Latest news with #Cruella
Time Out
5 days ago
- Entertainment
- Time Out
101 Dalmatians
This review is from 101 Dalmatians' original 2022 run at the Open Air Theatre. It returns to the Hammersmith Apollo for a summer 2025 run starring Sydnie Christmas as Cruella de Vil. Adapted direct from Dodie Smith's 1956 kids' book – ie, absolute not a Disney production – '101 Dalmatians' is a scrappy affair. It's the first ever original musical from the Regent's Park Open Air Theatre, and it boasts charming puppetry, big-name writers and a scream of a turn from Kate Fleetwood as the evil Cruella de Vil. But by the towering standards of the OAT – known for its revelatory musical revivals – it's pretty uneven. If you just view it as a fun kids' show, you'd be more forgiving. In fact, I was pretty forgiving: I skipped press night and took my children the following afternoon. However, I wouldn't say it's really been pushed as a show for youngsters: historically the OAT's musicals are aimed at an adult audience, the evening finish is certainly too late for my children, and the foregrounding of Fleetwood's villainous Cruella de Vil in the publicity recalls Disney's more adult-orientated spin-off film of last year ('Cruella'). Anyway: my kids had fun at Timothy Sheader's production. I mean, it starts with a protracted bottom-sniffing scene, for crying out loud, as grown-up dalmatians Pongo (Danny Collins and Ben Thompson) and Perdi (Emma Lucia and Yana Penrose) meet for the first time, give each other a good honk up the backside, fall in love and nudge their bookish, introverted human owners Dominic (Eric Stroud) and Danielle (Karen Fishwick) into starting a relationship. Skip forward a bit and humans and hounds have moved in together, and the latter have produced 15 babies. Uber puppet designer and director Toby Olié's spotty pooches are proper showstoppers: Pongo and Perdi have large, mobile forebodies operated by a puppeteer and hind legs shared with the human actor who speaks their lines: Emma Lucia is particularly charming as a compassionate, north-eastern Perdi. The innumerable puppies are generally just represented by their heads… and they're jolly sweet, too. In Johnny McKnight's stage adaptation of Zinnie Harris's contemporary update, the canine idyll is punctured by the arrival of Fleetwood's De Vil, a psychopathic influencer who is, by and large, extremely funny as she self-pityingly inveigles her way into our heroes' lives, then persuades herself she absolutely must have – and deserves – a dalmatian-puppy-skin coat. With a succession of increasingly frightening fright wigs, her forever remarkable cheekbones, and some full-on panto-villain vibes, Fleetwood is an absolute joy. She's also the focal point of the most visually imaginative moments of Sheader's production: a spirited, cartoon-style attempt to use puppetry to look like her hair and arms have popped out after she swallows a dodgy potion; and most impressively, a tableau at the end of the first half where the dancers line up in formation behind her to form the giant puppyskin coat of her fantasies (there's deliciously lurid costume design from Katrina Lindsay). Lots of positives, then, but as a whole, it feels pretty all over the shop. Much as Harris has updated the story, neither she nor McKnight have solved its problems: the abrupt second-half switch of focus to a group of child actors playing a quartet of escaped puppies is tonally disorientating and lays an awful lot of pressure on some very young performers. Even taking that on the chin as a necessity of the story, there were too many moments when I struggled to work out exactly what was going on (Cruella's initial capture of Pongo and Perdi, for instance, was baffling – she seemingly only managed to abduct them from their home because a scene change happened around them). There's also simply a dearth of memorable characters beyond Cruella: Perdi is lovely, but her aside it's hard to feel especially invested in the bland good guys (beyond the obvious fact that skinning puppies is bad). And while stage legend Douglas Hodge's wordy, string-and-brass-heavy songs are pleasant and good at keeping the story ticking along, there's a lack of killer tunes that might have compensated for other shortcomings – although the joyous finale 'One Hundred and One' is a keeper. My kids didn't care about any of this: they enjoyed two hours of a lighthearted good vs evil yarn with some cool puppets and a boo-hissable villain. They didn't worry about the merits of '101 Dalmatians' as a musical for the ages. And if you can take the same attitude, you'll have a blast, or at least you'll have a blast in the good bits. But ultimately the Open Air Theatre is one of the best musical theatre venues in London, and by its own extremely lofty standards, '101 Dalmatians' is a bit of a dog's dinner.
Pink Villa
21-05-2025
- Entertainment
- Pink Villa
Box Office: Lilo and Stitch live-action opens to 73 percent on RT, eyes USD 175M plus global weekend
Disney's live-action adaptation of Lilo & Stitch has kicked off its international rollout with promising momentum, opening to a solid 73 percent score on Rotten Tomatoes. The film is set to debut overseas today, with a US release scheduled for this Friday, May 23, preceded by Thursday previews. The aforementioned critical reception makes Lilo & Stitch one of the better-reviewed Disney live-action films ever. In terms of critic scores, it trails only behind Cruella, Cinderella, and The Jungle Book, which each earned 75 percent, 84 percent, and 94 percent ratings on RT. Lilo & Stitch sits comfortably ahead of other live-action adaptations such as Snow White (39 percent), Maleficent: Mistress of Evil (40 percent), Dumbo (46 percent), Alice in Wonderland (50 percent), The Lion King (51 percent), Maleficent (54 percent), Aladdin (57 percent), Mufasa: The Lion King (57 percent), and Beauty and the Beast (71 percent). Critics who enjoyed the film praised it for its magical, heartfelt storytelling and often cited it as the best live-action remake in the Disney lineup so far. The remake's charm lies in its balance of humor, emotion, and faithful homage to the original 2002 animated classic. Some dissenting voices, however, questioned the necessity of the remake, suggesting it didn't bring enough new elements to justify its existence. Directed by Dean Fleischer Camp and scripted by Chris Kekaniokalani Bright and Mike Van Waes, Lilo & Stitch blends live action and animation in a fresh way. Maia Kealoha stars in her feature film debut as Lilo Pelekai, bringing youthful energy to the film. The original animated film's creator, Chris Sanders, returns to voice Stitch, adding a nostalgic element to the flick. The supporting cast includes Sydney Elizabeth Agudong, Hannah Waddingham, Billy Magnussen, Zach Galifianakis, and Courtney B. Vance, alongside returning original cast members Tia Carrere, Amy Hill, and Jason Scott Lee. The story follows a lonely Hawaiian girl named Lilo who adopts Stitch, a genetically engineered alien who resembles a dog. Unaware of Stitch's destructive programming and the extraterrestrial forces hunting him, Lilo teaches him the true meaning of family, which is at the heart of the story. With strong pre-sales reported from across Latin America, Australia, New Zealand, and Europe and a decent showing in China, Lilo & Stitch is expected to pull in over USD 175 million worldwide during its opening weekend. The film premiered at the El Capitan Theatre in Los Angeles on May 17, and with its positive buzz, it looks poised to write Memorial Day box office history.
Business Upturn
08-05-2025
- Entertainment
- Business Upturn
Inside Emma Stone's $40 Million Empire: Real Estate, Paychecks & Brand Power in 2025
Emma Stone has quietly and consistently built one of the most impressive financial portfolios in modern Hollywood. With a combination of Academy Award-winning performances, lucrative production deals, prime real estate investments, and premium brand endorsements, the 'La La Land' star has turned her acting talent into a diversified and powerful empire. As of 2025, Emma Stone's net worth is estimated at $40 million, reflecting not only her A-list status but also her astute business acumen. In this in-depth analysis, we unpack the full scope of Emma Stone's income sources, explore how her net worth grew over time, and examine what makes her financial trajectory uniquely successful in an industry that rarely guarantees long-term wealth. From her breakout in Easy A to her transformation into a producer and global brand ambassador, Emma Stone is far more than just an actress—she is a multimillion-dollar enterprise. Emma Stone net worth in 2025: Updated breakdown of assets and income As of 2025, Emma Stone's net worth is valued at approximately $40 million, according to estimates from celebrity wealth trackers and industry financial data. This substantial figure is driven by multiple revenue streams, including acting salaries, backend deals, executive production credits, real estate holdings, and high-profile endorsements. How much did Emma Stone earn from 'La La Land' and 'Cruella'? Emma Stone's earnings saw a dramatic rise following her Oscar-winning performance in 'La La Land' (2016). While her base salary for the role was reportedly $2.5 million, she earned additional bonuses due to the film's massive global success—grossing over $446 million worldwide. Combined with performance bonuses, her total payout from the film is estimated to be $8–10 million. Her portrayal of the iconic villain in 'Cruella' (2021) marked her transition into both lead star and producer. According to Variety , Stone earned $8 million upfront for the role, with further profits tied to the film's streaming performance on Disney+. Some reports estimate her final payout at $10–12 million including backend deals and merchandise royalties, given the film's success on Disney+. Emma Stone's real estate portfolio: Properties from LA to Manhattan Emma Stone's real estate investments significantly contribute to her overall wealth. In 2022, she sold her charming Malibu cottage for $4.3 million, making a tidy profit after purchasing it for just under $3.2 million in 2018. Her primary residence is now a $7 million townhouse in Manhattan's West Village, known for its exclusivity and celebrity neighbors. Additionally, she owns a luxurious condo in Austin, Texas, valued at approximately $2.5 million, and a modern LA mansion purchased for $3.9 million in 2021. Stone's portfolio emphasizes long-term value and location, reflecting a smart investment strategy that balances personal comfort with financial return. All revenue streams that fuel Emma Stone's millionaire status Movie salaries and profit participation Over the years, Stone has seen her per-film salary skyrocket. By 2017, following her Oscar win, she became one of the highest-paid actresses in the world. Some of her notable paychecks include: 'The Favourite' (2018) – Estimated salary: $1.4 million 'Cruella' (2021) – Estimated salary: $8–12 million 'Poor Things' (2023) – Estimated salary: $5–6 million , with backend bonuses 'Kinds of Kindness' (2024) – Undisclosed but estimated at $5 million+ due to her continued collaboration with acclaimed director Yorgos Lanthimos Stone has also negotiated backend profit participation in several of her films, a revenue model that gives her a share of the movie's overall profit—a strategy that significantly boosts her earnings when the films perform well. Brand endorsements and fashion collaborations In the luxury brand world, Emma Stone is a marquee name. Since 2017, she has been a global ambassador for Louis Vuitton, with her endorsement deal reportedly worth $6–10 million over several years. Her campaigns include global fragrance ads, runway promotions, and exclusive capsule collections. She has also been linked with: Revlon (early 2010s): Estimated total payout: $2–3 million Chanel and Valentino (frequent collaborator): While not confirmed as a formal spokesperson, she has been compensated generously for red-carpet appearances and media campaigns. As of 2025, Stone is rumored to be finalizing a new endorsement deal with a major eco-conscious luxury label, potentially adding another $5 million to her endorsement earnings. Producing ventures and executive credits Emma Stone's production company, Fruit Tree, co-founded with husband Dave McCary, has been instrumental in transitioning her career from actress to Hollywood power player. Through Fruit Tree, Stone has executive produced: 'Cruella' (2021) 'When You Finish Saving the World' (2022) 'Problemista' (2023) 'I Saw the TV Glow' (2024) While exact financial figures from these productions are private, executive producers on successful indie films can earn $500,000 to $2 million depending on box office performance, streaming rights, and syndication deals. In total, her production earnings are estimated to exceed $5 million by early 2025, with growing influence as she acquires new rights and expands into streaming platforms. Emma Stone's lifestyle and spending: Where does the money go? While Emma Stone maintains a relatively low-profile lifestyle compared to some A-list peers, she's not shy about spending on what she values—real estate, philanthropy, and a few indulgent luxuries. Philanthropy and activism Stone has long supported mental health initiatives, a cause close to her heart due to personal family experiences. She has donated to and collaborated with: Child Mind Institute Time's Up Legal Defense Fund Autism Speaks While specific donation amounts aren't always made public, Stone reportedly donates six figures annually, and has participated in multiple high-value fundraising campaigns. Luxury purchases and assets Though not one to flaunt her wealth, Stone has been spotted driving a Tesla Model X and occasionally wearing custom couture pieces valued at $50,000+ per outfit during film festivals and award shows. She's also known for her taste in fine art, owning limited edition pieces from contemporary American artists, estimated to be worth over $500,000 collectively. Her financial team reportedly manages a diversified investment portfolio, including index funds, tech stocks, and sustainable startups, but the bulk of her wealth remains in real estate and entertainment ventures. From 'Easy A' to empire: The evolution of Emma Stone's financial journey Emma Stone began her career with modest roles in films like Superbad and Zombieland , earning between $250,000 and $500,000 per project in the early stages. Her breakout role in Easy A (2010) put her on the Hollywood map, and her momentum only increased with roles in: The Help (2011) The Amazing Spider-Man (2012, 2014) Birdman (2014) La La Land (2016) Winning the Academy Award for Best Actress in 2017 not only cemented her prestige—it fundamentally elevated her financial ceiling. She transitioned from high-paying roles to multi-hyphenate ventures, combining acting, producing, and brand building. Since 2021, her focus has shifted toward independent cinema, auteur collaborations, and streaming projects, a move that offers both creative freedom and backend profit in today's distribution ecosystem. Tap to watch the video Conclusion: The rising financial legacy of Emma Stone Emma Stone's net worth of $40 million in 2025 is a testament to more than just acting prowess—it reflects her strategic diversification, long-term real estate investment, and growing influence as a producer and brand icon. Whether she's leading a $100 million Disney film or backing an A24 indie darling, Stone brings not just star power but also financial foresight and creative control. As her career continues to evolve, her fortune is expected to grow steadily, especially with more production projects, digital platform partnerships, and high-end endorsement deals on the horizon. For fans and financial analysts alike, Emma Stone's wealth breakdown is not just impressive—it's a case study in sustainable Hollywood success.
Asharq Al-Awsat
02-05-2025
- Entertainment
- Asharq Al-Awsat
When Did Disney Villains Stop Being So Villainous? New Show Suggests They May Just Be Misunderstood
Cruella de Vil wanted to turn Dalmatian puppies into fur coats, Captain Hook tried to bomb Peter Pan and Maleficent issued a curse of early death for Aurora. But wait, maybe these Disney villains were just misunderstood? That's the premise of a new musical show at Walt Disney World that has some people wondering: When did Disney's villains stop wanting to be so ... villainous? The live show, "Disney Villains: Unfairly Ever After," debuts May 27 at Disney's Hollywood Studios park at the Orlando, Florida, resort. In the show, the three baddies of old-school Disney movies plead their cases before an audience that they are the most misunderstood villains of them all. "We wanted to tell a story that's a little different than what's been told before: Which one of them has been treated the most unfairly ever after?" Mark Renfrow, a creative director of the show, said in a promotional video. That hook - the narrative kind, not the captain - is scratching some Disney observers the wrong way. "I think it's wonderful when you still have stories where villains are purely villainous," said Benjamin Murphy, a professor of philosophy and religious studies at Florida State University's campus in Panama. "When you have villains reveling in their evil, it can be amusing and satisfying." Disney has some precedent for putting villains in a sympathetic light, or at least explaining how they got to be so evil. The 2021 film, "Cruella," for instance, presents a backstory for the dog-hater played by actor Emma Stone that blames her villainy on her birth mother never wanting her. Other veins of pop culture have rethought villains too, perhaps none more famously than the book, theatrical musical and movie versions of "Wicked," the reinterpretation of the Wicked Witch of the West character from "The Wonderful Wizard of Oz." The blockbuster success of "Wicked, " which was based on the 1995 novel "Wicked: The Life and Times of the Wicked Witch of the West," sparked the trend of rethinking villains in popular entertainment, Murphy said. "With trends like that, the formula is repeated and repeated until it's very predictable: Take a villain and make them sympathetic," he said. The centuries-old fairy tales upon which several Disney movies are based historically were meant to teach children a lesson, whether it was not to get close to wolves (Little Red Riding Hood, The Three Little Pigs) or trust strange, old women in the woods (Hansel and Gretel, Rapunzel). But they often made marginalized people into villains - older women, people of color or those on the lower socioeconomic scale, said Rebecca Rowe, an assistant professor of children's literature at Texas A&M University-Commerce. The trend toward making villains more sympathetic started in the late 1980s and 1990s as children's media took off. There was a desire to present villains in a manner that was more complicated and less black and white, as there was an overall cultural push toward emphasizing acceptance, she said. "The problem is everyone has swung so hard into that message, that we have kind of lost the villainous villains," Rowe said. "There is value in the villainous villains. There are people who just do evil things. Sometimes there is a reason for it, but sometimes not. Just because there is a reason doesn't mean it negates the harm." Whether it's good for children to identify with villains is complicated. There is a chance they adopt the villains' traits if it's what they identify with, but then some scholars believe it's not a bad thing for children to empathize with characters who often are part of marginalized communities, Rowe said. The Disney villains also tend to appeal to adults more than children. They also appreciate the villains' campiness, with some "Disney princesses" gladly graduating into "evil queens." Erik Paul, an Orlando resident who has had a year-round pass to Disney World for the past decade, isn't particularly fond of the villains, but understands why Disney would want to frame them in a more sympathetic light in a show dedicated just to them. "I know friends who go to Hollywood Studios mainly to see the villain-related activities," Paul said. "Maybe that's why people like the villains because they feel misunderstood as well, and they feel a kinship to the villains."
Washington Post
02-05-2025
- Entertainment
- Washington Post
When did Disney villains stop being so villainous? New show suggests they may just be misunderstood
ORLANDO, Fla. — Cruella de Vil wanted to turn Dalmatian puppies into fur coats, Captain Hook tried to bomb Peter Pan and Maleficent issued a curse of early death for Aurora. But wait, maybe these Disney villains were just misunderstood? That's the premise of a new musical show at Walt Disney World that has some people wondering when did Disney's villains stop wanting to be so ... villainous? The live show, 'Disney Villains: Unfairly Ever After,' debuts May 27 at the Disney's Hollywood Studios park at the Orlando, Florida resort. In the show, the three baddies of old-school Disney movies plead their cases before an audience that they are the most misunderstand villain of them all. 'We wanted to tell a story that's a little different than what's been told before: which one of them has been treated the most unfairly ever after,' Mark Renfrow, a creative director of the show, said in a promotional video . That hook — the narrative kind, not the captain — is scratching some Disney observers the wrong way. 'I think it's wonderful when you still have stories where villains are purely villainous,' said Benjamin Murphy, a professor of philosophy and religious studies at Florida State University's campus in Panama. 'When you have villains reveling in their evil, it can be amusing and satisfying.' Disney has some precedent for putting villains in a sympathetic light, or at least explaining how they got to be so evil. The 2021 film, 'Cruella,' for instance, presents a backstory for the dog-hater played by actress Emma Stone that blames her villainy on her mother never wanting her. Other veins of pop culture have rethought villains too, perhaps none more famously than the book, theatrical musical and movie versions of 'Wicked,' the reinterpretation of the Wicked Witch of the West character from 'The Wonderful Wizard of Oz.' The blockbuster success of 'Wicked," which was based on the 1995 novel 'Wicked: The Life and Times of the Wicked Witch of the West,' sparked the trend of rethinking villains in popular entertainment, Murphy said. 'With trends like that, the formula is repeated and repeated until it's very predictable: take a villain and make them sympathetic,' he said. The centuries-old fairy tales upon which several Disney movies are based historically were meant to teach children a lesson, whether it was not to get close to wolves (Little Red Riding Hood, The Three Little Pigs) or trust strange, old women in the woods (Hansel and Gretel, Rapunzel). But they often made marginalized people into villains — older women, people of color or those on the lower socio-economic scale, said Rebecca Rowe, an assistant professor of children's literature at Texas A&M University-Commerce. The trend toward making villains more sympathetic started in the late 1980s and 1990s as children's media took off. There was a desire to present villains in a manner that was more complicated and less black and white, as there was an overall cultural push toward emphasizing acceptance, she said. 'The problem is everyone has swung so hard into that message, that we have kind of lost the villainous villains,' Rowe said. 'There is value in the villainous villains. There are people who just do evil things. Sometimes there is a reason for it, but sometimes not. Just because there is a reason doesn't mean it negates the harm.' Whether it's good for children to identify with villains is complicated. There is a chance they adopt the villains' traits if it's what they identify with, but then some scholars believe it's not a bad thing for children to empathize with characters who often are part of marginalized communities, Rowe said. The Disney villains also tend to appeal to adults more than children, as well as members of the LGBTQ+ community who have felt marginalized in the past, with some 'Disney princesses' gladly graduating into 'evil queens.' Erik Paul, an Orlando resident who has had a year-round pass to Disney World for the past decade, isn't particularly fond of the villains, but he understands why Disney would want to frame them in a more sympathetic light in a show dedicated just to them. 'I know friends who go to Hollywood Studios mainly to see the villain-related activities,' Paul said. 'Maybe that's why people like the villains because they feel misunderstood as well, and they feel a kinship to the villains.' ___ Follow Mike Schneider, author of 'Mickey and the Teamsters,' on the social platform Bluesky: @ .
