101 Dalmatians (1996)

Okay, I'm not going to get into the torrid sullying of past triumphs that Walt Disney Pictures seems to be mastering more and more with every passing remake and live-action reboot of a classic cartoon.

I'm also not going to get into the wrong-headedness of literalizing what passed in a cartoon for characterization and applying it to real life.

I won't even get into the many reasons why dalmatians don't make good pets (they're high-strung, they don't train well, they're messy, etc.)....

What I will get into for the start of this review is the sad fall of John Hughes.

Starting out as a fledgling writer for several episodes of ABC-TV's one-shot wonder Animal House TV series "Delta House" and an episode of another one-season military sitcom "At Ease", Hughes went on to script such movies as Michael Keaton's big hit Mr. Mom and Tommy Lee Jones' pirate epic Nate and Hayes. From there, he went on to pen the first three National Lampoon Vacation films, Planes Trains and Automobiles, She's Having a Baby and Uncle Buck. But it was with 1984's Sixteen Candles that he hit his stride with a formula which spoke to the hearts, minds and souls of the average Eighties teen. With this, The Breakfast Club, Some Kind of Wonderful, Pretty in Pink and, of course, Ferris Bueller's Day Off, Hughes spoke to the (teenaged) human condition and earned himself a reputation for having a finely-tuned ear and an artist's soul.

But then something terrible happened: Hughes went and wrote the script for the 1990 blockbuster Home Alone, which not only made Macaulay Culkin an overnight star but ushered in a new age for Hughes, where mountains of slapstick violence and extreme adult buffoonery became his hallmarks, rather than teen introspection. Long gone now were scenes young adults could relate to: instead we get physical comedy. And lots of it.

Then it came to be that Walt Disney Pictures approached him with a nice little deal - write us a couple of scripts to remake a couple of our old classics, and we'll pay you a lot of money. Wotta deal! It's about this time that we got the Absent-Minded Professor reboot Flubber, and our subject for today: 101 Dalmatians.

You've seen the original 1961 cartoon of 101 Dalmatians. The classic scenes were not lost on you, the sights and characters are timeless. Surely, then, this will be an update that will prove to be even better.

You would think that, wouldn't you? Especially with a talented director at the helm, a good cast (one cast member in particular), cute doggies ad even a little bit of CGI to aid things. You would think that, wouldn't you??

We shall now go into why you shouldn't think that.

And now, here is the Westminster Kennel Show's Worst in Plot: Fashion designer Anita (Joely Richardson) and computer-game writer Roger (Jeff Daniels) meet, fall in love and marry along with their dalmatians Perdita and Pongo. But the proud dogs' puppies are kidnapped by Anita's boss Cruella De Vil (Glenn Close), who is stealing young dalmatians to make the coat she has set her heart on. Enlisting the help of the British animal kingdom, Pongo and Perdita set out to find and rescue all ninety-nine pups from their fearsome captors, Jasper (Hugh Laurie) and Horace (Mark Williams).

Glenn Close. Oscar-nominated actress Glenn Close is in a movie about a bunch of spotty dogs. To her credit, she does become Cruella De Vil: spiked black and white hair crowning her like a gladiator helmet, gaunt face like a death mask, a succession of long flowing furs and long flowing gowns at her disposal, a long black cigarette holder clamped firmly in her clenched teeth better than even FDR could have aimed for, every line of dialogue from her lips delivered with a growl, cackle, howl or high-pitched screech as she puts down, insults, or outright rants out a diatribe against every living thing on the planet (though I think she might have left out plant life), Close makes the part her own. But did a slapstick update of a Sixties Disney cartoon need Glenn Close? Much like a Korean War epic needs Laurence Olivier, I suppose: if you can afford the expense, why not? But for as much as it smacks of "marketing ploy", Close gives every indication that she is not in this for the opportunity to advance the art and promote method acting, but for the chance to make another payment on her mortgage. She's good, just not great - you know?

That being said, there are good performances in 101 Dalmatians in spite of it all. Daniels and Richardson have some nice separate scenes early on, including a cute moment they share by the fireside. Laurie (who was quite the wit before "House" came along) and Williams may not look like their cartoon counterparts but do alright in supplying the slapstick stupidity quotient required by such movies; their Horace and Jasper act more like Home Alone's Marv and Harry, but seriously, what did you expect? And what the great Joan Plowright is doing playing a nanny named Nanny is anyone's guess - she serves tea and punches Horace in the face and that's it for characterization. Other than that, she's Joan Plowright.

Oh, the dalmatians! They are...dalmatians; they bark when called on to, hit their marks, run and pounce, lick their owners' meat juice-coated faces and - when unable to do what they need to when called on - are made to do so by judicious CGI overlays and animation. You know, like with Jake Lloyd in Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace. Only difference; at least these guys had proper training.

Then we have additions to the cast that were in no way associated with the original plot - shock! - but have been slapped in here to add...well, I dunno - more people in the cast list, I would surmise. Tim McInnerny plays Cruella's long-suffering manservant Alonzo...I say "long-suffering" in spite of the fact that he is in all of two scenes in this movie, but at least he quakes in fear well enough. And then there is the wonderfully named actor John Shrapnel playing the most unnecessary character in the whole thing: a taxidermist named Skinner (and the Award for Most Obviously-Named Minor Character goes to....). he never says a word, glowers and exhales menacingly and when he does communicate it is in Morse code. But Skinner is more of a horror movie character than one that belongs in a Walt Disney movie, of all things. What is he even doing here?

Don't ask me, and please don't ask John Hughes - well, you couldn't now anyway, but...the main purpose of any human in this script is simply for the viewer to have a human to see, hear talk and know that they at least have some grounding in human communication. Otherwise, this is the animals' show, and they play it far far worse than their 1961 betters. Of course, why Hughes chose to have the animals NOT talk here must have been so he could get some cute little animal kingdom moments where dogs, cats, horses, pigs, goats, rabbits, birds, raccoons and at least one mouse communicate with each other in just barks, grunts, whinnies, squeaks, mews and the ever-popular pantomime method. Of course, then we're subject to seeing raccoons give each other high-fives and roll around on the ground, breaking up with laughter as flatulent pigs sit on people and horses snort in disdain at humans who would dare skin up dalmatian puppies for coats.

Director Stephen Herek directs all of this like a big tacky commercial for The Disney Channel and even manages to throw a bone (if you will) to Disney's remake of Homeward Bound: The Incredible Journey, but this man also directed Critters, Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure and Mr. Holland's Opus, if that gives you an idea of any of the other different ways this movie could have went instead of Lock-Step Land.

You remember how in movies like Sixteen Candles and Ferris Bueller's Day Off the teenagers knew everything and the grown-ups were all idiots? It's worse in 101 Dalmatians - every single human in this movie is a complete idiot and it's the ANIMALS who know everything. This equation would fare even worse in Hughes' script for Flubber where it was the single-celled organisms who were smarter than the humans. But anyway, you see what I'm getting at: this isn't even a good retelling of the original, and if they were aiming for a good reboot they didn't even get that. All that 101 Dalmatians turned out to be is a product - something to make money. NOT a story to be filmed.

In fact, 101 Dalmatians made over $135 million in its run, plenty of moola even for Hughes, who had it in his contract to get a turn of the profit from this one. There were something like 15,000 pieces of merchandise put out to promote this movie - McDonald's Happy Meals, stuffed dolls, clothes, coloring books, the whole nine yards - and they made money alright. Any Nineties child wanted to see this because, after all, it was a Disney! The same thing that made them trot their parents to Pocahontas like lambs to the slaughter, expecting a good time at the movies because, after all, it was a Disney!

This was also a John Hughes, though, and he should have known better. Glenn Close should have known better, too. So should have Joely Richardson, Jeff Daniels, Hugh Laurie, that other guy and all those Union-scheduled animals. But money was in the offing, money was made and as long as the studio was happy everything was good in the universe.

I sure wasn't, though. Happy, that is. I love the original 101 Dalmatians and this thing just dumbed-down everything to the point of infancy for everything and everyone involved. Since when did making everybody onscreen a complete idiot become comedy? This movie is only funny in the way seeing people fall out their chairs, get electrocuted with wired fences to the crotch and nearly frozen to death in cold lakes is funny. Watching it happen in a cartoon is one thing - that's just cartoons for you - but for a child watching it happen in real life...that's different.

There was money made here, yes, and they even squeezed a sequel out of the whole ordeal (102 Dalmatians) four years down the road - and you know what? ...That sequel actually LOST money!

Is that justice - or only proof that people aren't as dumb as producers think that they are? You tell me.

When John Hughes passed on in 2009, much was made on the great, classic films he had as a legacy for future generations. And he had some great ones. There were some, though, that people (maybe even history) would just as soon forget.

So let us praise the victories of John Hughes, but in the same breath, let us mourn the tragedies. Even if they were cute, fluffy and spotty.

Lest we forget...lest we forget....