ada the leading man is my tpye

SpuffyWeb Sadly Over-hyped

Solidrariol Am I Missing Something?

Asad Almond A clunky actioner with a handful of cool moments.

dborden1-1 I just watched the DVD for the first time last night. Personally, I found most of the performances average at best, except for Zooey Deschanel. After seeing her in Elf, then Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy, I would love to be able to see her cabaret act in person. She has an awesome singing voice, gorgeous eyes, and a seductiveness that seems unmatched by any other actress/singer of her generation. She is a true breath of fresh air! There are so many plastic singers out there right now, as well as many young actresses that try so hard to make you like them that they come across as flighty. But Zooey has a relaxed attitude that just automatically makes you smile. I am really hoping that the many projects she is currently in filming for 2007 release give her the opportunity to display all of her talents.

oreoking When I first read of this production, with Carol Burnett as the Queen, I was very excited! I thought it would be fabulous. I was wrong. In the first 5 minutes I knew my popcorn would go unfinished, having lost my appetite when "Many Moons Ago" was chopped to but a few phrases. But when the cast started throwing away every good line with total disregard to the well-written tempo intended, I needed to get my Cast Recording ready and fire up the phonograph to get this director's bad taste out of my ears. Another reviewer mentioned the "rule of threes" - threes are everywhere in the script, but I don't think the delivery of ANY one was correct in this version. From the dismissing of Princess #12 ("Goodbye, good luck, now get out") to the discussion of Winnifred's test before "Sensitivity" ("Sounds fair (beat), seems fair, (beat), but isn't fair.") every opportunity to spin verbal straw into gold (I know, wrong fairy tale) was wasted. Larkin's revelation of pregnancy to Harry was real let-down. No build-up at all. She might as well have passed him a note.I didn't have a problem with any of the casting based on age or appearance - both can be overcome & overlooked with a good performance. But the writers/director didn't give the cast any help, so the weaker performers fell flat and the veterans just collected a paycheck.Where was the Minstrel? For that matter, where were the Jester and the King? Oh, the roles were there, but reduced to bit parts. The knights in "Shy" got to do more just by saying "Hey, Nonny nonny nonny, NO." Maybe Meatloaf thinks two-out-of-three ain't bad, but in this case, it IS bad. And I bet the writers thought they were clever switching the impetus for "Normandy" from "where can a pregnant Larkin go to hide" offered by the Minstrel to "where can Larkin go on a honeymoon" offered by Harry. Lame. And the Wizard as the Nightingale was just stupid. Hibbert's contract must have insisted on a minimum of screen time and since they eliminated the scene where the Minstrel schmoozes the Wizard, they made up for it with a chicken costume. I've gone on far too long, but better you spend a few extra minutes here than waste a few hours on this production. Now if you watch it anyway, you look for the things all these reviews have warned you about and make up your own mind.

Daisy Brambletoes I fell in love with this cute musical back in the 1960's when it was originally aired on TV in black & white, and loved it again ten years later when it was re-aired in color with only minor cast changes. To the many fans of this beloved play, it is impossible not to compare this new Disney version with the originals.There is much to like. The look of it is wonderful, complete with a Disneyesque rose-framed window at the end, and a castle full of beautiful, anachronistic rooms, and stained-glass windows with a slightly sinister edge to them. Prince Dauntless and the King are likable, sympathetic, engaging people who you root for, and Sir Harry (the knight) and his Lady Larken are both charming and pretty.Inevitably, though, as in all previous made-for-TV versions, certain changes in dialog and action have been made, and several songs are absent. I was a little sorry to see the jester's role so reduced (he had a fine song in the original play and the earliest TV version), but I did find it amusing that the Wizard, usually played as the Queen's lover,is this time only an effeminate court sycophant. The G-rating might have been more appropriate had Harry and Larken been secretly married as they were in the 1960's version, which actually makes more sense considering they have defied a marriage law. Otherwise, Larken's pregnancy would simply be an embarrassment instead of a crime. It would also be more suitable for the children watching this film, which after all is a prime-time Christmas offering. But I saved for last the two starring ladies. Carol Burnett should have been brilliant as the Queen, and in moments her brilliance does come through. But she needed the outrageous brassiness that Jane White once gave the role, and it wasn't quite there. Still, no one else today should play the Queen, if only for the legacy. Carol Burnett forever!I am not at all sure about Tracy Ullman as Princess Fred, though. She was not bad, she just wasn't great. Fred needs to be so much larger than life. She's not just another princess, she's the kind of princess children love because she's a princess they can hope to be like - not the perfect and pretty ladies like Snow White, Aurora, or Cinderella. Ullman is fun, she's cute, but she does not dominate the screen in the same ways that once made Carol Burnett a star. In those days, the bedroom scene was a broadly hilarious climax to a charmingly funny musical. In this production it is amusing, but little more. And for that alone,I was greatly disappointed.Yet in spite of these problems, it was a most enjoyable film. I am surprised that Disney has not tried to market it in their "princess series", but time will tell. It is a nice film that looks good and feels good, and to the generations who do not know the older versions, this one should be very satisfying.

Nancy Weatherspoon (Nancyweather) I love Carol Burnett, Tracey Ullman, fairy tales, and musical productions. I looked forward to this new production. I was surprised, upset, and disappointed with the storyline about Lady Larken and Sir Harry. Lady Larken and Sir Harry the Immaculate are not married and are expecting a baby. That is the reason given for the urgency for the Prince to marry. Teenage pregnancy is a problem in this country and Disney made it "ok". VERY DISAPPOINTING!!!! Why would Disney stoop to "messing with" a fairy tale? Why the continuing "dumbing down" of fairy tales to fit our current morals (or lack thereof)? Disney used to stand for quality and there used to be a certain "standard". Why has the Disney Company lowered itself to "fit in" with suggestive and sexual story lines. I taught school for over 30 years and my eighth graders were bombarded by sex from all directions....now Disney has joined the others.....WHY??? Disney used to stand for certain standards...what happened????