated movie and be like “ooh ooh! Remember cruella from that movie we watched! Remember her cool origin story in that live action movie?” No one will ever even consider these two things related, the only thing is the black and white hair that barely reminds me of the original movie
@@viperx3461 The electromagnetic field around his final resting place seems to be powering a rotisserie... or is the rotisserie spinning so fast its generating its own field. Dont know.
@@cindyl2444 Why, of course not; I just have an extreme prejudice against those that, while human, do not deserve to be counted as people and woud best be descrbed as subpeople - such as yourself.
They try *so hard* to make her confident and smart, but she comes off arrogant and immature. It’s so annoying to see someone justify bad actions as “it’s not my fault, other people say mean things to me🥺”
Some quotes from The Atlantic article "The Cowardice of Cruella ." "The new Disney film could have embraced villainy, in all its complications. Instead, it opts for a cheaper sort of sympathy." "The whole thing can read... as a game of corporate-feminist Mad Libs" "Disney has given us an allegedly punk antihero whose defining goal is to be respected within the establishment." "The film embraces the glib condescension of the idea that every villain must be, somehow, misunderstood-that a woman can’t be purely evil, that she must have a softer side, that her currency is her beguiling relatability." "I longed for the classic Cruella: vain, vapid, willing to kill puppies, and never feeling the need to explain herself."
The Atlantic? The Atlantic is worth the paper it's printed on. (I'm hoping it doesn't have a print version. Meaning it would be worth nothing, since it doesn't use paper.)
Why can’t people just enjoy a movie and move the fuck on. This movie doesn’t embrace the idea every villain must be misunderstood. The baroness is one of the most ruthless and heartless villain I’ve seen in awhile from Disney. Some people just want to trash everything
She's a rich, entitled, stuck up, arrogant, childish, sociopathic vip that appears not to even begin to understand love in any form. How's Hollywood supposed to not empathize.
If only they sticked with making them hateable, despicable, and the movie actually showing why she is wrong, then that would at least be a somewhat ok way to go. But no. It's wank.
@Bitterman good question. The answer is "all 101 of those dogs were house pets, they weren't even registered as hers, and if you want to breed, raise and kill animals you need somewhere around 100 different permits, an appropriate place to do it, a professional who knows how to do it and dogs are generally considered unfit for the role, so a court could still argue that your business plan shall not be put into practice". If the question was just a reformulation of "why isn't everyone on planet earth a vegan already", a movie critic's comment section is not a great place to find answers.
That's not even her mom. Cruella's mom is the Baroness. So, the whole point the Critical Drinker made about us trying to cheer on Cruella became moot upon the plot twist. She was born evil. The movie is a mix between Maleficent, Bird of Prey, and Joker. In the end, it's Disney mining another IP. The writers realized how stupid Cruella is, hence the plot twist. You're trying to get the audience to care about a woman, whose sole obssession was to kill Dalmations to make coats out of them. They know it's stupid, we know it's stupid. I could rant on, but I'm not.
"In this world, fashion designers are apparently so fucking powerful that they can literally orchestrate murders, manipulate the police and local officials, and act like government entities in their own rights" I liked that movie better when it was called Zoolander.
Moral Lesson of Cruella: If you are in a bad position, instead of working hard and improving yourself be resentful of those who are successful and take them down violently
Morals are for men. Because what's also for men is needing to build a better world and acting with decency, self awareness and accountability. Whoops did I say that out loud.
"Sir, Cruella is literally a villain that wants to kill puppies. How can we make that sympathetic?" "Easy. We show a scene where evil puppies murder her helpless mother." Just when you think Disney's potential for absurdity has been reached, they take it further.
You talk about this story element as if it wasn't meant to be an absurd, tongue-in-cheek joke... It's funny and it's a great reminder that the movie is not to be taken seriously, it is just an excuse to let Emma Stone go glam-punk rock crazy. People are watching and enjoying this movie for her performance and the outrageous fashion. The experience is working for basically everyone who isn't a nerdy fanboy crying about woke culture
@@allenallen9879 What the fuck are you talking about? In the movie she never hurt the dogs, once again, she saved two puppies from the one dalmatian that was pregnant.
@@snowyrabbitofinle1764 Would you care to explain why using animal skin for clothing is considered pure evil now? It's wrong for sure. But this doesn't deter people who still insist on eating meat every single day. Even as a vegan myself, I don't see a reason to abhor the idea. Not to mention, there isn't a single dog being harmed in this movie.
@@debott4538 Why should I have to explain it? I should be 100% obvious. And even without, the implications of dog-killing, there's still nothing to like about the movie because it fails on every aspect possible.
"A character that wants to murder puppies so she can make them into fur coats was always going to be a tough sell" Still sounds like a better person than Kathleen Kennedy.
She's obviously only in it for the money but the movies she pays for don't matter all they do is saturate the screen and make it tougher for actual artists. But she used to understand the shit she did, she just got old. I don't think hating her solves much, just don't pay for her shit.
I still cant believe Disney actually tried to make a villain that skins puppies to make clothes a tragic villain, also funny they seem to only do this to the female villains
Oh, i believe it, fits right along "the force is female" and "her-o" nonsense they spew out almost every day now. I just hope that if the rumored budget of 200 mil is true, it will flop about as hard as solo did and that they keep doing it until they run out of money. Maybe we will be able to get good star wars again after they are forced to sell it.
you know, i once watched this thing called Twisted, the Untold Story of a royal vizzier. it was a play that told the supposed real story of Jafar from Aladdin. and it was perfect. it had excellent comedy and excellent tearjerking moments and in one of the song, a bunch of other disney villains appeared, all telling how the true story was wrong and how they were actually tragic, like Ursula wanting for equality for everyone but being usurped from the throne by the king guy (dont remmeber the name), Gaston actually loving Belle for who she was and wanting to rescue her because he thought she was in actual danger, Captain Hook just wanting to teach peter pan responsability so that he wouldnt end up like him, Scar wanting equality for both the lions and the hyenas and when cruella went, she said that she just wanted a coat full of puppies and everyone boo her out and disney literally thought they could made her a sympathetic character
Disney had a show on ABC called Once Upon a Time that eventually had Disney villains appear and attempted to humanize or justify their actions in the movies to some degree. Cruella was the only one they didn't try and justify her actions because there is no justification for them. This was just ten years ago, what the hell happened at Disney to have such a radical shift in thought?
Third wave Feminism. They only thing that kills faster than that is communism. Concentrating on women is concentrating on an audience that cannot make decisions, hates other women (hence why they’re always evil), and is selfish. Men don’t want to watch petty women, women don’t want to see other women successful. Like making movies for the blind. No wonder Disney is posting million dollar losses
Originality involves risk. As the MCU proves (as another Disney enterprise), if you can keep pulling the same, familiar threads there is a chance you will rake in $$$ much easier.
“I was really determined that Cruella be as bad as possible... I hope Cruella is the character that people love to hate.” Glenn Close, when interviewed about her role in the live action 101 Dalmation film.
@@albogypsy2842 So Night on Bald Mountain but the devil there is just being nice, letting his people have a good time, and the light of heaven that banishes him and restores the land is actually evil?
If a villain is a character you love to hate, then the character is well written and executed for what their roles are. Good to see the actress understood that
@@insulttothehumanrace3807 nah, the very same devil, but he had a rough childhood when he was abandoned by his father and tossed in a near bottomless pit because he was just a little bratty. I mean, how can fathers be that bad to children? It's inhuman. Of course you're gonna love Lucifer as a good guy turned bad by a series of events beyond his control.
So Cruella's grudge against Dalmatians was sewn (no pun intended) by witnessing her mother getting dropkicked off a cliff by Dalmatians. Ranks right up there alongside Nick Fury's missing eye attributed to a bad encounter with a cat in the cringe department.
At this point, Disney may make a movie on how the Evil Queen from Snow White hates fair people because a fair person killed her mom. So now the only the Evil Queen is allowed to be the fairest person of all.
I hope they make a prequel to the lion king showing mufasa physically and mentaly abusing scar throughout their childhood and getting away with it. Fuck simba and his father. It'll show em. But sadly scar is a male lion so we'll might have to wait a couple of decades for this storyline to get made into a movie.
Devil Wears Prada has the same problem. I watch that movie and go, "There isn't a publisher in the world that would give two shits about a fashion mag runner enough to leak the unpublished manuscript to the next Harry Potter book." Any publisher in the world would tell her to fuck right off. But apparently in the movies, people who run fashion control the world.
Disney should be purged for Woke Think. Spending upwards of 200 mil on a movie about a lady who hates dogs but not a single DOG in the movie, just Playstation 2 level CGI, along with recasting Anita and Rodger into ethnic actors with no research done as to the racism of the era, Anita wouldnt have been working the paper and Rodger would have been lucky to be a driver for one of the main characters. But hey that would hurt feelings and not make money.
@@pocket_sand284 Didn't Roger meet Cruella after he and Anita married? And I just realized something; why kill off Cruella's mom when they could've had her and her father raise her to be cruel to animals. You know, having a nature vs. nurture theme to her upbringing; either had her childhood self be nice to dogs and cats until her parents taught her otherwise or have her childhood abuse them with her parents being either negligent or lost on how to get her to stop. If it was the "dogs killed my mother" trope, then wouldn't that make Cruella more terrified of animals than having a pure hatred of them?
One thing I didn’t get about this movie is the timeline. The original story, both movie and the book takes place in the 1950’s. Meaning Cruella at age twenty, would have been around the 1920’s if not earlier. The whole this takes place in 1970’s angle felt more like a nostalgia grab at retro 70’s rock, rather than continuity.
What about the live action 101 Dalmatians? Much as I didn't like that film, it's the universe Cruella probably belongs to. Seems like it was more modern than the original animated movie, but I can't be sure because I remember so little of it.
@@Zara-Bari A majority of all incarcerations of Cruella is based from the original. I know what you’re saying, but this day of age is just nostalgia grabs.
@@Brody400 No denying that, just I don't remember when the live action film was set because I don't remember anything about it. Offhand, I'd assume it was set in the then modern time of the 90s. The timeline maybe still doesn't fit, but the 70s would at least have occurred before the movie. But I don't know, because I don't remember it.
Saddest part is Disney already had a definitive live action Cruella back in the 90s played perfectly by Glenn Close. But nah, let's forget that ever happened!
Why do you think they made a new one 25 years later, it's the same as all their new tripe - it's to renew the copyright and stop it going public domain. Disney has been doing this with all their creations for 80 years. There's a reason the Mouse has outlasted all copyright laws.
She was great. The movies themselves? Not so much... By the way, she was actually a producer on this movie, so I don't think she's trying to make people forget herself.
"Fashion is a form of ugliness so intolerable that we have to alter it every six months." And now... movies are becoming so ugly we have to re-boot/re-imagine/re-make them every few years.
They alter fashion every six months to dupe stupid people into throwing money at things they don't need. Remember a few years ago when every facet of media pushed the narrative coincidentally all at the same time out of nowhere that cargo shorts were the epitome of lame? It was because clothing makers needed you to feel embarrassed enough that you'd throw out all of your perfectly fine shorts and spend three figures to replace them.
Imagine if cruela ended up losing all of her friends and having nothing left but a bunch of yes men encouraging her behavior. That would've been cooler than what we got
Fittingly, the 1996 remake shows something similar at the beginning of the movie. A bunch of employees afraid of her and afraid to question her decisions.
On top of all this movie's problems, the thing that angered me the most was seeing what they did to Roger. He was the biggest Chad in the original movie, as he was the one that told Cruella to piss off when she tried to buy the puppies and was the "quirky artist" character type done right. Yet here, they made him into a foppish doormat that every woman in the film could push around and just spent his time on screen looking nervous. They even had Cruella kick Roger while he was down, saying he was fired for "Being Roger" and framing his disdain for Cruella as unfair, despite the fact that she WAS the reason the Baronness fired him.
Emma Stone wears a bunch of different outfits. I think a movie which features Emma Stone changing her clothes a lot would be a lot more popular HRA HRAA!
No, it doesn't really make sense when you watch it that way either.... I mean, the fashion industry being dangerous as opposed to petty? I don't buy it.
Everyone that works with me keeps going on about how awesome a movie Cruella is, and I keep explaining to them that a puppy killer is not a good female role model. Then I tell them to watch Alita Battle Angel instead. Then they call me an idiot.
She didn't hate the dogs in this movie, she didn't think they killed her mother at any point. She was evil , she thought of skinning puppies but not because of revenge or anything, she thought their fur would make a good coat , she is evil , just like the original , she just didn't start killing puppies in this one, this is before that happened
@@jyotsna3617well is sad that this gorgeous girl will end up being a witch with an obsession with dogs. That's why is a prequel that shouldn't be made.
