Once Upon A Mattress (2005)

Redundant and unnecessary.

Overrated

Excellent but underrated film

This is an astonishing documentary that will wring your heart while it bends your mind

Personally, I find this Disney version of Once Upon a Mattress extremely disappointing. It is drastically different from the stage version, even up to the point of completely eliminating one of the supporting leads (the Minstrel) from the movie. The actors and actresses playing the leads fell a little flat and most of the choreography was not as strong as it could have been.The change that I find most disturbing is the elimination of the Minstrel. In the stage version, the Minstrel is one of my favorite characters because of his great one-liners. In this movie, those are completely gone and so are all of the Minstrel's songs. "Many Moons Ago", which the Minstrel sings to open the show and introduce the story in the stage version, is cut down to a single verse at the beginning of the movie and "Normandy", while still present in the movie version, is sung by Harry and Larken instead of the Minstrel, the Jester, and Larken. The Minstrel's other song (The Minstrel, the Jester, and I), sung by the Minstrel and the Jester, with the King pantomiming many of the words, is also completely cut. I find these changes disturbing because they completely change the tone of the show.I was also very disappointed in Carol Burnett and Zooey Deschanel. The other leads I thought were acceptable, but Burnett and Deschanel fell flat for me. Burnett was an amazing Winnifred in the original production, but her rendition of Queen Aggravain was too muted and not nearly as dominant as the Queen should be played. As for Deschanel, it is my opinion that she was chosen for the role based more on her name and face than on her singing and acting. The normal high, sweet soprano voice of Lady Larken is brought down several tones to suit Deschanel's voice and it does not suit the character as well.

I barely remember the 1972 television version of this, so it's probably unfair to say that one was better. But my impression is it was better, simply because Burnette played Winnifred. This is not to say Tracey Ullman was bad. Ullman is tremendously talented and she does a good job, but she was too restrained in the part. Burnette perfectly captured the world's least appropriate princess, but Ullman actually comes across as fairly sweet and gentle, at most mildly eccentric and occasionally slightly loud. It doesn't help that Burnette cannot completely contain her inherent wackiness; the play feels as though it should be a contrast between a cold, imperious queen and a wild, tomboyish princess, but the distance between Ullman and Burnette doesn't seem that great.Still, it's a fun musical with many amusing moments and a good cast. And who knows, maybe if I saw that 1972 version I'd say, this isn't nearly as good as I remember.

Musicals are always fun to see. This made for TV musical, although was mildly disappointing, was extremely addicting! Rising to the top of the charts was Zooey Deschanel as Lady Larkin. Zooey although was not the best singer, had a very unique voice that some may find bad but others may find terrific. She played the art tremendously and her and Matthew Morrison had great chemistry on screen. Tracey Ullman as Fred, the Princess from the swamps was much to old to play the part and you don't seem to care for the part as much as if a young innocent girl was playing the part.Carol Burnette was disappointing as the Queen, but still played the part well. Over all I thought the entire movie was just good. There was nothing special but I still enjoyed it a lot!

Mattress is a great show... for those 16 or older. Like most Warner "Looney Tunes" it was never intended for children! Now, if you take that very premise, and try to make it palatable for the Christain set between our 2 mountain ranges, you kill the very premise for the show in the first place! The original plot revolves around, and is propelled by a pre-marital pregnancy, an Oedipal relationship, a woman-chasing father, and typical court intrigue. These are now, essentially all gone and with them went the engine that drives the show. That said, the actors here were all fine, and generally well cast (although I'd have gone with Marcel Marceau or the brilliant Bill Irwin for the King, even though Tommy Smothers was still great) and all the leads made the very wise choice of going with their own strengths as opposed to trying to out do the originals. Tracey Ullman was great as her own Winnifred, and Burnett created her own Queen, knowing that, like her own Winnifred of 1959, Jane White's original Queen is absolutely not copyable! The "dated" musical sound of the original was marvelously updated for today. All of which underscored the terrible rewriting of the book, and the stodgy direction accompanying it. Why take 5 minutes of droopy dialog to establish what "Opening For A Princess" did musically in 2? Where did that useless dungeon scene come from? "The Queen Has Ordered Quiet" and "Very Soft Shoes"" would have fit much better in the same amount of time. "Mattress" is a fully loaded freight train racing down a steep mountain grade, barely staying on the tracks, whistle and bells going all the way. Anything less (like the recent Broadway revival too) just falls flat. I wish they'd either re-release the 1964 B&W version, or someone please do a shot-by-shot remake, as it was written! No, Hollywood, you don't know better than the original Broadway writers and, no Disney, you don't know real comedy. You know "cute, innocent and humorous," but that's a long way from comedy! Please stop remaking Broadway musical comedies. Let someone else do it, please!