Best movie of this year hands down!

A very feeble attempt at affirmatie action

Excellent and certainly provocative... If nothing else, the film is a real conversation starter.

I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

I fell in love with this cute musical back in the 1960's when it was originally aired on TV in black & white, and loved it again ten years later when it was re-aired in color with only minor cast changes. To the many fans of this beloved play, it is impossible not to compare this new Disney version with the originals.There is much to like. The look of it is wonderful, complete with a Disneyesque rose-framed window at the end, and a castle full of beautiful, anachronistic rooms, and stained-glass windows with a slightly sinister edge to them. Prince Dauntless and the King are likable, sympathetic, engaging people who you root for, and Sir Harry (the knight) and his Lady Larken are both charming and pretty.Inevitably, though, as in all previous made-for-TV versions, certain changes in dialog and action have been made, and several songs are absent. I was a little sorry to see the jester's role so reduced (he had a fine song in the original play and the earliest TV version), but I did find it amusing that the Wizard, usually played as the Queen's lover,is this time only an effeminate court sycophant. The G-rating might have been more appropriate had Harry and Larken been secretly married as they were in the 1960's version, which actually makes more sense considering they have defied a marriage law. Otherwise, Larken's pregnancy would simply be an embarrassment instead of a crime. It would also be more suitable for the children watching this film, which after all is a prime-time Christmas offering. But I saved for last the two starring ladies. Carol Burnett should have been brilliant as the Queen, and in moments her brilliance does come through. But she needed the outrageous brassiness that Jane White once gave the role, and it wasn't quite there. Still, no one else today should play the Queen, if only for the legacy. Carol Burnett forever!I am not at all sure about Tracy Ullman as Princess Fred, though. She was not bad, she just wasn't great. Fred needs to be so much larger than life. She's not just another princess, she's the kind of princess children love because she's a princess they can hope to be like - not the perfect and pretty ladies like Snow White, Aurora, or Cinderella. Ullman is fun, she's cute, but she does not dominate the screen in the same ways that once made Carol Burnett a star. In those days, the bedroom scene was a broadly hilarious climax to a charmingly funny musical. In this production it is amusing, but little more. And for that alone,I was greatly disappointed.Yet in spite of these problems, it was a most enjoyable film. I am surprised that Disney has not tried to market it in their "princess series", but time will tell. It is a nice film that looks good and feels good, and to the generations who do not know the older versions, this one should be very satisfying.

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.

I love Carol Burnett, Tracey Ullman, fairy tales, and musical productions. I looked forward to this new production. I was surprised, upset, and disappointed with the storyline about Lady Larken and Sir Harry. Lady Larken and Sir Harry the Immaculate are not married and are expecting a baby. That is the reason given for the urgency for the Prince to marry. Teenage pregnancy is a problem in this country and Disney made it "ok". VERY DISAPPOINTING!!!! Why would Disney stoop to "messing with" a fairy tale? Why the continuing "dumbing down" of fairy tales to fit our current morals (or lack thereof)? Disney used to stand for quality and there used to be a certain "standard". Why has the Disney Company lowered itself to "fit in" with suggestive and sexual story lines. I taught school for over 30 years and my eighth graders were bombarded by sex from all directions....now Disney has joined the others.....WHY??? Disney used to stand for certain standards...what happened????

This is the first time I have seen any version of "Once Upon a Mattress". I thought Carol Burnett was wonderful as the domineering, often emotional and sometimes quite evil queen. And she could even sing. Tracey Ullman was outrageously quirky, especially when she tried to go to sleep. She could also be warm and pleasant, and she even had some singing talent--if that was her. Her first musical performance was more funny than anything else. Tom Smothers did quite a good job as the mute king, who could not talk after being cursed. Denis O'Hare also delivered. Zooey Deschanel and Matthew Morrison were very talented singers and did okay at acting. And Michael Boatman was very funny as the Jester, and Edward Hibbert deliciously evil as the Wizard.I would say this was clean enough for most children. I questioned the TV-PG rating until I heard a reference to premarital sex. But unless a child knows where babies come from, this would be meaningless. It might lead the child to ask where babies come from, and of course King Sextimus gave his son a hilarious explanation of the process which never really got to the point. Especially since it was all in mime.There was also a double entendre from Winnifred, but it would go over most kids' heads.I enjoyed the music for the most part. Despite the medieval setting and costumes, a lot of the music sounded like Rodgers and Hammerstein. Winnifred also performed a sultry jazz number that seemed appropriate for a stripper. The dancing and costumes also impressed.I won't say it was a Disney classic, but it was certainly up to the usual Disney standards.