Lovesusti The Worst Film Ever

SpuffyWeb Sadly Over-hyped

Taha Avalos The best films of this genre always show a path and provide a takeaway for being a better person.

Scarlet The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

mrinemom4 This is a great version of 'Cinderella' and I've seen many of them! I'm so fond of Julie Andrews and this is a really special version. I'm hoping many people can see this and enjoy it! Even if this was made many years ago, it was a clever story with great singing. Too bad the movie found was in black and white. My 11 year old decided he didn't want to watch it! I wonder how many people still remember watching it? The step-mother almost reminded me of Anges Moorehead. It's nice to see these old movies once in a while. I'm glad there are some movies that we can enjoy once in awhile. What part I liked was, well, all of it! Thank you for your time!

edwagreen 1/2* goes to this dreadful version of "Cinderella."Julie Andrews must have been thinking about more in terms of her favorite things. This production is certainly not one of them.Ilka Chase plays the wicked stepmother with a kindness never seen. Actually, it should never be seen. What was Chase thinking of when she went before the cameras? Probably, when she was Bette Davis's compassionate sister-in-law in "Now, Voyager." A Yiddish bubbe could be meaner than her.Howard Lindsay, as the prince's father, appears annoyed with the whole situation and rightly so. Wife, Dorothy Stickney, plays his queen and I'm wondering what the casting people had in mind when they put these people in. Stickney, who lived to 101, had all those years to wonder how she ever got into such a miserable production.The prince is a charming bore. That best describes him. He is terribly stiff in his scenes. He says his lines as if he is reading them from a card.Kaye Ballard, as the wicked step sister has one thing going for her-the person who made her up for this. Man, is she ugly. That churlish giggle of hers is absolutely annoying.Somewhat of a bright-note is the singing and dancing which should have dominated the production.You can't root for Cinderella to win the prince since that is certainly no bargain for her.This version of Cinderella was kept in storage for years. Reviving it was a big mistake. A colossal bomb in every sense of the word.

benadam-1 I vaguely remembered seeing this version when I was five years old on a black-and-white set, so seeing it in this black-and-white kinescope version did not cause me any major trauma; it was not that different than how it was for me years ago except that now I have the advantage of more than forty years of experience and knowledge. There is absolutely no comparison between this version and the versions that came after it. In this version, the acting and plot are much more substantial, and Julie Andrews as a singer and actress dwarfs those women who played in the title role after her. The 1965 version had the advantage of color and more video effects but was all glitz and rather shallow. The Disneyized, multiracial version that was created later failed to take into consideration the need for acting ability on the part of the singers in the leading roles. The original version far surpasses both in terms of overall content and performance. Had the same technology been available for the original version as was available in the versions that followed it, there would be no contest at all.I recall that when the 1965 version came out, the justification for making it was that when the 1957 version was produced, videotape did not exist so that once the production was aired, it was lost forever. Had the producers tried to recreate the 1957 version rather than to mangle it, perhaps they could have been forgiven, but Lesley Ann Warren could not easily have replaced Julie Andrews.This version is truly Broadway brought to the small screen. In addition to Julie Andrews as Cinderella, Kaye Ballard and Alice Ghostley are the two stepsisters, Ilka Chase plays the stepmother, and the original version gives a much clearer picture of how Cinderella is excluded from the family structure than in the other versions while the talents of the actresses truly shine through. Edie Adams plays a very smart and savvy Godmother (the term Fairy Godmother is not used in the show at all) and is quite sly in how she "turns in" Cinderella to the palace guards so as to trick them into trying the glass slipper on her at the end. Her baton-twirling "magic" introduces the Waltz for a Ball, a true Rodgers and Hammerstein dance specialty number that is the hallmark of many of their great musicals. Howard Lindsay and Dorothy Stickney, both Broadway theater royalty, play the King and Queen and have very significant roles in the play in a way that was totally lost in the versions that followed; the scenes with the King and Queen are entertaining and endearing. The young Jon Cypher was a total unknown at the time of the production and gives an impressive performance; he had the best debut any novice actor could have dreamed of having. The magic of live theater is very evident throughout the show in a way that the later versions totally lack. Even without the comparison, this production of Cinderella is superb entertainment.For those persons who remember the initial screening of Cinderella, watching this performance is a powerful experience. For those seeing it for the first time, it is a valuable milestone in the history of television and musical theater that has fortunately been captured for future viewing.

mit800 I grew up in the 60's and 70's loving the Lesley Ann Warren version of Cinderella and always will, mostly because of the wonderful score, but, I have always wanted to see this version as Julie Andrews is one of my all time favorite musical stars. She absolutely shines throughout the whole production. And to think they did it all LIVE is just amazing. Only one noticeable goof-up that I noticed (when the prince stepped on the queens lines-but he was a newcomer and probably scared to death) This version is more tongue in cheek than the later version- which Rogers admitted he re-wrote to be more fairy tale like (Disney-like is more like it) But as I said don't bother with comparisons, just be glad to see a new Julie Andrews performance (new to most of us anyway) in an original musical written especially for her. What's especially great is that you get to see what Julie was like during the run of "My Fair Lady" and to see why there was such a buzz about her at the time (Jack Warner sure made a goof not putting her in the film of "Lady").All the cast are wonderful in their parts, especially Kaye Ballard and Alice Ghostley as the bickering stepsisters. All in all a lovely night with a loverly lady.