n my opinion it was a great movie with some interesting elements, even though having some plot holes and the ending probably was just too messy and crammed together, but still fun to watch and not your casual movie that is similar to all other ones.

This movie was so-so. It had it's moments, but wasn't the greatest.

a film so unique, intoxicating and bizarre that it not only demands another viewing, but is also forgivable as a satirical comedy where the jokes eventually take the back seat.

The movie's not perfect, but it sticks the landing of its message. It was engaging - thrilling at times - and I personally thought it was a great time.

Cinderella 2000 (1977) 1/2 (out of 4)Al Adamson's tale takes place in 2047 (why is the title 2000?) where all sexual activities are banned. One young couple feels this isn't right and that love should be free so they set out to do their own thing.Look, I love Al Adamson as a filmmaker but at the same time there's no question that the majority of his movies are really awful and that's certainly true with CINDERELLA 2000. THis movie tries to be a comedy as well as a musical but it fails on both levels. It also tries to be a sexploitation film and fails at that too.Adamson and producer Sam Sherman were always willing to copy whatever was popular at the time in order to try and earn money. ALICE IN WONDERLAND had just been a hit and then you had the Cheryl Smith version that was also released in 1977. That film there is the perfect way to do an adult version of this story but this Adamson film is about as awful as you can get.As you'd expect, the performances are quite bad and even worse are the musical numbers, which are just rather embarrassing. The dialogue is extremely poor and there's just nothing fun about anything in this picture. Even worse is that it drags very poorly making it really difficult to get through.CINDERELLA 2000 at least offers up a few cute naked ladies and that's about the only good thing here.

Late, great Grade Z drive-in exploitation filmmaker par excellence Al Adamson really outdoes himself with this gloriously ghastly sci-fi soft-core musical comedy atrocity which plumbs deliciously dismal and dopey depths in sheer celluloid silliness and jaw-dropping stupidity. In the grim totalitarian future of 2047 sex has been deemed an illegal act by the Big Brother-like impotent bumbling idiot the Controller (an amusingly goofy Erwin Fuller). However, sweet'n'sexy Cinderella (radiant blonde cutie pie Catherine Erhardt) remains determined to change things for the better. With the help of her effeminate Fairy Godfather (a flamboyantly campy Jay B. Larson), Cinderella attends a grand gala ball with the specific plan of seducing handsome stud Tom Prince (the dorky Vaughn Armstrong) and teaching everyone that making love is a positive, pleasurable and wholly acceptable activity.Adamson directs this ridiculous yarn with his customary all-thumbs incompetence, staging the incredibly awful'n'inept song and dance sequences with a totally sidesplitting lack of skill and flair. The uproariously abysmal "We All Need Love" number with people in absurd animal costumes awkwardly prancing about the forest is a hilariously horrendous marvel; ditto the equally abominable "Mechnical Man" routine featuring a bunch of clumsily cavorting robots. Louis Horvarth's crude, static cinematography, the tacky plastic miniatures, Sparky Sugerman's groovy throbbing disco score, the copious gratuitous nudity (ravishing brunette hottie Sherri Coyle warrants special praise in this particular department), the brain-numbingly puerile attempts at leering lowbrow humor (Roscoe the Robot law enforcer is especially irritating), and the uniformly terrible performances (Renee Harmon's outrageously hammy portrayal of Cinderella's wicked overbearing stepmother cops the big booby prize here) further enhance the strikingly abundant cheesiness to be savored in this delectably dreadful doozy.

Life in some future fascist or near fascist state which severely restricts personal freedoms is a recurrent theme both in modern literature and for film makers. Such works post us warnings about undesirable trends in our society to watch out for; but to be effective they must also be entertaining. Unfortunately most of the books are probably more effective in posting the warnings than in entertaining us enough to become really widely read; whilst with the films the problem is usually the other way round. The first such work to become really widely known was probably George Orwell's "1984" (first published in 1948), and this is still readily available both in the form of a book and as a film.Watch or read it: and then, when you are feeling a little depressed by man's inhumanity to man, reach for Cinderella 2000. This is a feather light low budget film comedy based on the same theme which provides effortless but unrewarding viewing; and as with 1984 the calendar has now passed beyond its erstwhile period. Most of the comedy is laid on with a trowel although there are just a few genuinely funny moments. To exercise your mind in the long intervals between these you can focus it on the question of whether this film will gain a new extension of life by being released as a DVD or whether it will finally disappear into oblivion as existing tape copies deteriorate past redemption. There are many worse films appearing as DVD's these days, and frankly I do not care much what happens either way.So far the best of the films of this genre has probably been "The Handmaiden's Tale", but I would very happily swap them all for a well made film of Jack London's towering novel "The Iron Heel". Ambitious as this would be, it still seems incredible that no modern film maker has yet dared to attempt it (IMDb only lists a B/W silent version made in Russia in 1919).

***SPOILERS AHEAD***Hey, how about an X-rated sci-fi musical based (albeit VERY loosely) on the classic Cinderella story? If you're like me, that sounds like a fun night at the movies. Of course, if you're like me, that's why you so often end up watching stupid movies like this.It starts out with the dopey title song playing over a credit sequence that looks like something produced by my circa-1980 Radio Shack PC. Then the plot kicks in. It's the future, where sex is illegal and everyone feels compelled to periodically break out in mediocre song-and-dance numbers and/or make bad sex-related jokes. Anybody who tries to break the no-sex law is interrupted by a robot that barges in shrieking, "Fornication without sanction! Fornication without sanction!" Will our heroes defeat the forces of prudery? This thing was directed by Al Adamson, which should tell you something right there. Old Al didn't have the dimmest idea how to choreograph and shoot musical sequences, and so this movie tends to look like a bad school play performed by ten year olds. Somebody should have at least taught Al how to pan the camera when the actors temporarily move out of frame. Sets and costumes are all bottom-barrel sci-fi cheese. Songs are mostly tedious, with the possible exception of "We All Need Love," which has the ability to stick in one's head for, oh, I don't know, maybe ten minutes afterward. The non-stop sexual innuendo is juvenile and tiresome. Like most films of this type, it's not nearly as witty and randy as it's supposed to be. I never thought I'd see a movie that came off like a poor man's version of THE APPLE (1980), but here you are. I liked THE APPLE; it's a fun bad movie, unique in its zesty insanity. Cinderella 2000 is just boring.