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.

all the people who have seen this movie thought Zooey Deschanel who plays Lady Larken was terrible but i thought she was OK She sings in a cabaret called "If all stars were pretty babies" so she has a jazz type of voice so people lay off the rude remarks! But MATTHEW MORRISON WAS AMAZING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! he is so gorgeous! and Denis o'hare disgusted me on how he acts like a little kid and even how he sings is like hearing nails on a chalkboard! Tracey Ullman was better than expected but she doesn't knock your socks off and carol Burnett is never bad! she always does a amazing job! and Micheal boatman who plays the Jester is hilarious! I give this movie one thumb up but its worth watching!

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.

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!