Craig Gillespie
88 connections found
View:
Connections, in both directions
Best of all, she doesn’t ever once try to ape what Glenn Close did the last time Disney felt the need to live-action-fy Cruella de Vil (that’d be in 1996′s 101 Dalmatians, which I guess we all collectively decided to never mention again).
This iteration of the famous Disney villain’s story draws major inspiration from the 1996 live-action 101 Dalmatians starring Glenn Close (who is also an executive producer on Cruella ) and expands on the idea of her being a fashion designer.
Owning the character in a fashion (pun intended) far removed from what Glenn Close so fabulously created in the live action 101 Dalmatians (1996), Stone’s energy is palpable throughout, strutting across (and off) the screen with a devil-may-care attitude that is equally matched by the imposing Thompson who, as conventional her villainess may be, injects enough colour into a single note to paint a canvas the big screen can barely contain.
This live-action Disney production tells the origin story of the infamous Cruella De Vil, the villain of the animated — and live-action remake with Glenn Close — of “101 Dalmatians.”
So for “101 Dalmatians,” I was expecting them to crank out another iteration of the live-action version featuring Glenn Close 25 years ago, putting iconic villainess Cruella de Vil in the driver’s seat in a family-friendly romp.
What Movies Will It Remind You Of?: Well, obviously there’s Maleficent and Maleficent 2 (did anyone bother to see Maleficent 2 ?), but Cruella is mostly Joker crossed with The Devil Wears Prada .
It also brings to mind “All About Eve” and the origins movie “Maleficent.”
In other words, this is not something to compare to the Angelina Jolie interpretation of Maleficent, where it’s made clear that we are witnessing the truth.
Many people will instinctively want to compare this movie to Maleficent, but it's a completely different approach to telling a villain's tale.
Puppies! “Maleficent” juggled similarly tough territory — how to make a woman best known for poisoning actual babies seem sympathetic — and did it well enough to inspire two films about the villain’s secret charms, but Craig Gillespie’s “Cruella” struggles to attain similar success.
What started with Maleficent in 2018, continues with a new tale featuring the puppy killer, Cruella de Vil.
However, the teacher/student dynamic soon turns sour, resulting in a bitter rivalry that echoes All About Eve (1950).
It also brings to mind “All About Eve” and the origins movie “Maleficent.”
In another, better sense, it's a reference to The Devil Wears Prada and All About Eve in its uncompromising excoriation of how powerful women will exploit the labour of other women who work for them in self-defeating, patriarchally-defined cycles.
Cruella limns how Hollywood has learned all the wrong lessons from the 1950 powerhouse film All About Eve.
Estella’s strategy is half All About Eve , half Mordred marching into Camelot to dethrone King Arthur.
Here arrives the most pressing point: In whatever ways Cruella is a wonky origin story for a Disney villain we’ve come to love and fear, the film is more accurately (and quite pleasingly) a Devil Wears Prada -meets- All About Eve redux, with Emma Thompson delivering award-worthy work chewing scenery in the Miranda Priestly role of Baroness.
The other, of course, is Cruella de Vil, played by Emma Stone with enough seething, over the top vengefulness to almost make one forget Glenn Close’s memorable Cruella in “101 Dalmatians” (1996) and “102 Dalmatians” (2000), both live-action sequels to Disney’s beloved 1961 animated classic, which is paid brief homage at the end of the new film.
Cruella , with its shoe-horned attempts at referencing 101 Dalmatians , proves just how thrilling but also limiting the exercise can be.
Opening in the UK and US on May 28, while simultaneously becoming available on Disney+, the film radiates a punk-ish spirit that caters to younger viewers who may not know the live-action 101 Dalmatians films which starred Glenn Close about 25 years ago — to say nothing of the 1961 animated original.
Her take on Cruella de Vil, in Disney’s live-action adaptation of its 1961 animated classic 101 Dalmatians , has, for a long time, felt positively definitive.
As a prequel to the 1961 animated feature One Hundred and One Dalmatians and the 1996 live-action movie 101 Dalmatians , Cruella focuses on the early days of the studio’s most despicable villain outside of Mary Poppins.
Written by Dana Fox and Tony McNamara and set in 1970s London, the live-action comedy is based on the “101 Dalmatians” movies and the Dodie Smith novel that preceded them.
Estella’s first day on the job is shot as an homage to the Copa tracking shot in “Goodfellas” (1990).
Gillespie, meanwhile, keeps the film looking slick and elegant, including a nod to Goodfellas ’s famous tracking shot through the Copacabana, as the camera winds through the underbelly of London’s Liberty department store.
If the two-guys-and-a-girl antics pack some of the New Wave vitality of “Band of Outsiders,” the serpentine tracking shots and nonstop needle drops often seem to be channeling “Goodfellas.”
(There’s a sensational, “Goodfellas”-esque tracking shot set to “Time of the Season” by the Zombies.)
In the spirit of SNL’s viral Grouch sketch from 2019 – which reconfigured the dumpster-diving Sesame Street muppet Oscar in a faux-gritty anti-hero vein à la Todd Phillip’s Joker – the back-of-the-napkin conceit of Cruella could have made for a very fine 12:05 a.m.
While many who saw the first trailers for the film believed Disney had turned Cruella’s story into something akin to that of Joaquin Phoenix’s Joker , the film is actually more in line with a dark, comic-book iteration of The Devil Wears Prada .
The script’s multiple cooks are evident as the film tries to deliver a villain’s origin story informed by the UK punk scene and seen through the shared lens of both The Devil Wears Prada (2006) and Joker (2019).
But Cruella also wanders off the Disney fairytale compound to crib from more far-flung sources: There’s no escaping the fact that the main character’s descent-into-madness trajectory is informed by 2019’s Joker.
No, there isn’t a scene of Cruella de Vil cruising through Camden Town like Joaquin Phoenix at the end of Joker .
In Joker (2019), Joaquin Phoenix’s character also turned to the dark side, but not once did the movie seem to root for him to succeed.
The other, of course, is Cruella de Vil, played by Emma Stone with enough seething, over the top vengefulness to almost make one forget Glenn Close’s memorable Cruella in “101 Dalmatians” (1996) and “102 Dalmatians” (2000), both live-action sequels to Disney’s beloved 1961 animated classic, which is paid brief homage at the end of the new film.
In all fairness it should be flagged that the tone of Streep’s performance owes a lot to Glenn Close’s portrayal of Cruella in the 1996 remake of 101 Dalmatians and its 2000 sequel 102 Dalmatians .
That in turn spawned “102 Dalmatians,” in 2000.
The wide theatrical and streaming release is a spinoff/prequel to both 1961’s animated “One Hundred and One Dalmatians” and 1996’s live-action “101 Dalmatians” (which had its sequel, “102 Dalmatians,” over twenty years ago).
Close also showed up in the inferior 2000 sequel, 102 Dalmatians .
The Bride! (2026)
Directed by Maggie Gyllenhaal
influenced by Cruella (2021)
Themes Visuals Characters
…more surprisingly, Cruella, in its iconisation of a female character who becomes an ideological and style figurehead for an entire movement…
…su estilización visual y su tono irreverente recuerdan ocasionalmente a Cruella…
Her black goo makeup and thick British accent reminded me of Glenn Close's Cruella De Vil…
Like Cruella de Vil stuck her finger in an electrical outlet…
Between Nadia Stacey’s (Cruella) make-up and Kay Georgiou’s (Joker: Folie à Deux) hairstyling, the Bride looks incredible.
Writers Dana Fox ("Isn't It Romantic"), Tony McNamara ("The Favourite") and Aline Brosh McKenna ("The Devil Wears Prada") coalesce, bringing essential vibes from former projects into this one’s duality theme.
Estella’s initial excitement about working for the Baroness allows Stone to display the same pure-hearted exuberance that won her an Oscar for La La Land , but as the character begins to understand the cutthroat nature of the Baroness’ world, the actress slowly starts to recall the sly cunning that marked her performance in The Favourite .
Five writers labour to concoct a narrative connecting Estella to Cruella, with nods to "The Devil Wears Prada," "Phantom Thread" and "The Favourite" along the way, while also not straying too far from "101 Dalmations" lore.
Stone, on the other hand, evokes her demented performances from Birdman and The Favourite.
This film, credited to a handful of writers for both script and story (including Tony McNamara of The Favourite, also co-starring Stone), wants very badly to be a Disney version of The Devil Wears Prada with a dash of Phantom Thread (though some of the plot twists feel directly lifted from Joker) thrown in for size.
Fiona Crombie’s credits include “The Favourite,” and here she’s matched and upped her game considerably.
At a time when neither Marvel's first family in "The Fantastic Four: First Steps" nor DC's flagship hero in "Superman" (or the more recent flop "Supergirl") could really take flight…
Lanterns lands at a pivotal point for DC Studios, which endured a disappointing turnout for the second film under the new banner with Supergirl managing an underwhelming $126 million worldwide gross.
…following a difficult period for Supergirl…
This isn't Superman's good-natured intentions, nor is it a flawed Supergirl or Guy Gardner's cocky bluster.
…differentiating Lanterns from producer James Gunn’s more zany DC Universe titles (not least this year’s box office disaster Supergirl)…
Supergirl was a critical and commercial disappointment…
DP Nicolas Karakatsanis (who has lensed several Michael R. Roskam features) elevates the film beyond mere CGI-frenzy (computer generated canines, including roided out Dalmatians which have Pitbull bodies and would have been more enjoyable realized as Cerberus), for the most part, and Gillespie gives credit where credit is due (a snippet of the throaty Tallulah Bankhead in Hitchcock’s 1944 classic Lifeboat points to where Cruella’s inspiration came from).
Writers Dana Fox ("Isn't It Romantic"), Tony McNamara ("The Favourite") and Aline Brosh McKenna ("The Devil Wears Prada") coalesce, bringing essential vibes from former projects into this one’s duality theme.
Several plot twists later, we find her working for the Baroness (Emma Thompson), the head of a fashion house who seems to be channeling Meryl Streep in “The Devil Wears Prada.”
While many who saw the first trailers for the film believed Disney had turned Cruella’s story into something akin to that of Joaquin Phoenix’s Joker , the film is actually more in line with a dark, comic-book iteration of The Devil Wears Prada .
(The Miranda Priestly vibes are far from coincidental; Aline Brosh McKenna, who receives a story credit here, also wrote “The Devil Wears Prada.”)
Supporting performances by Joel Fry and Paul Walter Houser (who gave a terrific performance for Gillespie in 2017’s I, Tonya ) as Jasper and Horace respectively, Cruella’s accomplices, and Mark Strong as Paul the Valet (in a role strongly reminiscent of Stanley Tucci’s role in 2006’s The Devil Wears Prada ) are excellent.
Stone is terrific in the role, but its Thompson who steals the show, managing to channel both Meryl Streep's Miranda Priestly from The Devil Wears Prada and Daniel Day-Lewis' Reynolds Woodcock from Phantom Thread into a new, deliciously megalomaniacal creation.
(If Ryan Gosling could fall in love with a blow-up sex doll in “Lars and the Real Girl” and make us misty, you’ll believe Phoenix could fall in love with a computer voice.)
The story evinces such empathy for its characters and respect for their emotions that the film never threatens to become a gawking sideshow that makes a spectacle of redeeming its hero (I’m looking at you, “Lars and the Real Girl”), and the movie’s premise seldom overwhelms its plot.
Its defenders play down the science fiction element and focus on the human need for connection, forgetting that “Lars And The Real Girl” (2007) did just that and didn’t even need an actress to voice the dummy its protagonist fixated on.
But I don’t know… this kind of reminds me of Ryan Gosling in, you know, Lars and the Real Girl ?
But as we have seen in “Lars and the Real Girl,” “Ruby Sparks,” George Bernard Shaw’s “Pygmalion” (which became the musical “My Fair Lady’), there’s no happily ever after in a relationship with a creation.
Much like Lars and the Real Girl, Jonze avoids the queasier aspects of the relationship’s sexuality with some deft comedy and a few edits; this is a solo Jonze script, and many see similarities to it and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind , penned by frequent Jonze-colaborator Charlie Kaufman.
She’s almost channeling Michael Douglas’s merciless Wall Street player Gordon Gekko from “Wall Street.”
Costume designer Jenny Beavan’s work is downright fabulous, and will likely get her another Oscar nod after most recently winning for Mad Max: Fury Road.
Director Craig Gillespie is content to pull back and let costume designer Jenny Beavan (who memorably won an Oscar for Mad Max: Fury Road ) tell the bulk of the story through her heavenly creations.
The costumes, by Jenny Beavan ( Mad Max: Fury Road , Sherlock Holmes ), blossom into full fantasy as the story moves into the '70s: a Vivienne Westwood fever dream of punk-rock couture, swathed in yards of trash-bag latex and chiffon.
That job falls to Jenny Beavan, and while her résumé is filled with traditional historical fare like Sense and Sensibility and The King’s Speech , she has a wild side as well, winning an Oscar for Mad Max: Fury Road .
Costume Designer Jenny Beavan ( A Room with a View , Mad Max: Fury Road ) needs to clear space on the shelf for a third Oscar.
Oscar-winning Mad Max: Fury Road costume designer Jenny Beavan is chief among the movie's MVPs.
It will be compared to Adam McKay's “The Big Short,” but it's less of a direct lesson in the evils of capitalism, which is to its benefit.
Gillespie’s direction can’t help but remind of Adam McKay’s approach to the stock market in The Big Short, mixed with little touches of The Social Network (the first time we see Keith sit down at his YouTube setup in his basement, it reminds of Mark Zuckerberg getting in the zone, right down to Will Bates’ thematically similar score), but it’s the fragmentation of this story into different perspectives that makes it stand out.
My fear was that Dumb Money would resemble a dramatized Wikipedia page, explaining the technical details of a news story that viewers can just Google themselves. That’s a subgenre popularized by hits like Adam McKay’s The Big Short, a retelling of the 2008 financial crisis that contained repeated jokey scenes of celebrities explaining economics jargon straight to camera, in case viewers couldn’t keep track.
Dumb Money’s exaggerated attitude toward this story is of the “Can you believe this happened?” variety that’s become de rigueur since the success of Adam McKay’s The Big Short.
In a similar style to Adam McKay’s satirical credit crisis flick The Big Short, the technicalities are made digestible thanks to a smart but accessible script from screenwriting duo Lauren Schuker Blum and Rebecca Angelo.
Most people’s stock market knowledge comes from what they read on their 401K statements and then they’re checked out, which means Dumb Money has the same issues that director Adam McKay faced with The Big Short (2015). That film had to explain to audiences how the 2007-2008 financial crisis caused the housing market bubble to burst, using a bunch of investor characters who needed to unpack it while not leaving us in immediate comas.
The plot suggests an intriguing triple play that combines the outside-of-box thinking of " Moneyball ," the can-do gumption of " Jerry Maguire " and the mass-of-humanity chaos of " Slumdog Millionaire " underscored with music by the Oscar-winning A.R. Rahman.
While these films have classically been about the coaches and the players, the last few years have shown us an interesting shift, with films like Bennett Miller’s Moneyball and Ivan Reitman’s Draft Day instead putting the spotlight on the men in suits who view sports more from a business perspective than an athletic one.
With a focus on the business end of things, Million Dollar Arm plays more like 2012?s Moneyball , but with half the budget and so better chance for a higher profit margin.
It’s not as if Hollywood executives fail to grasp that exceptions like “Moneyball” and “The Blind Side” were hits precisely because they didn’t feel like “sports movies,” because you didn’t have to know or care about on-base-plus-slugging or Texas high school football to follow the story.
This Disney attempt to put an international spin on “Moneyball” delivers only the basics in a plot that needs details.
I prefer sports movies with more sass and snap, like the films Ron Shelton (“Bull Durham”) used to make, or even parts of “Moneyball.”
The sets here are impressively realized, especially Thompson’s sterile fashion house, designed with a cold, clinical precision that contrasts well with the Carol Reed-like collapsing brick building that Cruella and her pals transform into a bohemian home (I can imagine the look of Oliver! informing a lot of the design choices made there).
What follows is a mixture between the musical Oliver! and The Devil Wears Prada .
Inspired by Charles Dickens’ “Oliver Twist” and set amid the 1970s London fashion scene, director Craig Gillespie and screenwriters Dana Fox and Tony McNamara have given the iconic villain a sensational makeover as well as heart and a reason for why she turned so wicked.
The three of them are like the child thieves of — again — Dickens’ “Oliver Twist.”
If the two-guys-and-a-girl antics pack some of the New Wave vitality of “Band of Outsiders,” the serpentine tracking shots and nonstop needle drops often seem to be channeling “Goodfellas.”