Lady and the Tramp

What is the purpose of making a remake if it's way worse in absolutely every way? The animation is atrocious, the voice acting is lousy and annoying and the writing is just terrible and utterly cheesy. Furthermore, this remake is politically correct garbage all the way. What's with the role hand-outs to black people? I mean, half the cast is black and the Lady's owners are a black and white couple. Is that supposed to be a truthful representation of the early 1900's (and the remake) which this movie is set in? I really wish Disney would just stop making garbage like this. It's kind of like when Kim Jong-un removed his uncle from all pictures he was in. It was supposed to be like he never existed but was obvious what had happened. This is kind of similar but worse. The pinnacle of this idiocy being that aunt Sarah criticizes Jim Dear for being a musician while his wife is a house keeper all the while they live in a rather nice house. Also, if there was one thing they should've changed it should've been those ridiculous names Jim Dear and Darling. This remake is just dumb, pointless and especially annoying to watch.

Not a bad film, had a few nice moments and wasn't as awful as i expected. However, it is when you consider the amount of money wasted on making a beautiful but inferior remake of an already amazing film.

It is clear they had initially filmed this for theatrical release, as there's a real mishmash of cinematic scenes withTV show. Some of the scenes also looked incomplete. The cats looked incredibly fake and their new song was somehow both cringy and forgettable. I understand why they ditched the siamese song, but this new addition should've just been scrapped from the get go.

Imagine if Disney actually used their resources to make some original movies these days.

Jim Dear brings home a dog for his wife Darling and they name her Lady. Street dog Tramp hides in her doghouse to escape the dogcatcher Elliott. He warns her that when "Baby moves in, the dog moves out." When the couple brings in newborn baby Lulu, Lady fears the worst. The family goes out of town leaving Lady in the care of Aunt Sarah. Lady is left on the street and rescued by the Tramp.

This is fun while it lasts. The ending goes on too long and I don't think the CGI is necessary. Back in the day, there were plenty of Disney dog movies. There is a charm to them and the real dogs are perfect for family films. They may not be cinematic greatness but they are fine if done right. The new Disney formula of reworking every animated classic with CGI may not be a good one-size-fits-all. They do the spaghetti scene again but it doesn't have quite the same magic. This is not a franchise that is most known for its action realism. It needs charm, romance, and joy. This movie needs to take this into the G-rated romantic Disney family fun area. That's why real puppies may actually be what's truly needed in this case. CGI dogs talking don't add anything important.

The main impression - this live action version is only a multicultural manifesto, using as pretext only, the original Disney animation. I am not a fan of the live action versions because each of them is far by the poetry of the original. In this case, the sacrifices for a multicultural manifesto are too many and too much. And this is an obvious sin. In my case, for the lost of the beautiful - spices song of the Siamese cats. The virtues - the beautiful opening, F. Murray Abraham, Rose as the expected Lady and, sure, Yvette Nicole Brown performance.

I'm sorry but whoever voiced Lady was the wrong choice. Lady was supposed to be be soft and gentle and this just bugged me the entire film!!! My 5yr old son however didn't care and loved it. He hasn't seen the original.