Happily N'Ever After (2006) User Reviews (79)

Great plan, just wasn't quite carried out...

[Cel_Stacker · 5/10 · 5 January 2007]

I looked forward to this movie, having been pleasantly surprised by other fractured fairy tales such as "Shrek" and even "Hoodwinked", and I really wanted to like this one a lot, but as it was, I only like it a little.

Here's the lowdown: Cinderella, or Ella, as friends call her (Sarah Michelle Gellar) is taken with the charming but clueless Prince Humperdink (Patrick Warburton), but in the classic fashion of the fairy tale we all know, stepmother Frieda (Sigourney Weaver) has other ideas--when she stumbles upon the lab of a powerful wizard (George Carlin) and runs afoul of his hapless assistants, Mambo and Munk (Andy Dick and Wallace Shawn, respectively) she learns that everyone's fate in Fairy Tale Land is pre-written, can be manipulated, and proceeds to do so. She garners the support of just about every fairy tale villain in a regular coup, Forcing Ella, Mambo, Munk, and cynical palace dishwasher Rick (Freddie Prinze Jr.) to search for the Prince, or some way out of the mess.

This film looks terrific--the visuals of Fairy Tale land are quite stunning, and the character design, along with capable voicing, makes the characters memorable. Even the idea is juicy, and leads to other interesting notions, such as the view of Rumplestiltskin (Michael McShane channeling Gilbert Gottfried) as a concerned guardian. The problem--and it's a big one--is that they all deserve a better executed, better timed story. The plot, while intriguing in concept, drags in too many places, and there just feels like a few too many holes are left here and there. The disjointed use of the talent is somewhat evident as well; I'm somewhat used to guys like Warburton, Shawn, and Andy Dick getting the great lines, and Dick does get some good ones, but most of the good lines are divided between Prinze and Weaver. Oh, they handle them effectively enough, but the uneven feel loses punch for the whole production. So technically, it's excellent, but overall, it's mediocre. You should really wait for DVD on this one...

A Nutshell Review: Happily N'ever After

[DICK STEEL · 5/10 · 10 March 2007]

Happily N'ever After is a play on the usual and expected ending of all fairy tales, where the guy will get the girl, defeat the evil queen/king, and ride off into the sunset. What happens after that, frankly, nobody cares, as it's as perfect an ending as it can possibly be.

The storyline here takes a peek into what can actually go wrong, if "happily ever after" gets traded for "happily never after". Fate as it seems, in Fairy Tale Land, is managed in a castle top by a caretaker wizard (George Carlin) and his two bumbling helpers Mambo (Andy Dick) and Monk (Wallace Shawn). In their lair, there's the book of fairy tales which dictates the lives of everyone in the land, a remote controlled looking glass for that big-brother peep into their lives, and a set of scales, which can be tipped into Good or Bad directions to influence the proceedings of the fairytale.

Central to the plot, despite a host of other familiar and identifiable tales like Sleeping Beauty and Little Red Riding Hood, is that of Cinderella's. Ella (as she is known here, voiced by Sarah Michelle Gellar) as usual is being bullied by her wicked stepmother (aren't they always), voiced by Sigourney Weaver, and ugly stepsisters (Kath Soucie and Jill Talley), and we encounter the same scenario about going to the Prince's (Patrick Warburton) ball, fairy godmother, pumpkin coach, glass slippers and all. Only that this time, the spotlight is put on the Prince's kitchen helper Rick (Freddie Prinze Jr), the chief protagonist and narrator of the story.

Rick secretly loves Ella, and cannot fathom why the entire kingdom is smitten with the buffoon of a prince charming - Prince Humperdink. It seems to copy the formula set out by Shrek, that if you have a prince, making him a less than perfect specimen character-wise, to draw out the laughs. In the presence of his incompetence, Rick and Ella gotta combine forces to save their land and restore order when Ella's stepmother gains control over the wizard's staff and lair. That about sums up the plot.

Delivery wise, the animation looked rather uninspiring. 3D animated movies have reached a certain threshold, and no longer commands the wows. It's not that it isn't gorgeous, just not fantastically so. The voice talents are relatively unknowns, except for the leads, and seemed to have gone the opposite direction to the mantra of filling the movie with as many recognizable stars as possible, in order to put attention to the story and dialogue. Sadly, the story's rather plain, with an expected ending, and the dialogue, lacking in wit and spunk. There are scenes which try to be funny, but just fall flat.

In an animated movie where fairy tale characters run amok, the movie coasts along without much madness infused. But definitely easy enough for its intended target audience - the children - to understand and enjoy.

Disappointing

[chuk99 · 3/10 · 8 January 2007]

While this had some good points, there were many weaknesses. The characters didn't always fit their voices and the animation was pretty weak. Freddie Prinze, Jr.'s character, Rick, looked like Justin Timberlake, for some unknown reason. Characters walked as if they were automatons, not with the fluidity of humans. And Sarah Michell Gellar, while I'm a big fan of hers from her Buffy days, seemed bored the whole time. In fact, her (Cinder)Ella spoke with the same stilted simplicity as the robot Buffy from Season Five of the series. The monumental talents of George Carlin were wasted in such a small role. The whole thing seemed as if it were a rushed rip-off of Shrek and Hoodwinked.

A poor Shrek wannabe

[babot_teal · 2/10 · 5 January 2007]

Avoid this film until you've read all of the negative reviews on it first. That way, you are less likely to be as disappointed in it as I was. The previews suckered me into seeing it. Do not make this mistake!

Though a cute idea, it ended up as only that ... a cute idea. Fortunately, the acting was well suited to this shallow attempt to entertain. Comparing it to Shrek and Hoodwinked is rather unfair, since this movie is no where near their league.

If you have absolutely nothing to do on a cold and rainy day, and you get hold of a free ticket, pick up a newspaper on your way to the theater and read what the critics have said about it. If you decide to see it, on those terms, you have at least been warned.

Truthful Title

[jp_011205 · 3/10 · 1 February 2007]

Once upon a time, twelve years ago to be exact, a Canadian film studio by the name of Lionsgate was created. At the start their films went pretty much unnoticed. Starting in 2000 a wave of change came about. First was 'American Psycho', then 'Monster's Ball' in 2001, followed by 'Saw', 'Fahrenheit 9/11', 'The Devil's Rejects', & 'Crash' in the years after. All those films became notable favorites of many. The year is now 2007, and Lionsgate has assembled a rather interesting collection of people to take part in their latest release. Animation designer of 1997's 'Pippi Longstocking', Paul Boger is directing. 'The Return of Jafar's story creator Doug Langdale and 'Ground Control's writer Rob Moreland have been chosen to write. To bring the characters created to life, on board is 'The Grudge's Sarah Michelle Gellar, 'Scooby-Doo's Freddy Prinze Jr., & once alien obliterating, Sigourney Weaver. Together with numerous others, they have created the atrocity of a film with the truthful title 'Happily N'Ever'.

The Wizard of Fairy Tale Land, played by George Carlin, is going on vacation. That leaves his assistants Mambo and Munk, played by Andy Dick and Wallace Shawn in charge. It's now their duty to keep the balance of good and evil. This means making sure all stories go according to planned; each getting their happy ending. Everything is okay until Sigourney Weaver's character, Frieda, Cinderella's evil step-mother, finds out about the Wizard's absence and easily takes over. The kingdom is now in shambles with evil now holding power. Cinderella, played by Sarah Michelle sets out with Mambo and Monk in search of Prince Charming hoping that he'll be able to save the day. Rick, the dishwasher of the Prince, feels this is a waste of time. His plan is for him, Cinderella, Mambo, & Monk to take out Frieda themselves, which the others disagree with. Either way, the fact remains that she must be stopped, and soon.

If this had been released in 2001, the idea of it might be more appealing. Unfortunately, since it didn't, it's almost impossible not to compare with 'Shrek'. Once again fairy tale icons have been synced together for a CGI film. Only this time, they're aren't as much fun to watch. I'll confess, the introduction fooled me. It made me think that it would end up being okay. Thirty-one minutes in, I was completely frustrated. I wanted it to end right then and there. This is actually fitting though considering a line Will gives at the end of the intro. He states, "I'm sorry to tell you, but it only gets worse from here." How sad it is that I didn't pay any attention to his warning.

The kinks in the characters really make the difference here. Cinderella isn't able to stray from believing the Prince is her one true love. She doesn't end up opening her eyes to what is right in front of her until the very end. This ends up making her seem dimwitted, and as a result, makes us never really care about her. Then Rumpelstiltskin, played by Michael McShane, ends up slowly turning good once evil is in favor and lets him to get the baby he sought after. This change ends up affecting his fairy tale. Instead of being dragged into the earth by rage, he ends up staying and helps care for the child. This was only done for the film because he becomes somewhat likable. So of course in the end, they can't simply dispose of him like in the actual story. I guess anyone can now re-write one of the Brother's Grimm's classic tales.

Above all other imperfections displayed, repetitiveness is honestly the worst of them all. Over and over and over and over and over mostly from Frieda, is the idea that nothing is going to end happy said. Sometimes it's re-worded, sometimes it's not. I would think that title of the film gave that away. Even having Frieda shout it once would be okay, but no. They had to have her say it until it almost loses its meaning. It does succeed in making you want the happy ending to happen even more though. If that's even important at all at that point… It does try, I'll give it that, but it's nowhere near as clever as 'Shrek'. I must say though, I did like the seven dwarfs. The twist on them is nice. With that I must also say, they single-handedly can't save 'Happily N'Ever After'. I urge you, avoid seeing it. Don't even rent it when it becomes available on DVD. Just walk away and never turn back.

Fairytale Gone Wrong

[Tobeyfanatic7 · 1/10 · 7 January 2007]

I just saw Happily N'ever After. Trust me, I will N'ever see this again. The plot was weak, the dialogue was amateurish and it belongs on the direct to video shelf. I don't mind the lead female going against ritual by choosing the underdog, but its not enjoyable when your reminded about it every five seconds. The characters are one dimensional and predictable. You feel no remorse for poor little Ella and her love Rick. I actually thought the only entertainment was George Carlin's character b/c he was on screen for less than four minutes. Also this movie had no depth and is a cornucopia of corny one liners. All in all, a perfect movie for children and their bored parents.

Gently Dancing Breakfast at Tiffany's

[tedg · 1 October 2008]

If you can compartmentalize your movie viewing, you will be able to negotiate through this.

The thing to ignore is the thing we are supposed to place foremost, all the dialog, acting, story and pacing. Its just dreadful. Enough said about that.

But. It has two things that interested me.

One is simply the idea. It is a movie of a fairy tale inside a movie about manipulating fairy tales, inside a movie narrated by someone who seems to be outside both movies (he actually gets to stop the film physically) but at the same time trapped in the innermost movie. There's magic to explain some of this, but only a part. Its a very clever concoction.

But the other thing was some of the characters. Well, they vary so; I guess I really mean the two women in front, Ella (Cinderella) and her redhaired stepmother. Its how they are rendered. Ella seems to be the only character whose face seems outside the cartoon world she inhabits. She's clearly a version of Audrey Hepburn with each of her attractive feature made a little more so. Its really quite good.

The bodies are another thing. Not since Betty Boop's boobs were stilled by the censors, have we seen a young body as naturally sexy as this. There's nothing seductive or intended or cheap or erotic about it. Its just that all the parts move as they should, under modest clothes. I really was amazed, especially at the attention paid to her rear end.

The step mother is something else. She moves with exaggerated erotic intent. She has huge bosoms and a nearly invisible waist. And then again huge thighs. Where the younger just walks, this puffy dominatrix swings. There's clearly some intent by the filmmaker here to get some sort of message across about the undesirability of overt sexuality. It zoomed right past me just in my astonishment at Ella's motion.

Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.

It has some cute and funny moments, but it could have been more

[Smells_Like_Cheese · 5/10 · 25 May 2007]

I remember wanting to see this in the theater when it was first released, it seemed like a guaranteed hit. But unfortunately, I never got the opportunity to see it, when I saw that it was available for rent, I didn't hesitate, I also never looked at the IMDb rating, so I thought that this would have been a fun family movie that had a few good laughs. OK, I admit this really wasn't what I expected, it was kinda lame, but I think a 3.0 is a little too harsh. This wasn't the most original computer animated film, but it had a few good laughs here and there. It's just a fun and wacky family film that I think some people might get a kick out of.

We all know how fairy tales go, the happily ever after ending, but did you ever wonder if there was some sort of monitoring going on to make sure that everyone had a happy story? Well, that's what this story is about, only Cinderella has another man in her life that wants her heart, a slave, Rick, who wants a happy ending of his own. But when Cinderella's step mom finds out about the monitoring, she takes over and wants the villains for once to win the day.

Happily N'ever After is a silly film, but it was all in good fun, you have got to admit that the prince character was pretty funny, when he was admitting all his failures and started crying. There were some fun moments also, I think people were a little too harsh on the film, just give it a look for yourself, it's not unique, but it's just a fun little animated film that I think just got over looked.

5/10

Good voice cast and a good idea, but forgettable and bland in its execution

[TheLittleSongbird · 4/10 · 28 February 2010]

I will start by saying this is not the worst animated movie I have ever seen, far from it. Doogal, Secret of NIMH 2 and Titanic:The Animated Movie are much worse than this. That said though, while not a terrible movie, Happily N'ever After isn't particularly good either. Good things first, I loved the idea of the film, an ironic take on Cinderella, coincidentally one of my all time favourite fairy tales. Then there is a good voice cast, standouts being Sigourney Weaver, Patrick Warburton and Wallace Shawn. Personally I felt Sarah Michelle Gellar and Freddie Prinze Jnr were on the bland side, but so were their characters strictly speaking. Plus some funny moments come from the supporting characters such as the gangster wolves and biker witches on motorised broomsticks. And of course Mambo and Munk. However, despite these good things, the film at the end of the day felt forgettable and bland. My thoughts on the animation were mixed, while I liked how audacious some of the backgrounds looked, I thought the character movements were awkward and forced. It is pretty much the same with the music score as well, too exaggerated and overdone for my liking. A great idea for a story, but the jokes were on the whole very derivative and the pace uneven consequently the film lacked sparkle and felt predictable. But the worst offender was the script, it seemed rather lazy for some reason, with more polish and irreverence it could have breathed more life into the film. All in all, not terrible, but not great. 4/10 Bethany Cox

A cute, likable little film

[mikebrannon · 6/10 · 24 January 2007]

I really don't understand all of the venom and vitriol directed at this cute little film. Is it a cinematic masterpiece? No, but it's hardly the worst children's animated film you'll ever see. (I leave that honor to the horror that is DOOGLE.) The ill-fated romance between Rick and Ella seems genuine enough -- it makes you take a second look at the classic fairy tale and ask the question, "what is so all-fired wonderful about Price Charming, anyway?" The casting was appropriate -- anything featuring the underused Wallace Shawn can't be all bad -- and the acting was fine, if not Oscar-worthy.

Again, is this film on the level of SHREK or ICE AGE, or anything by Pixar? Of course not. But is it better than a lot of the animated children's films that have come out lately? Absolutely.

N'Ever Entertaining

[Born_Dead · 1/10 · 3 January 2007]

I saw a screening of this film yesterday and I was disappointed. The film sports many stars but fails to capitalize on their strengths to make the film more entertaining. What you end up getting is the same old story taken down an already clichéd path that we have seen time and time again. Freddie Prinze Jr. stars as Rick as well as Narrator but his character is given very little to work with and his narration stinks because he fails to speak clearly. His wife Sarah Michelle Gellar is also given a role that is wanting but fails to entertain. Carlin, who plays the wizard, has a two second part and the dry wit genius of Patrick Warburton is heavily under used. This had to have been one of the most boring films I have seen to date slated for kids. Do not pay money to see this one.

A Great Twist on My Favorite Fairy Tale

[ja_kitty_71 · 10/10 · 1 August 2007]

I have always loved fairy tales, and even as an adult I still love them (I'm 21 years old). I was shocked and surprised by the negative reviews I would see on the web. I thought this film was a great twist on one of my favorite fairy tales-Cinderella. Like, what if Cinderella's evil stepmother gets a hold of The Wizard's staff and takes over Fairytale Land? The Wizard is the one who makes sure every fairy tale has a happy ending. What if Cinderella (or Ella in the film) doesn't go for the Prince (who is a pompous dumb ass), but Rick the kitchen boy? Well, technically in the original story, Ella was a nobleman's daughter until he married the evil stepmother (Frieda in the film) and unfortunately died, and Ella became "Cinderella."

I like a little twist now and then anyway. The animation and backgrounds are very pretty, and the characters are appealing. The casting is very good too, even though Patrick Warburton can be a bit annoying as The Prince... sorry, but it's true. The two scenes I love are the battle at the Seven Dwarfs' house and the musical and colorful "If I Get What I Want" scene.

Sassy Humor

[hellokristen · 7/10 · 3 January 2007]

Things are going awry in Fairy Tale land. Thanks to the Evil Stepmother (wonderful Sigourney Weaver), all the Villains of the fairy tales are going to have their way.

The humor was hip (but not too hip). I laughed aloud a few times. I think the adults will enjoy it as much as the kids. (The daddies will especially enjoy the Stepmother's Jessica Rabbit-like physique.) Beautiful 3-D animation helps it swing along. Although I found the Stepmother's bosoms as bit TOO 3-D. Distracting.

Patrick Warburton is perfectly cast as the voice of the big handsome (and dumb) prince. Married couple Sarah Michelle Gellar and Freddie Prinze, Jr. do service as the leads, and Wallace Shawn, Andy Dick and George Carlin are on board too. (George only has a few lines, none of them funny, so don't get your hopes up if you're a fan.)

It's no Shrek -- but it's 85 colorful minutes that go down easily.

Miserably N'ever Ending...

[fasc · 1/10 · 31 January 2007]

I should have seen it coming when trailers for four separate film companies scrawled across the screen before the feature began. That many cooks WILL spoil the broth.

One-quarter of the way through this film, I was ready to walk out. I kept wanting it to get better--or at least to some kind of point--but it's a cavalcade of arbitrary events, soulless heroes, un-scary villains, and incoherent pacing. And it just doesn't STOP! Sigourney Weaver screams most of her lines, the romantic subplot is clumsy and unbelievable, the humor is flatter than year-old Coke. Even the wonderfully klunky Patrick Warburton couldn't save this film.

Should be taken sparingly and only as a cure for insomnia.

I would like to thank.....

[MorbidGirlie · 20 January 2007]

I would like to thank all of the bad reviews. They made the movie a way better experience. I didn't think it was going to be like Shrek to begin with so, that part didn't effect me. All in all, the movie was pretty decent, a 6.5 / 10..... there were parts I laughed, parts i liked and those little Dwarfs are creepy! haha....

I agree with those of you who liked the film, and I also agree with those of you who didn't. Hollywood lacks imagination these days with spoofs, re-makes and slight plot changes. But, that's the media's fault... so, for a movie that had to compete with all the stuff out there, it was good.

And Freida, by the way, looked like the Step-Mother from the original Cinderella, but with more attractive hair and a little more leg. Their 'busts' are the same size, just Frieda has a cleavage line.....Don't agree? What Cinderella again -smirk- Thanks for readin'!

-The Horror Whore-

Story... Here Story!

[jmaarsman · 1/10 · 6 January 2007]

Well, I saw this in the theatre at the late night showing, when all the other theatres had about thirty to forty people in their grasps, and I thought it was a pretty pitiful sight that my mate and I were the only ones to enter into its depths. Upon the beginning of the story, it opens with what has to be the most cliché, and completely useless entry-point I've ever seen in my entire life. Unfortunately, the movie only dropped from there. The Narration was boring and the characters were useless. There were no facial expressions within the narration and I've seen better plots in movies written twenty years ago based on evil tomatoes.

The cast on this movie is amazing, but none of their talent, the stuff that makes them their own, was used at all. The main characters, with the exception of Rick the Dishwasher, have only ten lines within the entire movie, and the clothes that all of them wear aren't what would normally befit a child's movie (The Stepmother's Dress). The animation was close to terrible, having skipped and jumped at odd times in the film, as though the character was just magically from one spot to another. If you 'must' go see this movie, the only character I suggest watching is the Prince, as he's the only one with even a little bit of said 'character'. What could have been a great film, with an awesome plot line, became a pathetic excuse for a flop.

In my humble opinion: Don't Bother.

Clunker

[VBoston · 1/10 · 10 January 2007]

Good animation, awful script. Far cry from Disney's or Pixar's best.

Not much can be said for this film but IMDb's Comment Requirements demand a minimum of 10 lines. OK, here goes. What a waste of incredible voice/acting talent. One of the main characters was voiced by Wallace Shawn (Vizzini "inconceivable!" "I'm waiting!" of The Princess Bride). It's as if the director threatened to smack him on his bald head if he even tried to voice his character in any way that was slightly entertaining or interesting. (Or maybe they just edited any funny lines out in post-production) Actually, the screenwriters should have watched The Princess Bride and gotten some ideas from that movie. The songs were atrocious and forgettable. My favorite part was when the credits stared rolling. The fact that there were only three other people in the theatre besides myself and my son should have been a clue. He had seen all the other "kid" movies so we were stuck with the bottom of the barrel.

Maybe they should have taken some of the budget that paid for the "star" vocal talent and rewritten the script. Just my opinion.

The Shrek Mock-up

[sias-programming · 3/10 · 6 January 2007]

I thought this movie would be stupid-silly, but it turned out that it was just stupid. There are better movies to see. This seemed too much like something from Shrek. Shrek was better actually. This was just strange and not scary, not funny, not interesting, and not worth seeing. Some parts were silly, but I rarely laughed. A lot of it seemed like it was just a waste of time. It was almost as if the director wanted to get as close to an hour as possible. I remember sitting and thinking it'd be over but it was just a half hour into the movie. Not much more to say since the plot seemed stupid too. The story made no sense near the middle and toward the end. The evil stepmother just invited every evil or bad fairytale character to come, booze out, and dance. Any REAL action??? Nope. Just some parts where Rick and Ella are trying to find the Prince. If there's any other movie on your TV or in the theater, please watch something that ISN'T THIS.

N'ever, n'ever see this movie

[HaleySings · 1/10 · 12 January 2007]

Who cares?

That's the feeling you'll probably have if you go to see the movie. Fractured fairy-tales are fine when they're done well. One of my favorite movies, Princess Bride, is one example of this. Shrek is another. This movie wants to be a Shrek, but utterly fails.

The plot is….well. Barely there. The characters are shuffled from one scene to the next, saying jokes that aren't funny. I laughed once—and it was mixed with a groan. The story doesn't even try to be that interesting, it's just begging you to please, please laugh at the jokes. The actors playing the characters know it's not funny, as well. Most don't even try. The few who do—Sarah Michelle Gellar (who I feel sorry for, she really did try) and Sigourney Weaver (do you really need the money that badly, ma'am?)—are struggling with a dull, lifeless script.

The characters don't help, either. The Prince is Patrick Warburton's typical 'lovable idiot' without the lovable; the Stepmother is evil, but can't even give an explanation why when asked in the movie; Ella is unsympathetic and just plain dull; the bumbling sidekicks are forgettable and unneeded; and Rick complains so much you can't root for him to be with Ella, or to get…anything.

The animation for the movie is like something that was made five years ago. To be fair, the animation isn't as stiff as some CGI films, but the characters look like they're made out of plastic. Ella's hair looks like it's painted on. The others look like their hair is made out of clay. Their eyes also have this weird shiny glint to them, like doll's eyes. Were they trying to make them look like toys?

And as for the music? It sounded like a score for a bad Saturday morning cartoon. It was exaggerated and annoying. There was also one random musical sequence thrown in during the middle of the movie. I thought we had moved on from the days when every animated movie had to have a song tacked on! What's worse is, the musical sequence was an unmemorable pop song what seemed to be the same scene being played over…and over…and over. It was like watching a bad AMV, only the animation and music is normally better in AMVs.

While sitting in the (empty) theater, I tried to come up with some redeeming qualities for this movie. Here they are: Some of the actors try to make the best of it. And the animation is better than Bratz. That's about it. If you're a teen or adult who likes animation, you'll hate this for being a good example of everything that's wrong with American animation today: reused plots, jokes that aren't funny, and celebrity actors for the sake of having celebrity actors. If you're a parent looking for a movie to take your kids to…rent out Shrek and let them watch it at home. It's cheaper, and your kids will probably enjoy it more.

I want my $7.75 back.

Story: 1/10 Art: 2/10 Overall: 1/10

Happily Never Watch it, unless you want to be awestruck by how bad it is

[eline-hoskens · 2/10 · 5 August 2013]

I watched this movie on DVD as I was convinced it would be like Shrek, a movie I liked a lot. Not only is this a 'wannabe Shrek movie', it's an awful animation by itself. The animation was stiff, the voice-acting was poor, the story and script were painfully bad, some really horrible jokes that were intended to be funny sent shivers down my spine (e.g. the end of the tale/tail -> we get it: NOT funny!), ...

Cinderella, who is supposed to be a nice character is a real bimbo. You don't really care about her. The narrator is so cynical that there is more eye-rolling in the movie than real acting.

We were absolutely fascinated with this movie afterwards and started looking up reviews. This is 'The Room' of the animation films. So DO watch it, just to see how an animation movie should NOT be.

We were even more amazed to find out there were all these extra's on the DVD with even a testimony by Sigourney Weaver telling she was positively impressed with the script and chose to play the evil stepmother because it was 'such an original and round character' while it actually struck us how cliché and black-and-white this character was. I couldn't shake off the impression that she wasn't entirely honest because her eyes did not support what her mouth said in that interview. It really looked like she had played in the movie of her rich cousin, blinded by his delusions of his own talent, and was afraid to refuse the part or admit the movie just sucked because she didn't want to hurt his feelings. Other interviews in the extra's simply avoided the subject of the movie itself and were all about "creating animation in Europe is so cool", "we had so much fun in Berlin", "Berlin's a real party", "blablabla".

We were thunderstruck so we immediately watched the sequel (the available clips) on YouTube and it was even worse than this one. The animation looked really awful there. I've seen storyboards that looked more like animation. We were sooo surprised! "Why on earth would they want to make a sequel on this movie?!" I think they just wanted to extend the party in Berlin. This time, the movie was about Snow White in puberty. So I decided to rate this movie 2 stars for the simple reason that the sequel is still worse and deserves no more than 1 star.

very iffy

[dadsgirl99 · 7/10 · 15 January 2007]

not all together a bad movie, but Ella was an idiot and the dramatic irony is choking at times, but good if you need a break from "the entire world is slowly falling to into a spiraling vortex of highly profane doom" movies that are practically omnipotent in today's society.

similar to hoodwinked in that it takes one or more old fairy tales and smashes them together, but revamps them less than it comes up with a new story entirely.

overall, not a bad movie, though Frieda's 20 inch cleavage isn't something id want in a children's movie (or any other movie, for that matter) and leave's the viewer wondering, "why purple?"

Couldn't even finish watching

[jimmyd-10363 · 2/10 · 13 November 2020]

I can't recall the last time I turned off a movie 25 minutes into it, but this was so terrible I couldn't take another second of the shoddy attempts at what is some very basic, yet poorly executed humor.

Cute and clever

[dhaggertymit · 8/10 · 3 March 2018]

I thought this was a cute and clever animated movie with good actors portraying the parts - enjoyed it very much.

Lighten Up People

[tjay1777 · 6/10 · 14 January 2007]

People, come on, don't go watch this expecting to see another "Beauty and the Beast" or "The Lion King." Read the title of the movie for crying out loud. That should give you a clue that your not going in to see an epic Disney or pixar animated masterpiece. The movie is not even distributed by those. It's by Lions Gate films. Anyway, onto the movie itself, no, it wasn't the greatest kids movie ever made. But it will make you and your kids laugh and provided a whole new twist on the fairy tales that we've come to love. Take your kids or whoever and go see this movie, not expecting to much from it, and you will enjoy it. Don't be so harsh and critical of a movie called Happily N'Ever After. If you are, then go see The Good Shepherd or Children of Men.

Completely generic and dull.

[Shopaholic35 · 3/10 · 29 December 2014]

I understand the concept but the execution is half-arsed at best. The writers should be ashamed of themselves. The characters lack direction and the only common theme I can see is cram as many storybook characters into one film together and watch what happens. Sometimes the anti fairytale can work but it has to be creatively done.

For such a star-studded cast, it really should have been better. I'm super surprised that so many people signed onto this movie. The only thing that can explain it is maybe their careers were in a slump at the time. There are just so many could have been great moments but in the end nothing can save this lacklustre, boring pile of generic trash.