I'm a lifelong fan of this franchise, having seen the original and its DTV sequel a lot as a child but not getting as heavily into the franchise until my teenage years. This is the Disney property that I hold closest to my heart for many reasons, so naturally, when a remake of the original was announced for Disney+, I became excited but a little wary. The remakes Disney has been pumping out like popsicles on a summer day are truly overwhelming for a lot of Disney fans with many criticizing them, even though critically they seem to get an average response. For example, this movie is hovering in the 60-70 percent range of Rotten Tomatoes, so even the streaming method can't avoid the notoriety bug from fans. I stated that a "Lady And The Tramp" remake can work so long as the story flows solidly and the movie feels geniune, and what did we get with the overall film? For those unaware of "Lady And The Tramp" as a story, and who wouldn't be, this is the tale set in the late 1900's and early 1910's of a housedog named Lady. She ends up being romantically linked to a street dog who is given various different names by the inhabitants of the town he roams but is referred to as Tramp as the movie goes on. Nothing much that's new to go over in terms of plot because it is a basic story that the original did a great job at telling. As for this movie's story and how true it is to the original, there is a stark difference. While they do keep most of the story elements the same as before, this remake is more dialogue driven to get the pacing going. This means that we get an abundance of basic plotpoints whereas the first movie felt like it was wholly new and felt like it was a more original story. Obviously. Some of the changes they make to the characters are solidly handled in my opinion. Jock is now female, Si and Am are not Siamese Cats and their song is different, and there is a lot more racial diversity in this movie than the original. Some people are obviously going to have problems with this, but these changes don't affect anything storywise in my opinion, and the movie isn't distracting in that way. The voice actors are well cast, especially in the two leads. Tessa Thompson is Lady, and does her job well, but the real star of this movie is Justin Theroux as Tramp. Obviously, Theroux doesn't come close to Larry Roberts in the original film or even Jeff Bennett in all of the other LATT properties, but I feel that Theroux succeeds in his own way, as kind of a sarcastic loner. His performance really makes this film watchable, and the other actors are solid as well, whether they be the canine characters or live action characters.
There's a massive story quarrel I have with this film, though. If you wondering if it's the animation of the dog characters that I will be nitpicking, well, you're incorrect. The CGI on the dogs is at least more expressive than in the remake of "The Lion King", and they at least tried, so I'll give them that. What I do have a problem with is the third act of the movie. If you've seen this movie, you are well aware that it concludes with a fight between Tramp and the rat, leading to a misunderstanding that causes Tramp to be placed in the back of the dogcatcher's carriage. This leads to Lady, Tramp, and Jock racing to stop the carriage in order to rescue him from the fate of certain death, which they're successful in doing. However, the dogcatcher's carriage unintentionally lands on Trusty when they make it fall sideways, and he's supposedly "dead". In this movie, it's different. The scene plays out like it does in the original, only in this film, instead of Trusty being the one that falls victim to the carriage, it's the Tramp. This then leads to a cliched scene that I'm so tired of in movies like this. Tramp is laying there "dead", and Lady mopes and cries around hoping that he'll wake back up, but it isn't likely that he'll come back. She then howls mournfully and the Tramp wakes back up and everyone is chipper again. SWEET MERCY am I sick of seeing this cliche in Disney movies and any movie involving talking animals. It's like the studio got involved and told all the writers to include that cliche to make it more "modern". Well, you know what, it's dated!
I'm well aware that this cliche was utilized in the sequel, but here's the thing with that scene. When Scamp gets thrown up against that wall and gets knocked out, that scene doesn't lose its momentum. It happens during the brawl with Tramp, Scamp, and Reggie, and Tramp doesn't all of a sudden stop what he is doing and mope around for a few minutes. After the Tramp knocks Reggie out, is it then where he goes over to wake Scamp up, and there isn't some focus grouped monologue where Tramp pleas for Scamp to wake up and to not "die". And it was one of the Disney sequels. This is a Disney remake. They should not have used a scene that is ripped right out of the end of "Alpha And Omega" or "Oliver And Company" or some other film where this happens. Those two movies did it in a more pointless and worse way (while still being solid films), but this still didn't execute it in a way that warrants it as new or invigorating, or with real tension. I'm shocked that there wasn't any unnecessary rain that coincidentally decided to start pouring down on them while that scene took place. This is just a scene put in to make the movie more hip and modern, when in reality, it's a cliche that should not have existed in an otherwise solid movie, because if anything, it makes it older than the original film. Not only that, but it's also cynical in a way in order to play with the audience's emotions, which isn't necessary.
So, yeah, I just needed to throw that out there. But other than that, I think that the remake of "Lady And The Tramp" is not a bad movie. Not at all. Should I argue that it's unnecessary considering the recent cornucopia of live action remakes that have come out of Disney lately? I think so, because this is sort of like wasted calorie food so to speak. It's something you don't need to put into your system but it still satisfies you in a solid way. That's my description of this "Lady And The Tramp" remake. It is NOWHERE near the original film in terms of quality, as that film still represents the best of Walt Disney's output in my opinion, and I personally think that it is my favorite movie of all time at this point. The sequel is also high up there, even though I do acknowledge that it is not a perfect film and my love for it is mainly due to the nostalgia I have for it and how much it helped me through a very questionable period of time. I'm not hesitant to reveal that at all. This film is not in the same perfect league as the two canon films in my opinion, but it still works with what it has and director Charlie Bean and the other personnel tried their best to recapture the original film in a more modern setting to decent results. Again, I may be a bit biased because "Lady And The Tramp" is the reason why I'm the person I am and I defend it with every fiber and bone in my body, but this is still decent. In terms of Disney's mediocre live action output, this film is definitely not one of the dogs.
RATING: 6/10
There's a massive story quarrel I have with this film, though. If you wondering if it's the animation of the dog characters that I will be nitpicking, well, you're incorrect. The CGI on the dogs is at least more expressive than in the remake of "The Lion King", and they at least tried, so I'll give them that. What I do have a problem with is the third act of the movie. If you've seen this movie, you are well aware that it concludes with a fight between Tramp and the rat, leading to a misunderstanding that causes Tramp to be placed in the back of the dogcatcher's carriage. This leads to Lady, Tramp, and Jock racing to stop the carriage in order to rescue him from the fate of certain death, which they're successful in doing. However, the dogcatcher's carriage unintentionally lands on Trusty when they make it fall sideways, and he's supposedly "dead". In this movie, it's different. The scene plays out like it does in the original, only in this film, instead of Trusty being the one that falls victim to the carriage, it's the Tramp. This then leads to a cliched scene that I'm so tired of in movies like this. Tramp is laying there "dead", and Lady mopes and cries around hoping that he'll wake back up, but it isn't likely that he'll come back. She then howls mournfully and the Tramp wakes back up and everyone is chipper again. SWEET MERCY am I sick of seeing this cliche in Disney movies and any movie involving talking animals. It's like the studio got involved and told all the writers to include that cliche to make it more "modern". Well, you know what, it's dated!
I'm well aware that this cliche was utilized in the sequel, but here's the thing with that scene. When Scamp gets thrown up against that wall and gets knocked out, that scene doesn't lose its momentum. It happens during the brawl with Tramp, Scamp, and Reggie, and Tramp doesn't all of a sudden stop what he is doing and mope around for a few minutes. After the Tramp knocks Reggie out, is it then where he goes over to wake Scamp up, and there isn't some focus grouped monologue where Tramp pleas for Scamp to wake up and to not "die". And it was one of the Disney sequels. This is a Disney remake. They should not have used a scene that is ripped right out of the end of "Alpha And Omega" or "Oliver And Company" or some other film where this happens. Those two movies did it in a more pointless and worse way (while still being solid films), but this still didn't execute it in a way that warrants it as new or invigorating, or with real tension. I'm shocked that there wasn't any unnecessary rain that coincidentally decided to start pouring down on them while that scene took place. This is just a scene put in to make the movie more hip and modern, when in reality, it's a cliche that should not have existed in an otherwise solid movie, because if anything, it makes it older than the original film. Not only that, but it's also cynical in a way in order to play with the audience's emotions, which isn't necessary.
So, yeah, I just needed to throw that out there. But other than that, I think that the remake of "Lady And The Tramp" is not a bad movie. Not at all. Should I argue that it's unnecessary considering the recent cornucopia of live action remakes that have come out of Disney lately? I think so, because this is sort of like wasted calorie food so to speak. It's something you don't need to put into your system but it still satisfies you in a solid way. That's my description of this "Lady And The Tramp" remake. It is NOWHERE near the original film in terms of quality, as that film still represents the best of Walt Disney's output in my opinion, and I personally think that it is my favorite movie of all time at this point. The sequel is also high up there, even though I do acknowledge that it is not a perfect film and my love for it is mainly due to the nostalgia I have for it and how much it helped me through a very questionable period of time. I'm not hesitant to reveal that at all. This film is not in the same perfect league as the two canon films in my opinion, but it still works with what it has and director Charlie Bean and the other personnel tried their best to recapture the original film in a more modern setting to decent results. Again, I may be a bit biased because "Lady And The Tramp" is the reason why I'm the person I am and I defend it with every fiber and bone in my body, but this is still decent. In terms of Disney's mediocre live action output, this film is definitely not one of the dogs.
RATING: 6/10