Once Upon a Mattress

:

Season 1
  • Network: ABC
  • Series Premiere Date: Dec 18, 2005
User Score
4.8

Mixed or average reviews- based on 20 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 8 out of 20
  2. Mixed: 3 out of 20
  3. Negative: 9 out of 20

Review this tv show

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling

User Reviews

view
per page
  1. BrentP
    Dec 18, 2005
    1
    Having done the show myself in high school two years ago I was really looking forward to this coming to tv only to find out that it was chopped up and changed to where it turned into Once Upon a Landfill. Though the performers, with the exception of Lady Larken, are good, the original story line has been changed to a point where you barely even recognize it. The Minstrel was cut out Having done the show myself in high school two years ago I was really looking forward to this coming to tv only to find out that it was chopped up and changed to where it turned into Once Upon a Landfill. Though the performers, with the exception of Lady Larken, are good, the original story line has been changed to a point where you barely even recognize it. The Minstrel was cut out entirely, as was his opening song. "Normandy" is a song sung by the Jester and Minstrel when helping Lady Larken run from the kingdom, not a lame story about a honeymoon. Also a hilarious song between the Jester, King, and Minstel was also cut, and a solo song of the Jester's. Carol Burnette's second solo song was a new one, not having been in any version of the show before. For anyone hoping this will bring memories back of the Broadway shows, or the show you saw your children or friends in in school, you're wrong, it's just one big let down.… Expand
  2. mollyh
    Dec 20, 2005
    1
    Am I the only person in America that is disgusted with Disney after the broadcast of this show? With a 7pm air time, is geared for children and families. I was appalled in the 1st 10 min.that the premise of the story was based on athe indescretion of two lovers to engage in pore-marital sex resulting in a pregnancy that the two were determined to keep covered. How about an entire song Am I the only person in America that is disgusted with Disney after the broadcast of this show? With a 7pm air time, is geared for children and families. I was appalled in the 1st 10 min.that the premise of the story was based on athe indescretion of two lovers to engage in pore-marital sex resulting in a pregnancy that the two were determined to keep covered. How about an entire song dedicated to the subject of "The Marital Bed" and "how to perform" on your wedding night? Don't get me wrong, I'm pretty liberal, but I was mortified to be watching this with my 4 & 8 year old kids- boy did they ask alot of questions! Shame on you Disney! This was neither the place, time or forum to unveil such subjects. A "parental warning" at the beginning would have been nice!!!!!… Expand
  3. richardg
    Dec 28, 2005
    1
    I would give it a 4 or 5 had it been marketed to adults, but as a Sunday prime time offering for the whole family? We turned it on because I had heard Carol Burnett on NPR's "Fresh Air." I have admired her as a person for many years, but she really let me down here. Ms Burnett: did you know how Disney was going to market this thing? Do you think this is wholesome family fare? If so, I would give it a 4 or 5 had it been marketed to adults, but as a Sunday prime time offering for the whole family? We turned it on because I had heard Carol Burnett on NPR's "Fresh Air." I have admired her as a person for many years, but she really let me down here. Ms Burnett: did you know how Disney was going to market this thing? Do you think this is wholesome family fare? If so, I am disappointed. We are not prudes here, but we gave up on this thing after a half hour or so. Embarrassing. And Tracy Ullman as the princess? A little old and dumpy, no? Bad casting. Bad Disney. Anything for a buck.… Expand
  4. RachaelD
    Dec 30, 2005
    0
    I was absolutely horrified and appauled at Disney for marketing this to Children!!!!! Who do they think they are?! The whole scene where the prince sings about the wedding night asking his fater what it is about outraged me. It wasn't just an innocent question, it pushed the boundaries entirely too far. It disgusted me to a degree than I cannot fully explain. Disney should be ashamed I was absolutely horrified and appauled at Disney for marketing this to Children!!!!! Who do they think they are?! The whole scene where the prince sings about the wedding night asking his fater what it is about outraged me. It wasn't just an innocent question, it pushed the boundaries entirely too far. It disgusted me to a degree than I cannot fully explain. Disney should be ashamed of themselves. It is not Disney's responsibility to teach about sex. It is not their place! And to do it so underhandedly and market it to children and parents with NO warning whatsoever from anyone.....not the media......not critics.......no one. I feel like I was "led into a trap". Does anyone else feel like this? I cannot even type anymore. I have no respect for disney anymore. Period.… Expand
  5. KenS
    Jan 14, 2006
    0
    It isn't the Wonderful World of Disney that I grew up on. I quickly turned it off when I realized the lady was singing about her bastard child. It isn't the thing I want to discuss with my young daughter. As a Disney stockholder it was an embarassment.
  6. joes
    Dec 18, 2005
    1
    I can't believe that Disney marketed this for small kids to watch. One of the heroines is a woman that is pregnant without being married and it is sung about as some romantic situation. The original play was meant for adult audiences, and to show this musical to young kids on the Wonderful World of Disney is, in my opinion, irresponsible. The show itself was bland, corny and dated, I can't believe that Disney marketed this for small kids to watch. One of the heroines is a woman that is pregnant without being married and it is sung about as some romantic situation. The original play was meant for adult audiences, and to show this musical to young kids on the Wonderful World of Disney is, in my opinion, irresponsible. The show itself was bland, corny and dated, which may bore the young ones from actually watching this mess of a movie.… Expand
  7. JonF
    Dec 19, 2005
    3
    This production didn't do the original Broadway show justice. They should have left well enough alone and not tried to improve on something that didn't need improving on. They cut the best production numbers and wrote new scenes that were unnecessary. After anticipating the broadcast of this all year long, I was extremely disappointed. Carol Burnett is a legend and I was looking This production didn't do the original Broadway show justice. They should have left well enough alone and not tried to improve on something that didn't need improving on. They cut the best production numbers and wrote new scenes that were unnecessary. After anticipating the broadcast of this all year long, I was extremely disappointed. Carol Burnett is a legend and I was looking forward to seeing her in the role of the queen. Her costumes were magnificent and she was very comical but the production was too slow and just didn't work. I thought that I would love this and was anticipating the release of the DVD but the DVD has been scratched off of my Christmas list.… Expand
  8. BobW
    Dec 19, 2005
    3
    Once again, Disney thinks it knows best... and as usual, it doesn't! "Mattress" is a classic. It is a fast paced, almost insane romp through a children's fairy tale, the way it REALLY happened [aka: The adult version] Yet, it can work quite well for children too, but not this version. The casting was great: Ullman made Winnifred her own, as did Burnett as the queen, each wisely Once again, Disney thinks it knows best... and as usual, it doesn't! "Mattress" is a classic. It is a fast paced, almost insane romp through a children's fairy tale, the way it REALLY happened [aka: The adult version] Yet, it can work quite well for children too, but not this version. The casting was great: Ullman made Winnifred her own, as did Burnett as the queen, each wisely chosing their own route rather than try to out do the original actress. Tommy Smothers was great and his little yo-yo- bit worked, but if I was casting, I'd have gone with one of the two best living mimes today: Marcel Marceau or the brilliant Bill Irwin. The score still stands up, and the musical department did a terrific job of "updating" the sound. So why such a low rating? THE BOOK! Why re-write what was already successful on Broadway? The original book was fast paced, corny, and magnificent. Here the writer heavy-handedly spell out everything twice over, add "depth" that isn't needed, and so slow down the pace, it's a torture. Why cut "Opening For A Princess" which tell the whole setup in 3 fun minutes, and replace it with dull dialog that takes twice as long? Why change Harry from a simple "Sir" to some "totally honest" L'il Abner wannabe? Why add a whole "dungeon scene" which adds nothing, and forces you to cut "Very Soft Shoes" to save time? I wish they'd re-release either or both TV "originals" [I have the '64 monochrome release, which takes the same amount of time, yet is far more enjoyable!] The NY Times critic said she thought this remake was great, and she thought it would be hard to get kids to watch the "original." Well, I doubt she's even SEEN the original. If she had, she'd have never made such a statement. I watched this remake with friends and panned it. They couldn't understand why, then I popped in my old tape. They all went "Oh! ...yes!"… Expand
  9. JohnM
    Dec 23, 2005
    0
    Disney has fallen to an new all-time low. Until I visited this site, I thought my wife and I were the only ones that were appalled at what Disney was pushing as family entertainment. After the opening seen in which two of the main characters discuss their pre-marital pregnancy, my 7 year old turned to us and asked how they could be having a baby if they are not married. This was not the Disney has fallen to an new all-time low. Until I visited this site, I thought my wife and I were the only ones that were appalled at what Disney was pushing as family entertainment. After the opening seen in which two of the main characters discuss their pre-marital pregnancy, my 7 year old turned to us and asked how they could be having a baby if they are not married. This was not the subject I was prepared to discuss with my daughter at that particular time. What is more disturbing is that after looking at the many reviews on this production, I have yet to see any critic mention how inappropriate this was for a show being promoted as a fairy tale for children. I have no problem with this being shown on television, but please, call it what it is, at least include a warning that the subject matter may be inappropriate for younger audiences!… Expand

Awards & Rankings

38
#38 Best TV Season of 2005
42
#42 Most Discussed TV Season of 2005

Critic Reviews

All reviews »
Metascore
55

Mixed or average reviews - based on 15 Critic Reviews

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 5 out of 15
  2. Mixed: 6 out of 15
  3. Negative: 4 out of 15
  1. The New York Times
    Reviewed by: Alessandra Stanley
    80
    The remake has everything that those earlier versions had and something more: Tracey Ullman and Carol Burnett together and at each other's throats.
    Read full review
  2. USA Today
    Reviewed by: Robert Bianco
    50
    Nothing works very well in this elaborate but leaden production, which seems more interested in Bob Mackie's costumes than in the characters they clothe.
    Read full review
  3. Boston Globe
    Reviewed by: Matthew Gilbert
    30
    The production doesn't engage the ears, the eyes, or the laugh muscles. It engages only the snooze button.
    Read full review
See all critic reviews »