Mjeteconer Just perfect...

MoPoshy Absolutely brilliant

Fairaher The film makes a home in your brain and the only cure is to see it again.

Humbersi The first must-see film of the year.

Sofia This tale is old as time and we all know it. Someone is sure that 'Cinderella' came to us from Egypt, where such legend took place in ancient times, but I think that every nation sooner or later created its own Cinderella's story. That's why there are so many interpretations. The plot of this fairy tale is very simple in comparison with the plot "Snow White" or "Sleeping Beauty", but the main thing is that, apart its "magic aspect", if it can be removed, the story could and can take place in real life. The interpretation which we analyze, the movie "EverAfter" (1998), directed by Andy Tennant, up to the handle, does not conclude this "magic aspect". Let's take the classic image of Cinderella. Scheherezade fight for her life telling fairy tales, Snow White becomes almost a mother to the seven dwarfs. And what does Cinderella do? (Sleeping Beauty doesn't count, she's sleeping all the time). She's been terrorized by her step- mother and sisters without any opposition, doing all nasty job. All the success in her life belongs to magic and her god-parent, she is passive. In Tennant's version there are no fairy and carriage-pumpkin, Cinderella doesn't need to be saved. She loves reading (her favorite one is "Utopia" by Thomas More). She's really worried about social injustice (she rescues one of the servants from the exile, and constantly shows the prince how far the royal family and common people are), so we can tell that she has a burning sense of just deserts. Also she's physically strong, she knows how to fight (she rescues the prince (!) from the gypsies, and rescues herself from the slavery without any help from prince). It's unbelievable for classical patriarchal fairy tale world, where every heroine patiently waits for rescuing by some gentleman. So without a doubt this is a feminist reinterpretation, in the first place. Any old fairy tale that we know begins with the words "once upon a time…". It means that setting is indefinite. This movie's setting is definite – France of XVI century, Francis I is a king. His son Henri (in the future - Henri II) has an opportunity to choose the bride by himself. The father gives him three days, and all the events happen just then. Also among the characters acts Leonardo Da Vinci. What concerns a historicity of the movie, there are enough clashes with real events. Costumes tell us that it's something like 1516. "Utopia" was written just in 1516. But our heroine read this book in her childhood with a dad, about 10 years ago. "Mona Lisa" dates from 1519, so how characters could read Thomas More and observe Da Vinci's working process at the same time? The next thing is Henri, who was born only in 1519. Henri II got engaged with Ekaterina Medichi in 1533 - so no servants, no Spanish princesses, as you can see. Also in one scene we can see fireworks. Really? In XVI century? This story is quite detailed, we know more about characters, we see more development in Henri and Danielle's (Cinderella's name) relationships (not just fallen in love overnight). There is a problem of class inequality reflected. So we have volume characters, which don't seem as cardboard ones. One of the daughters, Jacqueline, for example, helps her half-sister. Even prince in the beginning is not so perfect, because he's quite arrogant and takes his position for granted. It's really fascinating to look after development of characters, watching them under the other angle.

lasttimeisaw A romance-comedy retells the story of Cinderella, directed by Andy Tennant (SWEET HOME ALABAMA 2002, HITCH 2005 and FOOL'S GOLD 2008), in an attempt to revamp the fairytale with a historical context, in the early 16th century, France. A beautiful young girl Danielle (Barrymore), who is being treated as a servant by her stepmother, the baroness Rodmilla (Huston) after the sudden death of her father Auguste (Krabbé). Upon a chance meeting with Prince Henry (Scott), a romantic feeling has seized both of them, but Danielle is in her courtier disguise, in a moment of desperation, she uses her dead mother's name to hide her real identity.While running from an arranged marriage from his parents King Francis I (West) and Queen Marie (Parfitt), Henry decides to marry the girl his heart really wants, so Rodmilla has an eye to the main chance to marry off her own daughter Marguerite (Dodds), and she has no qualms to hamper the true love between Danielle and Henry at all cost. The storyline is basically the same with the fairytale, but all the fantasy elements have been entirely trimmed off, no fairy godmother, no pumpkin carriage, even the slipper has no magic, instead, a real historical figure, Leonardo da Vinci (Godfrey) is introduced as the game-changer, with his painting MONA LISA, which was actually purchased by King Francis I.One refreshing upgrade of the story is that Danielle's characteristic has been rendered a modern retouch, she is no longer a damsel in distress, she is the ill-fated Cinderella, but she doesn't need her knight errant to rescue her out of her misery, on the contrary, it is her who saves Henry from a gypsy mob by pluckily carrying him on her shoulder, and near the coda, it is also herself who defeats the Gothic-looking merchant Pierre Le Pieu (O'Brien) even before Henry's arrival, set side by side with Kenneth Branagh's flashier Cinderella (2015), EVERAFTER is unwaveringly innovatory to elevate its heroine out of the cliché and more modest in its art production.So much for the good intention, the script still seems unbalanced, Marguerite's wilful turning against her mother is the work of a sophomoric writing, so is Henry's sudden change of mind, these parts are unfortunately being rushed out without thoughtful polishing. Barrymore's winsome appearance can smoothly erase viewers' memories about her problematic child-star past, and the film does revive her career, at the age of 23, she manages to pull off a second life on the big screen. This movie also marks Dougray Scott's Hollywood breakthrough, but one might argue, his sombre mien doesn't quite fit the role as an unsophisticated prince (maybe Jude Law would be a better casting choice), his Prince Henry is not dewy-eyed enough to believably amazed by Danielle's class-defying viewpoint and her extremely ample vigour for life, and his natural reserves doesn't help either.As always, the evil stepmother is the most delectable part, and who can portray unbearable haughtiness better than the almighty Anjelica Huston? She is absolutely a hoot to watch, period. Melanie Lynskey's Jacqueline, Danielle's other step-sister, is another surprise, she is more defiant towards her mother and more sympathetic to Danielle, and wonderfully throws the last bon mot "of course not, mother, I'm here just for the food." in the otherwise bromide-laden ending.

lisafordeay The film Ever After is told by an elderly woman who talks to the Brother Grimns and Charles Pennault on Danielle who would soon be an inspiration for their fairy tale Cinderella(which we all grew and love today). But this version of Cinderella isn't like any other Cinderella adaptation.Released in 1998 the film stars Drew Barrymore(sporting a British accent) as a young woman named Danielle who lives with her evil stepmother played by Angelica Huston and her daughters(one of Danielle's stepsisters is nice to her, the other stepsister treats her like dirt). Danielle father you see married a baron (who is Huston's character)and he tragically dies of a heart attack as he was going away on a business trip and he collapsed and died as Danielle and the baron watched in horror.Meanwhile later on in the film Danielle meets a handsome prince named Henry played by Dougray Scott, whom she had no idea was a prince as she threw something at him and she apologized to him.She disguises herself as a countess and meets Henry again as she tries to save a man who is been sold off,and Henry assumes that Danielle is a countess. But will he love Danielle for her real self and not as a countess named Nicole(who is the name of Danielle's deceased mother)?. Overall I really enjoyed this version as well as it had more screen time with Danielle and the prince BUT I have a few issues with it.1. What is Leonardo Di Vinci got to do with Cinderella? Cinderella has a fairy godmother NOT a famous painter.2. Shouldn't Henry assume that the countess was Danielle since he seen her face before?3. The romance between the prince and Danielle was very well done and Danielle is a very headstrong girl who can stand up to herself,but Cinderella wasn't like that at all.Bottom line I must be the only person who prefers Lily James' outtake of Cinderella but I grew up with the tale of a young servant girl who wins the heart of her prince and doesn't meet him until the ball and she loses a glass slipper and doesn't tell the prince who she is or her name.This was a good movie too but like I said I prefer Lily James' version.7/10Kudos though for not having Ever After predicable even though parts of it was as I knew Danielle would be with the prince in the end.

raynaking0 If I could give this movie a million stars I would! This is the best Cinderella story ever (besides the Disney one). It's very realistic but still a fairy tale. Drew Barrymore is an excellent actress and Angelica Houston is just perfect. My husband watched it for the first time when we were just dating and he thought it was really good. I think he might be a little tired of it now though since I watch it all the time. I haven't really met anyone who doesn't like this movie. It's hard not to like it. It's a romantic movie with comedy and action. When Henry goes to rescue Danielle from that bad guy (I can never remember his name) and she basically rescued herself LOL I love it!