Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
12 of 14 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
I suppose this should come as no surprise, August 11, 2006
I have loved "Lady and the Tramp" all my life, and approached this DVD with anticipation and a little bit of fear, knowing I was likely to be disappointed. So far, of all the Disney sequels, only Peter Pan II has been really satisfactory because even Disney is bound to the rules and restrictions of the Children's Hospital in London, which owns the copywrite. Bambi II wasn't too bad, either. This film, however, doesn't hit the mark.
There were, to be fair, a couple of good things. The Edwardian-era look of roughly 1900 to 1910 was well done and the original house from the first movie was beauitifully preserved. There was some amusement in the parody of the famous spagetti dinner scene because the two puppies ate spagetti as sloppily eager as normal dogs would, not the gentile way Scamp's parents once did. It was also interesting that this time dogs were the villans (notably Buster and the pit bull), and this time the pound was not filled with heartbreaking hard-luck cases (abandoned strays, unwanted puppies, or purebred dogs who for whatever reason were no longer welcome in their homes), but with nasty, unpleasant street dogs. In fact, the whole analogy to teenage rebellion and the lure of street gangs was interestingly described, and in terms that kids could understand. On this level, it succeeds remarkably well.
Most of the younger children will probably like the film because the flaws won't be so obvious. And while I hate to be a party pooper, let's look at 'em.
The first thing that annoyed me were the...songs. Disney classics have always been known for their songs, and the original "Lady and the Tramp" had some wonderful ones. But these song simply do not work. They are not in the style or mood of the originals at all, and I was reminded more of "The Aristocats" which is admittedly NOT one of my favorite Disney films. The picnic scene was far too reminescent of the awful old cliches in Disney films of the 70's which invariably had dogs wreak havoc at large human gatherings. Aunt Sarah (speaking of the picnic scene) clearly didn't care much for a troublesome puppy like Scamp, even if she was accepting of the other dogs, but it nevertheless bothered me that a woman as fond of her own pets as she was, would actually take her two beautiful siamese cats to an outdoor picnic, in a park full of people and dogs. This is so unbelievably irresponsible for an cat owner that I shudder in horror.
And what they did to the established dogs that we know and love so well! Tramp, himself once an abandoned dog (go back and listen to the dialog in the original film), is grateful for a loving home as most formerly-abandoned dogs often are, but he didn't sound or feel like Tramp very much. The old spark simply wasn't there. Scamp's three sisters, were clearly drawn in a more modern style than that of the 1950s, and were not sweet puppies, but annoying ones whose greatest joy in life seems to be getting a bath . Jock and Trusty are mere shadows of their former selves. Jock has nothing new to add, and Trusty is just terrible. He is shown here as just an old dog with a feeble howl, nothing like the blood-chilling bay of a bloodhound on a scent that he had only several months earlier (I suppose the puppies are about eight months old if you do the math from the original film).
I also have to wonder about "Jim Dear" and "Darling"! They now have an absolute pack of dogs - seven in all, if you count Angel - but not one word about the obvious need to spay and neuter a few dogs before they find themselves up to their eyebrows in unplanned puppies! Even in "The Aristocats", one got the distinct feeling that O'Malley had been neutered at the end. As a dog and cat owner, this sort of thing really bothers me - particularly since the original film had a heartbreaking scene of a litter of unwanted puppies locked up in the pound: as good an advertisement for spaying your dog as I can think of. And how come Jim and Darling know the street names of Tramp and Angel? Do they speak Dog? And what of the curious implication at the end that they are also possibly the owners of Jock and Trusty? We already know otherwise from the original film.
Oh yeah...and the Dogcatcher! This "nice little New England town" has had serious problems with roaming packs of stray dogs, something established in the first film, and leash laws are strictly enforced. In the original film, the principle dog catcher was a shadowy, sinister figure in the eyes of the dogs, who is only revealed as a decent guy when he takes Lady from her cell and comforts her as he takes her away to be reclaimed by Aunt Sarah. In this film, however, the Dogcatcher looks and talks like Don Knotts, and is a comical figure who seems possessed in catching any and all dogs, and takes pleasure in the pursuit. He isn't sinister, and we don't even get to see a more sympathetic side of him. He's just silly and slightly annoying.
I can't exactly say this film is bad, because it does have its good moments, but I could have lived easily without it - just as I could have lived without "Aladdin II". On the good side, it shows the importance of family and home and the foolish dangers of running away and getting involved in gangs. But the negatives tend to get in the way.
I hate to say this, but the real highlight of the DVD are the three Pluto cartoons at the end. They are wonderfully doggy, funny, and actually look as if they might be set in the same town as Lady and the Tramp. Get the DVD for those, if nothing else.
|
|
|
42 of 55 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
It was a solid 3 stars until the end,..., September 23, 2001
...when a mean-spirited ending ruined the film and it's message. Zero stars! WARNING: THIS MOVIE DESTROYS ITS OWN VALUE SYSTEM! DO NOT PURCHASE THIS FILM! (If you've already bought it, send it back to Disney!) The storyline is actually fairly promising: we follow a rebellious Scamp as he runs away to join the Junkyard Dogs. Along the way he discovers that his dreams of being "wild and free" are not as great as he imagines; nor is his life at home with his loving family as dull, nor restrictive for no reason. It's a good vehicle to teach kids about their needs and desires balanced with responsibility and family. That is, until the end of Scamp's time away from home, where the story takes a HUGE wrong turn that ruins the movie and renders it morally bankrupt. Obviously Scamp decides to go back to his family, but there is one last thing he has to do, he says, as he bids farewell to the junkyard dogs: he must humiliate the leader, Buster (intentionally knocking a piece of junk at him as a farewell), laugh at him as he gets pinned under a fallen mound of junk (which it seemed was also the intention), and then leave him trapped there alone to "learn his lesson." I sat there dumbstruck as I watched this unfold on screen -- what a stupifyingly mean-spirited thing for the "hero" to do! In a story like this, a good character does not treat others this way! We've spent the whole movie learning about the meaning of family and love, and fair treatment for all, and what does Disney give us in the end? Scamp AND Tramp (whose response is "That's my boy!" or some such) suddenly turn cruel and selfish, just like Buster. There is no mercy, no last act of kindness or even pity for the wrongheaded Buster, who is now utterly alone as the other junkyard dogs also abandon him. Such a fate is more than enough punishment for Buster, but instead our so-called "hero" gets to rub his nose in it! WOW -- what a class act! Disney should be truly ashamed. I can only assume that our cynical, post-modern society has affected (infected?) those responsible for this film to the point that they do not understand the difference between being a loving and caring character, versus an adversarial and mean one. (These new Disney "values" should require that they tack a new ending onto "Cinderella", where she laughs at her stepmother and stepsisters as she stalks out the door with the Grand Duke.) So aren't Scamp and Buster supposed to be polar opposites? The end of this movie makes them one and the same. Absolutely shameful!! What kind of message is Disney sending? This movie is aimed especially at impressionable children; mine will never see this film again. Thankfully I didn't buy this; if only I could get my money back for the rental!
|
|
|
7 of 8 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
Scamp Holds No Candle To Tramp, December 2, 2001
By A Customer
It's pretty gutsy making a sequel to a Walt Disney Animated classic. After all Walt Disney was one of the greatest storytellers who ever lived. To attempt to match his efforts in a sequel is a tall order and failure is a very real possibility.
And fail they do.
While Lady & The Tramp II matches the styling and backgrounds of the original, it comes up far short in all other departments. Voices are for the most part terribly cast, with most characters just bearly sounding like the original voices.
The script lacks the tone and nostalgia of the original and borrows a story that seems too close to Oliver & Company.
The animation is not spectacular and lacks the sincerity of the original. The score is very good but there is no song in this movie that matches the playfulness of the original film. In short, this tramp picture lacks any little redeeming elements to recommend it. One more thing,...Lady & The Tramp is a very american kind of film. It reeks of hometown sentiment and american values. It's funny to think that while the original picture was animated in the US, this sequel was entirely animated in Australia. There's something wrong about this.
|
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|
See all Editorial Reviews
DVD ~ Barbara Luddy
DVD ~ George Johnson
DVD ~ Hardie Albright
DVD ~ Matthew Broderick
DVD ~ Marjorie Bennett
