Could
it be yet another pointless sequel? This answer is yes! To make matters worse,
it's a sequel to a film based on a classic Disney cartoon that never should have
been made in the first place. Now in all honesty, I didn't hate the previous film.
I thought it was a cute diversion, and good for the whole family. It had a lot
of energy and fine performances from the likable Jeff Daniels, and a hilarious,
over the top turn by Glenn Close as the nasty Cruella DeVil.
In
this sequel, Close is the only major returning cast member. It seems that Cruella's
jail time has mellowed her out a bit. She no longer has a hatred for the Dalmatians
that sealed her fate in the last picture. By sheer coincidence, it seems that
her parole officer has a fondness for the spotted pets, and even has a family
of them at home. In fact, mama has recently had a litter that includes Oddball,
a mischievous Dalmatian that becomes increasingly agitated because he has no spots.
Before too long, Cruella is up to her old tricks, and with the aid of a fashion
designer (a strange turn by European sensation Gerard Depardieu), they decide
to kidnap our faithful little pooches and make fur coats out of them. Of course
this is a Disney flick, so parents shouldn't be too worried about the outcome.
What's
really disheartening about this unnecessary sequel is how dreadfully dull it is.
Sure, the dogs are cute, and Close seems to be having a good time, but this film
just doesn't really seem to go anywhere. In fact, I observed the crowded audience
at the screening, and many of the children seemed to be getting unusually restless.
It
seemed painfully obvious to me that this sequel was made simply for the reason
a sequel should never be made, but usually is--because the first film made a ton
of money. No real care went into the making of 102 Dalmatians. This isn't even
really a sequel. It's more of a remake. A generic rehash that we could all do
without.
