Trois vœux pour Cendrillon

I'm surprised how some "critics" who are not very objective dare to rate this film with a 1 or a 2. A film is rated by its everything, including acting, photography, set design, music, plot, script, genre and of course if we like it or not. Everything adds up, and he is not only absurdly punished for some subjective aspect. This film, although it does not deserve a 10, has a beautiful photography, a valuable mise-en-scène and a light but connected plot. The special effects are also well set and just right for the type of film. It is also enjoyable and entertaining for the whole family and is a different version of the Cinderella story. I give it a 7.

In the original it was easy enough to see why the Prince would want Cinderella, but why she would be into him remained a mystery, at least to me. In this one they finally seem more balanced - she's toned down to be a bit less brilliant and quick, which helps, and they have a dynamic it's possible to believe in. They seem to truly like each other, which I never got from the first version.

I also love how this tough girl is still so utterly terrified by her step mother, which is very real, and the take on the stepsister as more trying to please her mother than anything else.

For me this hits home in a way the older version never did. That said, it's a movie made for kids first and the rest of us after, and as an adult I am trying to respect that lovely as this is, I am not the target audience for this, and that's okay. I still enjoyed it a lot.

I generally don't make reviews, but could not resist, because I like practically all the "cinderrella" variations out there. Including the Czech one.

90% of the dialogue and action is from the Czech version. All they attempted was to reshoot the old lines in a fresh way in fresh costumes in Norwegian surroundings. That's fine, I have no problem with that.

The problem is that the only actor able to deliver lines was Alfred. Even though that actor is a veteran, he was still struggling to do so in a way that conveyed a believable character. All the other characters were embarrassingly bad. Not a singel line had emotions or depth behind it. They were spoken as if they had not seen the script before, yet alone the old movie.

I cannot believe all the actors are that bad. So it has to boil down to the director. - A lack of experience from beginning to end.

There is no excuse for having an inexperienced bad director do this job, they knew it would sell well and they would turn a profit. So how could this happen? I really would like to know the decision making process behind it.

Lots of other bad stuff, like the reade music. Was the old music copyrighted? Remaking similar tunes was a horrible idea.. But all that is nothing compared to the delivery of the lines, the acting and theatre editing. Awful awful stuff.

2 stars for the horses and nature.

I was a bit disappointed when I saw this in relation to the original from 1973. I do not think it was wise to have actors who were so different from the original. The humor was not quite there either. Maybe it would have been best if the country of origin had made this remake in English language?

There is in a way so much that is missing, that I do not think this will be a Christmas classic: p Sad since this could have been so much more: p.

No pun intended - and quite obvious from the beginning. Yes we do get the classical story (which I assume you are aware of, but will not go into details just in case), but our main character (heroine) is not sitting idly when we first meet her. She also is not doing chores. No she tries to get back to where she is supposed to be, without being noticed (caught).

So yes, this version is a bit of an update. Do not think that this is "woke" though - it is always nice to have some extra spins on things. To get a bit of difference to other versions that exist. Acting wise this is fine - for what it is of course. Keep that in mind and be the judge if the movie is something you want to watch anyway.