The story, still simple and still effective, tells of romance across class borders between two dogs: Lady [voiced by Tessa Thompson], who lives a comfortable life as the surrogate child of a human couple [Kiersey Clemons and Thomas Mann], and Tramp [voiced by Justin Theroux], a street-dwelling loner whose day-to-day depends on whatever scraps of food he can find. Lady’s domestic bliss is sent into a tailspin when an actual human baby arrives and through a frantic set of circumstances, she finds herself on the street, roughing it with her unlikely new friend.
There’s some low-stakes enjoyment to be had here, benefited largely from the film’s Disney+ drop. It’s certainly slick and boasts higher production values than the average streaming premiere but it’s a comparatively modest Disney remake that would have felt dwarfed, in a number of ways, on the big screen. The 1955 original was a breezy 76 minutes and in updating, The Lego Ninjago Movie director Charlie Bean has added almost half an hour, a considerable amount of padding and one that didn’t do Kenneth Branagh’s 38-minute-longer take on Cinderella any favours. It’s a smoother expansion here, the film’s laid-back pace pairing nicely with the Savannah setting and a jazzy soundtrack, even if the extended plot doesn’t add a whole lot more of notable worth [although thankfully the uneasy orientalism of the Siamese Cat Song has been replaced with something far less problematic].
The central dogs are impressively trained and cute to watch but there’s a lingering problem that also affected this summer’s big-budget remake of The Lion King. In trying to make talking animals look as real as they can, there’s an emotional depth missing from their expressions when they’re speaking. Thompson and Theroux, along with fellow voice actors Janelle Monáe, Sam Elliott and Ashley Jensen try hard, but there’s something not quite, ahem, animated enough about their on-screen incarnations. It removes us from the more emotional moments and it’s an issue the studio will need to figure out before The Little Mermaid, given that a crab has at least two musical numbers. The horror.
There’s also a frustrating waste of Clemons, who was so incredibly charming in last year’s little-seen music indie Hearts Beat Loud, stuck here with little to do, or sing, as the human lady of the house. But perhaps the strangest thing about the film is that it was co-written by the “godfather of mumblecore”, Andrew Bujalski, an indie auteur whose acclaimed lo-fi films often feel improvised in nature, given his rejection of so many traditional scripting standards. His influence is sadly invisible here and any hope that the film might have followed in the footsteps of 2016’s exceptional Pete’s Dragon, a remake from similarly mismatched arthouse staple David Lowery, is left out on the street. The script, like so much of the film, is serviceable at best, never once explaining to us why Bujalski would want to get involved other than for financial reasons, which one wouldn’t begrudge him given the scale of his output to date.
Lady and the Tramp works well enough on its own simple terms as watchable, competently made home viewing. If it’s a sign of what’s to come on Disney+ though, a 103-minute tease to get families to fork out for yet another streaming platform, then those involved might need to try a bit harder.
It doesn’t glitter, it doesn’t explode. It’s just fluffy and sweet. Bean’s film suffers a bit from minor technical issues and, despite a few improvements, it just doesn’t have the same emotional impact as the original, but it still deserves a good home.
Lady and the Tramp scratches an itch for dog lovers and may satisfy the young viewer’s curiosity when digging through the family’s new Disney+ subscription. However, so much of the movie is just fine when not feeling rushed or stilted, but doesn’t offer new surprises to stand on its own.
GOODGOODGOODGOODGOODGOODGOODGOOD GOODGOODGOODGOODGOODGOODGOODGOODGOODGOODGOOD good
Lady and the Tramp works well enough on its own simple terms as watchable, competently made home viewing.
This version of Lady and the Tramp actually lacks the thematic complexity of its ’50s inspiration.
In a world where it will be available right alongside the original film — both at a click of the exact same button for the same monthly price — I’m not entirely sure why it exists, beyond refreshing this particular IP, reminding customers about the original movie, and slightly padding out Disney+’s lineup of “original” offerings. It is harmless, and pointless.
While the decision to digitally move the dogs’ snouts when they speak English to each other is almost off-putting enough to negate the effect altogether, fur-and-blood puppies aren’t the only pleasantly old-fashioned thing about this “Lady and the Tramp.”
The story gets a bit more involving as it goes, though some elements that might've been memorable [a musical number from a dog played by Janelle Monáe, for instance] fall flat.
I love the 2019 Lady and the tramp such a good movie such a good love story such a good everyday
It was cute and enjoyable but some things are better back in the day and this in some part feels old but I still think somethings should have been changed or removed entirely but still watch this over the original if you want to decide witch one
Oh no. I hate how well this worked on me. Granted, between my own pup looking eerily similar to Tramp and the fact that we traveled to Savannah the week before watching this, I am a bit biased. While I'm on the animation, it was a little wonky with Lady's face at first, but it seemed to improve as the movie went on [or I just got used to it]. It also might have been that it looked better when they didn't stick her tongue out after every line, which they did in her first speaking scene. The other dogs looked fine throughout...except when they were doing stunts. I obviously don't want real dogs doing stunts, but it looked pretty bad in some. Especially when they faked any dog running. There's something they just couldn't get right with that. I also wasn't fond of the baby-talking puppies or the overly auto-tuned singing. All that said, the core story works, the replacement for the siamese cat song was great, and even if you haven't JUST been to Savannah, the setting is beautiful. So all that in mind, I enjoyed this movie far, FAR more than I expected to. It turns out giving dogs the live action treatment worked much better on me than it did when Disney did the same thing with warthogs and baboons. Big surprise, I know. A few hiccups keep it from surpassing the original, but this is still a great watch for fans of the original story, Savannah, or just DOGS.
Beunas notches! Have some Italian food. Disney is so obsessed with diversity they ruined the most iconic scene of the movie.
What makes Lady and the Tramp bad?
The way in which "He's a Tramp" shames the dog for exploring his sexuality feels outdated and the song is out of place in an otherwise sweet children's movie. Audiences have come to realize the potentially harmful message that a song about shaming someone for their romantic or sexual lives can send.
What age is Lady and the Tramp good for?
Lady and the tramp is another classic told through the story and could be read within the age ranges of about: 8-14. This book tells the story of two dogs fall in love. This book is a great romantic children's book. This book also has some excitement and would seem very fun and entertaining for students to read.
Was Lady and the Tramp pregnant?
Also, Lady gets pregnant with the puppies. At the end, it is shown that it is the Baby's first Christmas, so therefore Lady would logically have gotten pregnant that night with Tramp. Walt Disney subtly put in those hints, so that the younger audiences wouldn't be able to figure it out, but older ones would.
Does Lady and the Tramp have a good ending?
Now it's Christmas, and Tramp has a new home with Lady's family, and he and Lady have had some cute puppies, and everybody's happy. And Trusty isn't dead, he just busted his leg! That's great!