Tag Archives: Cinderella

In Defense of Cinderella

I’m not saying it’s the greatest movie ever made. I’m not even saying that Cinderella is that strong of a character. She isn’t, and that’s okay. Not every female character needs to be Gloria Steinem.

What I am saying is Cinderella (1950) and its eponymous character are not nearly as bad as people claim, and the 2015 live action remakes ultimately “updates” very little from it.

Keep in mind that I do still like the remake (for the most part), but much like with the new Beauty and the Beast, I think it gets praised more than it really deserves, especially in contrast to the hate heaped upon its predecessor.

To start off, let’s get a few things out of the way here:

 

Yes, the animated prince gets maybe 4 complete lines in the whole movie, one of which is, “Yawn.” And yes, he has no character.

 

Yes, the mice take up too much time. And yes, a female mouse does in fact say, “Leave the sewing to the women,” and isn’t that so anti-feminist?

 

Got that out of your system? Great. On we go then.

Here is my interpretation of animated Cinderella, backed up by quotes from the opening narration: Her father died when she was very young, and suddenly it’s revealed that her stepmother and stepsisters, her only remaining family, are self-centered, sadistic bitches; “it was upon the untimely death of this good gentleman, however, that the stepmother’s true nature was revealed. Cold, cruel, and bitterly jealous of Cinderella’s charm and beauty.” She is put to work as their house servant soon after, but their house still falls apart because the stepmother is too cheap to hire more help. To quote the movie again, “The chateau fell into disrepair, for the family fortune was squandered upon the vain and selfish stepsisters”.

 

So it can be reasonably inferred that Cinderella was brainwashed and manipulated from a young age. The fact that she hasn’t left home probably means that she can’t, as it would probably leave her homeless and starving (which can sadly happen to runaways in the real world as well, even in modern day). The movie supports this theory with its framing of shots, showing Cinderella constantly inside or at the very least confined to the surrounding property. Aside from the panning shot over the castle, town, and chateau during the opening, we virtually never see the rest of the land (unlike in the remake, if you’ll remember).

It surprises me how many people fail to see the logical flow of events like these. They would prefer to call Cinderella stupid or weak, but I wonder if they could comfortably say the same of abuse victims in the real world, especially children raised in such environments? Think about it.

Anyway, the next thing people love to criticize Cindy for is being boring and simple. A helpless waif with no character and no drive to better herself. Well, aside from referring you back to my interpretation above, let’s look at Cinderella in the movie. She is forced to do every chore in the house every single day of her life, but while she doesn’t let it twist her into someone bitter and truly unkind, she clearly strains her patience very often. Just look at how the animators drew her face, albeit in brief moments:

 

Cinderella doesn’t say much sometimes, and she tends to be pretty reserved, but much like Belle, she conveys a surprising amount through her expressions. You can also hear frustration and determination in her voice, such as when she’s trying to convince herself that the prince’s ball wouldn’t have been that much fun anyway.

I also like how she not-so-subtlety mocks her stepsisters’ performances at their music lesson.

 

See guys? She’s not a complete goody-two-shoes doormat after all. She just copes like every other woman does….quietly and bitchily.

The classic Cinderella moral has always been “work hard and be good and good things will come to you;” essentially “don’t give up.” But I think an even better lesson would be, “don’t let bad experiences change you negatively as a person,” which incidentally would have been a better moral for the new Cinderella as well, retroactively-speaking. Cinderella as a character doesn’t just work hard; she saves the mice, who are even lower on the social food chain than she is, and unlike the rest of her family, she treats those who are lower than her with respect and humanity.

 

She does try to argue with the stepmother (however futile that might ultimately be), so it’s not like she has no backbone. She’s trying to make the best of a bad situation, whether by trying to assert herself, trying to stay positive, or just being silly.

 

In a world of talking mice, horrible relatives, and fairy godmothers, what else can you do but yell at your alarm clock like it’s a person?

When Cinderella talks about the ball prior to going, at no point does she mention the prince or the opportunity to get with him aside from when she was reading the invitation. It sounds more like she just really wanted the excuse to put on a nice dress and have a fun night out. Even after she runs away at midnight, she doesn’t think that the man she danced with was the prince, and later, she is so startled by that revelation that she drops a tea tray.

 

Face it: Cinderella just wanted to get pretty and go to a party. She met a guy while she was there, somehow not realizing he was the prince, and that just made the evening better. Unlike in the remake, the writers don’t explicitly say that Cinderella has no chance with the man she danced with, but I feel like Cinderella would already know that and just have quietly appreciated the experience.

Then, the next day, when she finds out that not only can she be with him, but he’s the prince of the entire country, her first thought is to go clean up and make herself presentable. Her daydreaming blinds her to caution, sure, but she’s clearly elated to be able to marry the man she “fell in love with” (it’s a fairytale. Whatever) and escape her abusive, exploitative family.

And last but not least, do you remember her reaction when the stepmother locks her in her room? She gets upset. She beats on her door and tries to pull it open.

 

When she sees that her mice friends are coming to help and bringing her the key, she encourages them, and despite her usual policy of trying to be nice to Lucifer, she asks the birds to get Bruno the dog just to scare him away.

What was remake Cinderella’s reaction again?…Oh yeah, I remember. She twirled around her room daydreaming about the prince and the ball, singing to herself and totally not caring about what the stepmother might be planning to do to her. Because that’s really smart and empowering, right?

 

Remake Cinderella could ride a horse, speak several languages fluently, was an adult when the step family came into her life, and was shown numerous times to be able to leave the chateau and visit friends, who would probably take her in for a little bit if she asked them to. Hello! The filmmakers love to talk her up like she’s some feminist paragon, and by implication how backwards and weak old Cinderella is, but the climax of the movie completely ruins the image of the former for multiple reasons. The most relevant of which is that she doesn’t even try to get out or help herself, unlike the animated Cinderella. Just because 1950’s Cindy failed to get out on her own doesn’t negate the fact that she actually tried to.

 

That’s all I’m trying to say here. Both movies have their respective flaws and strengths, but the older version is not as bad for little girls as many people would have you believe. And as I always say, you could help your children understand context by watching it with them and talking to them about it, letting them know that it was made 70 years ago and lots of things change in all that time. It’s a little magical thing called context, and it works wonders.

Except maybe things don’t change much over 70+ years, because the remake updates so little and creates more issues than it ultimately fixes, all so that Disney could cash in on nostalgia and modern sensibilities simultaneously.

 

That’s what it’s all about; dress porn for little girls and girls at heart. At least 50’s Cinderella’s was less gratuitous…and way shorter. And less radioactive-looking.

 

You can still like something while admitting it has problematic elements to it. That’s how I can comfortably like both versions of this story. I just see so many people trying to pretend that one Cinderella is way worse than the other, when really, it’s two halves of the same whole. It’s too much selective outrage and modern sensibility, without actually addressing any of the problems they claim so deeply upset them.

Cindy’s not a bad person. Maybe all we need to do is see her in full light.

 

*None of the gifs or pictures in this post belong to me. They all belong to Disney. 

SaveSaveSaveSave

SaveSave

Advertisements

Cinderella: How to Make a Nice, Simple Modern Fairytale

Cinderella_2015_1

 

How much can I say about Disney’s newest live-action movie Cinderella? I liked it. I really did.

For me, it captured the basic heart and spirit of the original animated classic while still being its own distinct version. It conveyed a message of courage and kindness, strength and hope in the face of cruelty and adversity, and hey, it even poked fun at itself and had a few cute, “self-aware” moments, thankfully none of which felt forced.

When I heard this was being made, I thought we might see a movie from the stepmother’s point of view, a la Maleficent, but that may or may not have worked too well. The more I watch Maleficent, the less I grow to like it; particularly because the narrator urges you to regard this story as the “true version,” rather than just one of many interesting, diverse interpretations. It comes across as irreverent and somewhat arrogant.

lily-james-2

 

I worried initially that all of this Disney retreading was them hoping to pacify the mobs of naysayers, and thereby scrub their classics clean of just about anything that might offend modern audiences. But such does not seem the case with Cinderella.

Let’s face facts: everyone and their mother has tried to tell this story. Several have tried to put their own spin on it; to make their films unique, or in many cases, more palatable. Often today, people feel they have to do a feminist, modern retelling that fixes all of the problems they had with the original story; particularly the passivity of Cinderella as a character.

 

That’s admirable; there is absolutely nothing wrong with being critical. The source material is flawed; it was written long before modern-day, and the animated film came out in the 1950’s. Wanting to poke fun or make a better movie is fine, so long as you don’t give in to genuine bitterness and cynicism.
disney2

 

I maintain that Cinderella is not trying to make little girls passive, man-obsessed, or gluttons for punishment. It’s a Christian story at heart; where, if you put up with life’s difficult challenges with patience and perseverance, and stay a good person through it all, you will ultimately be rewarded in the end. Whether you think that really can happen or not is up to you, but we all have moments where we wish we had been kinder, stronger, and more patient with people. It might not hurt to encourage kids to be positive, and to kill their haters with kindness.

Ultimately, people will see what they want to see. And if you want to see a more active Cinderella, kindly check out my review of Cinderella 3: A Twist in Time. 

2ca1050bcac735c33921c4696f716873

 

Cate Blanchett makes for a fun Lady Tremaine; enough like the original, but with her own quirks. She has an interesting laugh all her own. The step sisters are straight from the animated movie, but with a bit more brain damage. As you would expect, the prince has a ton of more presence (and a sort of name!), and his father is less crazy than the original king, but lovable and supportive to his son.

cinderellacast4

 

Helena Bonham Carter plays herself as the fairy godmother. It’s cute, if a little random; she might be a fairy in training or just slightly incompetent. Either way, we never know. The jokes hit their mark pretty well; they’re all situational and timeless, so the best do well and the worst, at the very least, aren’t too distracting.

If I did have one nitpick, it would be that the stepmother and step sisters don’t get much depth. They have a moment where the stepmother almost tells us why she is the way she is, but that is cast aside for a funny little self-aware moment, as I mentioned above. Evil will always triumph because good is dumb. Also, good is ew.

Cinderella-2015-offical-stills-cinderella-37816256-5760-3840

 

It would be nice if in one of these retellings, the step family was misunderstood or at least had a few redeeming moments. But then again, their evil must be great enough to be counteracted and triumphed over by Cinderella’s good.

The animated Disney film will always be special to me because it is a beautiful, stylized version with hilarious side characters and the voice of Maleficent playing the stepmother. But I was pleasantly surprised by how cute, funny, beautiful, and just downright charming the live-action film could be. It’s definitely worth a viewing.

No fancy tricks to retool the story, no “hey, maybe the stepmother was actually a nice lady after all, just misunderstood,” no condescending narrator hailing this film as the end-all be-all of Cinderella stories. Just a straightforward retelling that strives to make Cindy just a little less bland, but no less good at heart.

This-is-Ella-s-story-cinderella-2015-38055601-1536-2048

7/10

*All pictures, video clips, and other media belong to their respective owners. None of the images or sounds belong to me.

The Little Sequel that Could: Cinderella 3

Go Cindy, go!
Go Cindy, go!

Avid Disney fans of the 90’s and early 2000’s will remember, and probably visibly cringe at, the sudden onslaught of direct-to-video sequels that Disney Toon Studios (once Disney Movietoons) unleashed upon the market. Beauty and the Beast, Little Mermaid, Fox and the Hound, Pocahontas; hell, even Bambi.

thScarOven

And, as you’ve probably guessed, these were not made because the studio wanted to give thoughtful, interesting continuations of some of our favorite stories and characters, and certainly not to improve what had already worked for them.

No, these were made because:

dollar_sign_eyes_sticker-ra34da77665d243eea60412a5dc1a3aed_v9waf_8byvr_512

Quality is scarce in most of them. Voice actors change or sound like they’re phoning it in, the music is limited and half-hearted, the audio quality is bad or average, and the animation is less vibrant and lively, with more lines. Like a cartoon show you’d see on t.v.

All of these factors are, of course, in comparison to the original films.

Allow me to quote the notable critic and online personality, Nostalgia Chick, as I believe she put it best:

“…sometimes you have to ask yourself: why do these things exist? Are they the product of a creative spark somewhere? Or are they a studio mandate farmed out to a third-rate production house?”

“As they were made by television people with television assets and budgets, they look like T.V. shows. They are paced like T.V. shows. They have the stakes of a T.V. episode.”

“…a quick cash-in made for stupid children who need to be babysat by Uncle Television for an hour…”

~Top Ten Worst Disney Sequels review

She goes on to outline the usual set up for a Disney sequel. It’s either a prequel, midquel, three-part obvious television show pilot, or sequel, and most of them involve the children of the main characters from the old movie learning the same lesson their parents did last time around, or someone “from movie 1 finding a love interest.” They are glorified fan fictions with budgets, except that these are written by the canon creators.

For those unfamiliar with the terms:

Canon is the material accepted as part of the story in an individual fictional universe.

Fanon, or Fandom, is what the fans come up with (their interpretations, theories, pairings, etc.)

As a child, I saw about half of these “films”. I was too young to understand why the overall quality was so bad, but old enough to be able to notice continuity errors, voice changes, and, in general, a lot less epicness all around. The only sequels I could stand to watch, for the longest time, were Lion King 2 and Pocahontas 2, and while I have some fond memories of them and wouldn’t say they are “that bad,” I wouldn’t call them good, terribly memorable, or having any high aspirations either.

Cinderella 3: A Twist in Time, however…

On a friend’s recommendation, and the above mentioned critic’s follow-up review (Top Five Least Awful Disney Sequels, I sat down and watched this film the other day. I was surprised by its (relatively) decent quality, and it’s aspirations.

Yes. I would go so far as to say this movie aspires to do something useful, which is to give the bland-as-bread Cinderella and the other by-the-numbers good and evil characters some desperately needed development. Even Prince Charming!

Also, Cindy gets stuff to do, and has to work to keep her happily ever after, which is unique and refreshing to many, who regarded her as boring and passive in her original movie.

But how can that be, you ask?

*Warning: Spoilers Ahead*

Cinderella and Prince Whats-His-Name have been married a whole year, and have apparently never had a single argument the whole time, because everything is “perfectly perfect.”

No, I have not watched Cinderella 2, nor will I. From what I’ve heard, 3 doesn’t care much about the continuity of 2 anyway.

The fairy godmother (who’s back for some reason, bumming around the castle I guess) and mouse and bird friends are preparing a big anniversary dinner, while the stepmother still lives in that dilapidated old manor. Lady Tremaine (yes, the stepmother has a name, but the prince doesn’t) now makes her daughters do the chores.

1d18b871dabd9337ba36f13d41a9c1f7ccbc16960f3440b079cb2c5436cc773d

That is, if Cinderella were a normal person and not a Christian archetype of goodness, kindness, and patience. I think after what she’s been through, she has a right to gloat a little. And after the events of this movie unfold, you’ll see the full extent of her unrealistic forgiveness.

The anniversary party is happening about a mile from Cindy’s old house, and Anastasia catches sight of the couple riding by and decides to follow them.

Two things to note here:

1) Anastasia is now a sweet, clumsy, quirky, misled girl, who is going to be unwittingly used by her mother to keep the plot going.

Cinderella III Anastasia and the slipper

I’m all for giving her a personality and not painting her as “just evil,” as Disney has done with villains in the past, but this does create a humorous contrast to the chick in the first movie that was just as nasty as her sister, Drizella, and viciously abused Cinderella with her for many years. Need we forget that lovely dress-tearing scene?

Stepsisters Tearing Dress_thumb[9]

Maybe she was just sweetly misled there too. Who knows?

Nature vs. nurture again…

2) All of this opening and introduction of the characters is taking place via the most cheesy, ear-bleedingly awful musical number. I won’t say it’s the worst of the bunch (there are only about 3 songs, and the rest is background music), because that honor goes to “At the Ball,” sung later by the comic relief mice. I won’t subject you to that one.

tumblr_inline_n03brbHXPD1r9490o

Mary Poppins can pull off “practically perfect in every way,” but on Cinderella, it’s just obnoxious.

The only mildly interesting part of the song is the contrast in score when Cindy and the step sisters sing, but you’ll probably be distracted by the purposely awful singing of the latter. Anastasia sounds like she has a nice voice just itching to get out sometimes, but because she’s a villain-turned-anti-hero, I’m guessing the director told the voice actress to be less graceful and more comedic. Keep up that nasal, Tress!

Anyway…

Cinderella3_0130

Shenanigans happen. The fairy godmother loses her wand, which conveniently lands in front of Anastasia after everything from the first movie was exposited to her, and it then ends up in the hands of Lady Tremaine. The fairy godmother is put out of commission, and the stepmother turns back time and alters things so that Anastasia is set to marry the prince. For extra insurance, she makes sure he’s totally cool with it.

Cinderella looks on like a kicked puppy (something she does on and off as she and her hopes ride the emotional roller coaster that is this movie’s plot), then sings a song that totally doesn’t rip off the opening to The Sound of Music and “Belle”‘s reprise from Beauty and the Beast at the end.

This is like if Belle, halfway through her song, did a complete 180.

“Do I want a man or adventure, or both? I’m so confused!”

But good for her, realizing that having dreams means you have to actually work for them. Take steps and all that jazz.

She marches off to the castle, sidekicks in tow, to defy fate and go get her man.

Yay Feminism!
Yay Feminism!

If I may pause here to mention some more things:

1) The comedy is all over the place. Sometimes it’s funny, with Drizella being the snarky bridge between the cold, quiet, poised stepmother and the clumsy, tactless, thoughtless Anastasia, but most of the time the writers are trying way too hard. It feels heavy-handed and way too purposeful.

The scenes where the mice try to be funny are just painful. It’s colorful, shiny kid-pandering at its finest.

2) The continuity is all over the place, as you might have guessed, but to be fair, it probably wouldn’t bother most people.

It bothers me because Disney is trying to tell me this is Cinderella, but they don’t even remember their first film or care about the little details enough to try to convince me. They think that all I, or anyone, need to see is Cindy, and I’ll think, “Oh, it’s Cinderella. Okay!”

In the words of Nostalgia Chick yet again, “Brand. Name. Recognition!”

These things undermine some otherwise poignant, witty moments, like when the King is criticizing his son for how he’s chosen to determine his bride:

King: “Those aren’t reasons! Breeding, refinement! These are reasons to marry someone! Not their choice in transparent footwear!…You think there’s only one woman in the whole kingdom who wears a size 4 and 1/2?”

Prince: “It’s all I have to go on, here.”

Now, this seems pretty funny. They’re poking fun at themselves and winking at the audience. Cool.

May I direct your attention to this little clip?:

Yeah…so…The king is getting all up in the prince’s business over a plan that he basically came up with. He used the prince’s wording to trap him into marrying someone. Anyone. “That’s his problem.”

The original king didn’t care about breeding and refinement. He just wanted grandkids before he croaked. And since “every eligible maiden (was) to attend,” class must not have been that huge of a factor. Or love, for that matter.

Incidentally, the king and grand duke are probably the funniest things about Cinderella.

Here are a few other nitpicks:

  • Lady Tremaine doesn’t react when her cat is turned into a hybrid duck/cat thing by magic, but she does realize the potential of the wand when it turns the fairy godmother to stone. Delayed reaction maybe?

 

  • Anastasia is almost perfectly content trampling on Cinderella’s happiness from the get go, but only realizes later that she was hurting people, and herself, by trying to force the prince to love her. I know she is dense, but she must have her brain completely shut off if we’re supposed to believe she’s really a nice person. Even as she starts questioning herself and her choices later on.

 

  • Lady Tremaine takes them back in time to when the grand duke first arrived at the manor, then shows Cinderella locked in her room and the mice bringing her the key before the duke even comes inside. The mice only got the key in the original movie once the duke was there and his servant was reading off a ridiculously long proclamation. Also, Cindy is apparently so confused as the duke is wheeling away Anastasia, that she talks to the stepmother as though the woman hadn’t just figured out that she was the girl from the ball and purposefully locked her in her room.  And Cinderella saw this.

 

  • Cinderella doesn’t sing like her 50’s voice actress at all. This is really petty and a personal problem, I know, but it’s my review. Cindy had a lovely voice and singing style before, and now she just sounds nice in a very generic sort of way.

 

Cinderella gets caught and banished by the stepmother, but the prince, alerted by the mice and somewhat able to see past the spell by…having touched Cindy’s hand, goes after her.

More on the hand thing later.

Okay, that whole scene was pretty funny.

(Note: Sorry the clip is limited. The king thought he was crazy because the prince off-handedly mentioned talking mice and blue birds telling him he was marrying the wrong girl. Yet more chuckling at the first film’s ludicrous elements)

The prince saves Cindy just in the nick of time (proving to us and his horse that he is utterly suicidal). The stepmother and her daughters flee, the wedding is on with the right girl this time. Looks like things will go back to normal…

but-wait-theres-more

Lady Tremaine appears again, this time magically disguising Anastasia as Cinderella. Anastasia seems more unsure than usual, but goes along with it because she’s cowed, desperate, and has no self-respect whatsoever.

in time!
in time!

That was delightfully creepy and ironic. I approve!

Note here that Cindy has been sent off to her death, and Anastasia has nothing to say on the matter at all. Her motivations and hatred or care for Cinderella are very vague.

In an even more ironic and satisfying twist, Cinderella essentially saves herself from certain death! You’ll have to see this one for yourself to believe it, but it’s true! One of Disney’s most passive princesses had a shining moment of awesome action!

…Okay, the mice do help her a bit. But they are in the same boat as she was (careening towards certain doom), and it is still an awesome scene that is worth the 5 or so minutes it would take you to check it out.

And hey, at least she didn’t need a prince.

So Cindy goes back to stop the wedding, but not before Anastasia decides that she wants real love and stops it herself via the rarely played card, “I don’t.”

Huh. Usually, we get, “I object!”

I approve of this too. Shake up the old clichés a bit, I say!

The ending is a bit quick, anti-climactic, and repetitive (a spell bounces off a reflective surface for the third or fourth time, hitting the caster in the face), but Cinderella and Princey get married, too busy making googly eyes to notice the fairy godmother’s offer to return them to their full year of peace and marital bliss from the beginning of the film. I guess it doesn’t matter much in the grand scheme of things anyway, but I think it at least deserved a scrap of thought on their part.

GET A ROOM, YOU TWO!
GET A ROOM, YOU TWO!

Anastasia, who has been talking to the now true-lovey-dovey king on and off throughout the movie, decides to find her true love elsewhere, which is hastily pushed into the credits with broken continuity from Cinderella 2. 

Hooray for no loose ends
Hooray for no loose ends

Sometimes, I got the vibe that she would end up with the king in the end. Can’t imagine why.

mqdefault

After all this nitpicking and grumbling about the flaws of the film, I still have plenty of respect for it. Unlike other Disney sequels, it wasn’t boring or terribly contrived. The stakes were high, I daresay even higher than the first film. The movie was decently enjoyable to watch, even with the (at times) cringe-inducing comedy.

Cinderella 3: A Twist in Time was trying to give us a thoughtful addition to the classic story, some self-referential humor and parody, and Cindy and her man getting some personality, something to like about them besides just “they seem nice, I guess.” The writers made mistakes here and there, some glaring and some small, but they were clearly trying harder here than they had in some of the other sequels. I firmly believe that this deserved a theatrical release a lot more than Peter Pan 2 did.

The biggest problems have to do with the jumbled messages. Love is something you have to find and work for, it’s one of the most powerful forces on earth. I agree, but the whole “when our hands touched, I knew” sentiment feels like just another “true love’s kiss.” They swapped one superficiality for another, and tried to call it deeper.

It undermines the message even more that the prince is never named once in this film, by Cindy or anyone else. And besides sword fighting and horse riding (if you stretch a little), does he have any hobbies?

I’m sure some people do feel “fireworks” during a first kiss, or feel that their partner’s “hand fits perfectly in theirs,” but Cindy and the prince still aren’t really getting to know each other. Even the king and his klutzy queen, who we never see and who also touched hands and knew it was meant to be from the start, feel like a stronger, more real couple than our two mains.

Yay Feminism!
Yay Feminism!

That said, I never really had a problem with Cinderella’s passivity. I like the look and sound and feel of Cinderella a lot more than I like the titular character or her husband-to-be. Also, Eleanor Audley voiced the original stepmother, making her sound despicable even when she wast doing much. I just brought it up because I know that a lot of people, particularly feminists, have a problem with her attitude (or lack thereof), and like to totally ignore the fact that this film came out in the 50’s. The 1950’s, which was totally the golden age of social progressive thinking.

Emma-Stone-Yes-Nod-In-Crazy-Stupid-Love-Gif

You will find yourself caring about Cindy in this movie, however interesting or deep you personally find her or her man. You know, in that kicked puppy sort of way. She’s always been a nice person, and her happily-ever-after after a life of chores and verbal abuse is snatched away from her.

It’s a little more earned than in Cinderella, and she’s fighting for what she wants the whole movie.

So Cinderella 3 is a mixed bag.

Is it great?

Not really.

Does it succeed at what it’s trying to do?

Again, not really.

Is it worth checking out?

Oh, definitely. Take what I’ve said and your own track record with Disney sequels with a grain of salt, and you might find a small, murky diamond in a sea of rough.

*As usual, no photos, gifs, or video clips belong to me! Disney’s Cinderella, her characters, and sequels belong to…well, Disney.