102 Dalmatians

The floating, flailing, flying puppies in the inspired opening credits of 102 Dalmatians set the tone for an adorable sequel to the live-action version of the famously spotted cartoon.

The film, which is amiable, undemanding family holiday entertainment, is more a tribute to the astonishing skills of the dog trainers than anything else.

Harmless and thoroughly unmemorable: colorful, cute, fast paced, and about as involving as an amusement park ride.

How is it possible that actors as expert as Close and Depardieu can wind up together in a mostly brainless big-budget stinker?

May have had the unintended effect of obscuring the original it meant to honor.

The elaborate climax set in a Paris bakery is the least boring part of this trained-animal movie.

So dull and formulaic, it ought to be leashed and led directly to the doghouse.

its a funny film.great for children, but if you don't want to watch it you tube the cake scene.

Bad sequel but entertaining.

102 Dálmatas é uma sequência fraca (48/100) que falha em recriar o charme do primeiro filme. O roteiro previsível, os exageros cômicos e os personagens sem carisma fazem com que essa continuação seja totalmente esquecível. Glenn Close faz o possível para carregar o filme, mas nem sua atuação consegue salvar essa bagunça. Se o primeiro filme foi um acerto divertido, essa sequência é apenas um desperdício de tempo.

102 Dalmatians is a disappointing sequel that feels like a corporate cash-grab, failing to capture the charm of the 1996 original. The film’s saving grace is Glenn Close, who delivers a fabulously wicked, scene-stealing performance as Cruella de Vil, elevated by stunning costume design. The dalmatian puppies remain adorable, and the practical sets are vibrant. However, the rest of the movie falls flat. The new human leads are painfully bland, and Gérard Depardieu’s cartoonish secondary villain is cringey. Noisy non-canine sidekicks, like a macaw with an identity crisis, steal screen time from the pups, while outdated CGI constantly breaks immersion. The film's biggest flaw is its jarring tone, wildly shifting between insulting slapstick and surprisingly sadistic scenes too dark for a G-rating. Ultimately, it’s a forgettable rehash that relies entirely on cute animals and an iconic villain to mask a weak script.

102 Dalmatians feels like one of those sequels that exists mostly because the first movie was successful. It’s not completely unwatchable, and there are a few charming moments thanks to the dogs, but overall it feels much weaker and more forced than its **** biggest problem is that the movie relies too heavily on the same formula without bringing much that feels fresh. A lot of the humor is loud rather than genuinely funny, and the story quickly becomes predictable. Even for a family film, it feels overly cartoonish at times. The plot keeps moving, but it never really gives you a reason to care about what’s happening beyond watching cute dogs run around.Glenn Close is still clearly having fun as Cruella de Vil, and honestly she's the main reason the movie remains somewhat entertaining. Her performance has so much energy that she manages to elevate scenes that would otherwise fall completely flat. Unfortunately, the rest of the cast and story can't really keep up.Another issue is that the movie feels strangely padded. There are several sequences that drag on longer than they should, and the film often mistakes chaos for excitement. Instead of building tension or emotional investment, it mostly jumps from one goofy situation to the next.Overall, 102 Dalmatians isn't a disaster, but it feels unnecessary and forgettable. The dogs are cute, Glenn Close does her best, but that's about all I took away from it. A pretty easy 3/10 for me — harmless enough, but nowhere near as enjoyable as it wants to be.