Reviews

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

The first 101 Dalmatians is a great movie. The second movie however, is a fine film, but nothing like the first. In my opinion, Disney sequels based on films from Walt's era seemed to work much better because the stories were much better and thicker in those films (LATT2, Bambi 2). Here, the story is certainly a good part of the film, but the magic is not present in large amounts like in the predecessor.

As always, let's kick things off with the good aspects of the film. The dog characters are very well written characters, especially Patch and Thunderbolt. Patch is probably the best character in the film, and Bobby Lockwood does a very good job at giving a believable performance. The story, like I said, is also a well-written story, and flows very well.

But the one big flaw that ruins all the magic is the animation. The animation with the dogs is fine, but the rest of the animation is honestly terrible, especially on the people. Any moment in the film where it shows Jasper and Horace, it feels like a Saturday-morning cartoon. I know that most Disney sequels look like this, but not to the extent that this film does. At the end, when Cruella, Jasper, and Horace get knocked into the river, and are seen drowning, they flop around like they are Ed Edd and Eddy characters. This takes me completely out of the movie entirely, and it makes me think that this is catered to a four-year old rather than to people who like decent animation values, which this film barely has.

Overall, I think that this film is OK. The film has some good moments in it, but the animation here DEFINITELY feels more like a DTV release, and disrupts the story quality of the movie. I know I've been recommending this following movie too much in my reviews, but seriously, watch LATT2 instead if you want a film that works on all levels of quality, not just on some. If you're a fan of all things 101 Dalmatians, I suggest you take this in with caution.

I loved the first Lion King film, which in my opinion is one of the most well-made movies ever, if not the best. So, going into the second film, of course I expected it to not be as good, and I was right. While still a very good film, The Lion King 2: Simba's Pride is nowhere near the quality of its predecessor.

The voice acting is mostly well done in this film, even though those returning from the first film do not have as much of a spark as they did previously, especially Nathan Lane and Ernie Sabella (I'll get on that later). The new additions are perhaps the better ones in this film, such as Neve Campbell as Kiara, Jason Marsden as Kovu, and Suzanne Pleshette as Zira, the antagonist. Also, speaking of Kiara and Kovu, their relationship is the highlight of the film, especially when they turn into adults. Kiara's relationship with Kovu can be compared to Romeo and Juliet, considering that all 3 Lion King movies were somewhat based off of Shakespeare plays.

But there are problems with this movie, and the biggest one I have is regarding Timon and Pumbaa. There is no reason for Timon and Pumbaa to even be in this movie other than the fact that they were key characters in the first one. Any time Simba asks them to go look after Kiara, Timon and Pumbaa always lose her, and they barely contribute to anything that happens in the end sequence.

An even bigger problem is that some of their antics instantly disrupt serious and emotional scenes that take place throughout the course of the film. For example, when it first shows Kiara as an adult asking her father if she can hunt on her own, it cuts to Timon and Pumbaa who start crying dramatically over what's going on. The same thing happens again at the end of the film when the lions are about to go onto Pride Rock. These two contribute NOTHING to these scenes, and are only placed just because they're popular characters. You could erase them out of this movie, and ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about the movie would change.

Also, the music is not as good as the in the original. The best songs in this film are "Upendi", which is an enjoyable reggae song sung by Rafiki, and "Love Will Find A Way", which feels like an amalgamation of "Can You Feel The Love Tonight" and "Always There" from the Lady and the Tramp sequel. However, the rest of the songs either are misplaced or are not as lively as in the first movie, especially "We Are One", and Kovu's exile song.

Now, you would think that I hate this movie due to these issues, but again, I did enjoy this movie. However, that does not stop it from having some extremely serious flaws that sadly hinder it from being one of Disney's best. I would have to say that as a film, Lady and the Tramp 2 and Bambi 2 are much better Disney sequels than this one is. I would recommend this movie, but be cautious if you don't like stupid humor ruining serious moments in a movie.