I honestly do not understand all of the rancor and dislike directed towards this movie. It's among my favorite Disney sequels--not excellent and certainly nowhere near the quality of the original, but still worthy of following it.
Pongo's counting didn't rub me the wrong way. What would you expect from someone who's become the father of 99 children? ;p
You have a fair point regarding Roger's pipe, but I hardly noticed; it's not enough to make me dislike the film.
So, Patch is an obsessed fanpup! XD Hey, I can sympathize...that certainly didn't bother me, either.
This movie is somewhat like an early version of Bolt. It was the first thing I thought of when I read the Bolt summary, in fact. But the idea of a TV or film "superhero" disillusioning his/her fans by revealing to them that they're just actors and really unlike their onscreen characters isn't new. I have an episode of The Rescue Rangers on video that stars Dale's hero, Flash the Wonder Dog--quite similar to Thunderbolt. I've seen the basic idea done on "Krypto the Superdog" and "Martha Speaks" as well. (It seems to be a dog thing.) So, they developed Thunderbolt, fleshed him out, and made him into an actual character, as opposed to the TV character that the puppies watch in the original.
Cruella acts differently in both of the Dalmatians sequels, both this and the live-action. She's very eccentric and vacillates between seeming to become a somewhat better person, and snapping right back into her psychotic, fur-crazed ways. It is true that they deprived her of some of her elegance in this movie, though, which is something I would've retained. It really made her a more interesting character--she was glamorous and evil, yet always hovering somewhere around that edge of madness. They kind of turned her into a just-plain-wacky psycho after the first movie.
I was VERY impressed with the supporting characters of this film. Lars and Lil' Lightning are, actually, my favorites out of the entire cast. Rather than finding them shallow, I thought they were extremely appealing, sympathetic, and well-developed.
I won't disagree that the dialog and writing in the original was superior. Still, it was decent in this one, and the voice actors all did great jobs--especially Martin Short, Jason Alexander, and Barry Bostwick.
Same with the animation; the original's is far better, of course, and remains quite unique among animated films. While Patch's London Adventure may lack the charming roughness, I clearly sensed that its style is meant to emulate the original's--and it honors it as well as it can, not being the same caliber of production. It's smooth and saturated, no doubt, but that's pleasing to my eye, and that animation itself is quite good.
And yes, with regard to the score as well--not as wonderful as the first, but still very good, in my opinion.
I don't know, I definitely rank this above the Dalmatians series (which was cute; I'm glad I saw it. Nice that Jason Alexander performed the theme song, too.) I've enjoyed this movie a great deal for eight years now, and never saw it as one of the crummier ones that could only be liked by bored kids or the extremely easily satisfied.
reply
share
pnayballer10
12 years ago
I honestly do not understand all of the rancor and dislike directed towards this movie. It's among my favorite Disney sequels--not excellent and certainly nowhere near the quality of the original, but still worthy of following it.
We hate it for the same reason we hate all DTV Disney sequels. Its nothing but a cheap, low quality, money grabbing scheme. That craps on the legacy of the original.
We understand that sequels are common in the movie industry. But we also expect the people making the sequel to try their best to equal the greatness of the original, or if possible top it. If your not goona try to do those things for a sequel. Then you shouldn't even bother. The people who made this didn't attempt to do it. They just phoned it in and gave us garbage.
This sequel is not worthy of licking the originals doggy droppings.
reply
share
thereseuphemiaabernathy
12 years ago
We understand that sequels are common in the movie industry. But we also expect the people making the sequel to try their best to equal the greatness of the original, or if possible top it. If your not goona try to do those things for a sequel. Then you shouldn't even bother. The people who made this didn't attempt to do it. They just phoned it in and gave us garbage.
I'd never pretend that this sequel is anywhere near the quality of the original. However, in its case, I completely disagree with the usual accusations that it's nothing but money-grabbing crap. While I agree that their aim SHOULD be to try to equal or even surpass the original...that's not always feasible, and sometimes I'm willing to settle for something decent that I can deem worthy of following up the first one. As I said, I was impressed with the characters and plot of this movie. The story and Patch's conflict are fairly simple, but I felt they were well-done and actually brought a lot of fun and surprises. Great voice acting, nice-looking animation...I didn't have a whole lot to complain about, which surprised me pleasantly enough. I really, honestly liked the movie, despite the fact that it's a little more on the "cartoonish" side than the first. That wasn't done in a bad way, in my opinion. Others are free to dislike, of course, but this was one direct-to-video Disney sequel I thoroughly enjoyed and did not find very insulting in any way...
reply
share
pnayballer10
12 years ago
However in its case, I completely disagree with the usual accusations that it's nothing but money-grabbing crap.
Right Disney didn't make the movie for money . They released it on Straight to Video and made the movie on low budget by accident.
While I agree that their aim SHOULD be to try to equal or even surpass the original...that's not always feasible,
Why is that not feasible? Yeah its hard to match any original. But it doesn't mean you should phone it in and give us less than nothing.
and sometimes I'm willing to settle for something decent that I can deem worthy of following up the first one.
Well thats up to you. A lot people are harder to please than others. It comes with the territory when you it comes to popular properties.
As I said, I was impressed with the characters and plot of this movie. The story and Patch's conflict are fairly simple, but I felt they were well-done and actually brought a lot of fun and surprises. Great voice acting, nice-looking animation...I didn't have a whole lot to complain about, which surprised me pleasantly enough.
Well thats fine. But a lot of people saw the movie differently. I thought the story was a retread of the original and formuliac with the whole Patch meets his movie star idol sidestory. Which has been done in a lot movies. The voice acting was terrible especially Roger and Pongo. And the animation was similar to the TV series instead of the Original. Your free to like the movie. Just as we are free to hate it.
reply
share
thereseuphemiaabernathy
12 years ago
I didn't mean to imply that they didn't intend to make a profit from it. Of COURSE they wanted to make money; that's part of the reason most films are made. Yes, they knew that kids and fans of the original were going to want it. And could it have been a lot better if they'd worked with a bigger budget and turned it into a larger production? No doubt. But for what it is, I definitely consider it one of my favorite straight-to-video Disney sequels.
I meant that surpassing an original is not always feasible. ;) The attempt to at least create a good, worthy, equal-or-almost-equal movie should still be made. I don't see this one as a phoned-in "less-than-nothing." And I don't consider myself easily pleased in general. I can sometimes be easily amused, but I can also be very judgmental of things...especially when they ask to bear the same name as a cherished classic. Film criticism is highly subjective, indeed, so it's not wrong of you or someone else to feel that it was a cheap, poor-quality production. Many sequels have the problem of simply retreading worn territory or retelling the first story in reverse. While this story line was pretty basic, simple, and familiar, I thought that the interesting and likable new characters (most notably Little Lightning and Lars--and "the new Cruella," since she was virtually a different person for most of it) added enough flair to keep it entertaining, believable, fresh, and memorable. At first I wasn't sure how I'd feel about them turning Thunderbolt into an actual character (as opposed to a star of a show within a movie) and using him as the crux of the film, but I wound up approving of that decision.
The animation was rather similar to the cartoon series, but in my opinion, was far better-looking...and did still try to retain the distinctively "sketchy" art style of the original. I loved most of the voice acting--and even with a relatively small budget, they were able to get a few impressive "name" actors who did terrific jobs. No, the movie doesn't win too many originality points; I was able to compare it with prior things and had definitely seen the "TV superhero (dog) turns out not to be what he seems and disappoints a fan" plot a few times before. All the same, the way it was handled pleased me sufficiently that I was able to forgive its faults. And when Bolt came out, I really had to accept that there's practically "nothing new under the sun!" Ah, well. That was a cute movie, too. Honestly, though...I might like this one a bit more. Perhaps I've just become more attached to it. I've also grown to appreciate the live-action 101 Dalmatian films a *lot* more than I initially did.
reply
share