viapetty Super disappointed that Lilly's brother Michael doesn't stay her love interest bc that was adorable :/

JanieJane *SPOILERS*The Good: Most of the wonderful, original cast is back, including a few new faces such as the future Capt. Kirk Chris Pine and Callum Blue, who ironically filmed this during his "Dead Like Me" years. And not forgetting to mention John Rhys-Davies, who makes even a bad movie worth watching. Also, we get to see how the romance between Clarice and Joe end up. It's always wonderful seeing an older couple romance portrayed so sweetly in movies today.Julie Andrews sings for the first time since her botched throat surgery. Even when her voice is at less-than-capacity, she can still out-sing just about anyone out there.The costumes are absolutely gorgeous!The Bad: Lily is reduced to a peripheral character here, with not much to do but support Mia in everything she does. And therein lies the problem. In the first movie, she acted as Mia's grounding force by criticizing her when necessary (like when she let her friends down). In this film, however, Lily just seems to play along. You'd think the uber-feminist Lily would have something to say about Mia's being forced to marry to become queen, but she doesn't. And at first she hates Nicholas for wanting to usurp the throne, but is fully supportive of Mia pursuing him later when her feelings for him change. The Lily from the first movie would be knocking some sense into her, not covering for her.Raven. She is completely out of place in this movie. However, as one of Disney's rising stars at the time, she was put in mainly to sell more tickets and soundtracks. I probably wouldn't have minded her had she not ruined Julie Andrews' song. Apparently kids today don't want to hear an "old lady" sing unless a teen is singing along with her in a hip-hop beat.What set this movie off on the wrong course in the first place is that it seems to be geared solely toward girls under the age of 7. The first movie had something for both kids and adults to love, but not so here. Mia's narration sounds like she's reading to preschoolers, characters say things out loud that are already implied, and certain throw-away scenes that had little to do with the plot were stuck in just to appeal to young girls. I think this approach ended up alienating a lot of fans of the first film.The Ugly:The editing. A lot of deleted scenes should have been left in, and some of the scenes that made it should have been left out (see below for an example). Also, the movie tended to go from one scene to another without much coherence. For instance, in one scene Mia stomps on Nicholas' foot in anger and runs to the kitchen to cry over ice cream. Clarice sort of, kind of admonishes her before taking her to see her new bedroom. Wait, what? What happened to Nicholas and his uncle? Who cares! Little girls want to see Mia's room and clothes, dang it!!The slumber party scene. Thank God for DVD's so you can skip right over it! It does absolutely nothing for the plot, and the premise of a 21-year-old having a slumber party with little girls as a "bachelorette" party is preposterous. She and Lily from the first movie should have gotten plastered and gone streaking around the castle or something. Oh wait, this is supposed to be a family movie. ;)

nitedrive73 I am of the opinion that everything in life needs to be viewed in a proper perspective.You can't compare Princess Diaries to a masterpiece directed by Ridley Scott.It would be profoundly unfair to both parties. Over all,this movie which I happened to watch one night when it was too late to bother finding something else worth watching on TV,is okay to pass an hour and a half with when you need an uncomplicated laugh. No more,no less. A romcom for girls under 20 and perhaps their moms. Full of americanocentric stereotypes,a fictional continental European country which resembles a liliput nation such as Luxembourg and where people's names are a mish-mash of Italian,French and German-sounding syllables. Think "General von Klinkerhoffen" from "Allo',Allo'" and you will be pretty close. A country where monarchy actually RULES,like it did in the medieval times,a fictional,uncomplicated Europe with Sleeping Beauty- castles,green pastures complete with shepherds and cobbled streets.And all of this meets a gum-chewing,easy-going all-American girl who introduces the revolutionary idea of women actually being able to marry whomever they choose. What a remarkable achievement!It initiallt frightens me a bit to think that some people in the USA actually might believe that this represents a true picture of the European countries where monarchy still exist,but the thought is merely amusing.No,European monarchs do not RULE countries,they are merely trade marks. So now you know it.

Royalcourtier This movie is typical of the juvenilisation of Hollywood. True, it is a Disney film. But family oriented fare is what Walt produced, not unrealistic simple-minded politically-correct candy-floss.I didn't expect to see a realistic representation of a middle-European kingdom. But Chitty Chitty Bang Bang was far more accurate than this nonsense. There was no sense of realism, or place. The buildings weren't too bad, but the people were too obviously American. Worse, they were hamming it up in a uniquely American way. The antics of the royal guard were particularly ridiculous.The story was illogical. A princess doesn't become Queen just because she marries. The Queen, her grandmother, has to die or abdicate first. If the Queen couldn't marry because of the Law, why does her granddaughter have to marry because of it. Talk about plot inconsistencies! Film makers should learn to build their comedy and story lines within a realistic and consistent framework. A good film cannot result if the producers show contempt for the intelligence of the audiences, and assume all viewers have the brain of a four year old.