A Spot-on Remake

Greetings to you, reader. For November's initial post, I'm writing about a, in my mind, actually good remake. It turns 25 in 20 days. It's source-materials are a 1961 animated film and a 1956 children's novel by Dodie Smith. The alluded to film is 1996's 101 Dalmatians. I'll relentlessly defend it.

There's astounding location-footage--Particularly the usage of Minster Court, St. James Park, Burlington Arcade and Sarum Chase. Courtesies of Assherton Gordon, the art-directors and Joanne Woolard, there's marvelously architected sets (especially Cruella De Vil's office, Cruella's bedroom and Hell Hall). Glenn Close had an ace of a vocal coach, Joan Washington (shoutout to the vocal coaches I've failed to acknowledge on the blog--My apologies). There's sapiented uses of lighting. The Anthony Powell-Rosemary Burrows costuming is stellarful in their respectable executions, I'm quite partial to the black-and-white dress with its leopard-print, black-tasseled shawl.

Though some of the CGI didn't age gracefully, there are handiworks of Jim Henson's Creature Shop. Trudy Shipp edited the film efficiently. There are keen shots by Adrian Biddle. There's props, makeup and hairstyles of magnificence. Unsurprisingly, I deem the customed 1974 Panther Deville, prop cigarette holder and Cruella's Hellish makeups/punkish hairstyles standouts. Michael Kamen wrote a sublimely written score; it's nicely arranged and played. I love Dr. John's rendition of the Cruella De Vil song.

Thanks to Marcia Ross, Celestia Fox and the animal suppliers, there are fabu individuals in this film. Wondrously, Frank Welker supplied animal noises. The terrifically trained animal performers are fantastically skilled, particularly the Canines! They emote and endear. John Shrapnel was ghoulish and dour as Skinner. As Alonzo the Butler, Tim McInnerny is oppressively henpecked. The poised Joan Plowright had warmth and coolness as Nanny. Regarding the Baduns, Hugh Laurie was a slimy Jasper, Mark Williams made an idealistic Horace--They were viabled as an underling duo. The divine Joely Richardson and Jeff Daniels stunned as an onscreen couple! They had a rapport with each other and the dogs (incidentally, Joely's sister, the late-great Natasha Richardson also appeared in a veritous reimagining, 1998's The Parent Trap--Please view it, too). Glenn Close's Cruella De Vil is my favourite aspect of this film. Glenn was honorable to Smith's creation and the Betty Lou Gerson/Marc Davis iteration of the character. Close had devotion to this role. Apart from being rivetous, Glenn had intimidation and was reminiscent of people who actually exist.

I'm slightly saddened 'cause Sergeant Tibbs wasn't a prevalent character, Kipper is sufficient, though. The film has geographical wildlife errors, an instance of incorrect food terminology and an unneeded flatulence joke. There's a bit too much slapstick (the physical comedy in the film is humorfilled, though). They could've alluded to Anita and Roger Having a couple month courtship, because of the chemistry, I'd buy them hitching after a miniscule period. Nevertheless, the film has faithfulness to the book and '61 movie. Co-producer/Screenwriter John Hughes wrote dialogue that contains memorability (shoutout to Ricardo Mestres, the other producer). The film deals with the subjects of animal poaching and corruption within the fashion world. The first few scenes establish our primary characters. It was astute making Cruella a fashion mogul. Amazingly, Anita is a careerwoman who stands-up to Cruella and deduces motives. Adapting Roger into a video game designer was a profitable idea of cleverness. Similarly to the '61 film, the '96 movie compressed the book's 2 nanny characters and Perdita/Missis. This movie's denouement is a variation of the book ending. Intriguingly, the animals are muted. Therefore, the film has visual storytelling. I'm appreciative of the comeuppance in the movie. Families are able to view it.

Edward S. Feldman was an executive producer of acuity. Stephen Herek was a multiskillful director who held the factors afloat. Though I'm slightly more preferable to the '61 movie, I maintain a real liking for the '96 incarnation. Criticizations sadden me. It's somewhat underadmired.