Once again Disney's live action remake of a classic animated movie hits the "well alright" mark. This definitely isn't an awful movie. The opening is actually pretty lovely, and overall the movie has a lot of nice aesthetic to it throughout. The few songs are honestly fine. Not really cringy or anything, they don't waste time on these really. The CGI of the dogs is kind of hit or miss. Some scenes it's actually pretty believable and looks great, others it can be a bit wonky. But the movie also lacks what visual luster an animated film brings, not to mention that this version is a bit longer than the animated, so the movie ends up feeling a bit laggy and drawn out. A few chuckle worthy moments, and it does pick up a bit near the end, but overall a very meh, good for playing in the background during casual night, movie. Remember this is a straight-to-video release, and you won't really face much disappointment.
350 Reviews
Yes, the original's better, but it's still not bad...
mary-lyn00714 November 2019
Lady and the Tramp is probably my favorite of the original batch of Disney animated movies (Aladdin's my favorite of the ones they made after I was born). However, I have to agree with some of the other criticisms of the movie. Based on the time in which they set the film, is kinda hard to believe that Jim Dear and Darling would've lived in such a nice house and had so many friends come over for the baby shower. Interracial couples just weren't a thing really in the early 1900s. They just weren't. Not in places where there were riverboats. And maybe it was because I was a kid when I saw the movie The first time, but I never realized that the Siamese cat's song was rude or offensive, but I'm also not Asian so that might contribute to it too. It would've been nice if they'd tried to fix the lyrics for the song rather than scrap it altogether. The thing they replaced it with, and what was UP with the animation of those cats, it was just weird, was unimpressive. I was also confused by their making Jock a girl, though I always thought it was spelled Jaques, I have no problem with it on the whole, it was just an "oh, I guess he's a girl now, ok." But what happened to Beaver?!
Otherwise, still a good movie. I enjoyed it. But I think I'll be sticking to my original animated version whenever I get the urge to watch Lady and the Tramp.
Otherwise, still a good movie. I enjoyed it. But I think I'll be sticking to my original animated version whenever I get the urge to watch Lady and the Tramp.
Ultimately pointless
tompence16 November 2019
Not a bad film, had a few nice moments and wasn't as awful as i expected. However, it is when you consider the amount of money wasted on making a beautiful but inferior remake of an already amazing film.
It is clear they had initially filmed this for theatrical release, as there's a real mishmash of cinematic scenes withTV show. Some of the scenes also looked incomplete. The cats looked incredibly fake and their new song was somehow both cringy and forgettable. I understand why they ditched the siamese song, but this new addition should've just been scrapped from the get go.
Imagine if Disney actually used their resources to make some original movies these days.
It is clear they had initially filmed this for theatrical release, as there's a real mishmash of cinematic scenes withTV show. Some of the scenes also looked incomplete. The cats looked incredibly fake and their new song was somehow both cringy and forgettable. I understand why they ditched the siamese song, but this new addition should've just been scrapped from the get go.
Imagine if Disney actually used their resources to make some original movies these days.
manifesto
Kirpianuscus1 January 2020
The main impression - this live action version is only a multicultural manifesto, using as pretext only, the original Disney animation. I am not a fan of the live action versions because each of them is far by the poetry of the original. In this case, the sacrifices for a multicultural manifesto are too many and too much. And this is an obvious sin. In my case, for the lost of the beautiful - spices song of the Siamese cats. The virtues - the beautiful opening, F. Murray Abraham, Rose as the expected Lady and, sure, Yvette Nicole Brown performance.
AHHHH why disney?
kathrineheller13 November 2019
Lady's voice
dourpussdora26 February 2021
I'm sorry but whoever voiced Lady was the wrong choice. Lady was supposed to be be soft and gentle and this just bugged me the entire film!!! My 5yr old son however didn't care and loved it. He hasn't seen the original.
Pales In Comparison To The Original And The Sequel, But Still Solid
scamp455310 February 2021
Warning: Spoilers
I'm a lifelong fan of this franchise, having seen the original and its DTV sequel a lot as a child but not getting as heavily into the franchise until my teenage years. This is the Disney property that I hold closest to my heart for many reasons, so naturally, when a remake of the original was announced for Disney+, I became excited but a little wary. The remakes Disney has been pumping out like popsicles on a summer day are truly overwhelming for a lot of Disney fans with many criticizing them, even though critically they seem to get an average response. For example, this movie is hovering in the 60-70 percent range of Rotten Tomatoes, so even the streaming method can't avoid the notoriety bug from fans. I stated that a "Lady And The Tramp" remake can work so long as the story flows solidly and the movie feels geniune, and what did we get with the overall film? For those unaware of "Lady And The Tramp" as a story, and who wouldn't be, this is the tale set in the late 1900's and early 1910's of a housedog named Lady. She ends up being romantically linked to a street dog who is given various different names by the inhabitants of the town he roams but is referred to as Tramp as the movie goes on. Nothing much that's new to go over in terms of plot because it is a basic story that the original did a great job at telling. As for this movie's story and how true it is to the original, there is a stark difference. While they do keep most of the story elements the same as before, this remake is more dialogue driven to get the pacing going. This means that we get an abundance of basic plotpoints whereas the first movie felt like it was wholly new and felt like it was a more original story. Obviously. Some of the changes they make to the characters are solidly handled in my opinion. Jock is now female, Si and Am are not Siamese Cats and their song is different, and there is a lot more racial diversity in this movie than the original. Some people are obviously going to have problems with this, but these changes don't affect anything storywise in my opinion, and the movie isn't distracting in that way. The voice actors are well cast, especially in the two leads. Tessa Thompson is Lady, and does her job well, but the real star of this movie is Justin Theroux as Tramp. Obviously, Theroux doesn't come close to Larry Roberts in the original film or even Jeff Bennett in all of the other LATT properties, but I feel that Theroux succeeds in his own way, as kind of a sarcastic loner. His performance really makes this film watchable, and the other actors are solid as well, whether they be the canine characters or live action characters.
There's a massive story quarrel I have with this film, though. If you wondering if it's the animation of the dog characters that I will be nitpicking, well, you're incorrect. The CGI on the dogs is at least more expressive than in the remake of "The Lion King", and they at least tried, so I'll give them that. What I do have a problem with is the third act of the movie. If you've seen this movie, you are well aware that it concludes with a fight between Tramp and the rat, leading to a misunderstanding that causes Tramp to be placed in the back of the dogcatcher's carriage. This leads to Lady, Tramp, and Jock racing to stop the carriage in order to rescue him from the fate of certain death, which they're successful in doing. However, the dogcatcher's carriage unintentionally lands on Trusty when they make it fall sideways, and he's supposedly "dead". In this movie, it's different. The scene plays out like it does in the original, only in this film, instead of Trusty being the one that falls victim to the carriage, it's the Tramp. This then leads to a cliched scene that I'm so tired of in movies like this. Tramp is laying there "dead", and Lady mopes and cries around hoping that he'll wake back up, but it isn't likely that he'll come back. She then howls mournfully and the Tramp wakes back up and everyone is chipper again. SWEET MERCY am I sick of seeing this cliche in Disney movies and any movie involving talking animals. It's like the studio got involved and told all the writers to include that cliche to make it more "modern". Well, you know what, it's dated!
I'm well aware that this cliche was utilized in the sequel, but here's the thing with that scene. When Scamp gets thrown up against that wall and gets knocked out, that scene doesn't lose its momentum. It happens during the brawl with Tramp, Scamp, and Reggie, and Tramp doesn't all of a sudden stop what he is doing and mope around for a few minutes. After the Tramp knocks Reggie out, is it then where he goes over to wake Scamp up, and there isn't some focus grouped monologue where Tramp pleas for Scamp to wake up and to not "die". And it was one of the Disney sequels. This is a Disney remake. They should not have used a scene that is ripped right out of the end of "Alpha And Omega" or "Oliver And Company" or some other film where this happens. Those two movies did it in a more pointless and worse way (while still being solid films), but this still didn't execute it in a way that warrants it as new or invigorating, or with real tension. I'm shocked that there wasn't any unnecessary rain that coincidentally decided to start pouring down on them while that scene took place. This is just a scene put in to make the movie more hip and modern, when in reality, it's a cliche that should not have existed in an otherwise solid movie, because if anything, it makes it older than the original film. Not only that, but it's also cynical in a way in order to play with the audience's emotions, which isn't necessary.
So, yeah, I just needed to throw that out there. But other than that, I think that the remake of "Lady And The Tramp" is not a bad movie. Not at all. Should I argue that it's unnecessary considering the recent cornucopia of live action remakes that have come out of Disney lately? I think so, because this is sort of like wasted calorie food so to speak. It's something you don't need to put into your system but it still satisfies you in a solid way. That's my description of this "Lady And The Tramp" remake. It is NOWHERE near the original film in terms of quality, as that film still represents the best of Walt Disney's output in my opinion, and I personally think that it is my favorite movie of all time at this point. The sequel is also high up there, even though I do acknowledge that it is not a perfect film and my love for it is mainly due to the nostalgia I have for it and how much it helped me through a very questionable period of time. I'm not hesitant to reveal that at all. This film is not in the same perfect league as the two canon films in my opinion, but it still works with what it has and director Charlie Bean and the other personnel tried their best to recapture the original film in a more modern setting to decent results. Again, I may be a bit biased because "Lady And The Tramp" is the reason why I'm the person I am and I defend it with every fiber and bone in my body, but this is still decent. In terms of Disney's mediocre live action output, this film is definitely not one of the dogs.
RATING: 6/10
There's a massive story quarrel I have with this film, though. If you wondering if it's the animation of the dog characters that I will be nitpicking, well, you're incorrect. The CGI on the dogs is at least more expressive than in the remake of "The Lion King", and they at least tried, so I'll give them that. What I do have a problem with is the third act of the movie. If you've seen this movie, you are well aware that it concludes with a fight between Tramp and the rat, leading to a misunderstanding that causes Tramp to be placed in the back of the dogcatcher's carriage. This leads to Lady, Tramp, and Jock racing to stop the carriage in order to rescue him from the fate of certain death, which they're successful in doing. However, the dogcatcher's carriage unintentionally lands on Trusty when they make it fall sideways, and he's supposedly "dead". In this movie, it's different. The scene plays out like it does in the original, only in this film, instead of Trusty being the one that falls victim to the carriage, it's the Tramp. This then leads to a cliched scene that I'm so tired of in movies like this. Tramp is laying there "dead", and Lady mopes and cries around hoping that he'll wake back up, but it isn't likely that he'll come back. She then howls mournfully and the Tramp wakes back up and everyone is chipper again. SWEET MERCY am I sick of seeing this cliche in Disney movies and any movie involving talking animals. It's like the studio got involved and told all the writers to include that cliche to make it more "modern". Well, you know what, it's dated!
I'm well aware that this cliche was utilized in the sequel, but here's the thing with that scene. When Scamp gets thrown up against that wall and gets knocked out, that scene doesn't lose its momentum. It happens during the brawl with Tramp, Scamp, and Reggie, and Tramp doesn't all of a sudden stop what he is doing and mope around for a few minutes. After the Tramp knocks Reggie out, is it then where he goes over to wake Scamp up, and there isn't some focus grouped monologue where Tramp pleas for Scamp to wake up and to not "die". And it was one of the Disney sequels. This is a Disney remake. They should not have used a scene that is ripped right out of the end of "Alpha And Omega" or "Oliver And Company" or some other film where this happens. Those two movies did it in a more pointless and worse way (while still being solid films), but this still didn't execute it in a way that warrants it as new or invigorating, or with real tension. I'm shocked that there wasn't any unnecessary rain that coincidentally decided to start pouring down on them while that scene took place. This is just a scene put in to make the movie more hip and modern, when in reality, it's a cliche that should not have existed in an otherwise solid movie, because if anything, it makes it older than the original film. Not only that, but it's also cynical in a way in order to play with the audience's emotions, which isn't necessary.
So, yeah, I just needed to throw that out there. But other than that, I think that the remake of "Lady And The Tramp" is not a bad movie. Not at all. Should I argue that it's unnecessary considering the recent cornucopia of live action remakes that have come out of Disney lately? I think so, because this is sort of like wasted calorie food so to speak. It's something you don't need to put into your system but it still satisfies you in a solid way. That's my description of this "Lady And The Tramp" remake. It is NOWHERE near the original film in terms of quality, as that film still represents the best of Walt Disney's output in my opinion, and I personally think that it is my favorite movie of all time at this point. The sequel is also high up there, even though I do acknowledge that it is not a perfect film and my love for it is mainly due to the nostalgia I have for it and how much it helped me through a very questionable period of time. I'm not hesitant to reveal that at all. This film is not in the same perfect league as the two canon films in my opinion, but it still works with what it has and director Charlie Bean and the other personnel tried their best to recapture the original film in a more modern setting to decent results. Again, I may be a bit biased because "Lady And The Tramp" is the reason why I'm the person I am and I defend it with every fiber and bone in my body, but this is still decent. In terms of Disney's mediocre live action output, this film is definitely not one of the dogs.
RATING: 6/10
Why????
sharonu-588438 May 2021
Warning: Spoilers
I am three quarters of the way through this movie and it's so disappointing. It's like the old movie was cut into pieces, some of the pieces were lost them somebody who never saw the original tried to put the pieces back together with some new pieces! It's hurting my brain!
Why do Disney think they can re-write history? No one has the right to change reality and white wash the past to appease the opinion of a few people.
Really annoyed that the Siamese cats were changed.
Why do Disney think they can re-write history? No one has the right to change reality and white wash the past to appease the opinion of a few people.
Really annoyed that the Siamese cats were changed.
Good movie with some obvious problems
noahthebruce8 December 2019
Warning: Spoilers
I found the way the movie looked and was designed It looked perfect. Perfection! But when lady realizes that she won't be number one priority it is just not very realistic even if we went back to a stricter time Like the movie is set. For example when she barked when she entered the babies room to make yourself known like "by the way guys I'm here" they mediately scolded her and threw her out which I don't feel like that's how it would happen.
Overall this film was exceptional. Sam Elliot as Dusty was one of my favorite parts of a movie and I love the casting for the father as it seem to fit just so well with the time period.
But overall the movie was just absurdly beautiful my favorite example was when during the middle of a transition you were looking down the street and you saw these old-school street lamps and old-school architecture but my favorite part of this example is they had two beautiful small blue butterflies fly around almost dancing. It looks so real like it felt like you could grab out touch it
Overall score for movie eight out of 10 definitely I should watch for anybody who's liked the recent Disney remakes (except for Aladdin, that kind of sucked)
Overall this film was exceptional. Sam Elliot as Dusty was one of my favorite parts of a movie and I love the casting for the father as it seem to fit just so well with the time period.
But overall the movie was just absurdly beautiful my favorite example was when during the middle of a transition you were looking down the street and you saw these old-school street lamps and old-school architecture but my favorite part of this example is they had two beautiful small blue butterflies fly around almost dancing. It looks so real like it felt like you could grab out touch it
Overall score for movie eight out of 10 definitely I should watch for anybody who's liked the recent Disney remakes (except for Aladdin, that kind of sucked)
not all fits the formula
SnoopyStyle3 December 2019
Jim Dear brings home a dog for his wife Darling and they name her Lady. Street dog Tramp hides in her doghouse to escape the dogcatcher Elliott. He warns her that when "Baby moves in, the dog moves out." When the couple brings in newborn baby Lulu, Lady fears the worst. The family goes out of town leaving Lady in the care of Aunt Sarah. Lady is left on the street and rescued by the Tramp.
This is fun while it lasts. The ending goes on too long and I don't think the CGI is necessary. Back in the day, there were plenty of Disney dog movies. There is a charm to them and the real dogs are perfect for family films. They may not be cinematic greatness but they are fine if done right. The new Disney formula of reworking every animated classic with CGI may not be a good one-size-fits-all. They do the spaghetti scene again but it doesn't have quite the same magic. This is not a franchise that is most known for its action realism. It needs charm, romance, and joy. This movie needs to take this into the G-rated romantic Disney family fun area. That's why real puppies may actually be what's truly needed in this case. CGI dogs talking don't add anything important.
This is fun while it lasts. The ending goes on too long and I don't think the CGI is necessary. Back in the day, there were plenty of Disney dog movies. There is a charm to them and the real dogs are perfect for family films. They may not be cinematic greatness but they are fine if done right. The new Disney formula of reworking every animated classic with CGI may not be a good one-size-fits-all. They do the spaghetti scene again but it doesn't have quite the same magic. This is not a franchise that is most known for its action realism. It needs charm, romance, and joy. This movie needs to take this into the G-rated romantic Disney family fun area. That's why real puppies may actually be what's truly needed in this case. CGI dogs talking don't add anything important.
They destroyed a classic
juanmbustamante16 June 2021
They changed everything. First of all, as many people say, they reflect a society that does not reflect the truth about the time where the story develops. On the other hand, they changed some characters. Why did they make the Scottish terrier a female when in the animated story it was a male and the cats were Siamese. Too many changes for a very disappointing version.
Enjoyable Live-Action remake
hahafunny-8627114 November 2019
I remember watching the cartoon as a kid and was kind of confused about them doing a live action version. This movie was pretty good, the actors chosen did a very good job on voice overs. I'm glad that they took out unnecessary racial undertones from the movie, it's a kids movie after all.
If you're upset that it's a interracial couple in 1900s because of "historical accuracy," just remember back in 1900s when dogs could talk.
If you're upset that it's a interracial couple in 1900s because of "historical accuracy," just remember back in 1900s when dogs could talk.
It's really good, exactly what you expect.
tashawsu17 November 2019
Errrr....
jenny_mullin10 April 2021
Am I missing something but since when was it deemed acceptable for an interracial couple, in the 1900s, to marry, live together and furthermore have children without so much of a blink of an eye?
So historically inaccurate that I hardly noticed the dogs! I am getting ever so slightly annoyed that everything on tv has to be PC! Lives for the African-American communities were absolutely appalling back then (still are) and yet here they are being glossed over by the likes of Disney! Children need to be made aware how badly mistreated these people were.
So historically inaccurate that I hardly noticed the dogs! I am getting ever so slightly annoyed that everything on tv has to be PC! Lives for the African-American communities were absolutely appalling back then (still are) and yet here they are being glossed over by the likes of Disney! Children need to be made aware how badly mistreated these people were.
Way to ruin a classic.
Eiriksterminator29 December 2020
Warning: Spoilers
They basically changed everything...For the worse...Jock is now a girl, for god knows what reason. Which of course means the proposal scene has to be removed. Worse, they changed his(her) character into one that spends her time getting painted by her silly owner, instead of being the wise old dog he is supposed to be. At least he/she still speaks Scottish...
Jim Dear and Darling are now an interracial couple, even though the movie still takes place in the early 1900's as before, when something like that would be unheard of in the US, and you see other well dressed black people in this rich, snobby district during the movie as well. Please don't change history to fit your PC agenda, Disney...
In a similar vain, the Siamese cats and their song, have been completely changed, even though there wasn't even anything offensive about this scene in the original; Siamese cats are an actual breed of cats, come on...In the original the two cats also try to eat the fish and and the bird in the house, and the conflict with Lady is because of that, while in this version the cats just want to trash the whole place for no other apparent reason than just...because...
The beautiful and funny scene at Tony's, where Tramp/Butch and Lady eat spaghetti while the Italians sing Bella Notte, in my opinion the best scene in the entire movie, is now completely soulless, taking out the funny parts, and the acting and delivery being completely wooden...I guess they once again couldn't have heavy Italian accents, because that would be offensive, right? Sigh... -_- This PC and woke stuff of this generation in movies is really killing me...They made the beautiful song worse too...
Unfortunately the changes don't stop there...The Russian philosopher dog character at the pound is completely removed. The scene with the zoo beaver helping to get Lady's muffle off is removed, and instead they have Lady and Tramp/Butch remove the muffle via the use of...a beaver STATUE (seriously? The heck?)... -_- The baby's gender is changed from a boy to a girl (the pattern here at this point is becoming painfully obvious...), for reasons unknown (admittedly one of the more harmless changes). The adorable opening sequence with puppy Lady is shortened down and simplified considerably. Lady and Tramp/Butch don't have adorable puppies at the end of the movie like they do in the original. Tramp/Butch desperately searches for Lady when she's captured by the Dog Catcher in the original, but here he reluctantly leaves her to save himself. They spend about a bazillion times more time on the guy trying to catch Tramp/Butch, and portray him as being a real jerk, while in the original the people working at the dog impound are not actually all that mean. Tramp/Butch's heroic saving of Lady by fighting off 3 other street dogs is replaced by him saving her from ONE other dog by TALKING to him, and tricking him...
It just goes on and on, but I'll stop now, as I'm sure you can see my point. Honestly, the only good unchanged things about this version of the movie is that for the most part they left Trusty's character as is, and the short scene with the doctor was funny. And I suppose the scene with the rat in the baby's room is a bit less scary now, if you want to show the movie to small children, and that matters to you. That's pretty much it. Add on top of all of that, that everything is just a lot more charming to look at in the cartoon version, with actual facial expressions and so on, and yeah...You're way better off just sticking to watching the original classic.
Jim Dear and Darling are now an interracial couple, even though the movie still takes place in the early 1900's as before, when something like that would be unheard of in the US, and you see other well dressed black people in this rich, snobby district during the movie as well. Please don't change history to fit your PC agenda, Disney...
In a similar vain, the Siamese cats and their song, have been completely changed, even though there wasn't even anything offensive about this scene in the original; Siamese cats are an actual breed of cats, come on...In the original the two cats also try to eat the fish and and the bird in the house, and the conflict with Lady is because of that, while in this version the cats just want to trash the whole place for no other apparent reason than just...because...
The beautiful and funny scene at Tony's, where Tramp/Butch and Lady eat spaghetti while the Italians sing Bella Notte, in my opinion the best scene in the entire movie, is now completely soulless, taking out the funny parts, and the acting and delivery being completely wooden...I guess they once again couldn't have heavy Italian accents, because that would be offensive, right? Sigh... -_- This PC and woke stuff of this generation in movies is really killing me...They made the beautiful song worse too...
Unfortunately the changes don't stop there...The Russian philosopher dog character at the pound is completely removed. The scene with the zoo beaver helping to get Lady's muffle off is removed, and instead they have Lady and Tramp/Butch remove the muffle via the use of...a beaver STATUE (seriously? The heck?)... -_- The baby's gender is changed from a boy to a girl (the pattern here at this point is becoming painfully obvious...), for reasons unknown (admittedly one of the more harmless changes). The adorable opening sequence with puppy Lady is shortened down and simplified considerably. Lady and Tramp/Butch don't have adorable puppies at the end of the movie like they do in the original. Tramp/Butch desperately searches for Lady when she's captured by the Dog Catcher in the original, but here he reluctantly leaves her to save himself. They spend about a bazillion times more time on the guy trying to catch Tramp/Butch, and portray him as being a real jerk, while in the original the people working at the dog impound are not actually all that mean. Tramp/Butch's heroic saving of Lady by fighting off 3 other street dogs is replaced by him saving her from ONE other dog by TALKING to him, and tricking him...
It just goes on and on, but I'll stop now, as I'm sure you can see my point. Honestly, the only good unchanged things about this version of the movie is that for the most part they left Trusty's character as is, and the short scene with the doctor was funny. And I suppose the scene with the rat in the baby's room is a bit less scary now, if you want to show the movie to small children, and that matters to you. That's pretty much it. Add on top of all of that, that everything is just a lot more charming to look at in the cartoon version, with actual facial expressions and so on, and yeah...You're way better off just sticking to watching the original classic.
Needless? Yes. Enjoyable? Also, yes.
r96sk18 November 2020
Needless? Yes. Enjoyable? Also, yes.
I'm not entirely sure 'Lady and the Tramp' was a film that needed remaking but here we are. This 2019 production is solid. I like the way it is shot and brought to life. It's rewritten in a few parts, to mostly positive effect - though the original film is still, by a fair distance, best.
I wouldn't say the cast are anything exceptional but they do what's needed. Tessa Thompson and Justin Theroux give good performances as Lady and Tramp respectively, while Adrian Martinez's Elliot is probably the character I'll remember most - away from the two dogs, of course. Janelle Monáe, Sam Elliott and Yvette Nicole Brown are decent too; even if it is difficult to picture the latter as a baddie.
They get rid of the "The Siamese Cat Song", though the replacement tune is actually fairly good. The other songs, like "La La Lu", remain but are obviously tinkered. The run time is longer, which I don't think was nessacary but they fill it well enough.
Solid attempt.
I'm not entirely sure 'Lady and the Tramp' was a film that needed remaking but here we are. This 2019 production is solid. I like the way it is shot and brought to life. It's rewritten in a few parts, to mostly positive effect - though the original film is still, by a fair distance, best.
I wouldn't say the cast are anything exceptional but they do what's needed. Tessa Thompson and Justin Theroux give good performances as Lady and Tramp respectively, while Adrian Martinez's Elliot is probably the character I'll remember most - away from the two dogs, of course. Janelle Monáe, Sam Elliott and Yvette Nicole Brown are decent too; even if it is difficult to picture the latter as a baddie.
They get rid of the "The Siamese Cat Song", though the replacement tune is actually fairly good. The other songs, like "La La Lu", remain but are obviously tinkered. The run time is longer, which I don't think was nessacary but they fill it well enough.
Solid attempt.
Lovely family movie
shellbatross21 June 2020
Of course people are leaving low reviews because that's what people are like. Changing things is difficult for folks to deal with.
This is nothing other than a really lovely family movie. In ways it is way better than the original, it's funnier for a start, in other ways it's not as good. Really nice Sunday afternoon watch.
Disney+'s First Big Film is a Let Down
imjaredross13 November 2019
Lady and the Tramp is a remake of the classic animated film and is one of the first original films to air on Disney+. For the past several years Disney has been cranking out these remakes to much success, but with many wondering why these films are remade in the first place. Lady and Tramp's release on Disney+ may prove to be a new home for these remake films, though we might have to see what the future holds.
The Lady and the Tramp live action remake is for the most part just fine. It is a beautiful looking film and manages to look high budget but also looking like a mix between a TV film and a theatrical release. It is also very fun film. It retreads familiar territory and doesn't add much new, but it's still a fun time of you want to use up 2hrs and watch this. The cast is very good and play their roles well especially Tessa Thompson and Justin Theroux.
However, being so familiar maybe to the film's detriment as well as its Tv-esque quality, but it seems that might have been the point. The CGI with the dogs can be awkward at times with the way their mouths move as well as their CGI enhanced eyes, but it still is able to remain cute.
Overall, Lady and Tramp is perfectly fine, if not a little disposable. It doesn't add much in the way of new and doesn't boast anything that makes it a worth while watch, but it you want to take a few hours out of your day to watch it. It couldn't hurt.
The Lady and the Tramp live action remake is for the most part just fine. It is a beautiful looking film and manages to look high budget but also looking like a mix between a TV film and a theatrical release. It is also very fun film. It retreads familiar territory and doesn't add much new, but it's still a fun time of you want to use up 2hrs and watch this. The cast is very good and play their roles well especially Tessa Thompson and Justin Theroux.
However, being so familiar maybe to the film's detriment as well as its Tv-esque quality, but it seems that might have been the point. The CGI with the dogs can be awkward at times with the way their mouths move as well as their CGI enhanced eyes, but it still is able to remain cute.
Overall, Lady and Tramp is perfectly fine, if not a little disposable. It doesn't add much in the way of new and doesn't boast anything that makes it a worth while watch, but it you want to take a few hours out of your day to watch it. It couldn't hurt.
Seriously Disney??
ellamsmith28 December 2020
Remember lady and the tramp? The adorable tale of two dogs falling in love, a true classic that made up so many childhoods. Well forget all of that because Disney need to dumb down and trample on it for the sake of profit!
I remember rewatching the original over and over again and never getting tired of it. Although when it came to this I watched half of it (about 3 months ago) and have yet to get back to it!
I watched this with my mum - who doesn't mind these remakes - but even she couldn't defend this one!
I suppose the acting and visuals were passable, that's all.
I suppose the acting and visuals were passable, that's all.
It's Not 1955 Anymore
wpmyers17 April 2020
When Disney released lady and the tramp (1955) the majority of American households would not have excepted a mixed marriage being portrayed on the screen. However, New Orleans in the early 1900s was one of the most cosmopolitan cities in the world. Many people from the creole population (a mix of European and black peoples - especially French/black), we're frequently Part of the social elite. Mixed marriages, such as the one portrayed in this updated release, were not uncommon at this time and location.
Many of the reviews here are making claims that Disney is being "PC." Actually, they're being accurate to the reality of the time and location. However, based upon these reviews, I guess many Americans don't know the facts about this wonderful city and still have a lot of work left to do when it comes to racial acceptance.
Thank you Disney! It is a delightful movie!
Many of the reviews here are making claims that Disney is being "PC." Actually, they're being accurate to the reality of the time and location. However, based upon these reviews, I guess many Americans don't know the facts about this wonderful city and still have a lot of work left to do when it comes to racial acceptance.
Thank you Disney! It is a delightful movie!
Decent remake but lacking real Disney magic
RedFoxVertigo12 November 2019
For the most part I have enjoyed the live action remakes, despite never being quite as good as their original counterparts. Lady and the Tramp is no exception. It is for the most part, an enjoyable movie, beautifully shot, with a wonderful cast and adorable dogs. Although the CGI for the animals talking was a bit subpar.
The real issue I had with the movie is that it just didn't seem to have any heart. It felt like it was just checking off a list based on what took place in the original and that was it.
Albeit you might feel a bit disappointed in the overall execution, I still recommend giving this movie a chance.
It's just not the same!
sonarluv13 November 2019
You might find this movie somewhat enjoyable, if you haven't seen the original; but in comparison, it is really lacking. Some of the best moments from the original, have been completely removed, while others have just been changed; unfortunately those changes are terrible.
For starters Jock is a girl, who wears stupid looking, human dresses and the wonderful siamese cat song, has substituted with a the boring, uninspired new song, called, "What a Shame". A title that is very apropos.
Do yourself a favor and just watch the original again. Because great movies are never outdated!
For starters Jock is a girl, who wears stupid looking, human dresses and the wonderful siamese cat song, has substituted with a the boring, uninspired new song, called, "What a Shame". A title that is very apropos.
Do yourself a favor and just watch the original again. Because great movies are never outdated!
Super Sweet
artjuul14 December 2019
Super sweet movie, yes it a remake, I get it, as everyone in this forum who is complaining. But come on, there are so much more bad movies out there and this one is nothing to complain about. It is sweet and cute, very well done and is time well spent watching a remake. I would absolutely recommend it for a nice evening. The world famous scene is nicely made! Enjoy the movie...
Hmmm.
melanielaidley30 September 2020
Seriously?
misspaigenelson16 November 2019
If you're going to call it a "re-imagination" then "re-imagine" the whole thing. Don't keep it virtually the same and then change only a few things to fit your agenda. And just in case you were wondering, a Siamese cat is a breed. That should not be offensive and is literally the equivalent of it being a French Bulldog singing "I am French, if you please". Seriously ridiculous. Stop trying to make everything PC and make a good movie for once like Walt used to.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
