Skip to main content

You’re the bravest rat I’ve ever known.


Well, this is a surprise. The last thing I expected at this point in the course of Disney’s dogged determination to piss on its legacy was a decent live-action take on an animated classic and a decent origins story to boot at that. Perhaps it needs to be put down to the old exception that proves the rule, but Cruella hits a bullseye in several key respects: performance, direction and (derivative) premise. If the movie wanders during its final act, is grossly overlong and also inherently morally questionable, well that’s simply symptomatic of these times. And Disney all over.

The Baroness: I’m intrigued, and that never happens.

Maybe it’s the influence of Tony McNamara (The Favourite – which I didn’t love, but was undeniably oddball), or just the eccentric posturing of the title character, but Cruella’s strongest suit is its attitude and withering sense of humour. Which would come to nothing were it not for Emma Stone inhabiting the character with the utmost infectious enthusiasm. Even when the movie isn’t operating at its best, she’s there to paper over the cracks with vampish energy. She duly makes Estella/Cruella sympathetic and/or un-so; it’s a delicious performance, both cartoonish and fully engaged beneath.

Estella: Don’t worry, we’re just getting started. There’s much more bad things coming, I promise.

But full credit is also due to director Craig Gillespie. Prior to his last movie I, Tonya, I’d have dismissed Gillespie as all flash and little acumen for material, but that unreliable narrator biopic showed him approaching the Tonya Harding story in an inventive and alert way, technical flourish in service to the telling, and it’s the same here. There’s a Burton-esque gothic nihilism to the palette (again, a sign of the times), but also a livelier, jauntier esprit de corps, with real verve to the visuals and editing.

John: It’s got a good beat.

The only area where I’d consistently find fault is the soundtrack, guilty of gorging itself on classics to the point of negative impact; they’re almost all readily recognisable tracks, much used elsewhere (the Stones, Nancy Sinatra, David Bowie, The Clash, Blondie, Tina Turner, Nina Simone, Queen, ELO, The Zombies, Rose Royce: it’s exhausting). This is the opposite of Tarantino’s carefully curated and thoughtfully presented eclecticism. Rather, it comes across as Sounds of the Decades on shuffle. You have to do a pretty poor job for these tunes to synch badly to the images. Nicholas Brittell’s peppy, humorous score is great, though… when it gets a look in.

Horace: That dog is like a son to me.

If Stone and Gillespie lead the pack, yapping at their heels is a gem of a sidekick performance from Paul Walter Hauser as future full-evil Cruella henchman Horace (Joel Dry is also good as Jasper, but not nearly as indelible). Hauser’s masterstroke is patterning Horace on a note-perfect Bob Hoskins impression, one boosted by the actor’s essential likeability (and Horace’s affection for pooch Wink). Whenever there’s some business involving the character, usually featuring Wink, and usually relating to a heist or disruption of some description, Gillespie infuses the proceedings with an enviable sense of choreography and pace, indicative of a guiding sensibility largely absent from these Disney live-action affairs.

Cruella: They really would make fabulous coats.

Also in the cast is Mark Strong playing Mark Strong. But stoically kindly Mark Strong, as opposed to stoically evil Mark Strong, just so we’re clear on the gradation; he’s valet to chief villainess Baroness von Hellman (Emma Thompson), who is head of a fashion house and Estella’s boss. Thompson’s okay, but she can’t be as eccentric as Stone, and she’s walking in the footsteps of Meryl in a facsimile of that part. Also appearing is John McCrea as Artie, “the first original character in a live-action Disney film to be openly gay” (because Mouse House movies are now about drawing attention to sexuality, as opposed to their historic habit of bombarding malleable minds with subliminal messaging). What this actually means is that McCrea does a passably camp/eccentric Noel Fielding impression. If you’re wondering why they didn’t just get Fielding, he was probably too busy with Bake Offs and Big Fat Quizzes. You know, really creatively challenging stuff.

Estella: Really? You own alleys?
The Baroness: Alleys, designs, people, their souls. Check your employment contract.

If Gillespie lacks subtlety in certain areas, in others that’s on point. He has Jenny Beavan (Fury Road) doing the costumes, invariably designed to steal the Baroness’ thunder. A scheme that reaches its apotheosis when a garbage truck dumps a cartload of fabric at one end of a gala’s red carpet, only for Cruella to emerge from the shrouds, announce herself and then jump on the back of the truck as it speeds off, the fabric revealed as one extraordinarily long dress. There are cute references too, like the clip from Lifeboat (Tallulah Bankhead inspired Cruella). And also some decent plot gags (the moth dress) and less decent ones (did using laxatives on the Dalmatians not occur as a means to retrieving the necklace more speedily?) There’s an obligatory cheesy Solo moment when it comes to Cruella choosing her surname (“De Ville. I like that” intones Cruella on learning the make of car she has been using). It’s also pretty obvious that, rather than the Joker and despite concerns voiced by her “family” (yeah, I know) about her mindset, she’s Batman, complete with mysterious alter ego and uber-villain to take down. One who killed her parent. Except….

Estella: That psycho cannot be my mother.

Which leads us back to the screenplay front, and it shouldn’t be a surprise that Aline Brosh McKenna penned an early draft, as she adapted The Devil Wars Prada. Which this is, if Anne Hathaway ended up bad, or on the road to it (Hathaway would have ruined this – see The Witches) Also in the script mix are Kelly Marcel (Venom) and Dana Fox (who shares the final screenplay credit with McNamara). The fashion house element was first incorporated into the Glenn Close live-action movie (Close has a producer credit), and it’s one that fits seamlessly. Cruella’s twist is that the evil Baroness is in fact Estella’s mother, which thematically conjures suggestions of elite bloodlines hidden away in mansions, sucking the fat of the land, and nature vs nurture; Cruella cannot escape her malign conditioning, be that through heredity or programming.

Cruella: I’d like to remind you that I’m doing this in heels.

I mention the latter intentionally, because inherent in the Cruella design – this is Disney, remember – is the duality theme. It comes with the two-tone hair style. Estella has the nice mum (Emily Beecham) and also the one who would have put her down. Obviously, sometimes a checkerboard is just a checkerboard, but when it ornately decorates the floor of the mansion Estella inherits, it’s more likely a reflection of occult themes and illuminati-prescribed base consciousness (duality patterns are commonly used as triggers for mind control victims).

Jasper: You can’t talk to us like that. We’re helping.

To what end? Indeed. Why should Disney be ritually and habitually playing the Hannibal Lecter card with their back catalogue of evil icons (and particularly female evil icons)? Why should bad be relabelled good? Could it be that those engaged in the act of destroying our world (or at any rate, decimating its population) ought to be respected and empathised with, for the sacrifice they made, er… for the ultimate good? Obviously, Disney has its eye on perpetuating the franchise, so Cruella has to pull back from being completely evil right this moment, thank you. But all the better as a means to fulfil Disney’s twisted brand of anti-heroine (Maleficent is just misunderstood, y’know? Same as Angie and her satanic rituals. How else was she to ensure her ascent of the Hollywood ladder?)

Jasper: I’m getting a little tired of Cruella.

If that’s Cruella’s sinister undertow, let’s not kid ourselves that Disney was ever ever-so wholesome. But what exactly are they thinking, making first Mulan and now this PG-13? It’s not like they’re still actively pumping out Touchstone fare. Perhaps they’re preparing the younglings for a yet harsher environment to come. Or perhaps they’re simply relying on parents to be complacently undiscerning when it comes to policing their nippers viewing. A Cruella sequel has been announced, and I doubt very much it will justify the effort (the fun with this movie is getting there, but spending another two-and-a-quarter hours, in which Cruella vacillates some more between going off the deep end and pulling back doesn’t sound especially gratifying). Curiously, Disney never went after Dodie Smith’s actual 101 Dalmatians sequel, The Starlight Barking. Possibly because it sounds like something out of Cats.

Popular posts from this blog

The Illumi-what-i?

Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness (2022) (SPOILERS) In which Sam Raimi proves that he can stand proudly with the best – or worst – of them as a good little foot soldier of the woke apocalypse. You’d expect the wilfully anarchic – and Republican – Raimi to choke on the woke, but instead, he’s sucked it up, grinned and bore it. Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness is so slavishly a production-line Marvel movie, both in plotting and character, and in nu-Feige progressive sensibilities, there was no chance of Sam staggering out from beneath its suffocating demands with anything more than a few scraps of stylistic flourish intact.

Ziggy smokes a lot of weed.

Moonfall (2022) (SPOILERS) For a while there, it looked as if Moonfall , the latest and least-welcomed – so it seems – piece of apocalyptic programming from Roland Emmerich, might be sending mixed messages. Fortunately, we need not have feared, as it turns out to be the same pedigree of disaster porn we’ve come to expect from the director, one of the Elite’s most dutiful mass-entertainment stooges, even if his lustre has rather dimmed since the glory days of 2012.

What’s so bad about being small? You’re not going to be small forever.

Innerspace (1987) There’s no doubt that Innerspace is a flawed movie. Joe Dante finds himself pulling in different directions, his instincts for comic subversion tempered by the need to play the romance plot straight. He tacitly acknowledges this on the DVD commentary for the film, where he notes Pauline Kael’s criticism that he was attempting to make a mainstream movie; and he was. But, as ever with Dante, it never quite turns out that way. Whereas his kids’ movies treat their protagonists earnestly, this doesn’t come so naturally with adults. I’m a bona fide devotee of Innerspace , but I can’t help but be conscious of its problems. For the most part Dante papers over the cracks; the movie hits certain keynotes of standard Hollywood prescription scripting. But his sensibility inevitably suffuses it. That, and human cartoon Martin Short (an ideal “leading man” for the director) ensure what is, at first glance just another “ Steven Spielberg Presents ” sci-fi/fantas

All I saw was an old man with a funky hand, that’s all I saw.

The Blob (1988) (SPOILERS) The 1980s effects-laden remake of a ’50s B-movie that couldn’t. That is, couldn’t persuade an audience to see it and couldn’t muster critical acclaim. The Fly was a hit. The Thing wasn’t, but its reputation has since soared. Like Invaders from Mars , no such fate awaited The Blob , despite effects that, in many respects, are comparable in quality to the John Carpenter classic – and are certainly indebted to Rob Bottin for bodily grue – and surehanded direction from Chuck Russell. I suspect the reason is simply this: it lacks that extra layer that would ensure longevity.

Are you telling me that I should take my daughter to a witch doctor?

The Exorcist (1973) (SPOILERS) Vast swathes have been written on The Exorcist , duly reflective of its cultural impact. In a significant respect, it’s the first blockbuster – forget Jaws – and also the first of a new kind of special-effects movie. It provoked controversy across all levels of the socio-political spectrum, for explicit content and religious content, both hailed and denounced for the same. William Friedkin, director of William Peter Blatty’s screenplay based on Blatty’s 1971 novel, would have us believe The Exorcist is “ a film about the mystery of faith ”, but it’s evidently much more – and less – than that. There’s a strong argument to be made that movies having the kind of seismic shock on the landscape this one did aren’t simply designed to provoke rumination (or exultation); they’re there to profoundly influence society, even if largely by osmosis, and when one looks at this picture’s architects, such an assessment only gains in credibility.

That, my lad, was a dragon.

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (2013) (SPOILERS) It’s alarming how quickly Peter Jackson sabotaged all the goodwill he amassed in the wake of The Lord of the Rings trilogy. A guy who started out directing deliciously deranged homemade horror movies ended up taking home the Oscar for a fantasy movie, of all genres. And then he blew it. He went from a filmmaker whose naysayers were the exception to one whose remaining cheerleaders are considered slightly maladjusted. The Desolation of Smaug recovers some of the territory Jackson has lost over the last decade, but he may be too far-gone to ever regain his crown. Perhaps in years to come The Lord of the Rings trilogy will be seen as an aberration in his filmography. There’s a cartoonishness to the gleeful, twisted anarchy on display in his earlierr work that may be more attuned to the less verimilitudinous aspects of King Kong and The Hobbit s. The exceptions are his female-centric character dramas, Heavenly Creat

Twenty dwarves took turns doing handstands on the carpet.

Bugsy (1991) (SPOILERS) Bugsy is very much a Warren Beatty vanity project (aren’t they all, even the ones that don’t seem that way on the surface?), to the extent of his playing a title character a decade and a half younger than him. As such, it makes sense that producer Warren’s choice of director wouldn’t be inclined to overshadow star Warren, but the effect is to end up with a movie that, for all its considerable merits (including a script from James Toback chock full of incident), never really feels quite focussed, that it’s destined to lead anywhere, even if we know where it’s going.

This risotto is shmackin’, dude.

Stranger Things Season 4: Part I (SPOILERS) I haven’t had cause, or the urge, to revisit earlier seasons of Stranger Things , but I’m fairly certain my (relatively) positive takes on the first two sequel seasons would adjust down somewhat if I did (a Soviet base under Hawkins? DUMB soft disclosure or not, it’s pretty dumb). In my Season Three review, I called the show “ Netflix’s best-packaged junk food. It knows not to outstay its welcome, doesn’t cause bloat and is disposable in mostly good ways ” I fairly certain the Duffer’s weren’t reading, but it’s as if they decided, as a rebuke, that bloat was the only way to go for Season Four. Hence episodes approaching (or exceeding) twice the standard length. So while the other points – that it wouldn’t stray from its cosy identity and seasons tend to merge in the memory – hold fast, you can feel the ambition of an expansive canvas faltering at the hurdle of Stranger Things ’ essential, curated, nostalgia-appeal inconsequentiality.

You keep a horse in the basement?

The ‘Burbs (1989) (SPOILERS) The ‘Burbs is Joe Dante’s masterpiece. Or at least, his masterpiece that isn’t his bite-the-hand-that-feeds-you masterpiece Gremlins 2: The New Batch , or his high profile masterpiece Gremlins . Unlike those two, the latter of which bolted out of the gate and took audiences by surprise with it’s black wit subverting the expected Spielberg melange, and the first which was roundly shunned by viewers and critics for being absolutely nothing like the first and waving that fact gleefully under their noses, The ‘Burbs took a while to gain its foothold in the Dante pantheon.  It came out at a time when there had been a good few movies (not least Dante’s) taking a poke at small town Americana, and it was a Tom Hanks movie when Hanks was still a broad strokes comedy guy ( Big had just made him big, Turner and Hooch was a few months away; you know you’ve really made it when you co-star with a pooch). It’s true to say that some, as with say The Bi

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989) (SPOILERS) There’s Jaws , there’s Star Wars , and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws ’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy , to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “ more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie ”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “ mainly boring ”. Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the