Metascore
49 out of 100

Mixed or average reviews - based on 20 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 8 out of 20
  2. Negative: 3 out of 20
  1. 88
    Director Stephen Herek does an admirable balancing job, though the movie slows whenever the animals solo onscreen. [27 Nov 1996 Pg.01.D]
  2. Reviewed by: Richard Schickel
    80
    For us dog saps, it is especially nice to see cuddlesomely real pooches instead of drawn ones doing smart-pet tricks.
  3. Reviewed by: Todd McCarthy
    80
    Where the film misses its biggest bet, however, is in depriving the animals of the voices they had in the animated version.
  4. Though this film's considerable warmth derives from dalmatian puppies and other animals who take charge of their fates, Close steals the show.
  5. Dalmatians proves an apt playground for Hughes as one could surmise that his inspiration for treating comic bad guys in his movies so violently comes from a cartoon sensibility.
  6. Reviewed by: Staff(not credited)
    75
    Since each is more adorable than the one before - and together they're an irresistible mass of squirming speckles - the whole elaborate edifice holds up pretty well.
  7. The story seems awfully far-fetched when real people play the characters, but the canines are cute and Glenn Close was born to play Cruella De Vil, the monstrous magnate who sets the plot in motion.
  8. 63
    What's funny in cartoons is not always funny in live action, and some of the dunkings in unsavory substances left me less than amused.
  9. 60
    The entire remake has been dumb-dumbed by John Hughes, who wrote the script and produced.
  10. If the Disney animated original (1961) -- adapted from Dodie Smith's novel -- tried to approximate live action, this 1996 Disney live-action remake often tries to evoke cartoon.
  11. But when it comes to that great puppy pilgrimage, the movie, which was written and produced by John Hughes, falls astoundingly flat.
  12. Reviewed by: Maria Schneider
    50
    Not much reason to see this one, because in 1961 Disney made an animated version called 101 Dalmatians, which is better.
  13. Thanks to Glenn Close's delicious villainy, it succeeds in breathing archly theatrical life into the irresistibly monstrous Cruella DeVil. Otherwise, this remake goes to the dogs too often.
  14. Reviewed by: David Ansen
    50
    But the tale has been squeezed to fit the mold of director John Hughes, which for long stretches makes it feel as much like the third "Home Alone" as the second "Dalmations."
  15. Reviewed by: Hollis Chacona
    40
    At times, the film feels like one painful, protracted pratfall.
  16. Fluffy and mild to the point of somnolence, it can't even get the full benefit of its strongest asset, Glenn Close's performance as the grasping virago Cruella DeVil.
  17. Reviewed by: John F. Kelly
    40
    Annoyingly, the movie is marred by anemic connecting scenes and a seeming disdain for something as simple as logic
  18. 38
    Even children, who will be enthralled by all the puppies, may have a hard time not fidgeting for protracted portions of the running time.
  19. In Hollywood, imitation is the most profitable form of flattery. That is the only plausible explanation for 101 Dalmatians, Walt Disney's disappointing live-action remake of its own 1961 classic.
  20. 10
    But by the end, the charm and delicacy of the 1961 cartoon have long been replaced by laborious gross-outs. Is this now official Disney policy?
User Score

Mixed or average reviews- based on 21 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 1 out of 3
  2. Negative: 0 out of 3
  1. I know that this film is an epic, but I will not be influenced by this or I will base my critique on the fact that a film is epic or not. I actually think the movie a big failure in cinematic terms. But for watching with family at times like Christmas or Easter is perfect, and the kids do not dislike. Full Review »
  2. not terrible, but not that good.
  3. FaiK
    7
    i just like the part that all the dogs barks to send news about the puppies