102 Dalmatians (2000)

I remember loving this film as a kid. Rewatching the film as an adult, the film does not hold up. I really remember the third act of the film before rewatching the film and it is going to be the only thing I will remember about the film. There are two fun scenes in my opinion: the ending and Cruella De Vil transformation back into her evil self. Glenn close is the only great thing from the film. This is not one you need to seek out if you have not seen it.

Walt Disney's classic film, 101 Dalmatians, may not be completely original as it is based on a previous book, but it has turned its characters into beloved favorites, especially Pongo and Purdy. The movie will make you fall in love with all the adorable puppies like Lucky, Penny, Patch, and Freckles.

The animation is superb with just the right amount of music that doesn't overwhelm the storyline but does give us the memorable song of Cruella Deville. Speaking of the villain, Cruella is an iconic and fantastically over-the-top character, with Horace and Jasper adding to the trio's incredible dynamic.

The film is a delightful experience from start to finish, a complete classic that has been a box office success and is one of Walt Disney's triumphs. Moving forward, the live-action films, 101 Dalmatians and 102 Dalmatians, are based on the cartoon and offer a fresh take on the story with Glenn Close's portrayal of Cruella Deville being particularly outstanding.

While the movies may have a few plot holes, they are still top-notch entertainment. The sequel, 101 Dalmatians Part 2 in the Animated Series, focuses on Patch's adventures in London, adding a new dimension to the beloved story. Although the animated series may not reach the same heights as the original or the movies, it is still worth a watch for fans of the franchise.

Overall, the four films together create an enjoyable and incredible experience. They are definitely worth checking out, with Patch's story adding an extra layer of fun to the beloved Dalmatian universe.

It's an unspoken rule in Hollywood: if a movie is a hit, a sequel is inevitable. But at what point does just slapping a number on the title and recycling an iconic villain justify making a whole new movie? When I sat down to revisit Disney's canine universe, I was hoping to find that same charm that made the first one an instant classic. Instead, what I got was a movie that's all bark and no bite, desperately trying to balance nostalgia with warmed-over ideas. Are a fabulous wardrobe and a bunch of adorable puppies enough to carry a nearly two-hour movie? Unfortunately, the answer is more complicated-and disappointing-than it seems.

If there's one thing keeping this movie from being a total disaster, it's Glenn Close absolutely owning her role. I have to applaud how she completely steals the show with a fabulous, deliciously wicked performance. She never breaks character for a single second. On top of that, there's her wardrobe. The intricate, elegant, and highly textured outfits designed by Anthony Powell don't just add to the villain's prestige; they actually convince the audience that she genuinely feels superior to us "mere mortals." The problem is that Close shines so brightly, it just highlights how dull and lifeless the rest of the movie really is.

In my opinion, director Kevin Lima's ability to create a live-action movie where dogs show almost human-like intelligence and emotion is pretty impressive and brings that classic Disney comfort. But you can't say the same for the human supporting cast. Not having most of the original cast back is an instant letdown. Stepping in for them are Ioan Gruffudd and Alice Evans. While they do the bare minimum of bringing some genuine goodness to balance out Cruella's evil, they're just kind of bland on screen. The romance between them is undercooked, superficial, and super easy to forget as soon as the dogs start doing their thing.

Another thing that really stands out-and not always in a good way-is casting Gérard Depardieu as the French designer Jean-Pierre Le Pelt. In the first movie, we had that classic, bumbling dynamic between Jasper and Horace. Here, we get a secondary villain who borders on cartoonish. Depardieu's acting is so over-the-top that it often crosses the line from funny into just plain cringey. Sure, it works in a few isolated moments to get some cheap laughs out of kids with his heavy accent and bizarre mannerisms, but overall, his presence just feels like a desperate attempt to fill the void left by a lack of more charismatic bad guys.

You can't deny that the Dalmatian puppies are the heart of the franchise, especially the cute spotless pup, Oddball. However, the script tries to inject more energy by tossing in new animals as comic relief, most notably Waddlesworth the macaw, who firmly believes he's a Rottweiler. While the idea of a bird with an identity crisis sounds creative on paper, on screen it just ends up being a noisy distraction. Jamming in too many non-canine characters steals precious screen time away from the real stars, watering down the main story and testing the patience of older viewers.

On the technical side, this movie is clearly a product of its time, capturing an awkward visual transition period. On one hand, the art direction delivers practical sets that are visually interesting and vibrant-like Cruella's industrial lair and her stylish apartment. On the other hand, the CGI hasn't aged well at all. The tech used to erase Oddball's spots and animate the more ridiculous action sequences really clashes with the tactile, realistic charm of the 1996 live-action. It's a mixed bag: the set design is charming, but the overuse of early-days CGI constantly breaks the immersion and ruins the magic.

The biggest sin of 102 Dalmatians is its total lack of originality. My main gripe with the script is that it's just a tiring rehash of the first movie's formula, making the sequel feel like a purely corporate cash-grab by the studio to milk the franchise. The plot is shallow and uninspired. For any adults watching with their kids, the story really drags and often becomes a test of patience against such a predictable narrative.

The directing really fails to find the right tone for the movie, turning it into an uncomfortable rollercoaster. On one hand, there's way too much extreme slapstick comedy-people falling into toilets, getting tossed into giant cakes-that honestly insults the audience's intelligence. On the other hand, the movie flirts with a surprisingly sadistic tone in its third act. Scenes involving industrial ovens and cutting machines are way too intense and dark for a G-rated movie and could easily scare younger kids. This weird narrative whiplash keeps the movie from perfectly hitting the mark with any of its target audiences.

Ultimately, 102 Dalmatians is a movie that skates by entirely on its villain's extravagant looks and the cuteness of its animals, totally failing to deliver a story that justifies its existence. It's a film with a weak script, an unbalanced tone, and throwaway human characters, serving as nothing more than passing, forgettable entertainment. Still, the moviegoing experience is always subjective. I'd recommend watching it to draw your own conclusions and see if Glenn Close's cartoony brilliance is enough to make up for the messy directing. After all, the best review is the one you come up with yourself after the credits roll.