FlickFilosopher.com

I totally agree with you. I didn't expect much from this, but I was thoroughly, well, enchanted by it. I love how it managed to have its cake and eat it too: there's the fairytale for the little girls and the cynic being won over for the slightly older ones.

Predictably, the film is already being criticized (on slant, for example) for being sexist. I disagree, and not because of the whole role reversal thing in the end scene: the way I understood it, Giselle doesn't end up as a "contented housemaker and wife" but opens a shop, instead.

Oh, I know, I'm overthinking it. But I can't help it. This film is nothing but fluff, but it's fluff that made me remember what it was like to see Cinderella for the first time.

Disney, I'm happy to report, is already working on two new classically-animated films. You can thank John Lasseter, who always seems to have regretted the impact Pixar had on the old-school 2D films.

It's the kind of movie that everybody will love but will be embarrased to admit it. I went to a screening about 6 weeks ago and you could hear how the audience enjoyed every mintue of it, yet at the end people were merely saying 'it was ok'. I assume they didn't want to admit how much they liked it because it's a Disney romantic comedy, but seeing how it's 92% fresh according to rotten tomatoes, this might turn around and it will be OK to say 'I liked Enchanted'.

By the time Giselle was singing at Central Park, I was lost in that New Yorkish Andalasian world. James Marsden and Susan Sarandon are fantastic in it.

With a star-is-born performance by Amy Adams and a well played hook (Andalasia/NY)the film took me away from my oh so not Andalasia life and had me yearning to live happily ever after in Princess Giselle's realm. Or even just down the hall in the next apartment would be good. We'd go to book group together, sing songs, go to the park.....

I feel like a mean person for kicking at this movie, but I really didn't like it. MaryAnn acknowledges that it's a fantasy-land New York, and I think that alone negates the premise. There are a few scenes here which really sell the magic of fantasy and the horrible mess of reality -- the dance in the ball is fantastic, as is the moment where Gisele realizes that she's falling in love with Dempsey. This literal fairytale princess who not only believes in but embodies the fantasy losing her illusions -- that's powerful stuff. Unfortunately, the rest of the movie occupies the Land of RomCom, that melding of fantasy and reality that gives us the worst of both worlds. Lima doesn't seem to realize that what works in ink and paint looks stupid and juvenile with flesh and blood -- he's much more at ease with the cartoon sequences. That Central Park musical number was ridiculously bad.

Well, my girlfriend loved it (and isn't that what is most important?)

But, seriously, folks, any film that can get applause from MaryAnn despite a lead actress who looks suspiciously like a young Julia Roberts deserves a thumbs up in my book.

I must confess that I missed the part where Giselle is opening up a shop. Didn't the last scene she was in have her playing games with her new spouse and stepdaughter?

At least they didn't make her a ballerina or a super-model.

I'm sure Central Park on a nice day is wonderful and everything; that scene is still terribly directed. Flat, no energy. Doesn't compare well with the new Hairspray movie (which I was prepared to hate but won me over through sheer exuberance).

The movie I wanted to see would have had Gisele dealing with real reality, not the kid's movie non-reality it gave us. I can deal with witches and poison apples and whatever, I can't deal at all with a prince who doesn't mind at all losing his One True Love. That's fantasy which isn't romantic, it's just insulting. Aside from one or two (utterly fantastic) moments, Adams is basically just Will Ferrell's Elf in a dress and Marsden is stuck playing a parody of a character that I'm not sure really ever existed (He doesn't really resemble either the blank-faced ciphers of Disney's early Prince Charmings or the brooding, sensitive princes of the early '90s blockbusters.) It's a waste of a premise and a disappointment, it feels like two undernourished halves of movies rather than a whole one.

I have no problem with any of the animated scenes though.

MaryAnn, you never fail me. The count of movies that I rolled my eyes at, only to reconsider upon reading your positive review and being very glad I did, just keeps climbing - three of them this year alone. (In case you're curious: "Grindhouse," "3:10 to Yuma," and now "Enchanted.") The count of movies I saw on your recommendation and disliked remains at zero. Thank you so much for pointing me at wonderful films that I would have ignored otherwise.

(Oh, and I can't remember if I ever mentioned it, but I was the one who was asking if you had any clue about how wide a release "Death at a Funeral" would be. It did end up coming to town and I loved it.)

i love julia roberts. you hate me?! ::slinks away::

I haven't seen this movie and probably won't even when it hits HBO/etc. But I did want to throw in 2¢ about something someone said up above, to whit:

Amy Adams is much more attractive than Julia Roberts ever was.

Do you really think I'm shallow enough to hate...
--MaryAnn Johanson

No.

But in view of what has been going on in other threads, this probably wasn't the best time to tease you on that subject.

And yes, Clayj, Amy Adams is much more attractive than Julia Roberts. But there is a bit of a resemblance between them.

IMHO, of course.

If anyone looks like a young Julia Roberts, I'd say it is Anne Hathaway. But I love both AH and Amy Adams and think they have acting abilities and personalities all their own.

As for the movie, I can't wait to watch it again when it comes on DVD. It was just so feel-good. All of the Disney (and even King Kong) references were so nostalgic and I loved that there were no adult innuendos or "kids" jokes. It was just good quality. And I was surprised that Amy Adams was able to play doe-eyed without ever being annoying.

As for the dancing scene, I thought it was great. I was seriously sitting in the theater bobbing my head to the beat. I thought it was way better than the mind-numbingly dull and similar musical numbers in Hairspray--although the two leads, Allison Janney, and Amanda Bines were good.

It wasn't that squeaky clean of a comedy. Remember that canine urination scene?

But I am glad to see a hunger for more family-friendly comedy coming out of Hollywood.

Just because I enjoy an occasional R-rated movie doesn't mean I want to see such stuff all the time.

"Even if he learns she isn't his one true love?"

I'm very late on responding to this, but yes -- ESPECIALLY if he learns she isn't his one true love. Otherwise, he and his emotions come across as very shallow. Like I said, I could deal with it if it was about how shallow fairy tale characters are, but the film seems to care enough about his stupid emotions to give him a happy ending with a real live person. Just can't buy it.

Well, of course Edward is shallow, that was kind of the whole point. He stayed a happy, brainless, fairytale ditz and Giselle didn't. What I didn't buy was Nancy being so ok about losing Robert so abruptly and absurdly after five years. Or else I don't buy that he was going to marry someone so shallow, and it's got to be one or the other.

Still though, I loved the movie, and I'll definitely see it again someday. And I second the notion that I wouldn't have seen it without your review, MaryAnn. I love that you see almost every movie, and that our taste overlaps about 99%

"And then he learned that not being shallow was better."

No he didn't.