IMDb > Trap for Cinderella (2013) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
Trap for Cinderella
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guide
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
Trap for Cinderella More at IMDbPro »

Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Index 10 reviews in total 

35 out of 45 people found the following review useful:

Predictable but entertaining

Author: euroGary from United Kingdom
2 August 2013

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

'Trap for Cinderella' features Tuppence Middleton (most recently seen in the BBC's version of 'The Lady Vanishes') as Micky, a fun-loving party girl who is caught in an explosion at the South of France villa of her aunt Elinor (Frances de la Tour), of whom she happens to be heiress-presumptive. Suffering from amnesia (and having undergone reconstructive surgery) as a result of the accident, Micky discovers the diaries of her childhood friend 'Do' (Alexandra Roach, Channel Four's 'Utopia') and enters a sequence of flashbacks - and flashbacks-within-flashbacks - piecing together the events that led to the explosion and frequently unveiling her breasts. Watching with keen interest is Julia (Kerry Fox), Elinor's long-time PA.

Clever - or manipulative - editing of the trailer has made this seem like your bog-standard psycho-lesbo-revenge flick, but it isn't (although there is a touch of Sappho about it). Although written and directed by men, with all the main characters being female and only token presence from a couple of pretty-boys on the male side, it might appeal more to women than men, although if you're more interested in genre - psychological thriller - than gender that shouldn't matter. It's not the cleverest plot - without trying to I guessed most of the big reveals, which probably means most other people will too - and some plot points aren't adequately explained (eg: why Elinor made the decision she did about who gets her money, although it's pretty obvious from the preceding story). But it's entertaining enough, and the acting is agreeable, with Fox being a particular stand-out in her portrayal of scheming frustration. If I had been directing, I would have made more of the swimming pool bitch slap-down between Fox and Middleton, but then I was spoiled as a younger man by those Joan Collins/Linda Evans fights in 'Dynasty'...

Was the above review useful to you?

11 out of 15 people found the following review useful:

Good low budget British movie - it deserves a wider audience - minor spoilers

Author: spotlightne from United Kingdom
7 November 2013

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

After being in a serious fire, and suffering facial burns, reconstructive surgery, and amnesia, a 20 year old girl, Micky, sets out to find out her real identity.

She discovers a diary that reveals a very close friendship bordering on lesbian love with another girl called Do.

Micky unravels a web of deceit. But is she the player or the one being played? The plot takes twists and turns and isn't always coherent. I found myself questioning many things that didn't make much sense.

Nevertheless, Trap for Cinderella is a good low budget British film. If you've been drawn to this movie because of the lesbian love aspect (due to the trailer), then you may be disappointed. The lesbianism is suggested, rather than being all out there. And it is all one sided.


Was the above review useful to you?

23 out of 41 people found the following review useful:

Despite the Critics, I Thought it was a More-Than-Adequate Adaption

Author: liveandlove-ak
4 March 2014

After reading previous reviews, I can only assume that most people have not actually read the book, "Piege pour Cendrillion." For most of the reviews complain about the ridiculous plot, which is not the fault of the producer, but the author of the original book. I do admit, this plot is not at all realistic. But first: realize the book this film was based on was FICTION. Fiction is not supposed to be or held to be realistic. Second: realize that if one wanted to make an adaption of the BOOK, they would not be able to greatly deviate from the novel's plot, considering they would have had to obtain the author's consent.

So if you did not like the plot, do not blame the screenwriters or the actors; blame the author of "Piege pour Cendrillon." Yet I have a feeling most people have not actually read the novel, therefore, you have no place to comment, considering this is an ADAPTION OF THE NOVEL.

I thought the actors, directors, and producers gave a great performance based off of what they were given. Cheers to all involved in this movie.

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 6 people found the following review useful:

Do my dear my female dear

Author: dbdumonteil
16 February 2016

It is actually the second version (I would not write "remake" ) of Japrisot' s thriller ;it was already transferred to the screen in 1965(two years after the novel was released).The director was André Cayatte ,an excellent old school artist too often ridiculed by the overrated new wavelet.(see "Piège Pour Cendrillon")

By and large ,I'm not a fan of Japrisot whose plots are often complicated instead of complex and I do not put him in the same league as Boileau-Narcejac ("diaboliques","vertigo"),Frédéric Dard (whose "Toi Le Venin" broached the subject of the "double"in early sixties ),let alone Agatha Christie.

That said ," Piège Pour Cendrillon " is a different matter;the subject is not new ("Spellbound" , the contemporary " the third day " ( 1965) "shattered" and countless others dealt with amnesia );but the treatment,including four parts ,each one containing the same verb in four different tenses of French conjugation was downright disturbing;and the ending was all the more baffling since the mystery was not solved .(It was the reader who decided )

On the plus side,Kerry Fox took on Robinson's role-in the French movie- with consummate skill ;Alexandra Roach as brittle Do is eye candy;but it's not all good news :with such a story,it would have taken a great director and (mainly) a talented script writer (Japrisot wrote himself the screenplay of the French effort).Adding an overt lesbian relationship between Mi and Do does not help ,today it's no longer risqué and even trendy ,à la mode, as we French would say;an intrusive music does not help either.Editing is botched.Whereas the story was essentially psychological thriller,this flashy movie fills its quota of topless women and sex ,neglecting the harrowing frames of mind of the heroine.

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 6 people found the following review useful:

Spectacularly brilliant and highly sophisticated thriller by Iain Softley

Author: robert-temple-1 from United Kingdom
18 September 2014

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Iain Softley is one of the most original and talented of all British film directors. He has directed so many astonishing films that one's mind has long been boggled by them. There was K-PAX (2001, see my review), a film which entered another dimension and got the best out of Kevin Spacey. Softley's first film was the excellent BACKBEAT (1994), followed by the innovative and gripping HACKERS (1995), where the young Angelina Jolie pushed the envelope. And then there was the wonderful Henry James adaptation, THE WINGS OF THE DOVE (1997). All of these were first rate films. And now he has made a masterpiece of modern film noir, based on a French novel by Sebastien Japrisot, from which Softley has written the screenplay himself. Japrisot (pen name and anagram of Jean-Baptise Rossi) is a well known writer, one of whose novels gave us A VERY LONG ENGAGEMENT (aka UN LONG DIMANCHE DE FIANCAILLES, 2004) with Audrey Tautou and Jodie Foster, and he also wrote THE CHILDREN OF THE MARSHLAND (aka LES ENFANTS DU MARAIS, 1999), which is very difficult to find with subtitles but is well worth the search and, I fear, the price. This film is based on his novel PIEGE POUR CENDRILLON, which was filmed previously in 1965, though no review of it exists on IMDb. The earlier version was scripted jointly by the author and the famous playwright Jean Anouilh, along with the director, Andre Cayatte. Not having seen the earlier film or read the novel, I cannot speak of their endings. Nor do I intend to reveal the ending of this film, except to point out that it is not to be found within the film itself. That may sound like a contradiction, but let me explain. I have never seen, in all the mystery films I have watched over the years, a film constructed in such a way that the viewer is intentionally left to figure out the ultimate mystery of the film himself or herself, after the film ostensibly ended. All of the evidence is there, and the director throws down the challenge to the viewer as if to say: I have hidden the answer in plain sight, now will you open your eyes please? Really, that is such an exquisitely sophisticated thing to do that I am full of admiration. In a way, you could say that this film is a classic intelligence test. But we are not talking about any old whodunit, this is a psychological thriller par excellence. The main characters are two girls who have known each other since childhood. One is beautiful, rich and a raver, and the other is demure, attractive without being beautiful, doting, dependent, adoring of her friend, and tending towards madness. In fact, both girls are tending towards madness, and in their case, one plus one makes ten. The actresses playing the girls are simply spectacular. The more amazing performance of the two is that by Alexandra Roach. She has such sensitivity that she is like a violin that plays itself simply by being hung up on a peg in the wind, free to vibrate in a series of harmonies and disharmonies, as each scene requires and as the wind of the story blows. She plays the dependent friend, named Domenica Law, who is called 'Do'. Her performance is the key, and makes the whole film work. One can imagine other actresses playing the other girl, but I can think of no other actress who could have played 'Do' so well. The other lead actress has the charming name of Tuppence Middleton. She must have had very whimsical parents and endured a great many jokes about her name at school. She is certainly worth more than that. Miss Two Pennies has a special quality of what I would call 'languid allure'. This works very well in the quieter moments of her performance, and when she is meant to be raving, she ceases to be languid and becomes frenetic instead. The end result is a nicely balanced portrayal of a girl on the edge. Kerry Fox plays a sinister and enigmatic protectress, who may be a mantis. The study of the intimate friendship between two girls who cannot bring themselves to part even though they are wholly incompatible is handled with elegance and sensitivity. Perhaps Iain Softley is really a girl. This is a deeply intriguing, intensely ambiguous and mysterious film with all kinds of resonances, some of them out of the range of hearing but nevertheless efficacious. The film reminds me of Tartini's 'third tone'. And that remark also is an intelligence test.

Was the above review useful to you?

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

Alexandra Roach has a possessive love relationship with Tuppence Middleton

Author: msroz from United States
26 October 2016

Critic John Grant's "Noirish" blog alerted me to this as a neo-noir, so I checked it out. It's an intriguing movie, with very good performances and a complex scenario involving flashbacks that involve 3 periods of time.

The first period was years earlier when Alexandra Roach and Tuppence Middleton were little girls and close friends. They looked very much alike. Roach couldn't swim and Middleton could. In one childhood incident, Middleton scared her friend by pushing her under the water while supposedly teaching her how to swim, an exhibition of childhood cruelty and dominance. Another serious incident occurred when the two girls came across Middleton's rich aunt making love with Roach's father. Middleton tattled on him and the result was the man's suicide. One can understand that Roach may have harbored some deep but perhaps unrealized hatred of Middleton.

The second period is years later and not quite the present. In this period, the two girls are grown to adulthood, twentyish. They meet by accident in London. Both are very pleased to see one another again. Alexandra Roach is the quieter and plainer of the two. Middleton is a vivacious, free-wheeling, self-absorbed woman who likes the party scene of young adults of the 60s. As Middleton changes Cinderella more into her image, Roach displays a passionate and possessive love attachment to Middleton. It's unanswered physically by Middleton. Instead Middleton runs off with various men as she pleases, leaving Roach to fend for herself at parties and elsewhere.

The third period is the present, and the transition to it from period two is a fire that takes the life of one of these women. The other one survives and is having surgery. Her face is that of Middleton's character and she is told by the press agent of the rich aunt that she is Middleton. The woman has amnesia and remembers nothing except flashes of the past.

Is she or is she not Middleton? Who died in the fire? What were the circumstances of this fire? Who will get the rich aunt's inheritance, for she has passed on? What's the press agent's stake in this?

All such questions will be answered and answered clearly by the end of the movie. This is a mystery. We as viewers do get significant clues as the story plays out.

The heart of the story is the relationship between Roach and Middleton: Bosom buddies, love of two different kinds, two different motivations for their relationship, two very different kinds of women.

The screenplay gives us just enough to get some sort of a fix on their motivations. I wish it had given us more, so that we'd understand more deeply. As it stands, its plausibility is not as high as I prefer. It's a decent mystery-thriller without any police to speak of. The investigation and detective part of it is mainly via Middleton reading a diary, whereupon we enter into flashbacks.

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 9 people found the following review useful:

Very watchable, especially the French village scenery.

Author: yargevets
22 February 2014

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Get with it, anyone who says its slow. Clever story, where you sit smugly thinking you worked out the final twist, until all of a sudden it's a double bluff, with a final triple twist. Well acted by Miss Jones - FDLT. Beautiful 1963 E-type Jag.

One problem, I would love to know where it was filmed. Been to South of France a few times and didn't recognise the village.

I liked this film.

But what else can I add

It works well on Netflix

Ps Everton lost today, but I'm still OK I rode 20 miles on my bike this morn

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

A terrific thriller - if you give it some time

Author: gridoon2016
7 June 2015

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

A moody, absorbing, intelligent thriller. For a lot of its running time, I thought the main twist was easily guessable (especially if you've seen the 1991 amnesia thriller "Shattered"), but in the end the film proves to be at least one step ahead of the viewer; I only THOUGHT I knew what was going on. But the film is not all about the twists; at its center there is a complex, deep-rooted, emotional relationship between two women, exceptionally well acted by Tuppence Middleton and Alexandra Roach; though Middleton has the more showy role(s) (and exposes more flesh), Roach is the revelation of the movie - I bet she will have a great career. Ultimately, "Trap For Cinderella" is a triumphant success. *** out of 4.

Was the above review useful to you?

20 out of 43 people found the following review useful:

The pace is too slow. 2/10

Author: leonblackwood from United Kingdom
9 November 2013

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Review: From the beginning, this movie moves at a really slow pace, to the point were I just switched off and I concentrated on something else. It doesn't really pick up until the very end, when the plot comes together and you realise what the hell is going on, but it wasn't anything amazing. The characters were really dull and boring, along with the storyline which just wasn't that exciting. I wasn't really that bothered about the whole conspiracy with the film because it wasn't interesting. I could have done with some matchsticks to keep my eyes open! Boring!

Round-Up: I haven't seen these actors before so I wasn't expecting anything out of this world, but the adverts made this movie look interesting, which it wasn't. I was hopping for an intelligent drama, but for most of the movie you end up just watching a girl who is obsessed with her best friend, to the point were it was just way to creepy for me.

I recommend this movie to people who are into there drama's about a girls obsession with her best friend. 2/10

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 8 people found the following review useful:

Fraud, deceit, and bullying aplenty; good story telling, not so much.

Author: suite92 from SoCal, USA
11 May 2014

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Mickey and Domenica meet each other after a number of years. Do is a bank employee; Mickey is a photographer who lives as if she were rich. Do quits her job, and they get to know each other somewhat. They decide to get together at a house where they had common experiences as children.

There is a terrible fire. One of them is killed, and the other gets amnesia and burns on her face.

As 'Mickey' recovers her memory, and recovers from reconstructive surgery, we switch to flashbacks of when the two had just met each other again. Then there are further flashbacks to the estate where there was a near drowning incident when Do and Mickey were pre-teens. Mickey was blamed for this and a subsequent event that was at least as bad. They do not see each other for years, partly at Do's family's insistence.

In the depths of these flashbacks, a plot is hatched. Will it succeed?


Cinematography: 7/10 Mostly good, parts excellent, but sometimes in shaky camera mode, which looked horrid.

Sound: 3/10 Bad sound leveling.

Acting: 2/10 There was acting? The characters were repellent, but not engaging. I hoped the trap would spring on Cinderella so that the film would end.

Screenplay: 4/10 Neither the pacing nor the labyrinth of flashbacks and reinterpretations were engaging. I had a strong hope that all the main characters would be terminated with extreme prejudice.

Was the above review useful to you?

Add another review

Related Links

Ratings External reviews Parents Guide
Plot keywords Main details Your user reviews
Your vote history