Cinderella - Disney Live-Action Feature

Features, Shorts, Live-Action and Direct-To-Video
User avatar
Animated Views Admin
Animated Views Admin
Posts: 18423
Joined: October 22nd, 2004
Location: London, UK

Re: Cinderella - Disney Live-Action Feature

Post by Ben » January 13th, 2015, 5:44 am

Point.

Missed.


;)

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 432
Joined: December 21st, 2007

Re: Cinderella - Disney Live-Action Feature

Post by Dusterian » January 13th, 2015, 9:57 pm

Oh. Well, when you said in the Bambi: Diamond Edition review:
Following the huge success of Snow White, he released Pinocchio in little more than two years afterward, and the immensely personal Fantasia soon after. Both films offered darker, or too-“highbrow” accounts of what audiences expected, and coupled with the War, Disney found himself stuck between a rock and a hard place. A popular book, Bambi seemed the right way to go, and the animal-heavy plot looked like it would finally play like another Snow White.
What did you mean Walt was between a rock and a hard place? He was between artistic success and mass audience success?
Image

User avatar
Animated Views Admin
Animated Views Admin
Posts: 18423
Joined: October 22nd, 2004
Location: London, UK

Re: Cinderella - Disney Live-Action Feature

Post by Ben » January 14th, 2015, 5:57 am

No...he was stuck between the potential financial ruin of two flops (rock) and the bleak future prospects of a world war that would cut off his international markets (hard place)! Can't really get more literal than that!

He needed a Snow White sized hit domestically (this before the hugely popular Dumbo was released, natch) and Bambi, then a contemporary and well-known published book (with a sequel published in America just before the film was released), was it. Back in the day, Bambi was actually much more of an adult novel with many more Watership Down style happenings in it, but Disney's film added Thumper and other animals to make it more cute (even then, he still had to shorten the film to save on costs).

Walt felt that if he could make the story appeal to adults *and* their kids then he'd have another much-needed hit, and eventually he was right (although the slightly shorter and a lot cheaper Dumbo proved to have a better cost ratio return). In its own way, the Bambi books was like the Gone With The Wind of animation...it was quite a highly anticipated screen adaptation of a successful novel (actually originally bought for MGM but passed to Walt when the producer realised they couldn't make it in live-action, hence the "thanks" credit that Sidney Franklyn gets).

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 432
Joined: December 21st, 2007

Re: Cinderella - Disney Live-Action Feature

Post by Dusterian » January 18th, 2015, 9:20 pm

Oh, thanks for all the explaining and info. But MGM wanted to make a live-action BAMBI?!?!!!
Image

User avatar
Animated Views Admin
Animated Views Admin
Posts: 18423
Joined: October 22nd, 2004
Location: London, UK

Re: Cinderella - Disney Live-Action Feature

Post by Ben » February 12th, 2015, 6:49 am

So is it me or is it with all the new Cinderella material we're seeing, it's becoming pretty obvious that Disney is maybe quietly dropping 3D as a theatrical presentation format, favoring the bigger screens of Imax instead?

I know they still have some 3D titles to emerge, but I'm surprised Cinders - what with its Frozen short on the front - isn't in the format, and it'll be interesting to see what and if their big releases in a year or so are still being produced/presented this way.

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 7744
Joined: October 25th, 2004
Location: Binghamton, NY

Re: Cinderella - Disney Live-Action Feature

Post by ShyViolet » March 11th, 2015, 2:07 pm

"That’s right, folks, it’s gonna be a Meg episode, stick around for the fun.
Here’s the clicker...no one’d blame ya.”

Animated Views Staff
Animated Views Staff
Posts: 5323
Joined: February 8th, 2005
Location: The US of A

Re: Cinderella - Disney Live-Action Feature

Post by Dacey » March 12th, 2015, 3:33 pm

Getting pretty excited about this. :) I can't wait to see the Frozen Fever short...um, I mean, Elsa...no, I mean, Olaf....hang on, I mean....

There's a movie attached to the Frozen short?
"Yesterday is history, tomorrow is a mystery, but today is a gift--that is why it's called the present."

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 347
Joined: May 25th, 2007
Location: Silicon Valley
Contact:

Re: Cinderella - Disney Live-Action Feature

Post by Vernadyn » March 15th, 2015, 5:17 am

I thought it was OK. The script made a few notable changes from the 1950 film (which I still prefer to this film), but nothing really worth getting excited over. Branagh's direction keeps things lively for the most part, and Patrick Doyle's score is suitably lush and romantic, though it doesn't feature the most memorable themes he's written. You'll have to stay for the end credits to hear any musical nods to the original (no post credit scene, though.)

Cate Blanchett was superb at portraying cruelty; she's probably the highlight of the whole film.

Frozen Fever was OK too, though I thought the song didn't really have a musical "hook"--but to be fair, it's not meant to be an anthem like "Let It Go," or a lush, classically-styled number like "For the First Time in Forever."

The most excited I got at the screening, though, was during the trailer for Tomorrowland. Even if I weren't a huge Brad Bird fan, I'd still probably have found the trailer thrilling.

User avatar
Animated Views Admin
Animated Views Admin
Posts: 18423
Joined: October 22nd, 2004
Location: London, UK

Re: Cinderella - Disney Live-Action Feature

Post by Ben » March 15th, 2015, 6:57 am

Can't decide whether to go see this or just wait for the Blu-ray that I will inevitably get anyway. I do want to see it, but there's nothing really here that's naghing me to get to a theatre to catch it, unlike the pull of Jolie in Maleficent. Still early days, but I've a feeling this'll be watched at home in around three months or so...

Still...good to hear it's not a disaster or, even worse, simply bland. I'm looking forward to it.

User avatar
Animated Views Staff
Animated Views Staff
Posts: 1386
Joined: March 27th, 2008

Re: Cinderella - Disney Live-Action Feature

Post by Dan » March 15th, 2015, 9:20 pm

I thought Frozen Fever was a charming little short. I doubt it will set the world on fire, but it had nice, cute moments that's sure to please Frozen fans in anticipation for the next project (be it the next feature-length film or something in-between). There were apparently a number of folks in my theater (which was fairly packed) who didn't know about the short and gasped with delight when the title came up. Everyone had a good time.

Cinderella turned out to be a pretty darn good movie. I agree with a lot of the critical response, where the story is one we know a thousand times over, inside-and-out, with just a few minor touches (including an honest attempt to add depth to the Prince), yet the telling of the story is still fantastic because of how beautiful it looks and the great acting from the cast. Blanchett was obviously going to nail it as the Stepmother, but many in the theater really got emotionally invested in Ella because of the great performance by Lily James. I imagine there are those that wish Richard Madden would've had a chance to display some of the ruggedness from Game of Thrones to portray the Prince, but I think he did a fine job with what he was able to do. Patrick Doyle's music may not come off as memorable, but they worked quite well in enhancing the scenes (couple of audiences members, adults really, clapped during key moments such as the dress transformation).

Branagh directed the film quite well, making sure the old-fashion approach was genuine while throwing in little touches that don't distract from the storytelling (there's a couple of great shots, I felt, with Prince and Cinderella involving a swing and how it is photograph was nicely done). Cinematographer Haris Zambarloukos, costume designer Sandy Powell, and production designer Dante Ferretti are the champions, really, for turning out such beauty on the screen. The costumes were absolutely fantastic and the visuals of the settings were just wonderful to look at.

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 347
Joined: May 25th, 2007
Location: Silicon Valley
Contact:

Re: Cinderella - Disney Live-Action Feature

Post by Vernadyn » March 17th, 2015, 1:38 am

I have to echo how well the transformation scenes were done. Not only the dress one, but the carriage one as well. It starts out kind of silly (intentionally), but when it actually transforms, I really felt immersed in the scene.

Nobody clapped in my theater (which had a healthy attendance of little girls in princess costumes), but that probably has to do with where I live--if you need proof that Silicon Valley is cold and heartless… :)

Clapping at a movie has been rare in my experience, which makes the times it does happen quite electrifying. It happened at The Incredibles, Toy Story 3, Big Hero 6, and The Avengers; at the last, there where also moments during the funniest bits when the theater almost lost it.

Unless this is a horrible year for movies, I doubt this is going to make my top-10 list, but there are aspects of it that are well done.

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 3111
Joined: September 27th, 2007

Re: Cinderella - Disney Live-Action Feature

Post by EricJ » March 17th, 2015, 8:51 am

Although I don't know how many of the reviews are just drop-of-water-in-the-desert reviews at seeing someone do a straightforward Cinderella on a big-budget without irony or revision and take the romance and sympathy for the character seriously. (And how many are just saying "Whew, it doesn't stink like Maleficent did!")

A little while before, I'd happened to catch the '77 Sherman-musical "The Slipper & the Rose" on disc, which also seemed like one more "unnecessary" retelling at the time, but gave it a handsome budget that 70's musicals usually got, treated the Prince and fairy-godmother issues realistically, without the feminist revision that recent Snow White movies have gotten (would the Prince really be allowed to marry a commoner just like that?), and putting all the romantic frills as needed. Annette Crosbie also does HBC's "snippy no-nonsense Fairy Godmother" act, but with less deliberate anti-princess revisionism and more actual fairytale sense that just she's doing her job rewarding good.
So for Disney's latest anomaly of a good post-Alice film, I may need a little extra persuasion, as my reaction to "Wow, a gorgeous retelling!" so far has been "...Do tell. :roll: "

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 432
Joined: December 21st, 2007

Re: Cinderella - Disney Live-Action Feature

Post by Dusterian » March 26th, 2015, 8:51 pm

EricJ, I hardly know what you are talking about. Are you saying The Slipper & the Rose was so good you don't want to see this new Cinderella movie?

Anyway, here's my spoiler filled review:
click to reveal content
I’ve seen this movie three times now and will give a very expansive, very spoiler-filled review. Avoid this whole thing if you don’t want any spoilers.

I’ve now seen Disney’s live-action Cinderella three times, and I love it. I loved it even more the second time. My memories of it are great. It was wonderful. Enchanting. Masterful. I loved how it was mostly just an expansion of the original film, with some additions and changes. Really clever or interesting additions and changes. After seeing the film twice I read the two novelizations for the film, and I feel all but one of the scenes not in the final film should be cut as they have been, and the film did not feel rushed to me when I watched it before reading the novelizations. In fact, the film felt long to me. Not so long the second time, though. The costumes were incredibly gorgeous. My favorite was the Fairy Godmother’s sumptuous gown, then Cinderella’s magically elegant and beautiful ballgown, and then the stepmother’s classy, aristocratic gown. The settings were incredibly breathtaking. The music was incredibly fantastic. One of the best soundtracks I have ever heard. The song Cinderella and her mother sing and the transformation music was gorgeous. The special effects were incredibly amazing. And the acting was overall fantastic all around. I didn’t have a problem with Cinderella’s father’s acting at all (except during the scene where he asks Ella about re-marrying), and I think everyone else was from good to exceptional. I really feel that most of the time, Lily James did a terrific job, and to me, she was really, really good at being Cinderella. She shimmered and shined. She was my favorite character. I loved her. And she should have had her name first in all the credits. Then comes Lady Tremaine, exceptionally well-played by Cate Blanchett. I loved her acting. And then Helena Bonham Carter was such a funny and endearing fairy godmother. The Prince’s acting was very good, very nice. And the stepsisters were both equally great and funny. Cinderella’s mother, and the ten-year-old Ella (they say she was ten in the credits) were also great, really very sweet and so good in the scene where Ella’s mother basically says goodbye. That scene itself was so very good. Quite emotional.

The very beginning of the film with the castle logo changing to day and the camera moving to the bright blue cloudy sky and the chateau and field and Ella with her parents was very nice, but the title of the film should have appeared in the sky before the camera went down to the field. Honestly, I hate this “showing the title after the movie ends” thing Disney has been doing! I loved the baby Ella playing with the blanket, very cute and real and creative, and all the rest with her and her parents. However, when we see Ella with the mice…can mice really live as long as, I guess since she was ten then and was about eighteen when her father remarried, eight years? Though one of the novelizations said Ella was sixteen when Lady Tremaine came into her life, so I could believe they live six years. I really liked Cinderella’s father reacting to ten-year-old Ella standing on his feet, but thought the way he danced with her was a little too cheesy or sugary sweet. Could have just been a simple “One two three, one two three”.

The first time I watched the film, I felt the beginning of the film was a little too sentimental, or too melodramatic, but on my second viewing I didn’t have a problem with any of it, except when Cinderella’s father asks Ella if she is okay with him re-marrying. I feel they were a little too emotional there, or they just didn’t do it quite right.But on my third time, this scene was almost completely fine. When Lady Tremaine arrives, with Lucifer and her costume and the music, it is already kind of chilling and is perfect. And her comment on Ella being so beautiful and Ella’s father saying she takes it from her mother, that must have hurt her. I love how she livens up the chateau with parties and card games and gambling! But then her father doesn’t seem too happy with her, which is strange because he remarried to become happier. I guess he thought he would be happy but that didn’t happen as he got to know her further at their home or perhaps she changed once they were married. I felt bad for her when she seemed so nice and then heard Ella and her father talking about her and then Ella’s mother. She got hurt there, and she changed. You saw it and felt it. Great plot point. I love Cinderella saving Jacqueline from Lucifer and chastising him and then saying “We girls must help each other.” It is great foreshadowing of how her stepfamily does the opposite of that to Ella, but Ella and her Fairy Godmother follow that, and of course, the mice follow it, helping her back. However, they should have had Jacqueline stay as Jacques the male mouse from the original, and used one of the female mice from the original, like Suzy or Perla. I love how Ella purposely gave up her room to help her stepsisters, showing her goodness, and then how she said “No one will bother me here” and “no stepsisters” in the attic!

I loved when Lucifer went after the mice and hit his head! Brilliant! And when Cinderella goes to the chicken coop to get eggs, she sang a tiny bit of “Sing Sweet Nightingale!” Yes!

I didn’t like that Ella let her stepfamily only let her eat their leftovers. I think, for Ella to stand up for herself a little more, she should have, even if she must secretly do it, save food for herself, since she was the one who cooked it. Unless her stepmother made sure there was only enough money for her and her daughters and Ella’s leftovers. But they live on a farm, so I don’t think that would be the case. Speaking of them being on a farm, it’s brilliant because then it explains where they get their food from if they don’t have much money left from Cinderella’s father dying. I wonder if that’s how the original animated version was, too, since it had animals at the chateau. And does Cinderella ever slaughter a chicken or milk a cow, get meat and milk from her own chateau animals? What did Lady Tremaine mean when she said “It seems too much to have you prepare breakfast, serve it, and still sit with us. Wouldn’t you prefer to eat when all the work is done, Ella?” And then why does Cinderella take her plate to another room? Was she going to eat before the work was done after all? Or just setting her place there? Or did she do it because her stepmother meant she didn’t want her to sit with them at all? But her crashing the plate and crying was a great scene and great acting.

Cinderella leaving the house on the horse, riding away from her troubles while crying, was great. But now we come to her and the Prince. I think it was…kind of love at first sight, but not quite. I think it should have been more clearly love at first sight, and then Kit says, “A ball will be held at the palace soon, you should come. It will be open to everyone. But don’t tell anyone yet.” Then Kit convinces his father to make the ball open to everyone after telling her that, because when you find love, you don’t let it ride away on a horse and hope to see it again. And Ella had no reason not to tell Kit her name before the slipper scene. If there was a reason, it should have been revealed, like she wanted to protect herself from strangers, or something. I know she was just recently called Cinderella, and I would be ok with her embarrassment at telling her that was her name, but I didn’t think she had decided to keep that as her name at that moment. At first Cinderella not wanting to leave the house and her stepfamily because she wants to cherish the house for her parents didn’t quite fly, to me, because in the end she leaves the house to live in the prince’s castle. I thought they should have come up with a better reason, like she wants to try to be a family with her stepfamily. But then I thought, if I lived in a nice house with nice things, I might want to stay there, too, until I met someone I loved.

The dress-ripping scene was fantastic. I loved that Cinderella’s Fairy Godmother tested Cinderella’s kindness as an old woman, and then repaid it with what she did for her. But when the Fairy Godmother throws her walking stick in the air and it trails magic dust and becomes the wand, which is brilliant, the magic dust that came from it and then falls on her should be what transforms her into her true form, right after she catches the wand. For the pumpkin transformation, I didn’t like that it exploded like the Fairy Godmother’s magic made a mistake, and then it fixes that mistake by reassembling into the coach like she wanted. It was cool, and impressive, but cool or impressive are not the same as magical. Ok, it was pretty magical, but not as magical as it would have been had the pumpkin stayed whole and there been no explosion mistake. And it looks like parts of the greenhouse become parts of the coach, too. The two novelizations of the film say parts of the greenhouse become the glass windows in the coach, and I don’t really like that, I think it should just be the pumpkin itself (and what comes from it, like vines) that transform. And it doesn’t make sense later when the coach turns back into a pumpkin and we don’t see the greenhouse shards with it. Or do we? From what I could tell my first two times, instead, the glass becomes part of the pumpkin. And the Fairy Godmother didn’t need glass shards to make the glass of the coach, as she made Cinderella’s glass slippers out of nothing. I think it would have been more magical if, after the pumpkin bursts out of the greenhouse, we see the pumpkin stay whole, and, to do those fancy camera movements, have the camera follow the pumpkin as the vines form wheels and the pumpkin rolls on the ground towards that platform on those steps and we see the vines growing over the pumpkin and the windows becoming glass and then the camera moves up to the vines forming the fancy top and then the camera rolls around again to see the coach land on its wheels in full frontal view, completely a coach, on that platform on the steps. How they did the pumpkin to coach transformation was a really impressive sequence, but actually still not as amazing, magical, and perfect to me as the animated film’s.

But the Fairy Godmother said “Bibbidi Bobbidi Boo!” when changing the mice and the lizards! I cried of joy, on the inside! But she should have said it for each transformation and spell, then it would have been perfect! And more logical... But now, we get to my favorite part of every Cinderella adaptation, Cinderella’s transformation. It. Was. GLORIOUS. AMAZING. ASTOUNDING. Creative. Magical. The way the butterflies and magic dust swirl around her and her dress billows about and expands. Everything else about it. Phenomenal. Miraculous. And yet, I still find the original animated film’s the best, or my favorite. The magic dust in that one is more than swirling, it’s so intricate, and the way her clothes morph is more beautiful and amazing and magical and ingenious to me. But this one was pretty ingenious too, and gorgeous. They are almost equal in how fantastic they are. And the Fairy Godmother casting a spell so Cinderella’s family won’t recognize her is genius!

When Cinderella entered the ballroom, and walked down the stairs, it was spellbinding. The dance with the prince was incredibly amazing and beautiful. And I loved Cinderella’s “I will” and swinging and losing her slipper in the garden. And yes, the losing of the slipper on the steps and everything turning back to what it was before was enthralling, fantastic, and magical. But did the pumpkin crash open because it landed on something or because it got too small for Cinderella and she burst through it?

When Cinderella had her confrontation with Lady Tremaine in the attic, it was phenomenal. Electrifying. But, I think Cinderella’s decision to refuse Lady Tremaine’s proposition was, well, stupid of her. When Cinderella married the prince, she would become queen, and could command her stepmother to stay far away from her and Kit. They should have just had the stepmother not want Cinderella to marry the prince at all, and instead used the broken slipper heel and the Duke to get what she wanted. Lily James’ “WHY?!” to the stepmother was astoundingly good acting. Really felt it

The mice opening the window and Gus finally giving up food to help was both cute and ingenious for how Cinderella got freed to try on the slipper. But to make Cinderella save herself, they should have had the mice open the window, and then Cinderella sees the king’s men, and sings out to them purposefully.
Cinderella being a commoner was never a problem for Kit, so I don’t think Cinderella revealing that she was just a commoner at the end did anything for the film. It kind of did, I mean she still had to tell him who she was, so maybe it was a good addition. But the film did succeed in its aim to make Cinderella strong and happy without a prince. I loved how in the tower she loved the mere memories of the wonderful times she had.

I felt really bad for Lady Tremaine and the stepsisters in the end, after Lady Tremaine practically spilled her guts out to Cinderella about how hard her life was. It was great that Cinderella forgave her, but we should have seen her forgive her stepsisters, too, and, just like in the original fairy tale, give her stepfamily a home in the palace, or a rich home somewhere else, and help her stepsisters marry. And why did the Duke have to leave the kingdom, too? Yes, he was bad for keeping the prince from his true love, but it was so the prince could marry a princess for the good of the kingdom. That’s not very evil. The actor who played him said in an interview he was evil, but really, he wasn’t.

It’s interesting that in this version of Cinderella she becomes a queen when marrying, instead of a princess, isn’t it?

In the end, I feel like this was a flawed masterpiece, much like the original animated film is. If this film isn’t a Best Picture nominee, I think it should be one. What was missing for me was Cinderella saving herself more and a deeper love between her and the prince. The animated film had a montage that took the easy way out to show how they loved each other, and it worked, believably. I don’t think in this film they had something that worked as well. There should have been more of, or perhaps some of if there wasn’t any, showing why Cinderella and Kit love each other, what they love about each other. Like maybe when Cinderella talks about the stag needing more time to live, Kit could say, “I never thought about that. You’re obviously a very caring person.” I had an additional idea about how they could show more about why they love each other, but out of fear of my idea being stolen, I will just say these two could have shared some laughs and the Prince could have shown his sensitivity, like crying about his father or something, and Cinderella loves it and shows her care for him. The novelizations actually gave a little more for them to love about each other with them both revealing how they think war is terrible and how they believe their mothers are in heaven and Cinderella tells the Prince she thinks everyone gets “invited” to heaven just like the ball.

BUT, I do see that the final film might have been trying to say they love each other because they are so good and kind. Kind of like Beauty and the Beast? But they know they are so good and kind because…? Both this movie and Beauty and the Beast are a little vague on that one. Except the Beast saves Belle, with his strength, and then she saves him with her love, but unknowingly. Does their love work because he saves her, then she heals him, then he gives her the thoughtful gift of a library? Well, now I’m talking about a whole ‘nother movie, so I’ll wrap this up here. I love this new version of Cinderella, and will dream of it and cherish it. It may be the best live-action Cinderella movie that exists. I think it is. I think the Faerie Tale theater version is my favorite live-action version of Cinderella, though, and it may even be better than this film, but this film is so masterful, I will say for now, it is the best live-action Cinderella film, and the best Cinderella film AFTER the 1950 Disney animated classic. There’s something about the animated Disney Cinderella, voiced by Ilene Woods, singing about her dream, and getting it, and her and the film being so charming, that cannot be topped.
Image

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 3111
Joined: September 27th, 2007

Re: Cinderella - Disney Live-Action Feature

Post by EricJ » March 27th, 2015, 9:39 am

Dusterian wrote:EricJ, I hardly know what you are talking about. Are you saying The Slipper & the Rose was so good you don't want to see this new Cinderella movie?
I'm saying, the audience stampede of "Wow, a gorgeously designed live-action Cindy!" may just be a drop of water in the desert for people who didn't know there was another one. (Which isn't hard to do, unfortunately.)
Those who do, may need a little extra persuasion to get past their old studio grudges about Maleficent.
The Shelley Duvall episode was also good, though, I'll grant that, as also with most of the pre-Renaissance titles.

(Oh, and...."Jacqueline"?? :shock: )

User avatar
Animated Views Admin
Animated Views Admin
Posts: 18423
Joined: October 22nd, 2004
Location: London, UK

Re: Cinderella - Disney Live-Action Feature

Post by Ben » March 27th, 2015, 3:05 pm

With nearly $800m, I di really know anyone other than you with Maleficent hang-ups. Most people seemed to like it enough for Disney to continue along this line, and Cinders' box-office will only confirm, in their eyes, that a new Dumbo is something worth pursuing...

Post Reply