Cinderella II: Dreams Come True (Video 2002) Poster

User Reviews

Add a Review
30 ReviewsOrdered By: Helpfulness
1/10
What was Disney thinking?
MaryPoppins8919 July 2004
Warning: Spoilers
Possible Spoilers, Perhaps. I must say that "Cinderella II: Dreams Come True" is one of the worst movies ever made. First of all, the movie was made during the height of Disney's sequel rampage. It was created around the same time as "The Little Mermaid II," "The Jungle Book II," and "Peter Pan II," all of which were disservices to their original film classics. (Disney also made "The Hunchback of Notre Dame II" and "Atlantis II," but I'm going to drop that topic because their original movies were never really classics in the first place.") Let me go ahead and say that I am an avid supporter of good Disney films, and I absolutely adore the original Disney "Cinderella." The sequel to "Cinderella," however, was a waste of time. The character of Cinderella in the sequel was so very unlike the original girl that I grew up watching. In the original, Cinderella was kind and loving. The new Cinderella had very out-of-character moments with current-era phrasing like, "I'm going to do this banquet my way!" Let me also tell you that new Cinderella (as I have affectionately named her) says, "Ewww!" That is the anti-Cinderella. I try to find the best in people, but in the sequel, Anastasia, one of the stepsisters, is good! What the heck? Why? They made it all out to be like Lady Tremaine and Drizella are just horrible family members for poor little Anastasia. My question to the world: did the people at Disney watch the original "Cinderella" when making this sequel? Well, it surely doesn't seem so. If I remember correctly, Anastasia was just as abusive to Cinderella as Drizella and Lady Tremaine. I am all for redemption and forgiveness, but there was no point of redemption for Anastasia in this movie. In the first one, Anastasia was evil. In the second one, she is good. One just can't leave a story like this. I hope Disney realizes that this movie, among other movies, is shaming Walt Disney's name. Perhaps now that Michael Eisner is gone, things will start shaping up around the House of Mouse.
20 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Surprise, surprise
sngbrd3918 June 2004
Warning: Spoilers
To preface this review, I haven't seen this in about two years, so I might not be remembering all of it correctly. However, I do remember that I watched this as part of a "bad Disney sequels" double feature along with Hunchback of Notre Dame II. (Yes, I admit; I'm a bad movie masochist!) Surprisingly enough, though I can't say I would watch Cinderella II again of my own free will anytime soon, I can say that it somehow isn't as bad as I was expecting. Of all the Disney sequels I've seen (and yes, I have seen quite a few of them), this is one of the least lousy. The three-story format seems to work a lot better with the television-quality, way-too-bright-and-none-too-subtle art and animation; it was nice to see that they were trying to evoke episodes of a television show rather than labor under the pretense of it being an actual movie. In light of this, it might make sense to break this review down into three sections, one for each story. (Possible spoilers ahead.)

Cindy Plans a Party: Yawn. This is, by far, the worst of the segments. Cinderella, now in charge of the Ministry of Parties or some such bogus organization, has to convince the higher-ups that yes, peasants should be allowed to participate in the next royal shindig. That's about it. Very dull; no compelling reason to really watch it because nothing actually happens. Moving on...

Are You a Man or a Mouse? - Make Up Your Mind Already!: Jaq, one of Cindy's mouse friends and one of the overall highlights of the entire endeavor, decides that, as a mouse, he's too small to really be of any help to her around the palace. So, thanks to a spell from the Fairy Godmother, he becomes a man, who also, inevitably, gets in the way and isn't much use to anyone. This one would be fairly silly as well, except that Jaq is a pretty endearing little guy. It also doesn't hurt that one of my favorite voice actors (Rob Paulsen of Animaniacs and Pinky and the Brain fame) does his voice, and because Jaq becomes human, the voice hasn't been sped up beyond recognition.

The, Um...Evil(?) Stepsister: So, we barely get to see Cinderella in this one, but considering that she's not the most exciting character, it's nice for the spotlight to shift for a moment. Instead, this features as our protagonist none other than...Anastasia, one of Cindy's evil stepsisters. Huh? Well, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that she had a change of heart after Cinderella got hitched to her Prince (who sounds eerily like Prince Eric from The Little Mermaid; is there some funny business going on in Disney fairy-tale land?) It wouldn't seem that Anastasia, being somewhat ugly as well as formerly evil, would have too many prospects in the area of love, but her mother still wants to see her marry rich, which is why she is shocked and appalled when Anastasia falls in love with...a common baker! (Cue Hitchcock-esque horror music.) But with Cindy's help, all works out, and she gets her baker. Awww.

Overall, Cinderella II is pretty bland and not very interesting, but it's definitely an improvement over other Disney sequels, because it's much less painful to have three small segments of sub-par animation and storytelling rather than one big dose. There are actually enjoyable parts, even in the thrown-together interstitials between the stories featuring the Fairy Godmother and the mice. All in all, it's a nice little diversion to rent for an evening if you're bored and don't have anything else to do.
7 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
3/10
Good with kids under 10, otherwise hard to appreciate
jonathanwr3 July 2006
I've always thought that Cinderella II was the worst movie I've ever seen, (followed by Peter Pan 2, and some other sequels like The Lion King 2 and the Hunchback of Notre Dame 2). All these movies are made with the same idea; because the movie has no plot, they try to make up for that by filling it with jokes. I'm not saying the jokes are bad, but they make up most of the movie. The first time I saw the movie, I would have given it a 1/10. But now I think about it, most kids don't care how good the original movie was, they just care that the movie is entertaining. I still think the movie was a bad sequel, but that doesn't mean it's horrible. Now I think it deserves a 3/10.
6 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
6/10
The Disney Machine pumps again
JackReese26 February 2002
So, I really didn't want to watch this. I work at a video store so I get to watch everything before everybody else. Usually that's a good thing. Cinderella 2 is just one pointless movie. One little plot point after another that simply joins characters back together again. Don't ruin the first by watching this one. Walt had the idea. No sequels. Too bad he's still not around to enforce that idea.
20 out of 25 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Walt Disney must be rolling around in his grave
blackjack1288 March 2002
I don't mind the sequels for the modern films, (example: The Lion King) but the Disney-Disney movies, the ones that were directed and produced by Walt himself (example: Fantasia)should be left alone. all these sequels! Roy Disney must be running out of ideas.
18 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
whyyyyy???
tinkerlizzie2 March 2003
I love the original Cinderella movie, WHY RUIN IT WITH SUCH A CRAPPY SEQUEL? We've all got to admit, Disney is attempting to keep the original feel to its sequels alive, but none can compare to the timeless stories created by Walt himself. So why try to ruin it? Wasn't the first good enough to follow future generations? These sequels are simply trying to copy-cat the feelings that the originals brought us--and a crappy job at that. The songs have no meaning and the animation is disappointing. WILL DISNEY PLEASE STOP MAKING THESE SEQUELS AND LEAVE THE ORIGINALS ALONE?? I hate to see such great movies ruined. I rate this movie 3/10.
13 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Oh, how the mighty have fallen
rivercityrandom26 February 2002
When I first saw the huge life-size cardboard standup promoting Cinderella II in my local Hollywood Video, I was positively shocked and dismayed as to how far Disney has fallen in its attempt to strip-mine the memory of its classics in order to make an extra buck. Watching the video itself did nothing to enlighten my preconceived notions. While the animation and voice-acting is top-notch, the story suffers as the film tries to describe Cinderella's "happily ever after" life in the castle. Since any real conflict could possibly hurt that "happy" image, they appoint Cinderella head of the Ministry of Parties and allow her to demonstrate her unbounded optimism through several heavily contrived situations that mostly involve jokes about clumsy, amorous fat women (fat-acceptance advocates, watch out!) and mice being mindlessly chased by palace cats (who in real life would probably have servants to chase mice for them!) The mice are the real stars of this film, recreating their feature film roles pretty well and tying the loose, disjointed narratives together. Yet, one gets the feeling that the mice are the only characters in this film and the others are just there to give the mice something to do. For a movie that purports to teach us how to be ourselves and feel good about ourselves, one would be shocked at the gross lack of characterization in the film. Even compared to other Disney movies, the characters never go beyond their surface stereotypes and develop any hidden motives. Why does Jaq so singlemindedly want to pursue Cinderella? Why does the Fairy Godmother linger around the castle like a freeloading roommate? Why does Anastasia fall in love with the incredibly uninteresting baker? Yet one shouldn't picket the movie too seriously, after all, it's clear from the packaging and DVD extras ("A composer is a person who writes the music to a movie") that this film was intended solely for the kiddie crowd. With that in mind, it's blissfully entertaining. It's a great film if you are under 6 or so, but if you were raised on more captivating Disney fare such as the great musical features and the Disney Afternoon of the early 90's, it's rather disappointing.
10 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
4/10
How... disappointing... And the mice speak too much!
EmeraldMaz26 April 2006
Warning: Spoilers
I grew up watching the original Disney Cinderella, and have always loved it so much that the tape is a little worn.

Accordingly, I was excited to see that Cinderella 2 was coming on TV and I would be able to see it.

I should have known better.

This movie joins the club of movie sequels that should have just been left alone. It holds absolutely NONE of the originals super charm! It seems, to me, quite rough, and almost brutal, right from the (don't)Sing-a-longs to the characterization.

While I remember the character's telling a story through a song, this film's soundtrack was laid over the top, and didn't seem to fit. Jaq's transformation into a human is a prime example: Where he was walking around eating an apple and adding a few little quips in here and there, he should have been dancing around and singing about how great it was to be tall! And in the ballroom, there's old barn dance type country music. It's as though the writers forgot where and when this story was set. The upbeat fiddles certainly didn't fit.

Even the artwork and animation in Cinderella 2 isn't up to scratch with the original. The artwork in this film seems quite raw and less detailed. And we see part of Cinderella's hoop skirt, which doesn't feel right.

The movie itself could have been it's own story, I think that it should have been just that. I wouldn't say that I hate it, but I believe that it had many shortcomings. It seems to downgrade in a significant way from the beloved Cinderella original.
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
At the very least, it's *different*.
thousandisland3 September 2002
Of course the animation is really bad, and it's not a deep movie, but at least the writers put some thought into the story and didn't just go with the standard. (Cinderella and her still-unnamed Prince have a daughter who falls in love with a peasant, and they have to convince the king that she should be able to marry him and not be forced to marry someone of royalty. Can anyone say 'Aladdin'? Ugh.) This movie is made of three separate stories instead of just one long yawn factory like some others I can think of (Cough. Hunchback 2. Return to Neverland. Cough.) so there is a lot more opportunity for variation and character interplay. They even involve a dour governess named Prudence (very nice to see a black-clad miser in a Disney film who is stodgy and stuffy instead of thoroughly evil.) and give one of the stepsisters a story of her own, and do something with Lucifer except having him be the (you guessed it) black, evil cat who does little but chase the mice. Even Jaques gets a place in the spotlight, and there are happy endings all around as everyone falls in love. No.. not a deep movie, but it isn't boring, either. There is enough happening here to hold your interest, and that's saying a lot for a Disney sequel these days. The only real failing is that they selected quite possibly the most "edgy" and downright obnoxious Hip Hoppish singer to warble some songs that would have sounded fine otherwise.. Some of the tunes and lyrics are actually quite good, but there's so much "groove" and "attitude" going on that any charm is completely lost -- And if that's how they sound *now*, you can imagine how much this music is going to grate on the ears in a decade or so, when Hip Hop has long since gone the way of disco and vinyl and VHS... Seriously, can't anybody just SING anymore? I will be really happy when the people at Disney realize that lavishing modern sound on their (ahem) "masterpieces".. only hastens their descent into the post-modern doldrums of such films as 'Oliver & Company' and 'Aladdin'. I'm sure I'm not the first to cringe upon hearing Cinderella say 'EEYew' with all the pouty, adolescent inflection of 2001's cohort of sexed-up, belly-baring Britney wannabes.
9 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Not destined to become a classic fairy tale
hal_ida3 March 2002
There is barely a plot or story in Cinderella II. No great crisis or danger to be resolved, just syrup. Though my toddler enjoys it there are many other children's DVDs that I enjoy watching with her but not this one. She loves it when we watch her DVDs with her but Cinderella II makes it difficult for me to be able to. If you don't already have Snow White, Cinderella, Mulan, Pinocchio, the Lion King, Pocahantas, The Prince of Egypt, The Wizard of Oz, or Peter Pan, buy any of these before wasting your money on this effort to part you of yours. This weak effort is a stark contrast to the earlier fairy tell productions of Disney that were under Walt's direction. It makes one appreciate his effort to make a great production for entertainment for the whole family and not just pumping something out to make money. I'll give it a generous 4 out of 10 points only because my girl enjoys it.
7 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
loading
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews