Did The Kennedys Have A Dalmatian

Expert’s answer:

Based on the search results, there is no clear evidence to suggest that the Kennedys had a Dalmatian. The search results mention various pets owned by the Kennedys, such as horses and ceramic Dalmatians, but there is no specific mention of a real Dalmatian dog owned by the Kennedys. It’s possible that they may have had a Dalmatian at some point, but there is no definitive information available to confirm this.

Where did first lady jackie kennedy study abroad in college?
Where did first lady jackie kennedy study abroad in college? – (Image Source: Pixabay.com)

How did John Kennedy’s dog fare?

When you use the links in this text to buy something, PetPlace might receive compensation. John F. Kennedy died two years later. Donald Kennedy Jr. ‘s plane crashed into the water, his beloved dog, Friday, has retired to the peaceful fields of Portugal.

John F. Kennedy died two years later. Robert Kennedy Jr. After’s plane crashed into the water, Friday, his beloved dog, retired to Portugal’s pastoral fields.

The purebred Canaan dog, a breed renowned for its fierce loyalty and guarding instincts, has been given to Ephigenio Pinheiro, a former Kennedy family aide. Pinheiro’s Portuguese residence’s precise location has remained a mystery.

The spunky breed, which Kennedy was looking for when he called a breeder named Donna Dodson about five years ago, is not surprised by the transition.

Which state elected jfk to the house of representatives in 1946?
Which state elected jfk to the house of representatives in 1946? – (Image Source: Pixabay.com)

Which former president owned a well-known dog?

The President’s distant cousin and close confidante Margaret Suckley gave Fala to him when he was four months old.

Big Boy was his original name, but FDR changed it to “Murray the Outlaw of Falahill” in honor of a Scottish ancestor. On this certificate of registration from the American Kennel Club, that name was given. FDR and the public began to refer to the dog as Fala over time, though.

Fala quickly won over President Roosevelt and became a constant companion. Every morning a bone was brought up on the President’s breakfast tray, and he slept in a special chair at the foot of FDR’s bed.

JFK, did he have any dogs?

Relating to media. U.S. President John F. John F. Kennedy, Caroline Kennedy, and Jacqueline Kennedy, the first lady, are the couple’s kids. Jack Kennedy Jr. they play with their dogs Charlie, Shannon, Wolf, White Tips, Blackie, and Clipper at the Brambletyde residence on Squaw Island in Hyannis Port, Massachusetts.

Which president resided in the White House with the most animals?
(Image Source: Pixabay.com)

Which president resided in the White House with the most animals?

Six kids and more animals than the White House had ever seen moved in with our 26th president, Theodore Roosevelt, when he took office in 1901. Jonathan Edwards the small bear, Bill the lizard, Fighting Bob Evans, Bishop Doane, and Father O’Grady the guinea pig, Maude the pig, Josiah the badger, Eli Yale the blue macaw, Baron Spreckle the hen, a one-legged rooster, a hyena, a barn owl, Peter the rabbit, and Algonquin the pony were among the family’s pets. Both his children and the pets were cherished by President Roosevelt. When the President’s son Archie was ill in bed, Algonquin was so well-loved that his brothers Kermit and Quentin brought the pony up to his room in the elevator. But it was difficult to get Algonquin outside because he was fixated on his own image in the elevator mirror.

Four snakes were purchased by Quentin once when he stopped at a pet shop. The President was having a crucial meeting in the Oval Office when he went to show his father the photos. When the boy entered and hugged his father, senators and party leaders grinned tolerantly. The authorities, however, scurried for cover when Quentin dropped the snakes on the table. The snakes were eventually captured and immediately returned to the pet store. Because it was thin like my aunt Emily and as green as spinach, Alice, Quentin’s sister, gave the garter snake Emily Spinach as a pet.

The Roosevelts also loved dogs. Sailor Boy the Chesapeake retriever, Jack the terrier, Skip the mongrel, and Pete, a bull terrier who bit into so many legs that he had to be banished to the Roosevelt home in Long Island, were among their many canines. Alice had a small black Pekingese named Manchu, which she received from the last empress of China during a trip to the Far East. A Manchu dancing in the moonlight on the White House lawn, according to Alice, who once claimed to have witnessed it.

What breed of dogs owned by Jackie Kennedy?
(Image Source: Pixabay.com)

What breed of dogs owned by Jackie Kennedy?

John F. Despite having a known allergy, Kennedy appeared to be more of a dog enthusiast because he spent the majority of his life with dogs. The Welsh terrier named Charlie was the only dog he and Jacqueline Kennedy owned when they first moved into the White House. Over the course of his presidency, they also acquired Clipper, Wolf, Shannon, Pushinka (a gift from Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev), and Charlie and Pushinka’s four puppies. It’s a good thing that White House photographers were always prepared to document the contributions of these and other excellent dogs in the Kennedy orbit.

Unofficial White House “dog wrangler” Traphes Bryant talks about training Pushkina to play on Caroline Kennedy’s slide in his oral history interview. “President Kennedy asked me how I taught Pushinka to climb the ladder and slide down the chute,” Bryant says. I informed President Kennedy that I gradually raised a peanut. When I showed him the pictures, he laughed”.

The White House Photographs collection features images of other First Dogs engaging in common canine pastimes like eating treats, sitting on furniture, following people around, and receiving pets.

Which president owned a Dalmatian?
(Image Source: Pixabay.com)

Which president owned a Dalmatian?

In addition to a dalmatian named Madame Moose, Washington owned several black and tan hounds with names like Tipsy, Tipler, and Drunkard.

John Adams, the first president to live in the White House, was rumored to have two dogs named Juno and Satan in addition to a horse named Cleopatra. (We assume that the latter dog was a bit of a troublemaker. ).

While Thomas Jefferson did enjoy dogs and horses, he also enjoyed mockingbirds and bought his first one from a slave owned
by his father-in-law.

Which president had odd animals living in the White House?
(Image Source: Pixabay.com)

Which president had odd animals living in the White House?

During their tenure as president and first lady, Calvin and Grace Coolidge shared the White House with a variety of animals, including a donkey, a bobcat, and geese. One of the most popular was a raccoon by the name of Rebecca.

When you’re on the go, access your preferred topics in a customized feed.

With the revered presidential tradition of having a pet in the White House dating back to its very first occupant, John Adams, many of the residents of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue have been animal lovers.

30 of the 45 presidents own dogs, making them the most common pet overall.

Which animals lived with John F. Kennedy in the White House?

Welsh terrier Charlie, a pet of JFK. French poodle Gaullie. Nikita Khruschev, the Soviet premier, gave Nikita Pushinka as a gift. Shannon, a cocker spaniel from Ireland. Irish wolfhound, a wolf. German shepherd, clipper. Puppies of Pushinka and Charlie: Butterfly, White Tips, Blackie, Streaker. Cat named Tom Kitten.

Served from January 20, 1961, to November 22, 1963, and was born on May 29, 1917, in Brookline, Massachusetts. Political Party: Democratic; spouse: Jacqueline Bouvier; occupation: politician.

John F. Kennedy served as the 35th president of the United States. His one unfinished term in office came to an end on the day of his murder in 1963. Even though his presidency was rife with conflict, Kennedy, also known as JFK, became a symbol of a simpler time when he was assassinated.

Theodore Roosevelt was the youngest president in office, but Kennedy is renowned for being the youngest president to be elected. Along with having a Catholic upbringing, he was the only president to have won a Pulitzer Prize.

Friday Kennedy, what breed of dog was he?
(Image Source: Pixabay.com)

Friday Kennedy, what breed of dog was he?

While the dwindling population of feral Canaan Dogs has faced difficulties in their native country, the breed has become widespread worldwide. Ursula Berkowitz of Oxnard, California, received the first four Canaan dogs from Rudolpha in 1965. Later that year, she assisted in the founding of the Canaan Dog Club of America. Although it has never been very well-liked (out of the 193 recognized breeds by the AKC, the Canaan Dog was ranked 179th in 2017), in 1995, John F. Robert Kennedy Jr. Friday was named after the Friday he brought his Canaan Dog to work with him at George magazine. But Kennedy, who was all too aware of the dangers of being in the public eye, never acknowledged Friday as a Canaan Dog and never dispelled popular misconceptions that he was a mixed breed.

Rudolphina Menzel passed away in 1973, but she lived long enough to witness the Canaan Dog’s successful reintroduction into Jewish culture. The breed was accepted by the Israeli Kennel Club in 1953, and it later received recognition from the American Kennel Club in 1997 and the Federation Cynologique Internationale, or FCI, in 1966.

The Menzels had no family in the fledgling state of Israel and no children. But they did possess the dogs, which were still around today and were devoted reminders of a long-gone era. They also had a bond with the soil, which they ardently desired to renew.

Video:


Dalamatian or Dalmatian? 😂

Follow Brendan on social media: Twitter https://twitter.com/brendanschaub Instagram https://instagram.com/brendanschaub …



ranking 5 different versions of cruella de vil 🦴🧥🚬

In honor of disney’s brand new cruella movie we decided to take a look at 5 different versions of the iconic, fur-obsessed villain …


Did The Kennedys Have A Dalmatian.
(Image Source: Pixabay.com)

Chelsea Vaughn

Chelsea is a former marine biologist who switched gears in her twenties to build a small house and start a business. She enjoys traveling and going on hiking adventures with her husband, their two Australian Shepherds and their African Grey Parrot.

View all posts

89 comments

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  • emma stones cruella was going so well, until the scene where she wears a damlatian coat but turns out she didnt kill the dogs. it wouldve been amazing to see she kills the dogs, loses her childhood friends due to that, is left alone, and become similar to baroness, the person she hates the most, she then inherits the massive fortune from her mother and is left alone, with her expensive clothing and fur! There was no fur obsession in the film and cruella didnt do anything wrong, which makes her NOT a villain

  • 26:29 Sure Cruella’s clothing was an obvious nod to the punk rock movement, but the put together-ness of her outfits during her time before becoming Cruella shows how she wants to fit into to the high class world of fashion, and it also nods to the fact of her status as the ACTUAL heiress. Another problem I’m seeing is the fact that people are comparing 101 Dalmations (96′) and Cruella, I would consider them two totally different movies and not Cruella being a prequel to the Dalmations movie but rather just Cruella’s own orgin story as itself. In my opinion Cruella is by FAR one of the best live adaptions Disney has made so far, from the fashion to the plot. I understand it’s not everyone’s cup of tea but everything about it is good, I do agree with the fact that Anita and the boys could’ve been kept out or have become different characters completly (honestly Anita brought nothing to this story) but Horus and Jasper I feel brought the foundation for Estella’s life. Going back to what I said about not being able to compare the movies, Cruella using fashion as a way to embarass the Baroness shows the difference between the movies because in this one her goal wasn’t power but revenge (which she got eventually) so it really made since for her whole thing to be based on making it big in fashion but then her direction changing once she finds out that the Baroness might’ve played a role in her mothers death. Overall I think this movie is a great look into the FABULOUS character we know as Cruell De Vil and I feel as though it got too much hate because people really were trying to compare it rather then see it for what it was, an orgin story.

  • “Emma Stone’s character feels like an entirely different person from the original conception of Cruella De Ville.” You hit the nail on the head when you said that, and that’s exactly why I like Emma Stone’s version the best. She’s actually likable to me. The original conception of Cruella was evil to the point where I’d feel more comfortable meeting Hannibal Lecter. Why? Because I understand Hannibal hating people and having a distaste for humans. But the “original conception of Cruella” who was out to kill dogs & puppies in order to make a fur coat? That on the other hand, is something I do not understand at all and I never will.

  • So here’s the issue I’m seeing, and this is just my opinion: People who thought of the new Cruella movie as it’s own movie mostly seem to love it, and people who saw the movie as a reiteration or prequel of both 101 Dalmatians seem to not like it as much. Edit: dang y’all I actually started a discussion lol

  • Another wonderfully frightening version of Cruella is on the 2021 101 Dalmatian Street cartoon. She’s vaguely hinted at throughout the show but finally appears in person in the season 1 finale. It’s easily one of the darkest incarnations of her. She’s pretty much a walking corpse in this one, only still clinging to life due to her thirst for vengeance. I really recommend looking up the clip where she enters the Dalmatians’ house. It’s straight out of a horror movie.

  • I really enjoyed the new Cruella version that was just released. I love the way Emma Stone plays her and i do like that she’s not crazy about just fur, but love that she is about fashion in general. This movie gives her more of a dissociative personality disorder rather than just a manic crazed psychopath who is out to kill puppies. I wouldn’t say that the 2021 release is a sequel to the Glenn Close version even if it had been meant to be. I am very interested to see where the story goes from here after seeing that Cruella had given puppies to Anita and Rodger(the lawyer dude). Being a person Who actually likes the villains, I prefer this new version of Cruella it gives her more depth as a person and not just a villain who wants to kill puppies.

  • As someone who absolutely loved the Cruella movie, I will say that Glenn Close is my favorite Cruella as well. I think that as a separate thing, Cruella is pretty awesome, but the true Villain version will always be the ones with Glenn Close for me. Partly because of my own bias as they came out when I was young, but also because of all the reasons mentioned in this article, which i agree with

  • Bill Pete also worked on Snow White, if you’ve read his autobiography. He isn’t listed in the credits of the movie, but he did contribute. I just wanted to point it out because in his autobiography he made it clear that not being listed in the Snow White credits was a bit of a blow after all the work he had put in, so I like to remind people.

  • The way I see it to make the prequel work is you give the Baroness a pet obsession. Outside of her fashion business she owns a veritable zoo of furred animals. Cruella’s obsession with fur is given an added motivator in taking pleasure in destroying what the baroness loved. Then in the original story when the dalmatian idea comes about she’s reminded of the baroness’ prized pooches and becomes instantly obsessed with taking her sadistic pleasure that one step further to completeness.

  • So I haven’t been able to watch Cruella yet but she’s definitely one of my favorites. Since I’m also a huge fan of Descendants as it brought me back to Disney, maybe you could judge the characters’ appearances based off of their parents? Like you said about Carlos his outfits are cute (he’s by far one of my favorites) or just talk about the costumes in general since it brings together characters from different times (like Mulan, Snow White, Cruella and such)

  • I actually really like the makeup & hair on the OUAT version? It feels like a fun update on the 1990s Glenn Close version, whilst still falling within a space that could be considered only slightly heightened fashion. Both of them have such amazing wardrobes too, a great example of how character can be both illustrated through and reinforced by costume design?

  • Could you analyze the fashion in the Once Upon a Time tv show?? I want to dress like some of the characters but I don’t know exactly what I’m looking at. And I learn so much through your articles! And I feel like you could analyze both the outfits in the fairytale world and the outfits in the real world because both are ✨chef’s kiss ✨

  • The award goes to Glenn Close; she had the range, she really got in character, and she scared ppl which is who Cruella is. Emma’s version was more so a little too soft because the director wanted us to see the human side of her and why she was what we know her to be…. The villain. But Glenn Close for sure; she should teach master classes. Her acting is top notch

  • I can’t really count it as a prequel as well, because it goes different, like, the end scene sort of confused me, cuz, it was, like, you get them dogs and then you steal them afterwards. The two friends she goes along the movie later on becomes the dudes on call, when she needs the dirty work to be done. I really like the movie itself, and it more reminds me of Maleficent, which also had an alternate ending, totally different apart from one seen in the animation. And, tbh, I love both, cuz that was an unexpected turn in both cases. I think this new Cruella takes different path as the new Maleficent, even tho just keeping same path wouldn’t change the interest as it would go, like, where did it all start from. Should they do this with both, Cruella and Maleficent? I guess, no. Did I liked both new versions? Totally, yes! Disney clearly has changed paths for these villains, they have become more likeable (which surely is an arguable part, should they really do it), but we also live in a world where people do understand that villains as characters has more potential and story behind. Ofc, obeying villains is a different story, but these movies has got me more than the plain live replicas of animations for The Beauty and the Beast or Aladdin, which were great, yet again they’re legit replica to what we already saw in the animations. I could give a credit to Cinderella, it excluded all the musical, if I remember correctly, was sort of hoping they would do the same with other two I mention before.

  • the making cruella someone who’s into punk-rock fashion could have been a great decision, they could have made it like cruella grew up in a low income household which led her to become interested in punk (because punk originated from poorer areas and is very heavily reliant on DIY) so she would like make her own clothes (which would also give her a reason to like fur) but they ended up just using that as a “oh edgy bad guy is vaguely punk because punk bad” it’s really sad :/

  • I have to say. The last Cruella was actually good. And the fact that there was no fur did not bother me. Style and fashion changes with time afterall and the 2021 version was of a young Cruella. Plus fur is for very rich people so I would make sense that Cruella discovered fur later on, when she got rich and she then fell in love with it.

  • I actually love the story of Cruella in OUAT. They turned the redemption arc on its head. She gets the usual treatment, until you realize she was tricking the audience all along and was just an insane woman with a love of power. The fact that what she considered her happy ending was regaining the ability to harm people was, in my opinion, genius. I was genuinely shocked by the fact that they let her be pure, untainted evil, and the story we had been given as basis for “redemption” were all her doing (spoilers: killing her own stepfathers, terrifying her mother until her mother got guard dogs to protect herself, killing her mother, etc.). Her hair bothered me, but the makeup made sense to me.

  • Anita would make sense in a Cruella prequel because their relationship is the whole trigger for 101 Dalmatians- so that history would be somewhat interesting to explore. It could be a story about Cruella’s radical feminism versus Anita’s traditional feminine personality, taking a look at how empowering women to pursue their careers is a good thing while also showcasing the toxic traits of materialism and devaluing men. But even then the problem would be that Anita and Cruella’s relationship couldn’t come to a satisfying confrontation because Anita and Cruella obviously never had bad beef between each other- they just led different lives. (Anita being too kind to speak ill of her and Cruella eating up the attention from a nonthreatening woman she compare herself against) I really don’t think there’s a solid way of doing a prequel or a sequel to 101 Dalmatians. Cruella without the action of kidnapping adorable, baby animals is just an awful person and those are a dime a dozen. I don’t think there is a real way to stretch the plot beyond that. I mean I guess you could do “The Devil Wears Prada” but even then, it would be a stand alone story that has very little connection to the original story.

  • I like the newest one from the prequel because she did so good and the entire aesthetic of the movie hit different in an amazingly good way, the outfits were bomb so a big fat high-five to the costume designer. I also liked how they made her childhood with her mum dying from the three Dalmatians which gives a fairly nice motive for her to kidnap and skin them. I also liked how they made her look beautiful rather than the boney and grey skin design of the animated movies, the other live action movies also seem to make her look older and the hair is too exaggerated for me. I feel the newest live action also does extremely well showing her obsession with art and fashion and her struggles with her childhood and getting a place in her dream job. It was also quite nice how the film shows Cruella slowly going into madnesses to get revenge. The ending of the movie was also extremely satisfying at the end, there are few plot gaps remaining and that’s honestly really rare.

  • I think the reason she didn’t wear any fur in the last film was because she was younger and I saw a lot of leather so maybe she wore leather but over time as she grew old she missed her mother more and more and that made her think about the dogs and she did become a fashion designer so maybe she thought of a way to get revenge again is making coats out of them and maybe when she got older that’s when she got her love for fur (this is just my theory I came up with)

  • To me, the wardrobe and the Emmas is what made “Cruella” worth perusal; my biggest gripe with the film was its length, that story really did not need to be that long. Glenn Close is my favorite Cruella as well, she jut brought a certain magic to that character that has gone unrivaled. I remember perusal the ’96 version on VCR all the time as a kid and being totally enthralled in the dark majesty of Ms. De Vil.

  • I have not watched the article yet, and I’m going to say this right now, the best version of Krewella that I’ve seen between all of the Corella’s is probably Glenn Close. She was the most chaotic, but not stupid. Motivated and determined, almost like it was in the addictive drug that she could not get away from the spots.

  • I always saw the once upon a time Cruella’s make up more as a disfigurement from the ink, than a stylistic choice. She just made the best out of it. Also loved the Cruella movie, it is like Maleficent just a fun spin on how a story might got told all wrong and the fact that it so different from the original made it actually more enjoyable for me since it was a new story to enjoy. But nothing can top my childhood nostalgia love for the original animated film. I loved dalmatians because of it as a kid, still have the toy dalmatians… The 1996 film scared me as kid and I never rewatched it, totally preferred the animated one.

  • As incredible as Emma Stone played the role of Cruella, I feel like Helena Bonham Carter would have been a better choice of roll. Helena Bonham Carter is the person who played Bellatrix in Harry Potter, Mrs. Lovett in Sweeney Todd, the red queen in the live action Alice in Wonderland, and Mrs. Bucket in Tim Burton’s Charlie and Chocolate Factory.

  • The 2021 version of cruella is really well done – you spoke about her fashion not being as high-end/crazy as the other cruellas but as this is an origin story it really is wayyy before she has access to the funds/resources she’d use to buy those things. You also didn’t show any of the major fashion looks she uses to upstage the baroness

  • Glenn Close is still the most iconic rendition for me. Her outfits. Everything about her was Cruella more so than even the animated character. Her entrance into House of DeVil is iconic. Her statement “More good women are lost to marriage than war, famine, and disease.” 👌🏿👌🏿👌🏿 Call her many things, but iconic is one of them.

  • Giving Cruella magic in OUAT is, like, one of the least offensive things they did to any of the characters. However, the acting for Cruella was so camp that it harkened back to both Glenn Close and the animated version. She’s evil from start to finish and is the ONLY villain who’s backstory isn’t tragic in any way. She kills her step fathers, manipulates the author to get magic, uses her mother’s guard dogs to kill her, then kills the dogs for a fur coat, then tries to kill the author. She’s straight up evil with zero redeeming qualities. Not every villain needs either a redemption arc or a tragic backstory. Just let a villain be evil and campy, y’know? Also, if Cruella wasn’t called Cruella, I’d love it. But it puts the Cruella name on a completely unrelated character.

  • OUAT Cruella could’ve become one of the worst threats of all time. She was a born psychopath even as a little girl (she poisoned every of her mothers husbands just for fun) She has the ability to control EVERY animal (even magical beasts) She was beautiful and charming before she was defeated by the author and his ink changed her look Imagine what could’ve happened if she was able to manage killing the author instead of being defeated and disabled of killing anyone. This Cruella would just become the new Dark One by killing of Rumpelstiltskin and gaining even more power.

  • @Moderngurlz I loved the movie. I try not to compare films and see the film for what the writer wants us to see. I feel like Cruella, in this prequel, is still trying to find herself and her maximum potential, so I think that’s why her outfits aren’t as glamorous as we think they should be. The sequel is what we should be paying attention to more when it comes out.

  • I actually really enjoyed Emma Stones Cruella. I found the story really good and the costume department did wonderful. I actually like how she plays on making people think she killed the dogs for a coat but, didn’t and kept them despite everything. I view this story in the same light as Malificent. Emma Stone and Glenn Close are the best Cruellas.

  • 102 dalmatians will always be my favourite from this series of films, glenn close is just incredible and I hope that one day she gets to play cruella once again, also just like you mentioned how anita’s name change bugs you, the number 1 thing that bugs be about the 2021 cruella film is how they changed her name to estella, it makes no sense to me because its meant to be cruel-ella so it was just un needed, idk maybe I’m just picky

  • Taking in ModernGurlz thought on Cruella, this is what I’m thinking for the next Cruella movie: As Cruella becomes progressively more obsessed with fur fashion Horace and Jasper become afraid of her and decide to run away with the dogs. Now abandoned and very hurt Cruella hires new goons who have completely different names but calls them Horace and Jasper and is very harsh and violent towards them as it’s her lashing out towards her former friends who abandoned her. And since the dogs also ran away with her former friends Cruella begins to see dogs as traitors and gains a growing hate towards them, that hate becoming a live towards their coats and her desire to make a coat from them And that’s all I got for this idea I think it’s a pretty interesting gray to portray Cruella’s growing love for fur and declining mental state

  • Very nice job on this article. I give you a lot of credit for doing your research and putting this together. I’ve seen other articles created by different people and I was not interested at all. Mainly because they are so limited and only pull information from trailers rather than perusal the entire films and television shows. I was excited to see you talk about all versions of Cruella. Most articles on the subject of Cruella always leave out the Once Upon a Time version as well as the Descendants version. I find myself enjoying all versions of Cruella. I like seeing different writers and actors giver their own spin on the character. The recently released Cruella film is definitely a new top favorite for me. But I have to agree 101 Dalmatians with Glenn Close is definitely number one.

  • I love Emma Stone’s Cruella and no one is going to convince me otherwise that she wasn’t one of the best. She receives credit for being in one of the few Disney stories not to just be a rehash and it was a stroke of brilliance to make Emma Thompson her mother. I think the story takes a darker turn when you realize she was probably selling the puppies Pongo and Perdita as a investment so she could make dog coats later.

  • I don’t really see cruella as any relation the the other live action films or animation, I see it only as an alternate universe. So any of the characters being in it didn’t bother me, the cruella devil in that film isn’t a villain she’s an anti hero who intentionally doesn’t want to be as cruel as her biological mother. I do however agree they could have done some fur/faux fur costumes.

  • Yea, Close did a great job. I have been uneasy about this prequel because they would have to either make her more sympathetic or declaw the best parts of her. She is a woman who adores fur and would kill your pet if it would make a nice outfit. I could see her in Madam Medusa’s role. She is among the top of the Disney villains simply because the lengths she would go to. Probably the only reason she was among Jafar, Maleficent, and the Queen in Decedents is because they are pretty iconic magic users. Cruella is iconic simply because unlike turning into a dragon or use wishes from a genie or simply being the first Disney feature villain, Cruella simply hires two thugs to kidnap innocent pets. That is scary, people steal pets for less than her motives. Usually for a quick buck for the right purebred.

  • The beauty of Cruella is that a person such as myself didnt have to see the original to love this film. I think this film is more for todays youth. I loved it and it would be my number one. The fashion in this movie is so fabulous. I personally dont care about the fur. This film is a new age of Cruella and I love it!! I might watch the version with Glenn Close now but tbh I would have never watched this film had my family not been perusal it. So that is a gain in audience, Disney wins!

  • I like to think that they did what they did with Maleficent in Cruella. In Maleficent 2 the Queen (Maleficent’s enemy) spread stories in order to strike fear of Maleficent into others. I personally think that Disney is making the Baroness do the same thing, telling a story (The story being the animated movie) in order to ruin Cruella.

  • Obviously Glenn Close is the best Cruella. perusal her as a kid made me understand camp performances before I even knew what camp meant. It was a tough choice for my second fave between Emma Stone and the original 1961 character, but I’d have to give it to Emma Stone just because she had the hardest job following Glenn Close but she surpassed everyone’s expectations and made the character her own

  • I think something to consider on the 2021 movie is that cruella was poor. She worked as a janitor, and even after being hired as a designer, she wasn’t swimming in money, and fur is expensive, really expensive. She used to steal with her friends to survive, so I can see how she could get fur-obsessed after getting a lot of money, but avoiding it on the beginning, especially when focusing on her costumes and parts of her plan and living with her friends. idk just a thought

  • 27:26 you know they could’ve made the cruella wearing fur possible if they had use fake fur and explain that the fur isn’t real But no surprise that glen close cruella was #1 cause she did an amazing job as cruella and it did look like she took the time to study the character personality and made it her own. Plus she had way too much fun playing that role. I definitely would watch that movie along with the orginal over and over again might watch that again over the weekend

  • My favorite Cruella is the one from the book. Classy, cool, psychopathic. She married a furrier and bullied him into changing his name to hers. Realizes that Anita is her only friend but doesn’t care. I’m trying to find my copy of the book because I’m due for a re-read (so I read kids’ novels…so what?).

  • I think that what Disney is doing with the newest Cruella isn’t just a backstory but also a reboot, something like Maleficent. Basically she didn’t skin the dogs and actually GAVE the two puppies as a gift. Why skin them later? I don’t think the initial idea was her becoming the villain but a more different approach (if they DO make her the villain in the sequel tho it must be because they are planning on creating a really though future for Emma Stone’s character that made her go crazy and snap or something.) Basically the Baroness reminds me more of the og Cruella I have a theory We didn’t see her die or else She was arrested She could escape And do something to the real Cruella Then start pretending to be her to get back her power and influence She could be keeping her as a prisoner And then she threatens her two besties that if they don’t help her pull it off, she would kill her or harm her So they hate her but help her against their will And they could include Pongo and Perdita’s story and elements of the og movie to conceive the overall vibe of 101 Dalmatians but as a reboot.

  • Emma Stone’s Cruella was based on Gothic and post punk culture not punk. She particularly has the same look and make up of Siouxsie Sioux from Siouxsie and the Banshees. Gothic fashion and culture wasn’t the whole hot topic nu metal craze people generally think of it. It was a more experimental and avant garde off shoot of Punk culture

  • Glenn Close’s Cruella will always be amazing. However, I was pleasantly surprised at how much I loved the newer movie. I definitely separated the film from any other canon versions and simply loved it as a story of it’s own.I already knew going in that there was no way they could successfully connect the stories without taking measures that some may find problematic. I think Emma did wonderful, I loved the fashion (I’m a sucker for the 70s punk look and I think they pulled it off effortlessly with touches of glam) and the movie kept me engaged.

  • I have recently discovered your website and am now binging through most of your articles haha. For me, if Emma Stone’s Cruella movie was NOT a prequel and had no ties to the other disney properties, I think it would have been fine (except maybe the ‘i controlled the dogs to kill your mom’ subplot i just, that was so stupid for me). Was there other problems? Yeah, but it was a p fine movie. And of course, the outfits ahhh. Really enjoyed this article. I really like how calming your voice is, and that you go into a brief description of the movie before comparing all the different adaptations ( in this and other similar comparison vids). Thanks for sharing your great insight with us in an enjoyable way!

  • I must admit, I love the new Cruella, but the reason is, I am not someone who needs the remake to be very close or similar to the original. I really enjoyed their take on a different Cruella, I would understand why some people wouldn’t be happy though, because Cruella is supposed to be evil, but again I like the change and how it’s really nothing like the original Cruella. Plus I don’t think this is an origin story, and I don’t think she’ll ever go to making the coat, because she did make it in the movie, without the real dog fur. I personally think this is just Cruella in a parallels universe. But that is just my opinion.

  • Another aspect that made Glenn Close uniquely perfect for the role of Cruella is that she had, also, played Norma Desmond in the original Broadway cast of “Sunset Boulevard” (the musical version). Although Cruella is certainly more evil, there are aspects to Norma Desmond’s slightly crazed, glamorously over-the-top personality that you can see reflected in Cruella, as well. Also, slight correction to your description of the premise of “Once Upon A Time”… the characters trapped in the town of Storybrooke in “Once Upon A Time” are not all fairy tale characters. More accurately, they are all “storybook” characters (which does include fairy tale characters but, not exclusively). That may sound like a very slight distinction but, there is a difference so, I always feel like it’s worth mentioning. It’s particularly relevant when talking about the character of Cruella. Because this distinction is what actually makes it possible for characters like Cruella, Dr. Frankenstein, Dr. Jekyll, the Wicked Witch of the West, and Nurse Ratched to make appearances in the world of “Once Upon A Time”, since all of these characters originate from novels, rather than fairy tales.

  • I think my hope for this character is sort of a pipe dream given the nature of Disney. I wanted to see “Cruella” be something where we saw a bit of back story, but ultimately she ended up being someone we could understand in the beginning but not sympathize with at the end. You could see them bumping up against her brand of evil but backing away, because they have masses to appeal to. Ideally IMO we would see her just be a person, then a person who fell in love with a material, became entitled in some way or another enough to think she deserves to destroy lives for it, and gradually makes decisions that lead us to the character we know. We as an audience can understand feeling we’re owed something at times, we can understand feeling powerful material lust, we can understand getting in too deep, but we know that there are some decisions we wouldn’t make, and we eventually enjoy Cruella’s antics from a moral distance. I think that would make for an interesting narrative about the banality of evil, especially considering we might even place more blame on the people and systems enabling Cruella. Either that or just go with Glenn Close’s take. I sort of enjoyed Cruella as a high jinks and cool fashion film, not so much as a story about a character fully possessing of an evil and comical gravitas sans redemption. Hollywood really likes assigning schlocky traumatic backstories to people, as if people who are bullied always become terrible people, or a single bad event or cluster of events in the past justifies drawn out bad behavior.

  • I like the new cruella- I haven’t watched/read 101 Dalmatians in years so I don’t remember it all that well but her story was just really interesting to me and actually made her one of my favorite characters in a weird way- I don’t like the fact that she attempted to kill someone and a bunch of puppies but I like her character- idk I would never condone her behavior but still-

  • I think you can enjoy Cruella (the movie) just by separating it from anything else related to 101 Dalmatians. As a story of its own, it works pretty well and has compelling characters. I think Disney slapped Cruella onto the story to milk the brand recognisability, and also to clean up her image and distance the overall Disney Villainsâ„¢ brand from any controversy surrounding furs. I’m fine with that, as long as they make an interesting film out of that. I just hope they don’t go and screw it up by really trying to bridge this film with the Glenn Close ones. Cruella is definitely not a villain origin story, it’s a story with its own anti-heroine and needs its own space to breathe. Sure, they could have called her anything other than Cruella De Vil, but now they’ve gone an entirely different route there’s no point in backpedalling and changing it all.

  • I like the movie Cruella, and as someone completely ignorant of fashion as an art form, I thought most of her outfits to be interesting, but the personality they wrote for her is so soft. She’s a dog lover to the point she takes in the same Dalmatians that killed her mother and then gifted their puppies to her acquaintances. Like comparing them side by side, I wouldn’t even claim the original Cruella and Emma Stone’s portrayal as the same person; they’re just two people with similar hair who loves fashion, but nothing more. If Disney weren’t so scared of making her bolder, then it would’ve been a really good movie

  • I respect your opinion on the Emma stone cruella DeVille version, yes the fur coat was kinda the identity that cruella DeVille has for her self, a thing that would automatically make her stand out, but i think we should think of it as another version of cruella, al least in the other versions she didn’t had that deep personality that we see in the new one, sure we can see her love for fashion but we don’t see her sketching designs and things and being creative at doing at her job and having motivations for becoming a genius fashion designer, so you see they are incomparable to each other.

  • Personally, I like Cruella more than any of the previous or original story of the 101 Dalmatians. I never liked Cruella in the originals because I was scared of her and couldn’t bring to watch the originals too often. 2021 Cruella became my favorite not only because it’s unique but it also gave me something new to think about of Cruella

  • Just a side note: The Glenn Close and Emma Stone versions can’t be canon to each other, since one takes place in modern day (at the time) and the other is happening in the 60s. Plus Roger, Anita, and Jasper are race bent. So they dont really have to worry too much about matching each other’s stories 1 for 1

  • Cruella is not the prequel of 90’s movie and it is going to have a sequel which will explain where they are going to take it and how. Also not showing her fur obsession was a way to show that she is not obsessed with them right now. Btw “This is going to be heavily biased” feels like an understatement.

  • i loved this list and ranking! the glamour of Glenn and the radicalness of Emma are so wonderful. i do have one question, though. i hope this doesn’t come of as bigoted/racist because it’s not my intention but if Disney is planning to merge Cruella with the universe that Glenn Close’s Cruella is apart of why did the they make Anita and Roger people of color rather than Caucasian? Anita and Roger from the 1996 movie were white (very white) so if they’re wanting to blend those two movies together and connect them in some way then why did they play the diversity card? i think Disney has paint themselves into a corner here with any potential sequels. i’m more confused by this than anything else; it just doesn’t make sense to me. can someone explain this to me (civilly)?

  • I honestly LOVED Cruella. The lack of fur didn’t actually bother me too much. The costumes were still lovely and the story was great. I didn’t really see anything anti-capitalist about it, even after I found out that was the point. The same is true for combining it with the Glenn Close movies. That thought didn’t even occur to me until I watched this article. All of that said, I have no intention on perusal the sequel. But, I’ll probably look up some clips for outfit inspiration

  • Honestly I see Cruella 2021 as a parallel universe not a prequel. When I look at it that way it’s a super fun fashionable movie with the familiar characters in a different world that makes sense. Also it doesn’t feel like a prequel as she completely transforms into an anti hero as opposed to the vein evil woman who skins puppies. It doesn’t seem like Emma Stones Cruella will ever get to that point

  • I said the same thing about 2021 Cruella it shouldn’t be seen as a bad prequel to Glenn Close but rather it’s own movie if it truly was it would have been wonderful it is just the idea of a prequel acting as a justification towards this evil yet fabulous character.Disney shouldn’t have tried to justify her abusive and killer ways, but instead have Emma Stone be a mere adaptation with no connections, however this would still highlight a hinted attempt to justify her evil ways.Annoyingly it can be both an interesting movie to watch (especially when myself as a queer person it feels as though she’s an outcast but fabulously so), yet no one wants to be related in a way to a character that is so vile.Overall, it’s good but it’s so so bad.

  • This was an Absolutely Amazing Ranking article for My Eighth Favorite Disney Villain Cruella De Vil Ranked 1: Cruella (Emma Stone) 2: The Original 1961 One and One Dalmatian (Betty Lou Gerson) 3: The 1996 Remake Version of The One and One Dalmatian (Glen Close) 4: Once Upon a Time (Victoria Smurfit) 5: Descendants (Wendy Raquel Robinson)

  • I definitely agree that they should have been willing to use fake fur when designing the costumes for Cruella. That’s exactly what they did in the Glenn Close versions and the costume department didn’t even try to disguise some of the less realistic looking fake fur as real fur. They let those movies be the right amount of campy back then while today they’re trying to make everything attractive. Hopefully they find the formula they were using int he 90s and do some lesser-loved classics that deserve a second chance.

  • Loving fur was major part but not the only part what makes Cruella The Cruella…. obsession on material things, narcissistic and vile behaviour, that stubbornness was what made Cruella as per me..and Cruella 2021 know this and twisted the story..I ssly loved Emma stone and this new interpretation of Cruella .. this was a standalone movie and not a prequel I hope it’s known

  • “Unfortunately” the idea of using Cruella as the antagonist to The Rescuers was scrapped” I wouldn’t say unfortunately, I think Madame Medusa fits the setting way differently. Aside from the driving, the characters are very different. First it’s just plain weird to have a prominently British character in an American movie. Secondly, I just don’t see Cruella handling herself in the swamp. I think she’d fare even worse than Yzma in the wild. Also having a middle class woman searching for a diamond makes more sense than someone who’s already rich. Not that rich people are against increasing their wealth, but Cruella never seemed to care. Medusa is also more of a manipulator than Cruella. She’s all about hiding her devilish nature and trying to be more “civil”, except from the fact that it didn’t really work.I loved The Rescuers and it’s a ton of fun as it is TBH.

  • Imagine this, you designe a villain that only appears a very short time on screen, but she is so awesome that is adapted over and over… well done, Marc Davis (and, of course, how could I ever forget of Dodie Smith?). Ok, now we need a full article just talking about Glenn Close’s outfits. Ok, now we need a full article just talking about Glenn Close’s outfits. I haven’t seen OUAT before, but Cruella’s actress look PERFECT, I mean, she is beautiful, but her face and cheekbones are exactly like animated Cruella. Honestly, I spent most of Cruella’s movie drooling over the clothes, make up, and hairstyles, but now that you pointed out, you’re right, they lost a perfect chance to establish the early stages of her love for fur; I mean, if Disney is going to make a movie about a villain, they can’t just say “I’m not goin to put this because it could promote something bad”, I mean, they’re all villains, NOT, they more than that, they’re Disney villains, since when is anything bad that a disney villain does something that is “promoted”? what’s next? the remake of the little mermaid eliminating Ursula’s male chauvinist comments about that the only thing a man cares about is beauty and not anything a woman can say because that could be interpreted as a true message? take out the shotgun from the villain of the Fox and the Hound so as not to promote the hunt? I would like the idea of Stella feeling attracted to fur coats in \rmagazines or shop windows during the beggining of the movie, but telling herself ‘no, remember, fur is cruel, and you are Stella, not Cruella’; then, later on the film, the Baroness offering Stella a cigar, to which she tries and ends up coughing awkwardly.

  • While there are design elements with OUAT’s Cruella that put me off (like her eyebrows-to-eyeshadow makeup that you mentioned), they did something to her character that was not only different compared to the other villains on the show, but also refreshing. Unlike other characters who turned dark because of unfortunate upbringings, revenge or a means of survival, Cruella WANTED to be bad. She’s rich, but grew up as a prisoner in her own home, unable to indulge in the materialistic pleasantries that her wealthy status would have allowed her, all because of her cruel mother. She used the author as a means to an end in order to get what she really wants; the freedom to indulge however she pleases. Empathy and morality mean nothing to her, just like in the original films, and this played into her character very well in my opinion. She even said it herself how most people try to fight against the tides of darkness, but all she wanted was to splash in it and have some fun. To me, it’s an authentic aspect to the original version, as she is materialistic and apathetic. Also, I gotta say when the trailer of the recent prequel first came out, I was very skeptical and hesitant despite how good it looked. Even now after seeing it, I’m still conflicted to acknowledge it as a prequel knowing where she is heading with her love of fashion. I would rather see it as its own film or a version of her in an alternative universe than a prequel, ‘cus otherwise it’s hard to root for her.

  • The issue with a lot of the newest movie’s outfits is that they’re all too focused on looking good to modern audiences sensibilities. For being set in the 70s, making the fashion look genuinely 70s should have been the goal, especially because other movies have managed to depict Cruella’s 70s fashion tendencies in a modern adaptation and made them look good while also looking dated. Why they made the decision to have the Baroness look like a stilted 50s fashion devotee and then NOT have Cruella look entirely 70s is beyond my understanding completely.

  • In defense of Cruella’s outfits in Descendants, by the time we see her she’s been living on the Isle of the Lost for nearly two decades at least. The place is basically a rundown slum where all the inhabitants are made to subsist off of Auradon’s garbage and cast-offs, so she doesn’t have access to the finery she once enjoyed. She has to make do with what she can. Heck, I wouldn’t be surprised if her outfit was made by Evie, and it’s “boring and cheap” look was a deliberate yet subtle snub.

  • I feel like the issue with comparing past iterations of Cruella with Emma Stone’s most recent one is that they’re just straight up not the same character. I really don’t expect this universe to go the way of the original story… at least, I really hope they don’t. Personally Emma Stone’s version is my favorite but I’m a huge Emma Stone fan. That said, I do consider her Cruella to be a new character entirely

  • I think that the plot of Cruella is very unlikely to happen obviously, but I don’t think that this is an origin story, more like an alternative from 101 Dalmatians. It would not make sense for cruella to make a dress with fake Dalmatian fur, and then later want to kill a bunch to make another. I like to think of it where if the Baroness kept cruella she would be the one in 101 Dalmatians and if she didn’t then she would be the cruella in the live action. I know this is not actually what happens in 101 Dalmatians, but it doesn’t make sense for this movie to be an origin story and this makes more sense to me

  • I didn’t even realize that Cruella was meant to be a prequel to the Glenn Close movies. I just figured it was heading into its own live action remake canon, and, knowing that they’ll probably try to ape the iconic parts of Glenn Close’s performance in any future movies, I like the 2021 film less in retrospect. \r Cruella (in most iterations of her character) is meant to embody old money and the worst parts of capitalistic greed, and making her someone who claws her way to the top from nothing (as if they’re trying to avoid vilifying someone who was unjustly born into wealth) feels so gross when coming from a financial juggernaut like Disney

  • If they hadn’t made plans for a sequel and just leaved Emma Stone’s Cruella as an antihero, I would absolutely love it. However, I’m afraid the attempt to tie it into 101 Dalmatians cannon is going to ruin it entirely and leave too much room for comparison to Glenn Close’s Cruella, an untouchable masterpiece.

  • i actually really loved the 2021 dresses! But they really don’t speak ‘Cruella’ at all. The dresses looked stunning in my opinion but the total lack of fur just doesn’t seem like Cruella at all. If you look at the entire movie as a whole, i’d really think of it as a separate, totally different movie, rather than a prequel.

  • I think they dropped the shoe on Cruella. It could have been their first movie/story where the main character never became a good guy. Not everyone turns out to be good and maybe teach a really good lesson out of it…Maybe like an incredibly, rediculously, watered down version of The Joker. I miss 2d animations

  • I personally like that the new cruella is not a villain since so many movies already portray women who are obsessed with fashion as completely evil people I want a cruella that is good and complicated and jaded and I hope the sequel either completely revamps the character or make a believable transition into villainy

  • I haven’t seen the Emma Stone’s one but I can’t stop thinking that the movie would have benn SO much better if Disney made her love fur and then educate herself, learn that animal cruelty is wrong and then REALLY change. If that’s the message that Disney wanted to give, they could have done it differently, instead of destroying a pivotal point of a character. Also, the dalmatians killing her mom scene? Just weird omg.

  • Think of the new Cruella as a reboot. I don’t think it was intended as a prequel to the Glen Close version. She’s not a villain in this anymore, she’s an antihero. Doing the bad things while still remaining moral. Don’t call the movie bad because this Cruella doesn’t match up with where the older Cruellas end up. This Cruella will never be the puppy killer of the older movies. If they ever make a follow up 101 Dalmatians with Emma Stone and the others, it will be a different movie with a different plot, a spiritual successor. There will be some other reason to stop Cruella or perhaps the movies will continue with the antihero and heist film vibe and create a new antagonist to take the puppies. If they really wanted to remain faithful perhaps Cruella could be framed or impersonated. But Emma Stone’s Cruella should not be judged for not being the same as the others. This Cruella is not obsessed with furs and is not morally evil, just questionable at times, a bit mad and utterly fantastic. A femme fatale character for the ages.

  • if I’m being honest I really disliked the first versions of the live action 101 domain’s it feels flat and slap stick but the new one is more dark and edgy . I feel as if the new Cruella is meant to be a different person or maybe its in it’s own universe. Most of the reasons you guys didn’t like the new one is because it didn’t connect with the other story lines. Plus the end part where they get they’re own domains is probably just a reference. (Btw I wrote this because I was bored, if you like the first movies more that’s totally fine!)

  • i personally loved cruella 2021, and i think it’s because i’m not nostalgic of the original or the glenn cose films. i never really watched them growing up and so i don’t really have that attachment to the character. i do think, however, that if cruella had either killed the dogs or been crueller towards them, her character would’ve resembled the original more. i feel like she was sort of missing her iconic madness that could’ve easily been fixed. honestly, the whole no fur thing didn’t bother me, as i was far more focused on the story. to be frank, i didn’t notice that she didn’t have any fur at all

  • See I could never bring myself to watch the older movies due to the.. well you can guess.. But now I do see that the lack of fur in Cruella is odd, but personally I absolutely love this movie, it is my favorite movie now, I really like a lot of the new remakes, of course I understand points made but it’s just a remake and I think all versions of Cruella are great (Except Descendants not gonna lie that wasn’t great, even when I watched it when it came out and hadn’t seen even a trailer of any Dalmatians movie, I felt she was lacking)

  • Honestly, I thought Cruella from Once Upon A Time was the best. (Spoiler). It starts by showing how she’s a sweet girl missing her father (it’s implied her mother killed him) and her mother is absuive towards her, locking her in an attic, she meets a man and falls in love, getting to see her happy and in love just make sit even more devestating and shocking when it turns out Cruella is the one who murdered her father and her mother stopped her from fleeing, locking her in the attic so she can’t hurt anyone else. Not only that, but we find out she is evil when her love interest finds out so it’s EVEN MORE of a plot twist. And it gets worse bc she has her mother MAULED TO DEATH by dalamations then SKINS THOS PUPPIES and makes them a coat out of vengeance. It is a character we can sympathize with due to the beginning and hearing of her abuse but still one that can be the villain bc of her actions. I think it was a perfect take on it.

  • I don’t think that it’s meant to be a prequel but more like a retelling like Maleficent, and she says she would never have killed the dogs to Artie as well as her saying it’s better to let people see her that way. I think one hundred and one Dalmatians is supposed to be a story completely made up by Roger.

  • I think Cruella would have worked much better as a series. It’s very plot driven, and the plot isn’t bad at all, but there was so much of it and it moved at such a fast pace that it left virtually no time for character development, making shifts in their personalities seem very sudden and out of character, and I was left wanting more from the story than what we were given. I could easily see the events of the film being stretched out into a 13 episode season to allow for more time to flesh out the characters and their histories and explore their motivations more to make their actions make more sense. Especially the Baroness, who I found the most interesting by far. But yeah, I completely agree that it works better as a stand-alone feature in a completely different universe than an actual prequel and origin story.

  • You mixed up the back story for “Once Upon A Time”. I the show she was from the “real” (AKA: our) world, and convinced the Author that she was being abused by her mother, and all she wanted was to be free of her mother’s cruelty. She tricks him into giving her power to manipulate any animal (not just dogs, but she has a special affinity for them since her mother prized her Dalmatians over her own daughter) with his magical quill. Once she has what she wants she dumps him, and he takes revenge by forcing her into the Storybook world, where she eventually teams up with Maleficent and Ursula in an effort to seek revenge on Snow White and Prince Charming for sacrificing Maleficent’s child at the moment of her birth. She, along with Maleficent and Ursula, is NOT affected by the curse, but they are banished to the “real” world trying to seek a way to find Maleficent’s lost daughter, which allows her to simply return to what she had left behind.

  • I know a lot of people were pissed about the new Cruella with Emma Stone because “why remake a movie where the villain literally wants to murder puppies but not make it about the villain wanting to murder puppies because Disney thought it would be controversial”?? I definitely agree since the original Cruella is fur-obsessed but I still loved Emma Stone’s version.

  • I don’t think Cruella was created as a prequel to the glen close movies. I suspect the movie is similar to the movie maleficent in the way that it creates a different character inspired by previous ones but has different ending. Like how it’s revealed that maleficent didn’t actually stay a villain and ends up saving Aurora. if they make a sequel to cruella in which the baroness frames Cruella of making dalmation puppies in to a coat

  • So let me give you this analysis so Cruella gave Anita a Dalmatian and Roger another Dalmatian. I feel like if she wanted to get rid of the dogs she could have long ago being she had Dalmatian herself. All I see here is she was so obsessed with Dalmatians that she just wanted a puppy and thought perhaps Anita or Roger would offer to give her one so that is why she offer to buy them. They never did. I feel Cruella just suffer internally and needed nothing but therapy and understanding. The assassination of her mother left scarring in her mind. I can feel Cruella and I can feel for her having to find out your mother wanted to kill you and living thru all that is pure hell.

  • Never seen The Descendants, I’m not a big fan of Glenn Close’s version even though I watched that movie a lot as a kid. I like the Once Upon a Time version, she’s really unhinged in parts, a true villain. I liked Emma Stone in the role and the movie. I haven’t seen the animated movie in a while, but Cruella is an iconic villain and it’s the fur coats and cigarette that makes her look I think. I think the Cruella movie didn’t want to make the character a true villain, she’s more like an anti-hero. Which I think hurts the character’s portrayal.

  • Glenn Close was great, it’s the Cruella i grew up with. But Ema Stone’s take has to be my favorite. It’s a different character, not really as much of a villian, but imo her acting combined with the outfits (which i LOVED So much!!! I’m a sucker for punk, yeah, im biased) + great soundtrack totally put the otherwise okay-ish movie on completly different level. But yeah, it doesnt really work as a prequel.