Lovesusti The Worst Film Ever

Glucedee It's hard to see any effort in the film. There's no comedy to speak of, no real drama and, worst of all.

TrueHello Fun premise, good actors, bad writing. This film seemed to have potential at the beginning but it quickly devolves into a trite action film. Ultimately it's very boring.

Rexanne It’s sentimental, ridiculously long and only occasionally funny

j_michelle-20510 Why so much hate? This is a cute, colourful and amusing children's movie, with some well-known voice actors, which takes a look at what would happen if the fairy tales didn't have their happy ending. The animation, voice actors and other aspects are no better or worse than other movies of the same era. It's not a fantastic movie (few are), but it's certainly not as horrible as these negative reviews suggest- there was even a sequel. I notice a lot of people comparing it to Shrek, yet can't see why? Aside from the fact both movies share a few characters taken from the years-old stories (as do many other movies before Shrek's time, yet Shrek isn't criticized for 'ripping off' those characters), there's really not a lot in common with the 2 movies. I was not reminded of Shrek watching Happily N'ever after. Worth a watch with your kids who are familiar with the classic fairy tales.

crystal_tears_93 I was very excited when I first heard about this movie since the actors are pretty good and the plot sounded excellent, the way it was all carried out is not that good. The characters, even though they are played by very good actors (Sigourney Weaver!) lack substance and I found myself unable to relate to them. They are not unique in any way and they are not the kind of characters that I will remember a month from now in any way.The lines are not catchy and I couldn't find a single line in the whole movie to catch my attention. There are even parts when the lines are kinda corny and that ruins the whole bad ass attitude the movie is trying to display.

Wizard-8 On the same day that I watched "Happily N'Ever After", I also watched "Howl's Moving Castle". If you read my user comment for that movie, you'll see that while I liked it overall, I had a few minor problems with it. However, I kind of regret saying anything bad about "Howl" after watching "Happily N'Ever After" afterwards.Where to start with this movie? How about with the look of the movie. This is one of the UGLIEST animated movies I've ever seen. The colors look dark and drab, even when the action is taking place outdoors in the middle of the day. The design of the characters and backgrounds is extremely lazy. It looks like it's from a low-budget kiddie TV show instead of feature-film material.The script is just as bad as the look of the movie. While there are a couple of mildly amusing witty lines, apparently the screenwriter and the director thought that characters screaming and running around while spouting wisecracks would be entertaining. As you might have guessed, this was a bad decision. While I did have some sympathy for the character of "Rick", the other characters from Cinderella to her evil stepmother were unlikable and/or uninteresting.After seeing this movie, I am stunned that a sequel (released direct-to-video) to this movie has been released. This means that this movie actually was popular enough to warrant such a thing! We are approaching the apocalypse, people.

tedg 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.