"101 Dalmatians", in its 1996 live action version, was a very interesting movie that was part of my childhood. Even today, seeing that movie, I remember those times and, of course, it had one of Glenn Close's biggest performances. Unfortunately, I can't be so generous with this movie, that continued this story.
In fact, the first movie's script was so tightly closed that it was very difficult to give it continuity. The human characters, in this story, are totally distinct and do not appear in the first film, except for the great villain (who could not miss) and his servant, Alonso, always ready to be humiliated. It is up to them, and the dogs, to make the connection with the first story because, supposedly, the adult dogs of this movie were some of the puppies of the initial movie. Sound fragile? If it sounds, it is. The way Cruella is cured seems unreliable, but even more unlikely is the way she turns again who she has always been (even though that gives us one of the brightest scenes in this movie: Cruella in full transformation, hallucinating in the streets of London). Puppies are still cute, but that doesn't work as well as it did the first time, and the parrot can sometimes be truly annoying. Finally, I also felt a pace problem here: if the movie develops normally for the beginning, it accelerates sharply in the final half and runs to a sudden conclusion in a bakery.
What ultimately saves this movie are the excellent performances of Glenn Close (yet far from the impact she had on the first movie) and Gerard Depardieu, as one of Cruella's accomplices. The villain partnership turned out badly in the movie, but both actors showed excellent understanding in front of the camera. Tim McInnerny is still funny... but all the other actors can't keep up with this trio and just show up, talk and do what they have to do.
In fact, the first movie's script was so tightly closed that it was very difficult to give it continuity. The human characters, in this story, are totally distinct and do not appear in the first film, except for the great villain (who could not miss) and his servant, Alonso, always ready to be humiliated. It is up to them, and the dogs, to make the connection with the first story because, supposedly, the adult dogs of this movie were some of the puppies of the initial movie. Sound fragile? If it sounds, it is. The way Cruella is cured seems unreliable, but even more unlikely is the way she turns again who she has always been (even though that gives us one of the brightest scenes in this movie: Cruella in full transformation, hallucinating in the streets of London). Puppies are still cute, but that doesn't work as well as it did the first time, and the parrot can sometimes be truly annoying. Finally, I also felt a pace problem here: if the movie develops normally for the beginning, it accelerates sharply in the final half and runs to a sudden conclusion in a bakery.
What ultimately saves this movie are the excellent performances of Glenn Close (yet far from the impact she had on the first movie) and Gerard Depardieu, as one of Cruella's accomplices. The villain partnership turned out badly in the movie, but both actors showed excellent understanding in front of the camera. Tim McInnerny is still funny... but all the other actors can't keep up with this trio and just show up, talk and do what they have to do.