It’s an enjoyable film worth watching again, and I can certainly recommend it. I do worry though that this isn't one people will revisit repeatedly; however, it is a decent movie and a noticeable step up from the 1950 animated version. It doesn't quite reach the heights of "Ever After" for me, though. The original story had some shortcomings but featured impressive animation for its time, along with voice acting and writing consistent with films of that era. Unfortunately, those qualities don’t hold up as well when compared to modern standards. Disney clearly simplified it for a younger audience, and I expect kids will find scenes like "lizard footman eats a fly" amusing. At least they avoided the unsettling realism of CGI talking animals common in many live-action remakes, although there's a brief nod to that concept at the beginning. While nearly every aspect of the original was improved upon, it’s not without its issues. The casting felt off, which likely contributed to some uneven character development. Interestingly, the less significant characters—the men—were generally fine; I especially enjoyed Nonso Anozie's performance and thought the "Kit" scene was quite clever. I understand Kate Winslet has embraced villainous roles recently, and she does a good job portraying a “stuck-up snoot,” but Helena Bonham Carter’s portrayal of the fairy godmother felt rushed, making me wonder if she wasn't being adequately compensated. It would have made more sense to let Winslet elevate the fairy godmother (one of the few elements that didn't need much improvement) and allow Carter to fully embody a character like Bellatrix Lestrange as the Wicked Stepmother. Sophie McShera excelled at making her character detestable, and Holliday Grainger reminded me of Katherine Heigl—if she could avoid tanning beds—so they both delivered strong performances as wicked stepsisters (honestly, probably the best in the film). For some reason, all the villainous women were portrayed as gingers, though the hair dye job wasn't very convincing. I’m not sure if it was meant to symbolize their tacky fashion or a commentary on dyeing hair at the time, or if Disney simply believes gingers lack souls—either way, it was an obvious and distracting choice. The level of care put into this project is questionable, especially considering Lily James's performance. She’s lovely, did well with what she was given, and I'm eager to see her in other roles to determine if the oddities were a result of her acting or simply the scripts she received. Cinderella is traditionally depicted as the "fairest in the land," and given its European setting, fair skin and blonde hair have historically been considered exotic—or at least desirable. Lily James doesn't fit that description (despite some promotional posters), so I initially thought they were going for a more Germanic look with honey-colored hair. However, her hair color is strangely off, and it’s even more noticeable because of her very dark eyebrows, which would have been easy enough to dye. Alternatively, they could have abandoned the blonde look entirely (as many versions do). It's odd to spend so much money on something that seems intentionally careless, ultimately detracting from the film. This lack of attention to detail is evident throughout the movie. It had the potential to be a masterpiece, but instead, it feels like everyone involved knew it was just a guaranteed paycheck based solely on the title, resulting in an average product despite its promise.

Source on TMDB