Psycho 2 Review

Hitchcock’s 1960 film Psycho is a horror classic. It features images that have become ingrained in popular culture, such as the famous shower scene, the image of the corpse sitting on its chair in the fruit cellar, and Norman Bates’s evil smile to close off the film. It offers many brilliant performances, many subtle notes, and many reasons to come back to the film again and again. Really, it’s a story that doesn’t need to be continued – a story that you almost don’t want to see continued, because the narrative gaps that are left into the film are all ones that you enjoy filling in for yourself. And yet they made a sequel. Yay?

So, yeah, let’s get that out of the way first: this is a sequel that doesn’t really need to exist. The first Psycho was complete unto itself, no one was really clamouring to see how Norman Bates’s story continued, and although the book that Psycho is based on does have a sequel, this film is not based on it. And considering the fact that the first film was a classic, there’s absolutely no chance whatsoever that this film can compare. But that being said, a lot of horror sequels aren’t really necessary, but that doesn’t mean they can’t be enjoyed for what they are.

And there are quite a few things that this film has working in its favour. Anthony Perkins returns to play Norman Bates, and his performance was a highlight of the first film. He was the awkwardly charismatic man with a secret, someone who you knew wasn’t quite right but you weren’t quite sure how not right until the movie’s end. Well, in this film, all pretense is dropped and we know how not right Norman Bates is. Sort of. I mean, we know the crimes that he is responsible for in the past, but interestingly enough, the film’s conflict comes from the fact that Norman Bates has been released into the public, considered legally sane, and yet murders have begun springing up again, and Norman has begun receiving messages from his mother again. Is he losing his mind again, or is someone working against him?

On the one hand, I like this conflict. I feel like, at some point, it was the makings for a very strong script. I like the idea of humanizing a person who is extremely mentally ill and responsible for terrible crimes. But, at the same time, there is a fine line between humanizing someone and ignoring the fact that they are a serial murderer, and this film crosses that line sometimes. There are multiple points throughout the film where other characters are accused of being “just as crazy as Norman,” and unless they’ve also hacked up women in the shower because they dared to be attractive, I’m going to say that isn’t true. There are simply too many times in this film where it feels like the writers forget the things that Norman is responsible for, and more than that, they forget just how mentally ill he was. They forget about the internalized misogyny that made him want to punish women he found attractive. They forget that his alter-ego “Mother” was not solely responsible for the things he did, and that getting rid of that alter-ego would not completely cure him and make him an average, neurotypical man. And, yes, I know that time has passed since the first film and that Norman has been in mental institutions ever since, but a) the first film established that Norman had been in psychiatric care before and it hadn’t cured him completely, and b) I can only buy that Norman has changed a certain amount, and being replaced with an entirely different character is not enough.

And, not to mention, there are a lot of plots in this film, to a point where I felt somewhat confused about what was going on. Without spoiling anything, there are multiple villains throughout the film and not all of them are working with one another. Norman just seems to attract crazy. A subplot is introduced regarding the possibility that Norman may or may not have adopted, and I’m not really sure what this subplot adds to the universe of the Psycho films. It just feels really ridiculous and unnecessary.

But that being said, I went into a film called Psycho 2. I was prepared for ridiculous and unnecessary, and that is exactly what I received in abundance. I do not feel let down by the film that I saw, not in the least, and as much as I’m aware that it was a bad film, it still held my interest all the way through. I got the impression that the writer behind this film watched the first Psycho and thought: “This is good, but what if it was more sympathetic toward Norman, and what if the women were all the villains instead?” and that choice was simply so befuddling to me that I wanted to keep watching. And by the time the film ended, I felt like I had thoroughly enjoyed myself.

So the way I see it, when you come across a film called Psycho 2, you know what you’re getting into. You know that it’s probably going to be a little over-the-top, a little ridiculous, and considering it was a sequel to a horror film made in the 1980’s, a little gory. And as long as you expect that, rather than the brilliance of the first film, you will not be disappointed. You might even have a lot of fun with it.

Advertisements

Beauty and the Beast (2017) Review

The time has come. The 2017 remake to Beauty and the Beast is finally out. After months of waiting for something, anything, even just a trailer to come out, I have finally seen it.

And, to be fair, the film has some pretty big shoes to fill. The original 1991 adaption is pretty much a perfect movie, as far as I’m concerned. It’s really difficult to compete with something that has already won my heart so completely, but nonetheless, I went into this movie really, really wanting to like it. After all, there was a lot to it that was incredibly promising.

I loved the casting of the movie, which included some pretty incredible actors who suited their roles perfectly – Emma Watson, Ewan McGregor, Ian McKellen, Luke Evans, and Josh Gad in particular. I loved the speculation that this would be the first Disney movie to feature an openly gay character (although this is hardly the first Disney movie to feature a gay character, let’s be honest here). And considering I’ve seen Stephen Chbosky write some pretty interesting works with similar themes, I figured that he’d produce an incredible script. And if all else failed, if nothing else in this movie was at all good, I had faith from what I had seen that at least the visuals would be stunning – something that was true about prior live action Disney films, like Maleficent, Cinderella, and the Jungle Book. Really, my only concern about the movie was that it might just be a direct remake of the original with only a few filler scenes thrown in to make it fill a longer running time, but since the original was so good anyway, would that really be a bad thing? If that was the worst that I had to fear, then at least it wasn’t going to be a bad movie. Just a pointless one.

So having seen it now, how did it hold up to expectations? Was it as good as the original? Was it just a pointless remake?

 

 

Let’s start with the one thing I figured I had to like: the cast. I’m not going to lie, I didn’t know a whole lot about Dan Stevens going into this film, having never seen him in anything else, but the rest of the cast comprised of people that I knew and loved and expected great things out of.

Emma Watson, for example, couldn’t possibly be bad, the way that I saw it. After all, she had pretty much played this role before, when she portrayed Hermione in what is perhaps my favourite franchise, Harry Potter. I was dying to see her in this, and, to be perfectly honest, I felt sort of let down. In all honesty, as much as I thought that Emma Watson was perfectly casted before going into the film, I quickly changed my mind when I actually saw her. A lot of people have been complaining about the fact that her singing voice isn’t the greatest, and as much as I agree with that, it’s nothing compared to the fact that she just couldn’t emote all that well. Naturally, Emma Watson strikes me as a woman who’s very controlled, very prim and proper, while Belle in the original was passionate and highly emotional. And to be honest, Emma Watson’s acting really took away from the emotional resonance of many of the scenes. The ending of the original movie to this day brings me to tears, but despite the fact that they pretty much recycled that script for the remake, I couldn’t bring myself to care. Not about Belle’s lack of emotions, and not about the Beast either.

On a similar note, Dan Stevens might have been a decent actor. I’m not entirely sure – it was really difficult to tell through all of that CGI. In animation, the Beast can be expressive, emotional, just a much as any of the human characters, but in live action, the CGI is too distracting and unconvincing, and Dan Stevens’ expressions get lost in it.

That being said, there were still performances that I enjoyed. It is impossible for me to dislike Ewan McGregor or Ian McKellen, although their characters were focused on much less in this adaption. Josh Gad was perfectly casted, and I will give absolutely no complaints about his character – he might have honestly been my favourite part in this film. And Luke Evans, portraying one of my favourite Disney villains, put in a great performance, just as I expected he would. My only problems with Gaston were in how he was written.

Which brings me to my next concern – the writing. A lot of it, as I mentioned before, was recycled from the old film, including direct dialogue. And on the one hand, yes, it’s good dialogue – there’s a reason why the original film is a classic. But at the same time, this is a remake, and it’s a remake of a film that it can never entirely replace or improve upon unless they’re willing to make some changes, rather than lean on the old film.

But, to be fair, the writing that they recycle is better than the stuff that they added. Gaston’s character has been changed drastically from the original, and this might be the thing that bothered me the most. Because like I said, I liked Gaston in the original. I liked that he wasn’t really so much of a villain as he was a spoiled brat who had been told all his life that he was right and people like Belle and the Beast were wrong. He was a man who had never been told no once in his life, he was the straight, white, hyper-masculine, in every way ideal man who felt like he was entitled to everything and everything he did was right. He wasn’t evil – just a man who became a villain through his circumstances.

Well, throw all that garbage away for this remake – in this version he’s straight-up cool with murder right from the beginning. He’s a sadist and a psychopath who’s calmed down by thoughts of pain and violence and bloodshed. His complexity is stripped away to give us a very basic villain. They do give him a backstory as though to explain all of this, making him a war veteran, but that doesn’t excuse the fact that the animated adaption gave us a villain who was fascinating and complex at best and funny at least, and this adaption gave us something much simpler.

Speaking of Gaston’s backstory, furthermore, backstories seem to be pretty par for the course for this film. Belle is given a backstory involving her mother that really doesn’t add anything to the film and is actually just somewhat distracting from the plot. There are hints of a subplot involving the Beast and his father, and as interesting as I initially found that, it really isn’t explored.

And in my opinion, the Beast really wasn’t written well in this film either. The Beast from the original adaption might just be my favourite character in all of Disney. He was a hero, but he was incredibly flawed. He was a spoiled brat with a temper problem, but he still had a conscience – he just acted out because he was terribly unhappy and had an incredibly low self-esteem. He was a character who is immediately recognizable to anyone who has dealt with issues of mental illness. And in this version, he’s mostly just a dick. A lot of his more humanizing moments, ones where he’s incredibly low, to the point of being actually suicidal, are either much more understated or written out entirely. His moments of guilt regarding his behaviour are, again, either written out, or Dan Stevens really could not emote at all through that CGI. And there’s a running joke throughout the film where the Beast mocks Belle for her taste in literature that really comes across as belittling to me – but maybe that’s just because the Beast in the original was just so enthralled with her reading.

And overall, I just found that, with the exception of Lefou, I didn’t care about these characters as much as I cared about them in the original. Though the film had more time to explore these characters, they instead decided to spend this time on unnecessary backstories or songs that were written out of the original film for a reason.

Now, to be fair, there were a few things about this film that I liked. I’ve mentioned Lefou a few times, and that’s because Josh Gad really did present a great performance, and the writers did make him more complex than he was in the original (not that that was all too difficult, considering he was barely a sidekick in the original). As far as representation of a gay character goes, he wasn’t stereotypical or offensive or anything like that – though I don’t really know why he earns the title of First Gay Character in Disney when it could have gone just as easily to Winnie the Pooh or Piglet (considering their relationship to one another), or Hugo from the Hunchback of Notre Dame (who has a romance with a male goat), or Ryan Evans from High School Musical (considering actor’s speculations), or a million other characters who are just as likely to be the First Gay Character as Lefou is. No official statements are made in regard to it – there are just a lot of heavy hints, enough that it can’t really be denied, but not that it’s anything really new or spectacular for Disney.

And there were a few things about the visuals that I really enjoyed. The 17th century French aesthetic was beautiful and felt somehow unique – especially considering they actually allowed a Disney prince (a character who is supposed to be read as masculine enough to be attractive to the general audience of heterosexual cis-women) to wear make-up. And I’d love to see the film again not in 3D, just because I felt that the 3D blurred the sets quite a bit, making it difficult to say for sure that the sets were beautiful. Personally, I found some of Disney’s other live action films, including Cinderella and Maleficent, more visually stunning, which is disappointing because the original Beauty and the Beast is magnificently animated, but I can’t say that it was a complete let-down.

But overall, there is just one glaring problem with this movie, and that is the fact that it is a remake. Not all remakes are bad obviously – even Disney has produced some pretty good live action remakes recently. I liked Cinderella, I liked Maleficent, I liked the Jungle Book, but all of those movies are remakes of much older movies. Writing styles and audience expectations have changed since the time when these movies came out originally, and therefore there were little character tweaks and plot developments that could be made. Maleficent could be turned into a grey-area character rather than a straight-out villain. The stepmother and the prince in Cinderella could be developed better. And societal views about the ‘primitive’ Indian jungle have changed since 1967. But our society’s expectations around writing haven’t actually changed all that much since 1991 – or, at least, Beauty and the Beast wasn’t as outdated as the other films that have been remade. And to a certain extent, that does make this film sort of pointless. Why do we need another Beauty and the Beast, clogged up with pointless scenes and unnecessary alterations, when the first one is still perfectly fine?

And as much as I’ve complained about this film (and trust me, there’s still more I can say), I wouldn’t call it a complete waste of time. I’m glad I saw it. I needed to see it, considering how much I love the original. And I won’t deny that my love of the original might just cloud my opinion of the remake – as you can tell from my review, as I was repeatedly comparing the two movies. The only reason why this movie fails, in my opinion, is that it was already done better. Otherwise, this might be a perfectly serviceable adaption of the fairy tale. So if you want to see it, you won’t be wasting your time. You just won’t be watching an improvement on the story.

Disney Princess Movie Reviews: The Little Mermaid

Part of reviewing Disney’s fourth princess movie, the 1989 animated classic the Little Mermaid, involves admitting my history with the film. Because when I was a little girl, the Little Mermaid was my favourite Disney film (may or may not have been tied with Peter Pan, and it would later be replaced by Pocahontas, but more on that later).

I wanted to be Ariel. My family still tells stories about me as a snot-nosed three-year-old obnoxiously trying to sing like her, stuffing both of my legs into the same pants leg so that I could pretend to be a mermaid. Because a big part of my obsession with this movie has to do with my lifelong obsession with mermaids that started at a very young age (partially due to the Little Mermaid, partially due to a little-known horror film called She Creature that I also watched obsessively as a child). My love of this movie may or may not be responsible for the fact that I would later start dying my hair bright red and haven’t been able to stop since – who knows? All that I’m trying to say is that this movie impacted the little girl who first saw it.

But I’m twenty-two now. My tastes have changed, I’m a bit more mature, a bit more critically minded; how do I feel about it now?

To be honest, I still sort of love it. Not for any specific, intelligent reason that I can discern – in fact, I don’t really know why I do (besides the fact that I’m still obsessed with mermaids). What is it about this movie that has kept me coming back after all these years?

Could it be the villain? Because when I think about this movie, Ursula is one of the first things that comes to my mind. Once again, Disney has made use of the figure of a wicked woman for their villain, but there’s just something fabulous and wonderful about her. I remember hearing that Ursula was inspired by the famous drag queen Divine, and my first thought was that that makes total sense. Ursula perfectly captures the personality of the stereotypical drag queen performance, the overall big-ness. And unlike the last three female villains, Ursula is not necessarily a woman with power. She’s a witch, yes, but she lives on the outskirts of society, banished for reasons that I still really want to find out. She has no influence over anyone, unlike the Evil Queen of Snow White, the stepmother who rules with an iron fist in Cinderella, and the castle-dwelling fairy who demands respect from even the monarchy in Sleeping Beauty. Though a small change, it does a great deal in altering the message that woman should not be given power lest they misuse it and hurt someone that could be read into the prior films. In fact, the argument could even be made that Ursula acts as she does directly because she has been robbed of her power by the King, as we never really know why she was banished from society in the first place. Her cruelty might actually be a desperate attempt to seize back the power that was taken from her.

And if this moral can’t be read into Ursula, it most certainly can be read into Ariel. Ariel who quite literally loses her voice, her ability to communicate and stand up for herself, and in the process loses everything. It isn’t until she takes her voice back and once again gains the ability to speak that she is able to fix the mess that has become of her life. Though most of this is on the metaphoric level, a lot of it seems to be indicating a message that women need to have their own voice. They need to have power in their own personal lives if they are ever going to find happiness. That’s why I don’t mind the changes that this movie makes to the fairy tale – the unhappy ending works brilliantly for a Christian tale, but when you take the Christianity out of it (as Disney does) you need to replace it with something, and a message about girls shaping their own future as opposed to leaving it in the hands of their fathers or lovers is as good as any.

But I have heard a lot of people argue that this movie is actually incredibly sexist, claiming that the story is all about how women should have to change to get a man because Ariel trades in her tail and her family for legs and a husband. Personally, however, I never quite saw this in the movie, mostly because… well, Ariel wants to be human before she even meets Prince Eric. It’s her defining trait, the thing that makes her different from everyone else in her kingdom. Heck, she even sings Part of Your World before laying eyes on him! Eric just becomes a part of this great, big package that she already wanted. So the way I see it, she isn’t sacrificing her tail and family for a man, she sacrificing them for the life she always wanted, the life that she thinks will make her happy, the way that real people without fins will sacrifice things for the arts, or to live in a specific city, or go to a certain school. The deal just becomes a little sweeter when you throw love in there as well. And, to be honest, as a writer I can completely relate to the longing to reach a world that everyone and everything around you tells you you can’t. A mermaid can’t walk on land, and I can’t make a living off of creating fictional stories off my life. So maybe I just like to watch Ariel prove them all wrong.

And I’ve also heard some people state that the Little Mermaid can be read as a metaphor for life as a transgender person – being born in a body that you’re dissatisfied with, longing to be able to change, not being accepted by your old-school father because of it. And, personally, I think that any story that is able to resonate with people in that way is awesome.

So now that I’m a grown-up person, maybe I love the Little Mermaid based off a bit more than just the fact that Ariel’s pretty and I want to be a mermaid. I don’t entirely know if I’d still love it in the same way if I didn’t have that history, but fortunately I’ll never have to find out. I can just spend my life sitting in front of the TV and singing along with Ariel about how I long to be part of her world.

Disney Princess Movie Reviews: Sleeping Beauty

The third Disney princess movie, and the last one to be released before Disney’s Renaissance Era was 1959’s Sleeping Beauty. And in a lot of ways, I feel like this is a movie I should hate. I should be calling it out for all the same things that I called out the last two princess movies for – the protagonists are uninteresting, the villain is a powerful woman, the prince defeats the powerful woman so that he can rescue the passive damsel. And I will awknowledge that all of this is true about the movie – however, that being said, this is my favourite Disney princess movie to be released outside of the Renaissance Era.

If I had only one word to relate to this film, it would be beauty – because by god is this a beautiful film, in every definition of the word. The animation is beautiful, the story is beautiful, the music is beautiful, Mary Costa’s voice is beautiful. It is just a beautiful fairy tale that I can watch again and again without ever getting bored. And the strange thing about this is, whenever I hear this film being referred to at all nowadays, it is for two reasons: 1) Maleficent is awesome and 2) Aurora is a useless protagonist who sleeps through half of her own movie.

So let me address number one first, because that’s the easiest one: Maleficent is awesome. Eleanor Audley returns to voice her, and by god is her voice perfect for a Disney villain. And by god is Maleficent ever a perfect Disney villain. She is the Mistress of all Evil, cruelty personified, a wicked fairy who curses a baby just because she wasn’t invited to a party. Is that problematic? Could they have gone around this another way? Maybe – but she’s still awesome, and every once in a while it is fun to just enjoy the simple, uncomplicated evil of a fictional villain.

But what about issue number two, the fact that Aurora is a useless protagonist? Well… yeah, she kind of is. She’s mostly there to look pretty, sound pretty, and then fall asleep, and she does all of this very well, but is it enough? Some people have made it very clear that, no, it isn’t enough – but in my opinion, that’s only if you consider this to be Aurora’s movie. And despite the fact that this is a Disney princess movie, and therefore you would expect the princess to be a protagonist, she always felt more to me like a device. She was an infant to be protected, and then she was a grown woman subjected to a terrible curse, and then her reawakening heralds in a more joyous time with the ending of the movie. That’s really her whole purpose.

So if this isn’t her movie, then who’s is it? Well, much like with Cinderella and Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, much of the film’s time is dedicated to the sidekicks – this time being the three good fairies who protect her. In both prior movies, I complained that the sidekicks were much more oriented for a child audience than an adult one, but I don’t necessarily think that’s true this time around. This time around, the fairies are genuinely funny and enjoyable and even, to a certain extent, kind of badass. The prince gets all the credit for saving the day in the end, but really, he’d be completely lost without the fairies. They break him out of Maleficent’s dungeon, they give him his sword and shield, they remove all dangers from his path. The only thing he does is ride a horse and look terrified while they help him. And there’s certainly sexism in the idea that a group of women do all the work and then happily allow a man to take all the credit, but if you keep in mind that the movie was released in 1959, it’s still kind of awesome that the fairies play such an integral part in saving the day. (On a personal note, Merryweather has always been my favourite fairy, and she was completely right in saying that Aurora’s dress should be blue.)

And just like with the prior two movies, there are a lot of things in this movie that you’ll just have to accept as being part of the genre if you’re going to fully enjoy it. The trope of ‘love at first sight’ is very blatantly employed (they actually make a point of stating that Philip and Aurora have fallen in love before they’ve even learned each other’s names), marriage is just automatically assumed to be the natural and inevitable end for all pure forms of love, Aurora is hopelessly and single-mindedly obsessed with romance. And if you have a hard time accepting these tropes, you might have a hard time accepting this movie, but I personally find that the overall beauty of the film eclipses all of this.

Is this a perfect movie? No, of course not; a perfect movie is incredibly rare. But this movie is still pretty good – or, at the very least, it’s very pretty. It’s a movie that should be experienced at least once, so if you haven’t yet, I would definitely recommend checking it out.

 

Disney Princess Movie Reviews: Cinderella

After Disney’s success with their first princess movie, they followed it up in 1950 with their second princess movie, Cinderella.

Now, by this time, Disney had quite a few feature-length animated works under their belt, and you can really tell that there’s a difference in experience between these two films. While Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs very much felt like a simple cut-and-paste attempt to put a fairy tale on a screen (something that I appreciated about it, if you’ll recall my review of that movie), Cinderella was paced much more like a film than an oral tale. So in theory, that should work better, right? It’s much more suiting to the genre, isn’t it?

To be honest, Cinderella is not the Disney film that I watch the most often. It’s a nice story, I like it alright, but I feel that I identify with it more in how I feel I should think about it rather than how I do. After all, one of my favourite bits of trivia about this film is that Cinderella was Walt Disney’s favourite princess because he very much saw himself in her – she was a girl who worked her ass off every day, who saw no real end to her labour, until one day when fortune decided to smile on her and she managed to become actual royalty. It’s a nice idea, and I appreciate that is meant so much to a figure that I idolize as much as I do Walt Disney. But at the same time, it’s sort of one of those stories that I find has been retold and retold so many times that it’s sort of lost its meaning. I can’t bring myself to care about it as much as I feel like I should.

But ignoring that, what about the film itself? Surely, if it meant so much to its creator, then it must stand out for its passion alone, right? Well… if you’re a young child, maybe. A lot of the screen time is dedicated to the mice, in the way that a lot of the screen time for Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs was dedicated to the dwarfs, and they’re cute and all, but if I’m to be honest, I found myself identifying more with the dwarfs in Disney’s previous film. They had very basic, very simple-to-understand personalities that were made clear to us from the beginning, from their names alone, but the mice are just sort of… French. One of them likes to eat a lot. It’s cute, really, but as an adult viewer, I can’t find that I get a lot of enjoyment out of them.

So what about the villains? If the sidekicks don’t have a lot of personality, then the villains must, right? Okay, to be fair, they do. The stepsisters are caricatures of unattractive women, and an argument can be made that that in itself is problematic, but it is a lot of fun at the same time. The stepmother, on the other hand, is just pure, despicable evil – the sort of villain that you can have no other reaction to besides the fact that you love to hate her. Her voice actress, Eleanor Audley, who would return to voice Maleficent in Disney’s next animated princess movie, lends a lot to the role, because she just has a voice that you have no choice but to shrink away from. But to be honest, I might enjoy the stepmother’s character a bit more if I didn’t see Eleanor Audley voicing Maleficent in Sleeping Beauty, specifically because I think Maleficent is a more successful, more enjoyable villain, and so Lady Tremaine just feels somewhat eclipsed by her.

And last but not least, what about the title character? What about Cinderella – or her prince for that matter. In many of these early Disney films, the protagonists are not the most interesting part. That’s just part of the genre. Most of the attention goes to the sidekicks or the villains, and the heroes are simply left to be basically good and pure in every way. This is mostly true of Cinderella. She’s there, and the prince is there too, and every once in a while she says something somewhat sassy, but for the most part she’s just there.

Before I wrap up this review, however, there is one more thing I would like to address, because as a feminist, it’s a difficult thing to ignore: why does Cinderella do nothing to try to escape her situation? Why does she, as many people have said, just sit back and wait for the prince to rescue her? Well, personally, I think that this movie does a decent job of explaining this plot hole away – better than many other adaptions, in fact. Cinderella makes no attempts to leave her abusive home because she is taken in by Lady Tremaine as a young child – presumably, she has nowhere else to go. The film never outright states this, but the way that Lady Tremaine smiles when she takes hold of the young Cinderella, the way that the film never lingers long on any outside location, one really gets the feeling that Cinderella has two choices here: live as a servant to her cruel family, or live nowhere. It’s very easy to imagine this stepmother having manipulated Cinderella from childhood into making no friends, no attachments to the outside world. And as far as sitting around waiting for the prince goes, I don’t think she does a whole lot of this in this adaption. In fact, for most of the film, she doesn’t even know that the man she danced with at the ball was the prince, or even that rescue is at all possible for her. She’s simply resigned to her fate, seeing no other alternative. Is it an example of sexist writing to have the prince rescue her at all? Maybe, but that’s the source material. That’s what Disney was working off of, and as much as Disney would later get to be known for changing up the original fairy tale to suit their storytelling needs, they didn’t do a whole lot of that when Cinderella was made yet.

So overall, would I recommend Cinderella to a modern audience? Well, just as with Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, yes and no. If you love the fairy tale of Cinderella, then this is definitely a must-watch adaption of it. But personally, even as a Disney fan, I found this a difficult film to get anything out of.