MovieChat Forums > Cruella (2021) Discussion > Critical reviews: Why does Cruella need ...

Critical reviews: Why does Cruella need an origin story?

posted 4 years ago by MonStar (13552)
8 replies | jump to latest

It is rated PG-13, so it is not intended for children.
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/cruella

https://www.metacritic.com/movie/cruella

"Perhaps the biggest question of Cruella is not how she got the way she got, but who this movie is for?" Richard Lawson, Vanity Fair

"The world was not clamoring for an origin story about the "101 Dalmatians" villain, Cruella de Vil, and the movie doesn't justify making one." Mick LaSalle, San Francisco Chronicle

"The overwritten slog that is "Cruella" never gives a reason for its existence. Seriously, who wanted this movie?" Robert Daniels, The Playlist

"In a sure sign there were script issues, six writers are credited and none can decide what to do with their main character." Chris Hewitt, Minneapolis Star Tribune

"After a few meaningful surprises in its opening scenes, most of Cruella is painfully predictable." Matt Singer, ScreenCrush

"A movie that flinches from its own premise, even as it looks great doing it." Matt Zoller Seitz, RogerEbert.com

"The film's outward liveliness can't mask the inner inertia it has as just another lifeless product assembled in a factory." Pat Brown, Slant Magazine

"While there's energy and edge to the picture, "Cruella" feels stitched together from different influences in order to justify a rather blatant attempt to renew interest in a moribund property." Tim Grierson, Screen International

"I've seen far worse Disney recycling jobs, which doesn't make "Cruella" any more than it is: a "Joker" for jaded Disney princess fans everywhere." Michael Phillips, Chicago Tribune

"[Director] Gillespie helms a stunning showcase of talent that culminates in a striking feature, but it's narratively hollow and toothless." Meagan Navarro, Bloody Disgusting

"The film takes the idea of a Cruella de Vil origin story so deathly seriously that it ends up being funny when it's not trying to be." Katie Rife, AV Club

"A lot worse than it thinks it is." Hannah Strong, Little White Lies

"A misconceived prequel that's too archly artificial for kids, too witlessly juvenile for adults, and too tedious for viewers of any age." Frank Swietek, One Guy's Opinion

"Viewers who think of this less as a reboot of Dodie Harris' memorable monster and more as a Disney spin on Derek Jarman's Jubilee for gay 8-year-olds will find "Cruella" to be flashy fun, even at a slightly bloated two-hours-plus running time." Alonso Duralde, TheWrap

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

She needed an origin story because Hollywood is at peak nihilism, and part of peak nihilism is making cool anti-heroes out of sociopaths.

[–] HelpMeRhonda (1158) 4 years ago

What was the last Disney movie released that didn't kinda suck? Frozen 2, Maleficent 2, The Lion King. I saw all in theaters and thought they were just okay. They certainly aren't Disney classics.

[–] DracTarashV2 (4497) 4 years ago

Well, then obviously those movies didn’t really suck if they were okay (loved Mistress of Evil myself). :P Not classics? Meh, as if the majority of those who have an issue with non-yesteryear cinema (that’s one way of putting it) would ever call anything new… regardless of how good it may be and especially if it comes from a regressive-hated studio like Disney… a classic anyway.

With that said, The Jungle Book remake, Moana, Zootopia and Christopher Robin were fantastic films (Zootopia is a damn masterpiece). I’d say the Aladdin remake was also very well-done, much better than expected. And I know, those kind of statements aren’t appropriate in these miserable boards, but some useless positivity can’t hurt. As for Cruella, a bunch of critics aren’t finding it necessary, but I ask: is any film necessary then? Because it seems like so many hard-to-please critics (from the professionals to the naysayers on sites like these) find most films these days, except for flashy arthouse and some other non-franchise/non-tentpole pictures, unnecessary. I know where y’all coming from though, and it’s… boring.

At any rate, the majority of critics are still digging Cruella (some more than others) and it appears like so are audiences (you know, those who don’t dedicate their life to criticizing everything these days online).

[–] AnubisRaydeen (7897) 4 years ago

Other than cape-shit, I can't remember the last Disney movie I saw. Oh wait ... the Star Wars abominations ... oh yeah.
I have not cared one wit about these new live action Disney retreads. That this one even exists is shocking to me.

[–] DracTarashV2 (4497) 4 years ago

Why the F not I say! Give me that sweet Cruella origin story, baby! ;)

Oh, those listed critics (and the kewl, always raging posters up in this incel infested barnyard) predictably had bad things to say about it? Well, at the end of the day… many more still have more positive things to say about it! You singled out the ones plenty on this board agree with (even if some haven’t seen it naturally), yet looks like most critics liked it. Ha! As such, now allow me to list some of those more glowing reviews/quotes…. nah, why bother? Complain and rage on as is the petty way here.

Although! I shall share 1 highly complimentary quote from a Top Critic that rejects these predictable negatives ones: “The director, who brought a wicked edge to pop-culture redux I, Tonya a few years back, has rescued Cruella from the predictability of the earlier 101 Dalmatians remakes and created a stylish new franchise of its own in which a one-time villain has been reborn as the unlikeliest of role models. - Peter Debruge, Variety.

Not only praised the direction they took with this new film but even threw shade (understandable shade) at the earlier live-action films with Cruella? The ones you’re supposed to like and call better? BOOM!!! (And no, it’s definitely not the only positive review out there like this. Yes, and Glenn Close was perfection in the old flicks.)

Delighted by this gorgeous film I was at any rate, as many others surely will be (look at those verified high audience ratings, baby!).

[–] sslssg (35200) 4 years ago

I just don't really understand the trend of giving these villains back stories. It's not just Disney either. Rob Zombie's Halloween did the same thing and it didn't improve anything. Same argument for the Star Wars prequels. Do I need to have sympathy for the previous movies bad guy? I don't think so, and this is coming from someone who doesn't hate the prequels. Wicked is a fun show, but it lessens how fabulous the wicked witch of the west is in the Wizard of Oz.

Maleficent was an okay movie, but I didn't want to pity one of Disney's greatest villains. And she is Disney's villain, as she doesn't exist in other versions of Sleeping Beauty. If they want to make stories about the grey side of villainy, and give us some antiheros, why don't they create new stories? Same with Cruella. It might be a decent movie. I haven't seen it yet, but it just seems so unnecessary.

[–] Cognoscente (2778) 4 years ago

What's next? The Angel Wears Prada?

[–] maximmm (3412) 4 years ago

I think it's kind of like fables - reimagining shit

I actually don't mind this as much as I mind remakes/reboots/etc that hollywood pimps out these days.