Trap for Cinderella

It is actually the second version (I would not write "remake" ) of Japrisot' s thriller ;it was already transferred to the screen in 1965(two years after the novel was released).The director was André Cayatte ,an excellent old school artist too often ridiculed by the overrated new wavelet.(see "Piège Pour Cendrillon")

By and large ,I'm not a fan of Japrisot whose plots are often complicated instead of complex and I do not put him in the same league as Boileau-Narcejac ("diaboliques","vertigo"),Frédéric Dard (whose "Toi Le Venin" broached the subject of the "double"in early sixties ),let alone Agatha Christie.

That said ," Piège Pour Cendrillon " is a different matter;the subject is not new ("Spellbound" , the contemporary " the third day " ( 1965) "shattered" and countless others dealt with amnesia );but the treatment,including four parts ,each one containing the same verb in four different tenses of French conjugation was downright disturbing;and the ending was all the more baffling since the mystery was not solved .(It was the reader who decided )

On the plus side,Kerry Fox took on Robinson's role-in the French movie- with consummate skill ;Alexandra Roach as brittle Do is eye candy;but it's not all good news :with such a story,it would have taken a great director and (mainly) a talented script writer (Japrisot wrote himself the screenplay of the French effort).Adding an overt lesbian relationship between Mi and Do does not help ,today it's no longer risqué and even trendy ,à la mode, as we French would say;an intrusive music does not help either.Editing is botched.Whereas the story was essentially psychological thriller,this flashy movie fills its quota of topless women and sex ,neglecting the harrowing frames of mind of the heroine.

The story or rather the feeling of the story is particularly well told. The actual plot is ok (not great) and has a lot of holes in it if you decide to look for them.

What works here though as I mentioned is the feeling, the connection of the 2 main characters with each other. The director captures whats it must be like to view life from the other side of the fence, something better but never quite in reach. Do's desperation for a release from the pain that she feels and her passion for a life with Micky is captivating.

Forget the plot ride the emotion.

From another review:

"So if you did not like the plot, do not blame the screenwriters or the actors; blame the author of "Piege pour Cendrillon." Yet I have a feeling most people have not actually read the novel, therefore, you have no place to comment, considering this is an ADAPTION OF THE NOVEL."

This is a movie, not a book. As such the Director and Screenwriter must be held accountable for what is produced not the author of a book. It was the movie makers decision to use this particular book. They could have chosen a million others. My reaction to the book? Haven't any, did not read it. Why should that influence my abillity to review a movie? That being said, my reaction to this movie was "meh.." at best. Someones good idea but not my idea of good.

A tale of obsession that leads to murder and assumed identities. So pretty much a female centered retelling of'The Talented Mr Ripley'.

This movie makes no sense at all. There are so many plot conveniences and contrivences that happen as to to make it unrelateable in every way.

The plastic surgery? The boiler fire? The boyfriend who didn't recognise Mickey?

Ian Softley is not an idiot when it comes to movie making but he was when he chose this as a viable movie making project.

I suppose Tuppence Middleton has a sexy, Bohemian quality to her but rest? Nah, not for me. The movie only made $4000 worldwide. I can see why.

After reading previous reviews, I can only assume that most people have not actually read the book, "Piege pour Cendrillion." For most of the reviews complain about the ridiculous plot, which is not the fault of the producer, but the author of the original book. I do admit, this plot is not at all realistic. But first: realize the book this film was based on was FICTION. Fiction is not supposed to be or held to be realistic. Second: realize that if one wanted to make an adaption of the BOOK, they would not be able to greatly deviate from the novel's plot, considering they would have had to obtain the author's consent.

So if you did not like the plot, do not blame the screenwriters or the actors; blame the author of "Piege pour Cendrillon." Yet I have a feeling most people have not actually read the novel, therefore, you have no place to comment, considering this is an ADAPTION OF THE NOVEL.

I thought the actors, directors, and producers gave a great performance based off of what they were given. Cheers to all involved in this movie.