User Reviews

Despite the fact that "Ella Enchanted" is a children's novel, I really enjoyed it. It was clever, entertaining, and impressively original for having been based on the age-old story of Cinderella.

The movie is a lot better if you've never read the book.

There are a ton of discrepancies between book and film. Now, I realize that whenever you translate a book to the big screen, some things are going to change, or be lost, or be added. I also realize that not all film adaptations can be Lord of the Rings. But for some reason, the makers of THIS film didn't seem to feel that Ella's original predicament -- receiving the "gift" of obedience as a baby which forced her to do anything anyone told her to do -- was enough for a movie. They swapped out Prince Charmont's very nice parents for an evil regent who tries to force Ella to clear his path to the crown, and added a few moderately amusing but altogether bizarre song-and- dance routines. Most of those scenes had me outright cringing. They also took away Ella's position as the protagonist-narrator and inserted an additional character to tell her story.

That's not to say the movie is entirely without merit. The casting is excellent; Cary Elwes is a delicious villain, Eric Idle is a delight as the narrator, and Anne Hathaway sparkles as Ella. And I was pleased to see that the film does remain true to the source material's underlying message -- that in spite of whatever happens in your life, you have the power to make your own happy ending.

All in all, it's a good film for the kids. But the book is better.

I'm updating my original review that I don't think had been published yet. It's not much different but after reading some other reviews from people who took an "I'm so far above you ALL in my knowledge of changing the format of a book into a film," I've decided to add a few points myself in those regards. I have BA in Theatre and Film. I've worked in both on books that have been adapted for film and for theatre. All three are different and therefore all three require different ways of telling the same story. For those "I'm so much more intelligent than the rest of you," reviewers please note that yes, changes are not only inevitable, they are necessary to capture an audience's attention and to tell a story in about two hours or less, that it would normally take a few days to read (granted that you don't read straight through.) However, The Ella Enchanted movie did not just change to fit the story better into a movie format, it bears little resemblance to the book at all.

It added many unnecessary plot lines that have nothing to do with the book at all. I hate the political issues that were added. I watch fairytales to get away from the real world not to have more of it shoved in my face as basically a real world story told in fairytale format. I say real world in the sense that Char is essentially on par with a hit Hollywood actor, they have segregation, slaves, and the typical over the top evil person who murders his or her way into what they want. There was so much anger and controversy added to the story that did not need to be there. Those things that were added were not needed to make this book "better" on screen. Just like any other Cinderella story there is enough conflict in the book already from the cruel Stepfamily, plus the addition of the curse that is put on Ella at birth. Even though I really hate that they added the so called master villain I can understand that because in the book one of the reasons Ella doesn't want to marry Char is that she's afraid that someone will make her do just what his uncle tries to make her do. Showing it happen is a better device in a movie than trying to explain Ella's fears. The way she gets rid of the curse in the book is far more powerful and it lines up better with her mother telling her that she's stronger than any curse. In the book, her love for Char and her fear of hurting him, allows her, after a big struggle, to finally break free of the curse on her own. She doesn't look into a mirror and command herself. That's frankly too easy.

I would have enjoyed this movie so much more if they hadn't tried to bring real life into it, such as the political issues that we face right down to the opening of a new mall. Those additions to a lovely little love story took a great deal away from what is supposed to be a fairytale; a place where we can escape the troubles of our world, not bring them with us.

Warning--if you have read the book, do not see the movie--you WILL become violently ill! O'Haver, the director, looked at the story (a beautiful, classic book by Gail Levine that everyone should read), and decided that he didn't like the current plot--so he made up a new one, and still had the gall to say that it was "based" on Levine's masterpiece of a book (kudos to "I, Robot" for actually being truthful and honest enough to say that the movie was "inspired" by the books--it's something for O'Haver to one day aspire to). He also made up new characters and changed the old characters to fit his new plot--Char's parents are dead, and there's a new evil uncle (Elwes) with a cheesy snake servant who is trying to kill Char and take over the crown--there's also a new elf friend of Ella's who wants to be a lawyer (can you say Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer?), but is forced to only sing and dance by this new evil and tyrannical uncle created by O'Haver--ogres are also now not evil, but only "misunderstood"! And Ella's father is nice and caring, Mandy is no longer her caring, sensible fairy godmother, but a ditz and a magical klutz, and the wonderful old-fashioned world created by Levine has been warped and cheapened by the director so that it's a faux modern world (the modern costumes add to the cheap and fake look of the film). Overall, the movie bears little resemblance to the book in anything but the title and character names, and is the worst adaptation I have ever seen, as well as a silly and stupid movie in itself. Hathaway does indeed reprise her role in Princess Diaries (another terrible adaptation with changed character names, setting, roles, etc, though not as bad as this one)--to the extent that there's even a debate scene that mirrors the one in Princess almost exactly (forget finishing school--they have modern school in the movie!).

In short, don't waste your money on this film--use the money instead to read Ella Enchanted--believe me, you'll get much better and higher quality entertainment this way, for a lesser cost!

If you've ever read Ella Enchanted, you will be shocked that a movie studio couldso thoroughly ruin an excellent story. At it's heart, Ella Enchanted(the book), is a story of love, frustration, and other human emotions.Although you may find yourself smiling at times, it is more of a romantic/angsty fairytale than a comedic fairytale, complete with one graying fairy godmother, two banister-sliding protagonists, and three masque balls (excluding Sir Peter's and Dame Olga's wedding reception). What Ella Enchanted does NOT contain is an evil talking snake. When Ella finally is able to find the strength to save not only herself, but Char and the entire kingdom, you are so happy for her that, chances are, you cry. As a matter of fact, I would say I cried more than I laughed reading this book.

Watching the movie, I was speechless. It was extremely tacky and went for cheap, easy laughs. At best I can call it a poor imitation of Shrek, except that would be an insult to the highly entertaining Shrek. There is no place in Ella Enchanted for an evil royal uncle and his talking serpent, and definitely no place for a singing Ella, or a dancing cast. (Nor a screaming fan club!). The well-developed character of Areida, which I'm sure Parminder Nagra could have played well, was cut down to a mere cameo.

This movie lacked human emotion. Ella was not nearly as frustrated as any normal person would be at her curse. (Hello? She breaks out in song and dance!) Don't get me started on the range of emotions Areida could have covered. And of course Hattie is way too obnoxious and not nearly as manipulative (read: not obviously annoying, but cruel) as she could have been. If it were one actor's performance I would call it poor acting. In this case, I would have to lay my blame almost entirely on the director and screenwriters. With such promising material, they managed to create an hour and a half of rubbish.

Even the movie's visuals gave it a much more modern feel, with colors too vibrant for any over the age of 4. Half the time I felt like I was watching the Teletubbies. I would say the maximum age that these cheap laughs could amuse is 8 years old.

I read the book when I was probably around 10 or so, and have read it innumerable times since then. It truly appeals to all ages, because, unlike its movie version, it deals with true emotions, not cheap humor and anachronisms, which, honestly, do not add to the story.

In short, forget the movie, read the book!