3/5 I suppose this should come as no surprise
  by Daisy Brambletoes (the Shire)
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.



1/5 It was a solid 3 stars until the end,...
  by George (Twin Cities, Minnesota, USA)
...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!

2/5 Aww... Puppy love!
  by (MA)
Cute movie, definitely not as good as the original though. Not nearly as moving or well put together. Younger children should get a laugh out of some of the slapstick kind of antics with the dog catcher. Adults will probably be cringing a little though.

One of the things I didn't like was the way they incorporated some of the songs. I really didn't like the Junkyard Dogs breaking out into some long, involved song. I fastforwarded through that the second time I watched it. Oh, and the opening song sequence was too much like Beauty and the Beast, with the townfolk walking around singing. Two of the songs were well done though.

The best parts of the film were the Angel and Scamp scenes. Angel is absolutely adorable with her tough exterior but hidden longing for a family, and if they come out with Angel merchandise, even at 22 years old, I will be the first in line to buy it! :) They even revisit Lady and the Tramp's walk through the park, and of course, there is spaghetti involved. But since Angel and Scamp are still young pups, look for sauce flying and spaghetti splattering everywhere instead of the refined meal that Lady and the Tramp shared once upon a time. The scene still manages to end very sweetly, with the two Italian chefs from the original movie looking on.

Worth watching just to see the cute, innocent, first puppy love that unfolds between Angel and Scamp. And the tension and eventual understanding that springs up between Tramp and Scamp is also well depicted. The other in-between stuff, especially the Junkyard Dogs and the dogcatcher, you just kind of have to suffer through. Or fast forward through.

5/5 Really cute!
  by
For a sequal, this wasn't too bad. The storyline could've been a little more original, I guess, but it's a very enjoyable movie nonetheless. Lady and Tramp's son, Scamp, runs off with a gang of junkyard dogs because he wants to be wild and free. He falls in love with Angel, to make a long story short, and has to decide whether he wants to go home-like she wants him to-or fulfill his dream of being a wild dog. The music is good, though there was one song in a commerical that sounded nice and wasn't in the movie, and the animation is wonderful. Most of the old characters are still there-Aunt Sara and the cats, Jock, Trusty-except I wish they would've assured us that Peg and the other pound dogs got homes. I also wish they'd have revealed what Old Reliable used to say. But anyway, the new characters are cool-Buster, Mooch, and especially Ruby-and this movie is very different from the first one. It's not quite as good as it, but if you liked the original, you'll like this and shouldn't be dissappointed.

3/5 Another reversal of the original.
  by Robin M Goffinet (Richmond, IN United States)
Scamp, the only male pup of Lady and Tramp, is pretty much the bad seed of the litter. He is rebellious, and disrespectful of his father and owners. He runs away from home, and like the original, falls in love with someone from "the wrong side of the tracks" It took his girlfriend Angel, who eerily resembles Tramp, telling him she would give anything to have what he has, a home and loving family, to finally open his eyes to when you have it all, don't complain about it.

Overall it was decent, but not that terribly great.