Supergirl – the latest film from DC Studios – has generated plenty of discussions since its release as part of the 2026 movie schedule, and not all of it has been good. While early reactions to the latest DCU movie were mostly positive, audience and critical reception has been mostly mixed since, and the film is now flopping at the box office. Various film pundits have seemingly been analyzing the situation, trying to assess what happened. Now, insiders are sharing claims about early test screenings, and they were allegedly less than stellar.

As is the case with many major studio films, Craig Gillespie’s Supergirl was subject to test screenings, which are used to test the waters in regard to what hits and what doesn’t hit for audiences. It was reported back in October that DC Studios Co-CEO James Gunn held a secret screening for executives and some close friends. That aside, THR recently reported that Gillespe’s latest movie was marred by creative differences with Gunn, one of the film’s producers and, as a result, the post-production process was supposedly hectic.

Insiders also alleged that the Milly Alcock-led superhero film ultimately had at least four official test screenings held between December 2025 and March 2026. The test scores are tallied out of 100 points, and sources claimed the movie “never escaped” the 60s. However, another source claimed the best score the movie attained was a 70. Yet an additional insider provided a different alleged take, as they claimed the film achieved test scores in the low 70s by the winter after changes were made to the cut.

Still, creative disagreements apparently persisted for different reasons, including the film’s music (and that final-battle needle drop). THR’s sources alleged that, in time, a second cut of the film was produced by the studio and was put into a “bakeoff” with Gillespie’s cut. Apparently, Gillespie’s version was 11 minutes longer and included more of Matthias Schoenaerts’ Krem of the Yellow Hills (the film’s thin and MCU-esque villain). After both cuts screened, scores reportedly dropped all around, but the studios’ won out by only two points.

The test screening process can definitely be tedious but, in many ways, it can help indicate how an audience will respond to a film. As for creative disagreements, those can happen as well, and the results can vary. Per a source, a bakeoff “happens more than you think, but it’s not normal.” Regardless of what really happened behind closed doors between Gillespie, Gunn and co. from a creative standpoint, insiders said most of Supergirl’s test scores were in the 60s, which are the scores that fellow DC flicks Shazam! Fury of the Gods and the scrapped Batgirl also apparently earned.

Supergirl’s box office debut was lackluster, with the film only earning $38 million domestically during its opening weekend and finished those first few days with $68 million worldwide. The domestic number was notably below expectations, which had the film earning between $39 million up to $55 million. For context, the film reportedly has a $175 million production budget, and it needs to make somewhere between $315 million and $375 million to break even. As for how the film will perform during this 4th of July holiday weekend, Forbes is forecasting a 73% drop and $10 million domestic haul.

The poor reception to Craig Gillespie’s film isn’t deterring DC Studios, though. Co-CEO Peter Safran acknowledged that the movie’s performance wasn’t what was hoped for, but he emphasized that it was only one part of a larger plan for the DCU. And, per Safran, he, Gunn and his colleagues remain hopeful about their strategy. To that point, Milly Alcock will reprise her role as Kara Zor-El in Gunn’s Man of Tomorrow, which opens in theaters in 2027. I’d imagine execs are hoping for higher test scores when it comes to that movie.

After this past weekend, I dare say it will be tough for any future 2026 movie releases to “win” a Worst Needle Drop poll, because public opinion seems to have placed that crown atop the wind-blown blonde hair (and headphones) of Supergirl, thanks in large part to the third act’s much-criticized climactic fight sequence. The action plays out to the tune of Jimmy Eat World’s 2001 single “The Middle,” or rather a revamped cover of that track from Kelty Greye and KidMotel, and the sequence has underwhelmed audiences.

Okay, that may be overly smoothing things over. That choice of song, for one reason or several others, severely rattled people in ways that are normally reserved for baffling casting choices and head-smacking character choices. So to learn that director Craig Gillespie, screenwriter Ana Nogueira & Co. went through around 45 song options before landing on “The Middle,” well that was just a bridge too far. When asked by Rolling Stone about landing on that particular soundtrack entry, the creative duo shared:

• ANA NOGUEIRA: Oh, God. It went ’round and ’round, didn’t it? There were a lot of options.
• CRAIG GILLESPIE: That was probably the biggest discussion. And it was down to the very last week, and I gotta give James credit for that one.

Two major details to take away from that, I’d think. One, that this decision stayed unfinalized until nearly the last minute, and two, that James Gunn got the hat tip for the suggestion. Although I dare say DC fans clocked that second fact the moment the song started. Or even when the movie started. Or when the first trailer was released. (I’m sure some people think he’ll be responsible for curating soundtracks for every upcoming DCU movie under his umbrella.)

The pair were then asked if they’d specifically commissioned the cover to use in the movie, and I’m not sure if it’s better or worse that it wasn’t. As Nogueira and Gillespie put it:

• ANA NOGUEIRA: No, I think we just found it.
• CRAIG GILLESPIE: But there were probably about 45 songs that went against that scene.

It is wild and more than a little stress-inducing to think about watching any movie scene set to 45 different songs. And I would love to know what the full rundown of songs was, even though that'll likely never come to light. But now it's time to bring in the fan comments.

Audiences Did Not Hold Back Disdain For Supergirl's Use Of "The Middle"

Obviously Supergirl's lower-than-expected box office debut can't be entirely blamed on the film's music, but you might think that was the case judging by some of the pointed complaining and lambasting happening on Reddit in response to Gillespie's admissions. Here are some of the more clearly stated takes.

• Worst part of the movie for me, wrong choice by far - @darthmcchub
• It’s clear Gillespie was trying to do a James Gunn impersonation, anyone saying otherwise is lying to themselves. - @Ok-Wash-9386
• I was thinking if they were gonna incorporate needle drops, why not have it be a different sound than what Gunn usually does. Like if Supergirl is a party girl she should listen to EDM and the soundtrack should be a bunch of that - @dismal_windfall
• Ive probably never cringed so bad at scene in a movie in my life tbh. It was such a weird choice. Like there’s no way anybody who makes movies for a living looked at that and said this looks and sounds phenomenal… - @Spiritual_Duck318
• I'm of the opinion that the film shouldn't have had any needle drops at all. I actually like the main theme they cooked up for Supergirl. The scene would have worked a whole lot better (and the rest of the movie too) if they used it. - @DoctorBeatMaker
• This movie really reminded me of the Mario movie with how out of place and unnecessary the needle drops were. - @HyrulesKnight
• Yeah The slomo 360 scene with a pop song in the background was just a worse version of the one from Gunn’s Superman - @who-dat-ninja
• They should have either went with the Supergirl theme or cashed in their synergistic marketing chips and blasted "Call Me" during that sequence. Using "The Middle" (especially that rendition) just didn't work - @Flat_Fox_7318

Honestly, I would have bet all kinds of money on a remixed rendition of Blondie's "Call Me" being utilized for Supergirl's brawl with Krem and his army, and am still gobsmacked that it didn't happen that way. Maybe this will be a situation where somehow the rights to that cover of "The Middle" will default, and it'll get replaced by something else down the line. Is that situation something that ever happens? But can it?

Let's give it up for the one commenter who gave Craig Gillespie and James Gunn a (Krypto-approved) bone and lightly defended the use of the song for thematic purposes...before then echoing another commenter's d-mning non-praise.

• Kara was protecting the girl throughout that scene so it makes some sense that “everything will be alright”. That’s where the relevance starts and ends though cause I never physically cringed at a needle drop more in my life. - @chrisychris-

I guess it's sometimes better to be remembered for something rotten than to be so boring that no one remembers anything at all. But it's arguable.

As far as Supergirl's actual ending goes, I was a fan of how it changed up Tom King's comic resolution, and set Kara up as a powerful counterpart to her morally stoic cousin in Man of Tomorrow, and it'll be interesting to see how much she does or doesn't get along with the newly power-suited Lex Luthor.

Major spoilers below for the newest DCU movie Supergirl, so limit your super-senses if you haven’t yet watched.

Anyone who thought Supergirl would be one of those 2026 movie releases that sparks absolutely zero backlashes and gripe-filled tirades, the past week or two much have felt like pure hell. Reviews for the comic book adaptation have seemingly skewed far more negative than positive, with gobs of DCU skeptics quick to rain down the hate. I had a pretty good time overall, and enjoyed the characters more than the story, with my own biggest issues stemming from the myriad changes made in adapting Tom King and Bilquis Evely’s A+ comic miniseries.

Not all the alterations felt like kryptonite suns, to be sure, and I actually think the vastly different ending that caps the live-action version was the best move possible for Milly Alcock’s Supergirl future. But I’ll get to that after talking out some of the other changes.

I Was Surprised And Disappointed By Supergirl Skipping Over So Much Of Tom King's Storytelling

I'm a diehard fan of Tom King's writing most of the time, and while I understand that Supergirl's mass-market appeal meant we wouldn't get Ruthye's lofty and veering narration throughout the movie, I was gobsmacked by how many other elements from the source material were apparently absent from Ana Noguiera's screenplay. Though in retrospect, it's indubitably obvious why Woman of Tomorrow was removed as the film's subtitle.

To be sure, the basic idea of Ruthye's tagging along with Supergirl on a revenge mission to take down the murderous Krem is intact, as are some other elements like the green sun taking Supergirl out of commission during a pivotal time for Ruthye. But a lot of the poignant time-jaunts and side-stories that make King's narratives so rich on the page were replaced with more generic FX-driven battle sequences. Understandable, I guesssss. But not ideal.

Beyond the ending, the other obvious "change is good" exception is Jason Momoa's expertly visualized Lobo, who steals every scene he's in just by being a sneering mountain of enging-revving chaos. Ah, but this is still only a half-exception, since King's original idea for the comic's arc did include the immortal Czarnian. (I also really liked Matthias Schoenaerts' bonkers performance as Krem in a vacuum, but don't think it tops the comic's villain.)

I Think Changing Supergirl's Ending Was Absolutely Necessary For The Future Of The DCU

The final issue of Supergirl: Woman of Tomorrow starts of seemingly like it would be perfect fodder for live-action, then makes a leap that just doesn't happen in mainstream movies. (Spoilers for that ending for anyone who wants to avoid them.) Here's the heavily summarized version.

Ruthye has the smack-talking Krem captured as her hostage, and then lets him go for a one-on-one fight where she emerges victorious, but she's unable to bring herself to kill him. Supergirl then returns, and has a heartfelt talk with Ruthye that also quells her own urges to kill Krem. In a distant-future epilogue, Krem is released from the Phantom Zone as a repentant and haggard shadow of his former self, begging an elderly Ruthye for forgiveness. Her response is merely to thwack him with a cane and leave him to dwell in his shame and regrets.

A brilliant and meaningful coda that works without question in the comic book medium, but is so not Hollywood. Plus, that flash-forward was the perfect end for King and Evely's story, and without the impetus to set seeds for the future. Not the case for Supergirl, which needed to build up Alcock's return in Man of Tomorrow. So it was smart to change things for with an in-the-moment ending for the film.

More importantly, I love that Kara takes the moral high ground by stopping Ruthye from staining her conscience with Krem's murder, and then doesn't need to be pushed very hard into killing Krem herself. That cold-blooded act truly puts Supergirl into another category from her Kryptonian cousin (and presumably the DCU's eventual Batman), and justifies the "anti-hero" description that has been used by Gunn & Co. to describe her.

The fact that Lobo is so approving is a good sign that Kara's malicious actions would go over horribly with other protagonists. Which is a very smart building block (theoretically) to set up going into Man of Tomorrow, which will have Superman quasi-teaming up with Lex Luthor to stop Brainiac from destroying everything. Kara obviously leans closer to Clark than Lex on the moral scale, but the fact that she exists in the space between them will no doubt make them a joyful trifecta when the Gunn-directed film drops.

I already can't wait to watch Kara get sh-tfaced with Jason Todd and talk crap about their respective hero mates while sharing war stories. Even if that only ends up happening in my anonymous fan-fic. I mean, in someone's anonymous fan-fic.

Supergirl is currently in theaters, and all kinds of comic books written by Tom King are currently in stores and libraries and on your smart friends' shelves. Read 'em.

As the second theatrical feature stemming from studio heads James Gunn and Peter Safran, Craig Gillespie’s Supergirl has as much riding on its success as any other upcoming DCU movies. A daunting responsibility that hasn’t been helped by alleged box office projections skewing lower than originally expected. Screenwriter Ana Noguiera knows a thing or two about flipped expectations, as she’d originally penned a script for Sasha Calle’s DCEU heroine before being tapped for the Milly Alcock-led project, and it’s a switch that she says helped inform the new film.

Though she’s likely legally barred from revealing any key details from her original Supergirl-centric storyline, Noguiera told EW that essentially nothing that she started with is in the 2026 movie release, but that didn’t devalue any of the efforts made. Specifically, she says having already spent so much time learning the ins and outs of the character’s superpowers was a boon for her second time at bat. (Not that kind of bat.) In her words:

At this point, Ana Noguiera brings up one of the most classic comic book questions of all time, and then answers it with a brilliant slice of comic book logic that James Gunn has also used when answering fan questions.

Fans of comic books and superheroes love to dig in and discuss (or pedantically argue) the peaks and limitations of Superman's powers, and the extreme circumstances that he may or may not be able to handle. But Noguiera amusingly makes it clear that there isn't a static and unmoving ceiling at which point Clark's powers run out, and there's no official power ranking number to give him.

Superman's overall power is limited only by any given creative team's imagination, and can be as widespread or as honed-in as writers want to make a story as strong as it can be. That's how he can fly so fast around the planet he turns time back in one instance without ever necessarily doubling back on that ability, unless another scribe sees it as fitting.

So if you ever happen upon an argument amongst comic fans about whether or not Batman could ever beat Superman, you can probably win that argument by stating "It all depends on who's writing the story," before clacking your heels together and spinning around a lightpost. Everyone will thank you, and no one will make fun of you.

Maybe you can find one of those conversations happening in theaters before or after Supergirl screenings. The movie has garnered all kinds of reactions from critics, as well as from those who attended early screenings, so it's anybody's guess at this point how many people will actually be watching in theaters and IMAX this weekend.

Supergirl will drunkenly sashay her way into theaters on Friday, June 26, but those wanting to get reacquainted with Krypto can do so by watching James Gunn’s Superman via HBO Max subscription.

Summer is the time for blockbusters, and nothing says popcorn flick quite like superheroes. The DCU’s second feature Supergirl is set to hit the 2026 movie calendar this weekend. First reactions to Supergirl praised Milly Alcock as the titular character, but now that reviews are out, the general consensus has been different. In fact, one critic has gone viral after completely lambasting the film.

So what's happening? And what are reviews saying?

One Critic’s Reaction To ‘Numbingly Flat’ Supergirl Causes Backlash

Supergirl reviews have dropped, but drawing nearly as much attention as the movie is Variety critic Owen Gleiberman and his strong disdain for the movie. And I mean strong. In his review, he calls the upcoming DC movie “super-horrendous,” saying it has the “worst script I can remember.” In his words:

He goes on to say he’s shocked that director Craig Gillespie was even capable of making something so “generic in its action and its attitudinizing.”

The backlash against the critic came quickly, particularly for one of Owen Gleiberman’s paragraphs that discussed Milly Alcock’s appearance, and people fired back on X (Twitter), writing:

• idk what movie you watched but I hope you get that hug you so desperately need. – hopsgeeknews
• Its fine not liking a movie but some of those digs seem pretty unprofessional like damn – TweetsByDM
• Criticising a woman’s look is your movie review? Fucking pathetic – EverythingDCU_

Not all of the comments aimed at the critic were so nice (or appropriate for repetition). One common refrain is that while it’s OK — and typical — for critics to disagree about a movie, Owen Gleiberman’s assessment is way harsher than those of his counterparts.

What Other Reviews Say About Supergirl

The majority of Supergirl reviews seem to fall kind of in the middle — not mind-blowingly great but not a disaster, either — like the low-stakes fun you often expect from a summer movie. CinemaBlend’s own Mack Rawden and Jessica Rawden had a pleasant experience at their screening, writing:

• Mack: Just a nice, fun crowd pleaser that pretty much anyone can enjoy. Really liked Milly, as well as the humor.
• Jessica: What Mack said, plus the runtime is so tight, which I personally appreciated. No bloat. I laughed out loud at Momoa’s lines in particular many times. It’s the perfect summer movie.

Other reviews seemed to fall more in line with these thoughts, as Tim Grierson of Screen International writes in his review:

Zaki Hasan of the San Francisco Chronicle also has an overall positive takeaway from an admittedly imperfect movie:

Amelia Emberwing at The Wrap also calls out Supergirl’s “muddled” action and says Jason Momoa was wholly unnecessary in this movie. Despite its faults, however, the heart of the movie remains intact throughout. Her review reads:

Last year's Superman was, indeed, more well-received than its followup, earning a Certified Fresh 83% on Rotten Tomatoes, compared to 57% for Milly Alcock’s flick. Just like the score, most of the reviews are in that middle range — and Supergirl’s box office projections aren’t A+ — but it’s clear that many don’t believe it’s bad enough to warrant such overly negative feedback.

Supergirl hits theaters Friday, June 26, so be sure to grab yourself a ticket so you can form your own opinion.

Summer is always a big time for blockbusters, and the 2026 movie calendar is certainly giving us a little bit of everything — we’ve got Star Wars, we’ve got a new Toy Story, and both the MCU and DCU will see representation. In fact, Supergirl is just the second feature in James Gunn and Peter Safran’s DC Universe, making the first reactions to the upcoming superhero movie especially important to fans. So what are people saying?

Last year’s Superman gave us a glimpse of the Man of Steel’s more jaded cousin Kara Zor-El (Milly Alcock), but now we’re moving far beyond that drunken cameo, and those who have caught an early screening have some pretty strong opinions about both Alcock as the titular antihero and Jason Momoa as Lobo. According to Drew Massey:

One X (Twitter) user says Milly Alcock proves she’s worthy of not just leading the DCU’s second movie but of carrying the future of the franchise. There are even aspects of Supergirl than this fan liked better than David Corenswet’s Superman:

Fay Watson of GamesRadar is one of many people getting Mad Max vibes from Supergirl, and she only wishes this kind of superhero flick would been available when she was a teenager. Watson says:

Germain Lussier of Gizmodo disagrees that the upcoming DC movie is better than Superman, but he does concede that it’s the “perfect” follow-up, with stronger characters that drive the movie’s emotional stakes. In the critic’s words:

Erik Davis notes an aloofness to Milly Alcock’s Kara, which was reflected in her informal attire at the Supergirl premiere. Davis posts:

Early reactions really are heaping praise on Milly Alcock, while all signs point to Jason Momoa having a blast as Lobo. Chris Killian of ComicBook.com writes:

Junior Felix of That Hollywood Show also calls the actress “perfect” for the role, and his only complaint about Lobo is that there wasn’t enough of him. Felix writes:

Brandon Davis admittedly isn’t as high on the superhero flick as others, though Milly Alcock doesn’t seem to be the issue at hand. Davis explains:

It’s encouraging to see so many positive responses to Milly Alcock and Jason Momoa in Supergirl, and now I’m even more pumped to see what the reviews have to say when they come out next week. The movie hits theaters on Friday, June 26, so get ready to grab that Lobo popcorn bucket (if you can call it a bucket) and reserve that ticket.

TRUTH, JUSTICE AND THE RIGHT TO PARTY.

Words to live by when you’re a superhero for our messy, chaotic age. “She’s unapologetic,” says Craig Gillespie, director of Supergirl, the next chapter of James Gunn’s rebooted DCU. “Her honesty and wanting to hold people to her own moral code is not necessarily in line with Superman. She has her own belief system that makes her truly independent. “These are all things we can really appreciate. In the midst of our very complicated times, to have somebody that’s holding people accountable and doing it from a very human place… She’s not asking to be in the spotlight. It’s been thrust upon her, this responsibility. She’s tried to avoid it in a way that’s very relatable. Eventually she realizes that she cannot avoid it, and she has to deal with it.”

Meet the new Maid of Might, a cynical, pleasure-seeking wild child hiding a world of trauma beneath her cape. It’s a fresh take that shakes up the traditional image of the DC icon. Originally a poster girl for wholesome Americana – even the fiery demise of her homeworld didn’t dent that indestructible smile – Kara Zor-El debuted on the comics page in 1959, introduced as the Man of Steel’s cousin, last survivor of Argo City.

She arrived on the big screen in 1984, played as a sky-soaring innocent by Helen Slater. 2023’s The Flash jettisoned the optimism to bring us Sasha Calle as a sullen, battle- hardened Kryptonian warrior. But while Calle had signed a multi-picture contract, Gunn and co-CEO Peter Safran’s creative overhaul of the DCU saw Milly Alcock step into the red boots, making a charismatic cameo in the closing moments of last summer’s Superman.

Best known as the heir to the Iron Throne, Rhaenyra Targaryen, Alcock was a given when Gillespie signed to direct. “That was a huge part of me wanting to do the movie, having that security of knowing who Supergirl is, and loving Milly as an actor. I’d seen her in House Of The Dragon and a lot of her work in Australia.

“Tonally, this dance that I love to do between the humour and the drama, I feel like it’s in an actor’s DNA. It’s like asking someone to play a tune on a piano, they either have the rhythm or they don’t, and I knew she had it. We had that kinship of being Australian together.

“This story goes to some very heavy emotional places and she can deliver that, no problem whatsoever. Also, having an actor that people aren’t familiar with was an amazing opportunity on a film of this scale. It rarely happens.”

Alcock rocks a Blondie tee in the movie, a wardrobe choice that Gillespie made to underline “this sort of rock ’n’ roll, punk attitude that she has. To be able to pull that off is not an easy feat as an actor. To have that carelessness and that coolness without trying. She manages to do it so well. It’s such a fine line, because it can get grating to an audience, where you can feel the affectations, but you truly feel like she does not care, in the best possible way.”

Some of that punk sensibility made its way into the filmmaking, too. “Just the grit of the whole thing,” Gillespie tells SFX. “The look of it, the camerawork, the lighting. It’s not what you would think of as a conventional superhero film. We sort of rebelled against that!”

Written by Ana Nogueira, currently at work on a reboot of Wonder Woman, the movie takes inspiration from Supergirl: Woman Of Tomorrow, the acclaimed 2021 comic book by Tom King and Bilquis Evely. Itself inspired by 1969’s John Wayne Western True Grit, the eight-issue miniseries teams Kara with Ruthye Marye Knoll, an alien girl who seeks justice after her father is slain by space pirate Krem of the Yellow Hills (Eve Ridley and Matthias Schoenaerts bring these characters to the screen).

“I got the script blind,” shares Gillespie. “I hadn’t read Supergirl: Woman Of Tomorrow and I deliberately didn’t pick it up before I saw the script. Two scenes in, I’m in. I’m absolutely in. There was this incredibly dark scene and then this incredibly irreverent, morally ambiguous character scene with [Kara].

“To have a superhero character – and particularly a female character – that’s so flawed and complicated, that’s what I was truly excited about. Then the gravy of it was it’s a whole galaxy that we have to create. It all happens off-planet. It’s its own story, completely isolated in a way. I’ve always wanted to do some sci-fi thing, so to have that opportunity was incredibly exciting, and then at times incredibly exhausting!”

Conceived as a cosmic “road movie”, Supergirl embraces the interstellar sprawl of DC mythology, taking in no less than nine distinct planets, Gillespie estimates – including a war-ravaged world overrun by bandits.

“I came in with around 120 pages of images of what I thought this movie should be. I started out with thousands of images and by the time I’d narrowed it down there was a narrative to it, and something that was very exciting and tactile and messy.

“I showed all of that to James, and then I asked him, ‘How much do you want me to be in your world, coming off of Superman?’ He said, ‘Not at all. I’m approaching all of these films like they’re their own graphic novels, and every graphic novel has its own illustrator and its own writer that make it distinctive, so this is your version.’ That answer, for a filmmaker, is amazing!

“I was trying to make it feel unique. I kept coming back to the story: what would be happening on this planet? What kind of disrepair would it be in? How many different alien species? Who’s in charge? What’s the hierarchy? It was a constant conversation, and that was probably the most surprising amount of bandwidth that I wasn’t expecting. Everything has to be invented and discussed. Even a menu. What language is it in? What’s the typeface?”

Supergirl’s planet-hopping leads to an encounter with another DC legend. Brawling, cigar-chewing Czarnian bounty hunter Lobo makes his big-screen debut, played by Jason Momoa – Aquaman in the pre-Gunn DCU. It’s a piece of casting so perfect you half suspect Momoa snuck back in time to inspire the character in the first place.

“He was so ready!” laughs Gillespie. “Years of waiting and wanting to get that character. He was very involved with the R&D on that, in the best way.

“For me, it was an education, going back and looking at all the Lobo comics through the decades. What are we going to narrow in on, wardrobe-wise and look-wise? I’ve got hundreds of versions of Lobo on my laptop, but we all narrowed in on a particular version: the armour, the knee-pads, the boots, all of it. Jason was involved in all of that.

“Then, when we got to the set, it was like, ‘How intimidating or foreboding is he? How much fun is he having?’ Jason gives the gamut. He was fearless in that way. It was so much fun to have that energy that came in, because it’s been a very serious mission for Kara and Ruthye. [Milly and Eve] had been shooting for two months at that point. Then to have this energy that kind of verbally attacks her, and they just go at it, and have this banter… It’s just so fun to watch.”

Did Gillespie feel any pressure bringing such a fan favourite to the screen? “Yeah, you kind of want to put the blinders on and not let that get into your head too much! He’s so beloved, Jason, and he’s so comfortable in this role that you can just feel it. From the early screenings we’ve done with audiences, he’s just so loved.”

At Supergirl’s side is superhound Krypto. A scampish scene-stealer in Superman, he proves a crucial part of the plot here as his mistress races to find the antidote to the poison that threatens his life.

“It’s Supergirl’s dog,” says Gillespie, promising a different dynamic to the one we saw in Superman. “They have such a strong bond. It’s such an intimate relationship that they have because Krypto came from Krypton. It’s the only tangible thing she has left of that life. She’s lost it all, and they’ve lived through it together, all of that pain and suffering. So he embodies so much more than just being Krypto to her. He’s a little physical touchstone. She’s maybe not as concerned as Superman, with him being well-trained! She’s a much freer spirit in that sense.”

Gillespie seems to specialize in maverick souls. From Lars And The Real Girl to I, Tonya and Cruella, he has repeatedly shown us people who exist beyond society’s expectations. Is Supergirl part of that throughline of flawed, fascinating characters?

“I feel like I keep getting attracted to outsiders,” he nods, “people that have been marginalized. Parts of them are dealing with trauma, and they’re working through that. I don’t know why I keep being attracted to that story!

“What Supergirl’s been through is quite intense. Superman grew up in a very loving, nurturing environment and was almost groomed for the role and the responsibility. She grew up in a situation where her planet is dying, she’s losing all of her loved ones and this responsibility has been thrust upon her.

She’s coming from a very different headspace. It gives us license to go to a darker place, in a way. I enjoyed being able to have that opportunity.”

Supergirl is in theaters from 25 June.

SFX magazine is available from 17 June, featuring an exclusive new interview with Milly Alcock.

Words: Nick Setchfield

Supergirl is set to soar into theaters in just a few weeks, marking yet another installment in the growing DCU. Of course, the film also signifies the first solo outing for Milly Alcock’s Kryptonian superheroine in this particular continuity. Alcock cameos as Kara Zor-El in Superman, and her brief scene quickly nails down how her personality differs from that of her more polished cousin, Kal-El. There are, of course, more factors that make the two powerful beings so different, and I love Alcock’s take on how Kara is a “contrast.”

During the closing moments of Superman, a drunken Kara darts into the Fortress of Solitude to pick up Krypto, who Kal-El has been watching for her. The scene is funny due to Kara’s nonchalant demeanor, but there’s an underlying reason for all that. Milly Alcock recently spoke with Empire Magazine about her upcoming DC movie and laid out the key components of Kara’s personality. After reading Tom King’s Supergirl: Woman of Tomorrow (which inspired the DC Studios flick), Alcock appreciated the character’s tragic backstory:

“Trauma” is indeed the key word here and, while it doesn’t define Kara, it is a big part of her and sets her apart from Kal. As laid out in Woman of Tomorrow, Kara witnesses Krypton’s destruction first hand and eventually seeks revenge for the loss of her entire family and civilization. Sure, Kara eventually proves to be a true hero but, unlike the instantly noble Clark, she’s initially driven by rage and personal anguish. I’m so glad Alcock seems to understand how important that part of Kara’s characterization is to her journey.

Director Craig Gillespie was also drawn to Kara’s tough exterior, as he explained to Empire. That honestly tracks for the man who helmed I, Tonya and Cruella, as those are both stories about layered women who’ve experienced their share of misfortune in life. Interestingly enough, Gillespie shouted out a beloved Marvel movie while explaining why he was so keen to take on his DC gig:

Based on the trailers for Supergirl, the eponymous character doesn’t exactly pull her punches as her famous relative would, which should make the story all the more interesting. The film will see Kara, with Krypto in tow, crossing paths with young Ruthye Marye Knoll and joining forces with her to take down the sadistic Krem of the Yellow Hills. Along the way, Kara will also rub shoulders with the eccentric, alien bounty hunter Lobo (played by a committed Jason Momoa).

Kara dwells in a corner of the DCU that’s a bit more precarious than that of David Corenswet’s Kal-El/Clark Kent, which is yet another difference between the two. Still, fans should remember that what aligns the pair is their shared pursuit of justice. I’m eager to see how Milly Alcock’s character takes her steps towards being a true do-gooder when Supergirl opens in theaters as part of the 2026 movie schedule on June 26. In the meantime, prepare yourself by streaming Superman with an HBO Max subscription.

With the DCEU now in the rear view, moviegoers are looking forward to upcoming DC movies, which will help expand the newly formed DCU that's being planned by co-CEO James Gunn. The next movie title in the first slate of projects (titled Gods and Monsters) is Supergirl, and director Craig Gillespie recently revealed its approximate runtime. I have to say, I'm so relieved by the number.

Supergirl's full trailer showed off the cosmic adventure Milly Alcock's title character will go on, but there are countless questions about what's coming in that blockbuster. One of which is how long it'll be, and during a recent interview with Collider, the I, Tonya director was asked about its rumored runtime of one hour and 45 minutes. He responded by saying:

Honestly, I'm thrilled. While I was already excited for Supergirl, I nervous it might be too long considering how much narrative mileage it needs to cover. We saw how comic book movies like Eternals were ruined by being too long, and since we're still early into the newly formed DCU (which is streaming with a HBO Max subscription), the stakes are high. And it sounds like the movie will be a bit shorter than James Gunn's Superman, which performed well at the box office in July of 2025.

Fans who spent years watching the DC movies in order saw how many peaks and valleys occurred with the previous shared universe, so all eyes are on how Supergirl will perform in theaters. Luckily it's got a pretty brief runtime that should help please any possible critics.

The pressure is definitely on for Supergirl to deliver, as its only the second movie in the DCU. Milly Alcock's cameo in Superman introduced the character, but whether or not audiences respond to her taking center stage remains to be seen. Luckily her scene-stealing dog Krypto is along for the journey... although it looks like he'll be in serious danger during the DC flick.

I think making Supergirl too long would have been a serious misstep, especially since the character is so new to audiences. Luckily Gillespie and and James Gunn have sidestepped this issue, which sounds like the right call. And I'm curious to see how it sets up the future of the DCU.

All will be revealed when Supergirl hits theaters on Jun 26th as part of the 2026 movie release list. Hopefully we get more footage soon, as it's going to be released before we know it. Luckily the runtime is a positive sign about the DC movie.

The comic book genre continues to dominate the entertainment industry, and fans who spent years watching the DC movies in order were recently treated to the inception of a new shared universe courtesy of co-CEO James Gunn. Following Superman, the next upcoming DC movie is Craig Gillespie's Supergirl. Both of these titles have prominently featured the superpowered dog Krypto, and the director spoke to CinemaBlend about how he'll factor into the next blockbuster's story.

What we know about Supergirl has been limited, but that changed thanks to the first Supergirl teaser trailer. In it we got to see Milly Alcock's drunken hero, as well as her sweet relationship to Krypto. I had the chance to speak with Gillespie at the trailer's premiere event in New York City, where I asked him what we should expect from the super pooch. He responded by saying:

Well, I'm definitely intrigued. Although the I, Tonya director's comments about it breaking people's hearts has me a little worried that something bad is going to happen to Krypto during Supergirl's mysterious runtime. I was ready to fight Lex Luthor for the dog's sake in the last movie, and it sounds like Kara's relationship with Kypto is even more important than what we saw with Clark in the last movie.

The first footage from Supergirl showed how much trauma Kara has about the destruction of her home planet. This is seemingly why she's trying to numb herself by drinking throughout the cosmos and getting into the occasional brawl. Through it all she has Krypto by her side, and Craig Gillespie's comments highlighted what the super pup really means to her. He's the embodiment of Krypton as a whole, and is her only real family besides Clark.

Krypto was designed after James Gunn's own dog, and was a serious scene stealer throughout Superman. While he was thoroughly adorable, he didn't necessarily listen to what Clark tried to tell him. But he was still protective of Kara's cousin and the Fortress of Solitude, and got to beat the crap out of Lex by the end of the movie. As a reminder, you can watch Supergirl's trailer below:

Supergirl is only the second movie in the DCU, so the pressure is on to stick the landing and get the audience invested in the shared universe's future. But the movie looks like a blast, and leaning into the use of Krypto seems like a great idea considering how beloved he was in Superman.

All will be revealed when Supergirl hits theaters in June 26th as part of the 2026 movie release list. Hopefully, nothing bad happens to Krypto and we get to see him stealing scenes in future DC projects.

Given the fact that the DC Universe is just getting off of the ground, I’m sometimes overwhelmed by the number of exciting upcoming projects they have on the slate. The first step into James Gunn and Peter Safran’s DCU – the animated series Creature Commandos – hadn’t even delivered its season finale before word was shared that Creature Commandos Season 2 was greenlit. The Internet was buzzing near the end of 2024 after Gunn delivered the first official trailer for his pending Superman movie, arriving in theaters on July 11. And we already know that Lanterns and Supergirl are in various forms of production. Given the fact that the latter has begin filming, DC Comics icon Tom King took to social media to celebrate in the coolest way possible.

Tom King published the eight-issue limited series Supergirl: Woman of Tomorrow in 2021, and it’s his work on which the new movie – starring Milly Alcock in the title role of Kara Zor-El – will be based. To commemorate the launch of filming, King went on Instagram and shared a textless version of the cover of Supergirl: Woman of Tomorrow #1. And if this is a clear indication that the movie will follow the source material, we’re about to witness something unlike anything we’ve seen from a major superhero blockbuster. Here’s the image that Tom King shared:

Take a long look at that image, and you will start to understand why James Gunn and his Supergirl director Craig Gillespie wanted Milly Alcock to move from House of the Dragon to DC. Kara Zor-El wields a mighty sword in the artwork from Tom King’s book, and appears ready to charge into battle. There are no dragons in this story… but there might as well be.

You know who is on that book cover? A certain super-powered dog who we met in the Superman trailer. That’s right, Krypto plays a significant part in Tom King’s story, and he better show up in Craig Gillespie’s movie, otherwise, what the heck are we all doing here?

In addition to the cover art, Tom King also shared this fan creation on his IG reel. So he's fired up for the Supergirl movie!

The rest of the story for Supergirl: Woman of Tomorrow is heavy science-fiction, with Kara (Milly Alcock) accompanying a young alien across the galaxy on a vengeance mission against Krem of the Yellow Hills (Matthias Schoenaerts). Which instantly proves that this is a story we haven’t seen told on screen before, in different iterations. There’s familiarity with Superman, in that it includes Lex Luthor (Nicholas Hoult), Lois Lane (Rachel Brosnahan) and the staples of that mythology. But by adapting Tom King’s work, Gillespie proves he’s attempting to show something completely different.

And for DC Comics fans, that’s very exciting.

Supergirl: Woman of Tomorrow is down for a release date of June 26, 2026, so expect to hear a lot more of it as this year rolls along.

As one will see when looking over the upcoming DC movies, the DC Universe Chapter One slate will be highlighting DC Comics’ two most famous Kryptonian characters right off the bat. Along with James Gunn’s Superman reboot coming out in summer 2025, Supergirl: Woman of Tomorrow is set to follow at a later date, and House of the Dragon’s Milly Alcock has been cast as Kara Zor-El. Now word’s come in that Supergirl’s new movie is taking another big step forward by lining up its director.

Per Deadline, Craig Gillespie, the director behind Cruella and I, Tonya, is in talks to helm Supergirl: Woman of Tomorrow. While there’s no deal in place yet, the outlet claims the plan is to shoot this movie sometime in 2024’s fourth quarter, after Superman is finished filming. So it’s understandable why efforts are being made to secure Woman of Tomorrow’s director now, and if Gillespie ends up signing on, it’ll mark yet another female-driven movie for him to tackle.

Gillespie made his filmmaking debut in 2007 with the movies Mr. Woodcock and Lars and the Real Girl, and his filmography also includes Fright Night, Million Dollar Arm, The Finest Hours and last year’s Dumb Money. He’s also stretched his directorial muscles in the TV realm on several occasions, most recently with the 2022 shows Pam & Tommy and Mike, both of which can be streamed with a Hulu subscription. Although Gillespie is expected to return for Cruella 2, as of January, Emma Stone said there was a “work in progress kind of thing” going on with the sequel, and now it looks like if he does board Supergirl: Woman of Tomorrow, that will take priority.

Supergirl: Woman of Tomorrow will be the title character’s second theatrical movie, the first being the Helen Slater-led feature from 1984. However, the DC Extended Universe did highlight the character last year in The Flash, with Sasha Calle playing her in the alternate timeline created by Ezra Miller’s Barry Allen. Additionally, Kara received plenty of live-action attention a few years back from Melissa Benoist’s portrayal in the Supergirl TV series and the wider Arrowverse.

Specific plot details for Supergirl: Woman of Tomorrow haven’t been shared yet, but the story is heavily influenced by the same-named comic book miniseries written by Tom King and illustrated by Bilquis Evely. Ana Nogueira is writing the script, which will focus on a Kara Zor-El who, as DC Studios co-head James Gunn once said, is “much more hardcore; she’s not exactly the Supergirl we’re used to seeing.” It’s also rumored that Milly Alcock will debut as Supergirl in the next Superman movie, then take center stage for Woman of Tomorrow.

If it’s confirmed that Craig Gillespie becomes Supergirl: Woman of Tomorrow’s director, we’ll let you know. Until then, revisit Supergirl’s past media appearances with your Max subscription, unless you’re in the mood to watch the Supergirl TV show, in which case you’ll need a Netflix subscription.

It wasn’t all that long ago when we were reading news about GameStop and the wild “David vs. Goliath” story involving Keith Gill and a group of everyday people who decided to invest in the video game retailer and cause quite the commotion on Wall Street. Well, now there's a movie about it. Directed by Cruella and I, Tonaya’s Craig Gillespie and starring Paul Dano the film Dumb Money is set to his theaters on September 29 according to the 2023 movie schedule, and critics have seen it, and shared their thoughts on it. 

CinemaBlend's own Sean O’Connell shared his opinion on Dumb Money via X, noting that it’s a “smart” film that makes a very complex stock market story “digestible.” He also explained the tension that builds throughout the film as it tells the wild story of what happened with GameStop’s stock in 2021 is "terrifying" and "palpable":

Overall, the general consensus of Dumb Money seems to be that it’s an electrifying movie about the truly crazy GameStop situation. Many critics highlighted the ensemble cast and direction as highlights. However, some noted that at times the characters could feel “one-dimensional,” as Frank Scheck wrote for THR. But, he, and many others, thoroughly enjoyed the movie. Continuing his review, the critic explained:

During Collider’s coverage of the Toronto International Film Festival, where Dumb Money premiered, Ross Bonaime shared his review of Craig Gillespie’s film, calling it the “The Big Short for the Reddit Generation,” in his headline. He noted the similarities it shares with films like The Big Short and The Social Network, explaining that this film about GameStop's stock both fits in with types of projects like that while also being totally unique:

Natalia Winkelman from IndieWire also agreed that Dumb Money is a “weirdly affecting tale of working class solidarity.” She called it “the best period piece ever made about a period that just happened." The critic was especially pleased with the ensemble cast of the film -- which includes America Ferrera, Pete Davidson, Seth Rogen and many more -- and how they played out the roles of those who were actually involved with this bonkers story:

As she stated, America Ferrera, Larry Owens and Anthony Ramos stand out as highlights alongside Paul Dano, who plays the lead Keith Gill. 

Speaking of Dano, Martin Aubert Tsai wrote a review for Decider that spotlighted the actor as a real standout. He applauded The Batman star's ability to juggle both Keith Gill’s personal life and online persona as Roaring Kitty: 

It sounds like we’re going to have to add Dumb Money to the list of Paul Dano’s best movies. 

Along with praise for the cast, critics have also noted Craig Gillespie’s direction. After receiving fantastic reviews for I, Tonya in 2017, it turns out he has a knack for taking on complex true stories in a unique way. In BBC’s review, Caryn James touched on this idea. While she thought the film was “not as smart or skewering as it pretends to be,” she did note the standout direction as a highlight:

Overall, reviews for Dumb Money have been positive, and many critics noted that the film is a fascinating period piece about an event that only happened a few years ago. You can see this crazy story about GameStop and the everyday people who tried to game Wall Street in theaters on September 29. 

SPOILERS are ahead for Cruella, which is streaming on Disney+.

Earlier this year, Disney fans were reintroduced to Cruella de Vil, and it was absolutely fabulous. Emma Stone starred as the villain before the events of 101 Dalmatians, at a time when she was the hero of her own story. And as it turned out, Cruella’s own villain was the Baroness, who was dryly and exquisitely played by Emma Thompson. With a sequel now on the way, we do wonder if the Baroness will return or not.

Not long after the release of Cruella, reports barked that it wouldn’t end with the character’s inheritance of Hell Hall. Now that it’s official, director Craig Gillespie, who will once again helm Emma Stone’s villainess, has shared where the team behind Cruella 2 is at right now with developing the sequel. In his words to Comicbook.com:

Tony McNamara previously wrote The Favourite and Hulu’s The Great, and came onto the first Cruella movie to add to the script also written by Dana Fox. McNamara be penning the sequel's script too, but as Craig Gillespie has disclosed, it’s just getting started being formulated by Disney. The studio likely decided it would wait to greenlight a sequel until it saw audience reaction to the film. As soon as Cruella movie came out, it was highly praised, especially for Emma Stone’s performance and its distinct style.

Emma Stone is confirmed to reprise her role as Cruella, but it’s unclear whether Emma Thompson will return for the sequel. When Craig Gillespie was asked about that, here was his reply:

Hmm… even though he didn’t answer the question, I’m inclined to believe the director would like to see Emma Thompson back in her role after those comments. It would be a “shame,” because she was amazing in the role. As we learn at the end of the flick, the Baroness is, in fact, Cruella’s real mother, but a mother who wanted her child to be killed shortly after her birth. When she had the chance at the end of the film, the Baroness attempted to murder her daughter once and for all, but she was not successful. The movie ends with the Baroness being sent off to jail for killing Estella, Cruella’s alter ego.

Could there be more bad blood for the mother and daughter to air out in a sequel? Personally, I’m not sure yet what I expect from the next Cruella movie, but I’m very happy it’s happening. Thompson was obviously brilliant, so why not?

Cruella is about to enter its second weekend in theaters and Disney+ Premier Access, and look out: Cruella de Vil isn’t throwing out her fabulous wig or punk fashion persona for long. The Disney origin story is already expected to continue with a sequel, and the same talent behind the Emma Stone-led 101 Dalmatians reimagining are expected to return.

Writer Tony McNamara, who co-wrote the Cruella script following his work on The Favourite and The Great, is reportedly on board to develop a second movie about the villainess. The Hollywood Reporter additionally learned that Cruella’s director, Craig Gillespie, will also helm Cruella 2. This is great news for fans of the recent summer release – and horrible news for the puppies that may stand in her way!

Cruella debuted weeks ago to tons of glowing reviews before opening in theaters and as a Disney+ premium add-on last weekend. The movie has made $48.5 million so far and is already on the grid to become one of the highest-grossing domestic releases of 2021 heading into the summer season. The movie was available to check out at homes for $30 plus a Disney+ subscription service, but we don’t know how much the studio has additionally earned off this hybrid model.

A Disney spokesperson did share some confidence about Cruella’s critical and commercial success. Here’s what they said in a recent statement:

Cruella’s key players had shared their interest in expanding the origin story of Emma Stone’s Estella-turned-Cruella prior to this sequel report. Director Craig Gillespie said that he’d love to see “full-blown Cruella, fully loaded” after making the Disney movie. He teased some possible plot points too, sharing how her expansion of the fashion brand could help her rise in power, but “almost destroy her from inside out.” Now that’s intriguing.

The movie’s Horace, Paul Walter Hauser, told Cinemablend that he’d like to return if the same creative team was behind the film. And low and behold, it looks like his wish may come true. Additionally, Cruella’s Anita Darling, Kirby Howell-Baptiste, shared that she would “love to” explore the relationship between Cruella and Anita further, especially following the film’s open-ended conclusion.

Disney previously made a sequel to its other villain origin story Maleficent when the 2014 success was followed up by 2019’s Mistress of Evil. The studio is also expanding its live-action worlds with sequels in development for The Lion King, Aladdin and The Jungle Book. Are you excited for Cruella 2? Vote in our poll below.

This poll is no longer available.

CinemaBlend participates in affiliate programs with various companies. We may earn a commission when you click on or make purchases via links.

Over the past few years, Disney has produced a number of live-action adaptations of their classic animated blockbusters. This trend started largely due to Angelina Jolie’s Maleficent movies, and the House of Mouse provided another villain origin story with the new Cruella movie starring Emma Stone. But will a sequel arrive next? Director Craig Gillespie recently addressed that possibility.

Cruella opened last weekend in theaters as well as for a premium cost at Disney+. The project was flashy and campy, and the ending scene definitely seemed to set up a possible sequel. Luckily Craig Gillespie was recently asked if Cruella 2 could continue the story. The I, Tonya filmmaker responded honestly, saying:

Well, there you have it. Looks like Cruella’s director is definitely interested in continuing the story, especially once the title character’s origin was fulfilled. We’ll just have to see how the live-action movie ultimately performs in theaters and at homes, and if the studio moves forward with a follow-up.

Craig Gillespie’s comments to Collider are sure to be exciting for Disney fans hoping to see more of Emma Stone’s Cruella. Since she only truly became the character we know from 101 Dalmatians during the tail end of the film, it makes sense that the filmmaker might want to continue playing in the same sandbox. Besides, who doesn’t want to see more of those costumes?

Disney fans can watch Cruella on Disney+ for a limited time at an additional charge. You can use this link to sign up for the streaming service.

Of course, it’ll be interesting to see exactly how Cruella’s success is measured by Disney. It hit theaters during an unprecedented time when audiences are only beginning to return to the movies. But there’s also the Disney+ money to factor in, as well as the public’s response.

Spoilers ahead for Cruella.

Disney had a unique challenge in adapting the Cruella movie, given the character’s penchant for murdering puppies. The origin story saw Emma Stone become the iconic villain we know and love, but without hurting a hair on a single puppy’s head. The film’s ending saw her take on the persona of Cruella forever, while also finally occupying Hell Hall.

The House of Mouse is clearly going to continue producing live-action movies from their beloved animated catalogue, and fans are already debating which Disney villain might get their own film next. We’ll just have to see what comes next, including a possible Cruella sequel.

Cruella is out now in theaters and on Disney+. Be sure to check out the 2021 movie release dates to plan your next movie experience.

Emma Stone’s portrayal of a young Cruella de Vil in Disney’s new live action, origin story, Cruella, hit theaters and Disney+ this weekend after being hyped up by some visually awesome trailers. These trailers had fans comparing Cruella to A Devil Wears Prada, which made a ton of sense, seeing as the fashion-forward Cruella worked under a demanding designer, but fans were also getting some major vibes reminiscent Joaquin Phoenix's Joker. The director of the newly released Disney film apparently has feelings about the Joker comparisons, and he has now shared them with the class.

Cruella director Craig Gillespie shares his thoughts on all those Joker comparisons that the trailers inspired, during an interview with Comic Book Movie. Apparently, having his film compared with Joaquin Phoenix's version of The Joker is pretty flattering. Here’s what the director says, in his exact words:

Other people may have been concerned about the comparisons, but director Craig Gillespie didn’t seem to worry, and he's probably right not to do so. There are by far worse things to be compared to than a multiple award-winning, high-grossing film that’s loved by many. Besides, Gillespie seems pretty confident that Cruella can stand on its own two feet once fans get a taste of the entire film.

The main aspect of the two films that probably spurred these comparisons is that they both have a prominent darkness to them. In the same interview, Craig Gillespie comments on the film's darkness and how it relates to the tastes of the moviegoing public. Here it is in his own words:

While it is not quite as dark and mature as the R-rated Joker, Craig Gillespie’s Cruella has a similar edge, and it’s clear that the director welcomes those similarities. You can watch Cruella now, by either venturing out to your local theater or hunkering down for the night and streaming it in your home on Disney+. Whichever you choose, you’re sure to be in for a fiery night.

The 101 Dalmatians villain will eponymously be tied to the catchy tune sung by Roger Radcliffe for the 1961 classic. During the song, one lyric used to describe the devious heiress and fashion icon is “to see her is to take a sudden chill.” That’s exactly what went down in the theater when I saw Cruella's third act. At the time, I hadn't heard the Disney song in ages, but it was a perfect descriptor. Emma Stone is so good as the character that she incited a physical reaction from me, so naturally one has to wonder what it must have been like on set.

When I spoke to Cruella director Craig Gillespie for CinemaBlend, I asked the filmmaker if he had his own moment on set that gave him the kind of reaction described in the song. And as it turns out, without having revealed mine, we shared the same chilling reaction to a specific scene. Without spoiling, it's when Emma Stone returns to the fountain to claim her name as Cruella after the movie’s major climax reveal. The director shared how he captured the scene on set:

Craig Gillespie made the unique decision to capture the memorable Cruella moment with a handheld camera that gives a close-up view of Emma Stone’s face as her makeup bleeds and she delivers a scathing monologue that is incredibly instrumental to her origin story as the villainess. The scene was also shot at the darkest stage of twilight in the evening, right between sunset and night time. No wonder it gave me chills; not only is Emma Stone fabulous, but the filmmaking choices were too!

It also sounds like there was more of an urgency for Emma Stone going into that scene because she only had so long to get it right as the last light of the day was quickly disappearing. In just a few takes, Stone apparently nailed it and now we can see Cruella De Vil truly become the infamous Disney villain right in front of our eyes. We're about to get into some spoilers for the movie, so if you haven't seen the Disney flick yet, here is a great time to check out one of our other awesome articles. In fact, we saw a little bit of the moment in the early looks at the film:

The scene comes after the revelation of Cruella's true family backstory. After spending the better part of the movie trying to enact revenge on Emma Thompson's Baroness to retrieve her mother's necklace, she is nearly foiled by the famed fashion designer's attempt to murder her. Following much of the third act, we get the aforementioned fountain monologue in which she fully accepts her name and identity as "Cruella" in a fit of rage, going back to the same fountain where she often visited to have chats with her (presumed) late mother.

Obviously Emma Stone is a star, having won her Best Actress Oscar in La La Land back in 2016 for playing aspiring actress Mia against Ryan Gosling’s charm. The actress has also been critically acclaimed for her supporting roles in 2015’s Birdman and 2019’s The Favourite. She’s taken on a number of interesting roles over the years between her comedic work in movies like Easy A and Crazy, Stupid, Love to taking on Gwen Stacy in the Amazing Spider-Man movies and portraying Billie Jean King in Battle of the Sexes.

Cruella is available to stream at home with Disney+ Premier Access and is playing in theaters now. In the meantime, check out what critics are saying about the Disney movie before you watch it.

Disney’s live-action re-imaginings of classic animated movies give filmmakers a chance to offer a new kind of vision to the memorable characters we’ve grown up knowing and loving… or in Cruella’s case, hating. Over the years, we’ve seen Jon Favreau make some insane technical achievements with the CGI world of The Jungle Book and The Lion King, watched Tim Burton bring new life into Wonderland and Dumbo, and Bill Condon make a “time as old as time” new again in Beauty and the Beast. With Cruella, director Craig Gillespie made a movie that’s not typical for the studio.

When CinemaBlend spoke to the filmmaker about Cruella, Craig Gillespie shared his take on adapting the Disney villain in ‘70s London amidst the fashion punk scene and the character’s impending love for puppy fur. In his words:

As the director explained, he didn’t set out to make a classic Disney movie, and that certainly does show through the movie. While the PG-13 movie is great fun and certainly tells the story of Cruella de Vil, it doesn’t do so in a way that we’ve seen live-action movies of its kind before.

A great primer for Cruella for more mature audiences will be Craig Gillespie’s 2017 movie I, Tonya, which was an unhinged take on ice skating champion Tonya Harding’s controversial story. Interestingly enough, the two films feel like sister projects in a sense. Craig Gillespie shared how influential his previous movie was on Cruella de Vil’s origin movie:

Craig Gillespie really took with him a lot of the exciting stylings he brought to Margot Robbie’s Oscar-nominated role for Cruella, having recently finished I, Tonya when he stepped onto the Disney movie. The director certainly had his own specific ideas for the character going into the movie, and it created a version of the 101 Dalmatians character that we’ve never seen before.

And as Craig Gillespie also told CinemaBlend, he actually decided not to watch the Glenn Close version before or while making Cruella to make sure he was creating something new. In other words, if you're going out to theaters or planning on streaming Cruella this weekend, don’t expect something you’d typically see from the studio or in the live-action realm.

A lot of this could be because Cruella is set in the fashion world and doesn’t have the same ties to magic or fairytale that other movies in the Disney family do. Check out what critics are saying about Cruella and check out the movie in theaters and Disney+ Premier Access on May 28.

Over the last century or so, Disney has crafted some of the most terrifying and fun adversaries of our childhoods opposite its beloved heroes, princes, princesses, and toys, and when the studio decided to explore the tale of Sleeping Beauty’s Maleficent in 2014 it provided an exciting new point of view. Seven years later, we now have our second villain prequel with Craig Gillespie's Cruella. But Ms. DeVil is worlds away from a prick on the finger and not-so eternal slumber; how does the House of Mouse make us care about a character so defined by her intense need to kill puppies for fashion?

Cruella approaches this challenge with over-indulgent sophistication, and delicious dark humor mix-matched with a just ok storyline that truly is Disney’s version of The Devil Wears Prada. It’s a fun time at the movies and you likely won’t be mad to have stepped into this world as the film is an especially eccentric entry of the recent bunch of live action adaptations of animated classics. But for all its style and genuine flair, the prequel can’t escape the familiar and tired storytelling of origin stories we’ve come to know too well.

Emma Stone’s performance as Cruella DeVil is chillingly good.

Emma Stone’s Cruella DeVil provides the delicate balance of sour and sweet the audience needs to follow her story without manipulating movie-goers to actually like a true and storied villain. Initially named Estella, the eponymous protagonist is introduced as a headstrong orphan with the passion for fashion. Once she gets her shot to go head to head with Emma Thompson’s Baroness, the movie heats up into a juicy stare down between the talented actresses. Stone has always had a mysterious and magical way of engaging with audiences, and she carries Cruella brilliantly from start to finish… even when it sometimes feels like an over-the-top dress up act.

Another actress may have made Cruella too cartoony, but when Emma Stone slips into that black and white wig she does it seamlessly. Despite a flimsy backstory for her character that can be forced to work in her favor in some ridiculous ways, wow, does Stone sell it anyway. While delivering a scathing monologue at the film’s climax, she transforms what could have been a basic “I’m Cruella” moment to a sincerely chilling performance that won’t soon be forgotten alongside her other dramatic work in movies like The Favourite and La La Land.

Craig Gillespie’s direction in Cruella is oozing with style from top to bottom.

Behind many a great performance is a great director, and Cruella made a magnificent choice with Craig Gillespie. The filmmaker behind I, Tonya and Lars and the Real Girl brings his clever sense of style to Cruella from every angle. Gillespie blasts a stellar soundtrack throughout the movie, and some welcome roughness to the Disney film with a vision that shines despite the script itself not being as epic as the filmmaking at work.

The movie is ambitious in many ways. It’s an origin that carefully finds a clean grey area that can exist in the Disney canon, while also being a ‘70s heist movie starring Paul Walter Hauser and Joel Frye’s Horace and Jasper – plus a fabulous showcase of top-of-the-line fashion. Between Emma Stone and Emma Thompson, the love for clothing is another main character by itself, and the passion's presence in Cruella is executed creatively. Its worldbuilding is interesting enough to live in for its two hour and 14 minute runtime, though there are moments when it can come off as overblown, flashy and a bit too long.

Yet, Cruella’s origin can’t break Disney’s formulaic habits.

Cruella’s spirit for elegance and style is appreciated and the entire cast plays and lives within its world very well. For a Cruella origin story, as sticky as that was going to be, Disney pulls it off in an unexpected, bold and entertaining way. It’s not sympathetic, Cruella is unapologetic and thrives for being gravely confident in itself.

But, at the same time there’s an emptiness about Cruella. Having watched 101 Dalmatians, anyone truly care and ever wonder why Cruella DeVil became a hungry-for-puppy-fur kind of gal in the first place? It seems like the idea of a Cruella movie just sounded cool and thus it was made – but it delivers for what it is. It’s a stylish movie about fashion where the villain you know is expanded upon, but there isn't really any message or big “why.” Just like Solo: A Star Wars Story felt like the product of a Disney executive snapping their fingers for a Han Solo movie and it existing over $200 million later, Cruella is another “can” so it “did” circumstance. Luckily this time around there’s some real personality to dress it up into something distinct.

CinemaBlend participates in affiliate programs with various companies. We may earn a commission when you click on or make purchases via links.

For the first time in over twenty years, Disney’s 101 Dalmatians’ Cruella de Vil is returning to the big screen with Emma Stone’s take on the iconic villain. The origin story follows the character from before she was known as Cruella and tells her devious story in the world of fashion alongside Emma Thompson’s Baroness. But Cruella is fully its own take on the character, and not delving into what the animated classic or the Glenn Close-led remake explored.

When CinemaBlend spoke to Cruella director, Craig Gillespie, we asked the filmmaker about if he looked back at the previous versions in the Disney canon ahead of making the upcoming theatrical and Disney+ release. Here’s what he said:

Craig Gillespie chose to keep the 1996 live-action version of 101 Dalmatians to the side completely when making Cruella. The Disney movie had Glenn Close adapting the villain in her own way before reprising the role in 2000’s 102 Dalmatians. The Australian filmmaker chose to rely on his own ideas for the movie, which adds a unique flair to the House of Mouse’s live-action lineup.

During our interview, Craig Gillespie also spoke about bringing such a twisted character to the forefront in his own way. He shared one key aspect of his involvement in Cruella that he felt elevated the Disney origin story:

Prior to Emma Stone wearing the black and white wig, she had starred in Yorgos Lanthimos’ The Favourite, which earned her third Oscar nomination in 2019. When Craig Gillespie came on Cruella, he decided to enlist the movie’s co-writer Tony McNamara, also known for his work on The Great, to add some sharpness to the script.

Craig Gillespie is well known for his dark humor too in his past projects, including Margot Robbie’s transformation as Tonya Harding in I, Tonya and his early work with Ryan Gosling in Lars and the Real Girl. With this DNA in mind for Cruella, you can certainly expect something fresh from the Disney movie. Check out the trailer below:

Cruella is coming to theaters this Friday, May 28, and to homes via Disney+ Premier Access, which requires a membership plus a $30 fee. You can get ready to enjoy the movie at home on its first day of release by signing up using this link.

Check back here on CinemaBlend for more exclusive coverage on the Disney release and get ready for more highly-anticipated summer movies coming soon to theaters and streaming.

In 2017, director Craig Gillespie did an impressive job bringing one of the most ridiculous pop culture affairs in recent memory to the silver screen with I, Tonya. Since then been working with Emma Stone and Disney on the upcoming Cruella, but now he's getting set to tackle yet another adaptation of a wild true story, as he has been tapped to make a cinematic take on the notorious Chippendales murder in the early 1990s.

Deadline has the news on this recent development, adding that Dev Patel has signed on to headline the film portraying Somen "Steve" Banerjee – the man at the center of the whole controversy. The project has actually been in development for about 20 years now, but these steps being taken could mean that production could soon begin.

In the same way that I, Tonya chronicled the life of Margot Robbie's Tonya Harding, the developing film is expected to unfold the rise and fall of Steve Banerjee, who arrived in the United States as an immigrant from India with big aspirations. Living in Los Angeles he made an investment purchasing the struggling night club Destiny II, and he revitalized the business by first starting female-only mud wrestling, and then employed the country's first male stripper troupe. This proved to be the birth of Chippendales – a multi-million dollar business.

This story doesn't exactly have a happy ending, however. Banerjee ended up with a habit of trying to hire hitmen to take out potential competition/threats, and that created one or two issues in the development of the company. He ended up pleading guilty to arson, racketeering, and murder for hire, and while he was sentenced to prison for 26 years, he committed suicide in 1994.

The material should make for a the basis for a fascinating performance from Dev Patel, who is no stranger to critical acclaim. He's only a few years removed from his first Oscar nomination, and can now be seen giving an absolutely delightful turn as the titular lead in Armando Iannucci's The Personal History Of David Copperfield. His upcoming slate also includes the completed David Lowery fantasy feature The Green Knight, which was initially supposed to be released this past spring but was delayed because of the pandemic.

As for Craig Gillespie, his Cruella de Vil film, which follows Maleficent as a remake of a Walt Disney Animation classic that features the villain as a protagonist, has been in post-production since late last year, and it is expected to be released on May 28, 2021.

The untitled Chippendales film doesn't presently have a distributor attached, but with Craig Gillespie and Dev Patel attached there is hope that situation will change soon. In the meantime, stay tuned for more details on the development of the project here on CinemaBlend.

"Based on a true story" has been a hook for decades of cinema history, but the storytelling generally requires more than a few asterisks. No big screen feature is ever 100 percent factual -- be it because not enough specific information is available, things need to be spiced up for entertainment value, or a number of other reasons. The majority of titles skirt around this with discussions of "emotional truth" and by getting approval from those involved in the real tale... but Craig Gillespie's I, Tonya is a unique feature within the way in which it grapples with this conundrum. Openly based on a story full of contradictions (it's noted specifically in the title card), the film fully leans into the various lies and weirdness that rests within the "legend" of professional ice skater Tonya Harding, and constructs a crazy dark, harshly funny narrative that happens to produce some of the best performances of the year.

If you lived through the early 1990s (even as a young kid, as I was), you're very likely aware of the notorious Tonya Harding. Prior to the 1994 Winter Olympics, she found herself caught up in a conspiracy that involved established associates attacking rival Nancy Kerrigan as a means of eliminating her as competition for the games. Screenwriter Steven Rogers' script certainly tells this story, but more importantly rewinds the tape on the life that led up to those events. Anchored by interviews with Tonya (Margot Robbie); her ex-husband, Jeff Gillooly (Sebastian Stan); and her mother, LaVona Fay Golden (Allison Janney), I, Tonya explores the titular woman's white trash upbringing in Portland, Oregon, her legitimate aspirations as a figure skater, and all of the horrible abuses that accompany those tales, and provides a whole new fourth-wall-breaking perspective on what is unquestionably one of the strangest scandals in sports history.

A key part of crafting the unique narrative is carving out a specific tone, and as an audience member, I, Tonya is an emotionally complex experience. Tonya (portrayed as a young girl by McKenna Grace) was left alone with LaVona at a young age, and grew up the subject of constant emotional and physical abuse. That continued into her teens and young adulthood, with Tonya's introduction to Jeff Gillooly, who kept up the pattern going before, during, and even after their marriage. It properly results in many hard to watch scenes in the film that pair with teeth-gritted jaw clenches, and provides a level of sympathy of Tonya that most probably never had. Simultaneously, however, it has no issue throwing out an off-the-cuff line that gets a hearty laugh -- creating quite the razor-thin line for the movie to walk upon. It could have been the film's downfall, as over-the-top, horrific irreverence has no place here, but it's ultimately one of its greatest strengths, as the tone does properly match up with the roller coaster of oddness and oddballs that the reality offers. You will find yourself kind of hating yourself for chuckling, but it is part of the experience and conversation.

On that note, the players in this game are all so weirdly extreme that they make tremendous character fodder for the perfectly cast stars -- and Margot Robbie, Sebastian Stan and Allison Janney all make a feast of it. Embracing the hyper-vulgarity and ugliness that comprises LaVona's personality, Janney is the film's truly special presence, as she fiercely pops from the moment she first appears on screen sporting a bowl cut and a ventilator, wearing a fur coat and lively feathered friend on her shoulder. It's an Oscar-worthy showing for sure -- but thankfully doesn't undercut the contributions from the leads, who are also phenomenal in their own right. The glamorous, Australian Robbie utterly disappears as the brash, unapologetic Tonya, truly believing every one of the multiple variations of "It's not my fault;" while Stan as Jeff creates a weirdly adept balance between "mild-mannered" and "scum bag," coming across as quiet and innocent one minute, and revealed as a total asshole the next. With awesome material to dig into, the film sets them up for success, but you still awe at how brilliantly they crush it.

Much like how recent pop culture has shined a bright light on the O.J. Simpson case from the mid-1990s, it was only a matter of time before we saw a take on Tonya Harding and the events surrounding the 1994 Winter Olympics. Thankfully, I, Tonya is the proper exploration of the story. It's a eccentric mix of weird, severe, funny and controversial, but in being so is a proper take on the fractured reality its based upon.

He may not be directing the adaptation of Seth Grahame-Smith’s Pride and Prejudice and Zombies, but filmmaker Craig Gillespie has kept busy since releasing his Fright Night remake last summer.

While he may not be bringing the period horror/comedy to theaters, this past July we learned that he had signed on to direct the adaptation of Susan Trott’s novel The Flamingo Thief, and very early in the year we learned that he would be joining filmmakers such as Russell Crowe, Toni Collette, Liev Schreiber and more directing a short film that will become part of the city-loving anthology Sydney Unplugged. And today we learn that yet another title has been added to Gillespie’s list of in-development projects.

Variety says that the Aussie filmmaker is now in talks to direct Million Dollar Arm, a new sports drama that was written by Tom McCarthy (Win, Win) and is set to star Mad Men lead Jon Hamm. Based on a true story, the film will tell the tale of J.B. Bernstein (Hamm), a sports agent who organized a reality show in India with a bunch of cricket players and ended up discovering Rinku Singh and Dinesh Patel, two pitchers who wound up playing Major League Baseball for the Pittsburgh Pirates. The title of the movie comes from the name of the television show that Bernstein created.

Gillespie’s previous credits include the Oscar-nominated Lars and the Real Girl, the 2007 comedy Mr. Woodcock and six episodes of the Showtime series United States of Tara.

About a week and a half ago we found out that the lead role of Elizabeth Bennett in Pride and Prejudice and Zombies was offered to Gossip Girl star Blake Lively. The role, which may just be the least coveted role of all time, had already been turned down by Natalie Portman, who is still producing the film, Mia Wasikowska, Scarlett Johansson, and future Gwen Stacy, Emma Stone.

Turns out, confirming my psychic abilities, Lively isn’t interested in the role either, according to a Tweet by Variety’s Justin Kroll. So where does this leave Pride and Prejudice and Zombies? In the same place it has been for months--at the drawing board with no one willing to step into what will be a risky lead. The crew is in place with Portman producing as mentioned and Craig Gillespie prepared to helm, but obviously they can’t go anywhere without someone to put on the posters.

What may be the best idea for P&P&Z is to wait. Typically studios get a hot property and want to get it out as quickly as possible, but without the ability to land a star they should step back. P&P&Z author Seth Grahame-Smith’s other adaptation, Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter, is nearing completion for its June 22, 2012 release date, and allowing this out into the wild and judging audience reaction, if it’s positive, will hopefully spark some interest in the role of Elizabeth Bennett.

Pride and Prejudice and Zombies isn’t dead yet, but it’s getting there. It’s beginning to feel like the creatures in its story, like zombies that just won’t die. The best move will be to table P&P&Z, regroup, and judge audience reaction to ALVH. More on this undead film as it crawls around looking for food.

Sure, you might have seen the original Fright Night a thousand times and figured your expertise would make you perfect for remaking it for a modern audience. But Craig Gillespie, the guy who actually did get to direct the Fright Night remake, deliberately avoided watching the original Tom Holland movie until he was well into production, as an effort to focus on his own script and cast and not keep too much of an eye on the past. Bring out your torches and pitchforks all you want, but it's probably worth getting a look at the new Fright NIght first-- it's a funny, often genuinely scary take on the vampire genre that's much-needed in this post-Twilight world.

When I talked to Gillespie at San Diego Comic Con last month, he has just wrapped up a big panel in front of a lot of Fright Night fans who might have brought out those torches and pitchforks--but who were probably also happy to see the star of the original, Chris Sarandon, up there onstage. I talked to Gillespie about moving forward with his own vision of the movie, how he picked Colin Farrell to play the vampire Jerry, and how his blend of comedy and action in this movie will go forward into his next project, Pride and Prejudice and Zombies. He also holds the distinction of being the first director I've interviewed on-camera kind enough to adjust my framing for me, as you'll see in the opening moments. Fright Night is in theaters today.

If you haven't already noticed, this special Friday the 13th has kind of turned into Fright Night Day. It all began last night when I posted my behind-the-scenes experiences from the film’s editing bay as well as my roundtable interview with star Anton Yelchin. Just a little while ago the film’s first trailer went online, so now I’m back with the second half of my interviews.

Having read what the hero had to say, now it’s the villain’s turn to talk. In addition to talking with Anton Yelchin at the editing bay, I was also given the opportunity to sit in on a roundtable interview with co-star Colin Farrell, who plays the soulless vampire known as Jerry Dandridge, and the film’s director, Craig Gillespie. Check out the interview below in which the pair talk about their relationship to the original Fright Night, bringing back the classic vampire, and the cat-and-mouse game between Jerry and Charley.

Watching the footage it looks as though a lot has been changed in terms of the story from the original. When first coming to the project was that something you wanted?

Craig Gillespie: Different stories on different sides here. I was not that familiar with the original, I was not looking to do a vampire movie, I was not looking to do a horror genre thing. I was going in to Dreamworks for a general meeting, and the night before they sent the script to me. And so I picked it up reluctantly because it wasn’t where my head was. I read the script and it was fast, had great characters, and the thing that I fully responded to, there’s such a great balance of horror and humor. Just to be able to mix two genres is rare to find, I love to do that. So I couldn’t get it out of my head and I ended up bringing it up in the meeting, and ended up getting the project. I didn’t look at the original until I was months down the road with this and I fully figured out how I wanted to execute it. Colin’s story is different, wasn’t it?

Colin Farrell: I loved the original, love it still. I was very fearful when I heard that they were remaking it. I had the initial reaction of, “What a bunch of unoriginal idiots that they have to go and take something that’s so sacrosanct as the original Fright Night. They’ll probably butcher it.” And then I read the script and went, “Balls! I really like it! Now what do I do? Out of work actor looking for a job, literally. What do I do, I really like this!” For me it was kind of where does the child start and the actor who is a man and has responsibilities and a career. I was like, I don’t have to separate those two things. I got to bring the kid to work as well, because I was somebody who fell in love with the original film when I was 10, 11 or 12. I had seen it like 50 times before I even heard this one was coming up. I met Craig and he had a really clear idea of how he wanted to tell the story and it was just a really easy read, it was really good. I had come off the back of two or three heavily dramatic films, one with Peter Weir; a thing called Triage, I played a war photographer, I was 28 pounds in that, it was tough. I wanted to go and have fun.

Was there a specific scene that you read and knew that you had to be a part of the project?

Farrell: That’s a good question. Yeah, one I’m not in actually [laughs] I just wanted to be there watching it on the monitor. No, the scene at the back door. I haven’t got much dialogue in the film, I have 22 and a half lines?

Gillespie: 19 and a half.

Farrell: 19 and a half? Well, 16 of them are in this one scene at the back door when I ask Charley – I don’t know if you saw it – I was trying to get beer.

Yeah, we did see that one.

Farrell: That scene was just, “Wow, that’ll be fun. That’ll be a lot of fun to just play that.” And it really was, on the day. It was a blast. So that scene, yeah. Just the whole notion as an actor, as a male actor, there’s a few boxes – for me – there are a few boxes. Seems like every actor wants to play a boxer, I’d love to play a boxer someday because I know the discipline that I know it would bring into my life.

Maybe a boxing vampire.

Farrell: A boxing vampire! [laughs] That’s genius! [To Craig] Maybe a boxing zombie and then I can get into your next picture! But it’s one of those boxes I ticked, playing a vampire. It really was. You always take the work seriously, but sometimes you really get to engage the more childish aspects of yourself.

Did you find that you took inspiration from Chris Sarandon’s performance?

Farrell: No – I mean, yes, you take inspiration from everything you ever see or do or hear or feel – but it was designed 180 degrees in the opposite direction in this script, which was kind of good because it just meant that I wasn’t to compete with Chris in his department of being charming and all that stuff, which be just a fucking nightmare, a disaster and an exercise in futility. So this guy, his emotional life wasn’t there. There was an emotional life in Chris Sarandon’s Jerry Dandridge – there was a sense of longing, there was a sense of loneliness and isolation, even though he had [Billy Cole], his watcher. He was looking for his love, he was looking for his counterpart. He was looking for that woman he had lost long ago and he finds her in Amy. In this that wasn’t there and I was hoping a little bit more that it was there and eventually, really about two weeks into the film, I was going, “The disco scene, can we make it about something? Why do I have to carry her like a fireman? Really? Vampire fireman is next? Can I not just fucking go through with it?” So I was coming into it because I wanted to have a little more sexual omnipotence and then I was like, I just have to get into it. I just have to put that to the side there and engage in the character as he’s designed. He was designed in a really brutal way, he’s a brutal character and a sexual predator and somebody who is nothing if not a survivalist with little to no emotional life. And that was fun; that became embracing.

One of the greatest things about the original film is that it pays incredibly strict attention to the classic vampire myth – sleeping in a coffin, can only go out at night, power over women, can’t enter a house unless invited. Was that something you were strict about while doing this film?

Gillespie: Yeah. I think, obviously the rules have been fudged over the last few years, so I really wanted to stay true to the strong belief from the original idea of Dracula and vampires – can’t go out in the sun, crosses only work if you’re religious and have faith and various notions like that. And that was from the original, so that was something you pulled from there and I respect that. Obviously one that you guys saw was being invited in: classic vampire fact. I think it’s fun to go back to that heritage and the idea, too, that it’s a monster, in the original sense of Dracula. There is this longing and stuff, but people generally fear and that’s the case here too.

You can also really sense that the whole cat and mouse game is still there, which was another thing that made the original great.

Gillespie: I think what was most surprising in Marty [Noxon]’s script was there is that great cat-and-mouse in the film and how it’s going to play out and there’s an incredible suspense to it. And all bets are off when he blows the house up [laughs]. It’s only halfway through the film and it’s kind of the last thing you’d expect that that’s going to be a confrontation that then they’ll recede and regroup and come back, and I love that Marty’s script is, in the one sense, logical because they guy is fearless and has nothing to worry about – he can just disappear at the end of the day. He’s been found out, his cover is blown, so he’s probably going to have to pack up and take off that night and he’s going to fucking kill these guys [laughs].

Farrell: He doesn’t need a passport, he doesn’t need to pack a bag. He’s good to go anywhere. There’s really not a life of containment for him. I had to rationalize, “Wait a second. He’s setting fire to the fucking house and he’s getting in the car, is this Bad Boys?” [laughs] And it was just no, it just came down to the fact that he’s really bored! His sense of power, his sense of omnipotence was something that was so profound and been around for so long that he is impervious to any threat from mortal society. He’s kind of just bored and it’s good sport. Charley becomes – I think it’s more pronounced in this – a worthy foe. Jerry still never feels the pinch of threat, it’s just these little constant setbacks.

Gillespie: It’s a nice diversion for him. The monotony of hundreds of years of existence…

Farrell: And Jerry’s not Brad Pitt’s vampire [in Interview with a Vampire] who ended up feasting on rats and then in a moment of absolute bloodthirsty weakness fed on a child. Jerry is so okay and he’s so addressed in who he is and what he is and where he is in the evolutionary scale that it’s all about the chase for him. It’s that thing as well, these things that phase into how a lot of us operate in society today on our Friday and Saturday nights: it’s all about the chase! If a person were to lie down before him and offer up their neck he would be disgusted. He needs to feel fear; he needs to feel resistance. So, in that sense, he’s probably saving Charley until the very end. I don’t think that’s the tension initially, but the more and more Charley resists the more and more he becomes attracted to it.

On the note of remakes, you’re also going to be starting production soon on a remake of Total Recall. Was your approach to that project the same as your approach to Fright Night?

Colin Farrell: Total Recall, again, another thing I loved. Verhoven's is so brilliant, so brilliant. I loved it and, again, all these kind of "Ahh!" I just really liked the script, I met Len [Wiseman], I saw some of the artistic renderings of what he's going to do with that world and it's amazing! I mean, who knows what a film is from its conception to its full realization, so many factors involved. You always go in with hope and with expectation. I just know what he's going to do as far as creating that world. And it's great. There's literally stuff to be done with that same story. And it's not, and I read some blurb it's going back to the original short story. No it's not! It's Kafka, the original short story, I mean it was Philip K. Dick, but it was so dark and it was such a kind of omnipresent sense of power and corruption, and that plays into ours as well, but it's not nearly as dark as the original. But it's good stuff. It's good stuff. So I'm going to start that in a couple weeks

The folks behind the remake of Fright Night have just about sealed the deal with the lead actor, Anton Yelchin. According to THR, Yelchin is in final negotiations to step in front of the lens for Craig Gillespie as the lead character, a kid who accuses his new neighbor of being a vampire.

The film is a remake of the 1985 original. Marti Noxon’s new script retains the main player’s name, Charley Brewster, but there’s no word on whether or not the same treatment will be given to Charley’s buddy Evil Ed, his girlfriend Amy and, of course, the vampire next door, Jerry.

With films like Alpha Dog, Charlie Bartlett, Terminator Salvation and Star Trek under his belt, I doubt there’s a person out there who’d find anything but perfection in Yelchin’s casting. The guy has an unbelievably wide range and a knack for nabbing your sympathy. A writer from Mad Men, the director of Lars and the Real Girl and now one of the most capable young actors in the business? This is shaping up to be a promising horror remake and, nowadays, that’s saying a lot.