Cruella

200m seems like a shocking figure.
I'd imagine that there isnt much cgi in the film, so that should have kept the costs low.

Deleted User wrote: »

Top Gun 2 which had a lot of CGI plus Tom Cruises fee was $152m.

You would really wonder how they managed to spend 200m on Cruella.

The usual answer to that question would be: Hollywood Accounting. Quote:

Expenditures can be inflated to reduce or eliminate the reported profit of the project, thereby reducing the amount which the corporation must pay in taxes and royalties or other profit-sharing agreements, as these are based on the net profit.

pixelburp wrote: »

Ah, nothing ever solidifies my raging left wing sensibilities than when I read about corporations' deft avoidance to pay their share of tax. Eat the Rich n' all.

As to Cruella, I wonder what projections might have been like had cinemas been a global going concern. I can't seriously believe this was ever thought to have billion dollar potential. It's one thing to remake a beloved classic in live action and watch the money flood in, this always smelt like a weird, brave swing (insofar as nostalgia gouging can be considered brave)

Another factor they are going to have to take account of in the future is that by fracturing the market so badly for streaming services they have fueled piracy.
They have ignored the lessons of the music industry and decided they all need their own service and charge their own sub. Whilst spending billions to develop their own platforms and purchase content.

I dont know anyone who can afford HBO/Sky , Disney , Netflix , Prime and the host of others you would need to access all the content out there.

If they all contributed to a platform and charged a reasonable fee for a series then lots of people would take that option. Alot of people have bought new tvs and sound systems in the pandemic and will skip the cinema for mediocre releases.

I watched this tonight, and boy is it long. I had to insert an intermission before the fourth act. I thought it was OK as a vehicle for two very good actresses to chew the scenery, while the rest of the main cast were relatively understated.

I can hear where a good chunk of the budget went: on the soundtrack. The rights to use Ike & Tina Turner's cover of Led Zeppelin's Whole Lotta Love, or The Beatles' Come Together, can not have been cheap, and the whole film is stuffed with good 60s and 70s songs. The last time I remember being hit over the head like this, with songs telling me how to feel, was Sleepless In Seattle.

The Phantom Pain wrote: »

This is gonna sound strange but I was enjoying it and it got a few laughs out of me until Disney pussied out after the subversive reveal that she did, in fact, skin the dogs with "lol not really". This isn't a spoiler because this is Disney so you should know by now that they're never going to make teh main character an actual villain.

It was still Disney in 1996 that had Cruella order the skinning of the Dalmatians.


Watched this evening, very fun and the two Emma's nailed their respective roles IMO

Decent film overall - 7/10. Not a classic but not a bad way to spend a few hours either.


It could do with a little editing to shorten it up.

The narration in the first 15mins is a little bit grinding in that its really spelling it out for you.

The music is hit after hit , but maybe its all a little bit too obvious and on the nose. Not a fan of how the music was used in this movie.

The "twist" in the final act had me thinking how sloppy and loose the writing and editing were in general.

Cruella's Henchmen , i am not sure why they were still hanging around by the end.



Its modern disney with excellent production values etc. But there is no edge to the movie and its in dire need of a sharper edge.

bnt wrote: »

I ended up wondering what could have changed in Cruella between the end of this film and the start of the original book. In that she's a maniac obsessed with fur, even marrying a furrier just to get direct access to his fur inventory. At that point, to her, the puppies are merely a source of fur to be exploited. Jasper and Horace are happy to follow her orders. We know she didn't kill the three Dalmatians she kidnapped for fur, this time, that's the best we can say.

I really enjoyed the film and I had the very same thought!

Her character at the end of this movie would have you wondering how she turned into the monster who skins puppies alive in the original film. In fact, this Cruella appears to be very enamoured of dogs, not someone who would ever conceive of doing such a barbaric thing.

It was the the one jarring aspect of the plot for me.

I enjoyed it myself aswell, the performances from the main two the obvious high point. The writing was fairly flawed and minutes were wasted here and there that would have been best edited away. The false reveal of her in particular was a severe bum note.

The soundtrack was neat enough for the most part, pity though it signed off with Sympathy for the De vil :rolleyes: given the premise of the film I'd say I'm not the only one who upon the opening notes drew comparisons immediately and all you can go is "ah here" and they waited to initiate this in the very last scene no less! A fluffy trailer to promote fair enough, last scene in the actual picture...cringe. :pac:

Have to say; initial reaction fair enough but kinda surprised the narrative that this is a Joker rip off is apparently still being pushed. I mean that was a more on the nose film about mental illness which drew inspiration from Taxi driver, here we have a girl who was a tear away from a very early age who formulates a path to success, Joker ultimately became the villain everyone knows,Cruella didn't I think it's fair to say.
I think there seems to be an odd obsession these days to compare the latest female led movie to a pre-existing male counterpart, sure there's been many films that way by design but shoddy journos seem to strive in looking for them when it is barely there or not there at all in some cases. Emma Stone was cast as Cruella before Todd Phillips even wrote his script, crazy huh.

I haven't been endeared as much by a live action Disney film in this vein so for that alone it's a relative success, while some of the glaring question marks are simply too hard for me to overlook even at that I just can't knock Stone and Thompson here at all, honestly without them you're probably looking at bang average show. Mark Strong is reliable as always too in his smaller role but worth a shout.

Maybe just to note this isn't really a kids film they'd want to be upwards of 9 range perhaps to have any take away from this, which also has me question why they hit the periphery of a dark element but then I just accept that it's just part of the essence of Disney in 2021.

Now on general Disney+ release.