Happily N'Ever After

While this had some good points, there were many weaknesses. The characters didn't always fit their voices and the animation was pretty weak. Freddie Prinze, Jr.'s character, Rick, looked like Justin Timberlake, for some unknown reason. Characters walked as if they were automatons, not with the fluidity of humans. And Sarah Michell Gellar, while I'm a big fan of hers from her Buffy days, seemed bored the whole time. In fact, her (Cinder)Ella spoke with the same stilted simplicity as the robot Buffy from Season Five of the series. The monumental talents of George Carlin were wasted in such a small role. The whole thing seemed as if it were a rushed rip-off of Shrek and Hoodwinked.

I really don't understand all of the venom and vitriol directed at this cute little film. Is it a cinematic masterpiece? No, but it's hardly the worst children's animated film you'll ever see. (I leave that honor to the horror that is DOOGLE.) The ill-fated romance between Rick and Ella seems genuine enough -- it makes you take a second look at the classic fairy tale and ask the question, "what is so all-fired wonderful about Price Charming, anyway?" The casting was appropriate -- anything featuring the underused Wallace Shawn can't be all bad -- and the acting was fine, if not Oscar-worthy.

Again, is this film on the level of SHREK or ICE AGE, or anything by Pixar? Of course not. But is it better than a lot of the animated children's films that have come out lately? Absolutely.

I would like to thank all of the bad reviews. They made the movie a way better experience. I didn't think it was going to be like Shrek to begin with so, that part didn't effect me. All in all, the movie was pretty decent, a 6.5 / 10..... there were parts I laughed, parts i liked and those little Dwarfs are creepy! haha....

I agree with those of you who liked the film, and I also agree with those of you who didn't. Hollywood lacks imagination these days with spoofs, re-makes and slight plot changes. But, that's the media's fault... so, for a movie that had to compete with all the stuff out there, it was good.

And Freida, by the way, looked like the Step-Mother from the original Cinderella, but with more attractive hair and a little more leg. Their 'busts' are the same size, just Frieda has a cleavage line.....Don't agree? What Cinderella again -smirk- Thanks for readin'!

-The Horror Whore-

I will start by saying this is not the worst animated movie I have ever seen, far from it. Doogal, Secret of NIMH 2 and Titanic:The Animated Movie are much worse than this. That said though, while not a terrible movie, Happily N'ever After isn't particularly good either. Good things first, I loved the idea of the film, an ironic take on Cinderella, coincidentally one of my all time favourite fairy tales. Then there is a good voice cast, standouts being Sigourney Weaver, Patrick Warburton and Wallace Shawn. Personally I felt Sarah Michelle Gellar and Freddie Prinze Jnr were on the bland side, but so were their characters strictly speaking. Plus some funny moments come from the supporting characters such as the gangster wolves and biker witches on motorised broomsticks. And of course Mambo and Munk. However, despite these good things, the film at the end of the day felt forgettable and bland. My thoughts on the animation were mixed, while I liked how audacious some of the backgrounds looked, I thought the character movements were awkward and forced. It is pretty much the same with the music score as well, too exaggerated and overdone for my liking. A great idea for a story, but the jokes were on the whole very derivative and the pace uneven consequently the film lacked sparkle and felt predictable. But the worst offender was the script, it seemed rather lazy for some reason, with more polish and irreverence it could have breathed more life into the film. All in all, not terrible, but not great. 4/10 Bethany Cox

If you can compartmentalize your movie viewing, you will be able to negotiate through this.

The thing to ignore is the thing we are supposed to place foremost, all the dialog, acting, story and pacing. Its just dreadful. Enough said about that.

But. It has two things that interested me.

One is simply the idea. It is a movie of a fairy tale inside a movie about manipulating fairy tales, inside a movie narrated by someone who seems to be outside both movies (he actually gets to stop the film physically) but at the same time trapped in the innermost movie. There's magic to explain some of this, but only a part. Its a very clever concoction.

But the other thing was some of the characters. Well, they vary so; I guess I really mean the two women in front, Ella (Cinderella) and her redhaired stepmother. Its how they are rendered. Ella seems to be the only character whose face seems outside the cartoon world she inhabits. She's clearly a version of Audrey Hepburn with each of her attractive feature made a little more so. Its really quite good.

The bodies are another thing. Not since Betty Boop's boobs were stilled by the censors, have we seen a young body as naturally sexy as this. There's nothing seductive or intended or cheap or erotic about it. Its just that all the parts move as they should, under modest clothes. I really was amazed, especially at the attention paid to her rear end.

The step mother is something else. She moves with exaggerated erotic intent. She has huge bosoms and a nearly invisible waist. And then again huge thighs. Where the younger just walks, this puffy dominatrix swings. There's clearly some intent by the filmmaker here to get some sort of message across about the undesirability of overt sexuality. It zoomed right past me just in my astonishment at Ella's motion.

Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.