November 19, 2014

The Trailer For Disney's Live Action CINDERELLA Looks Expensive


I mean, I guess.

Do we really need another version of Cinderella?  I understand that Hollywood is still enamored with live-action adaptations of classic fairy tales because they have the dual benefit of instant name recognition and no real author or estate from which they have to properly purchase the rights.  I feel like this trend is finally starting to wind down, which I'm especially thankful for after not one, but two mediocre re-imaginings of Snow White.  But I'll at least give those movies credit for attempting to build on the source material in some way by bringing something new to the table.  Angelina Jolie's portrayal of Maleficent as a rape survivor may not have been 100% effective, but you can't accuse them of not having a bold concept.


Kenneth Branagh's live-action Cinderella appears to be an exact recreation of the classic Disney animation, only this time with actual humans.  Do we really need this?  I can't imagine why.  And most of the casting is so obvious and uninspired.  Cate Blanchett as the evil stepmother?  Whatever.  I actually rolled my eyes when Helena Bonham Carter emerged from her digital old age makeup as the Fairy Godmother.  This film clearly meant to be breakout vehicle for Lily James, although I highly doubt that it will be the best showcase for her talents, whatever they may be.  The only person who really stands out to me is Prince Charming, mostly because he's played here by Robb Stark's Contact Lenses.

This thing might be unnecessary, but at least they spent a fuck-ton of money on it.