Cruella

 

An overly long, overly stuffed, entirely rote and predictable film that purportedly aimed to give this Disney villain a credible backstory, but instead it just meandered and dragged for over two hours, getting lost in its own narcissistic revelry, and only ultimately providing the most superficial exploration of its titular character. Emma Stone's Cruella lacked depth both personally and in her relationships with the people are around her. Disney, as a brand, may appeal to children but this live-action feature was an insult to anybody who has a bit more intelligence than a 5 years old.

Craig Gillespie's direction was uninspiring and utterly unexciting. Nothing really felt original or fresh and it seemed that he was just going through the process of getting from plot point A to B to C and not caring about the hows or whys of it all. 

Screenwriters Dana Fox and Tony McNamara would have to take a share of the blame too. At 134 minutes long, the screenplay had way too much padding. It was one thing if these extra minutes served to enrich the experience or the characters, but it did neither. 

And to compound matters, this film had one of the worst CGIs of a big budget tentpole. Gosh, at times it felt like I was watching an episode of The CW's Arrowverse! Did they blow all their budget on employing the Emmas - Stone and Thompson - and the costumes? And the song licenses?

Now, that brings us to the three double-edged swords of the film. 

Firstly, the Emmas. 

What this film had going for it was the chemistry between Stone and Thompson. Their tête-à-têtes were highlights as both Emmas showed why they are at the top of their craft. 

However, when separated, Stone was an unlikeable anti-heroine who was underserved by the script and the direction. She preened and snarled and baby-voiced her way through the film but had nary a single redeeming factor that would have made her a compelling character, much less a sympathetic villain.

To make things worse, Stone's accent was atrocious. It was horrendously inconsistent. I get that she is a big, newly-minted Oscar winner, but they could not get someone with a better British accent? Was the other Emma, Emma Corrin not available (she would have slayed!)? Or Emma Watson (a bit too sweet but could have been a great turn for her acting)? Or Saoirse Ronan (more Irish than British but Ronan can do almost anything)? Or Emily Blunt (might have aged out of the role, and too reminiscent of her  time in The Devil Wears Prada)? Seriously, even Kate Winslet did a much better Philly DelCo accent through all seven episodes of Mare of Easttown than Stone in seven minutes of Cruella.

Thompson, on the other hand, was a fabulous delight. She obviously channeled Glenn Close's original Cruella and Meryl Streep's Miranda Presley, but gave it her own personal spin. I would be way more interested in seeing her origin story rather than Stone's Cruella. Thompson gave us a villain that almost begged for sympathy. 

By the finale - an anti-climatic climax - Thompson was the one that we were rooting for and not Stone. And I seriously doubt the film makers had that in mind.

The costumes by Oscar winner Jenny Beavan were a highlight. They were stunning and gorgeous and really suited/fitted the Emmas very well. Both of them rocked the designs they were wearing. However. it would have been better if we could have seen more of their designs given that they are supposedly geniuses, and the glimpses of runway fashion seemed more blah than cutting edge. Which then made their expertise - especially Stone's Cruella ingenue label - a bit more suspect.

In addition, Gillespie could have done a lot more to showcase some original fashion hijinks. Instead, we ended up with copycats of Vivian Westwood, Alexander Lee McQueen or John Galliano runway shows and concepts. Fashion guerrilla pop-ups that were done better and funnier on Emily in Paris. Even some designers on Project Runway had more originality and show-stopping ideas than Stone's Cruella.

Lastly, the music. There were a lot of great 60s/70s era pop music littered through the whole film. And for once, perhaps a bit too many. For a lengthy period in the first two acts, it was practically one song in every scene - or every other if I am being generous - and they did not all work. Dropping songs just for dropping songs sake was an money-move that resulted in the songs losing value and purpose. 

At least the original song, "Call Me Cruella" over the end-credits by Florence and the Machine had a purpose.

A quick note on the supporting cast: Paul Walter Hauser gets the funniest lines and is the MVP after Thompson (he and the two doggies); Joel Fry had no chemistry with Stone or Hauser; Kirby Howell-Baptiste was absolutely wasted; Mark Strong was being Mark Strong-esque; John McCrea as Artie was a plot device that fulfilled the inclusivity clause; and Andrew Leung reminded me of a young Andrew Garfield/Ben Wishaw or a Will Sharpe. 

In all, Cruella was an overlong, tedious and unnecessary prequel movie that served no greater good in fleshing out a once-iconic villain. Superficially enjoyable but it is not gonna save the box office. Likely better enjoyed on streaming. Stay for the mid-credits scene which gives a little nod-and-wink to the original 1996 film.