Own the rights?
What a fun movie., 12 August 2004 Author: chia0337 from Indiana
I saw this movie with my best friend on a girls night out. I thought it was cute, funny, and highly entertaining. Anne Hathaway did a wonderful job as did Julie Andrews. This is definitely a chick flick, but that should be expected with a name like "Princess Diaries". The movie also did a wonderful job of presenting it's message without hitting you over the head with it. It was a fun movie that could entertain me and my friend (both 20's) but still entertain the little girls that were sitting all around us. A wonderful movie that's appropriate for everyone.
Fun movie for teens that is rated G!, 12 August 2004 Author: callaway26 from Grand Rapids, MI
Okay so boys may not enjoy it and many dads of young girls will be among few males in the theatre but I thought it was really fun to watch! Also it is nice as the mother of 13 and 10 year girls to be able to take them to a movie without any moments where I cringe - as in many of the PG13 movies they now like to watch (such as 13 going on 30 - it too was very fun to watch but had moments that I would have liked to edit!) My daughters have friends who have very conservative parents and they are not allowed to watch a lot of movies we enjoy, but this one being rated G is acceptable for anyone. Please Hollywood give us more movies for tweens and teens that don't have references to drugs and sex!
For the hopeful romantics, it is a movie for you, 11 August 2004 Author: misticalwind528 from Maspeth NY
When I walked into the movie theater last night to see this movie I thought that it would be kind of cheesy because nothing is as good as its original predecessor but I was in for a shock. Gary Marshall did the best he could to try to keep the movie running very smoothly. I thought that cinematography of the film was very well. Mia who just graduated college, lost her first love to a band and is trying to stay true to herself and her best friend. She wanted to make a difference in a world, in a country that was small yet could make a big impact. Falling in love, not being in an arranged marriage something that she truly believes in herself and with pariliment trying to get her to marry someone in 30 days was out of the question. The movie was something that I would go see again. It was great! Maybe I am saying that because I loved the first movie, but I think that the sequel was a very nice touch to finish the movies..
1 out of 2 people found the following comment useful :- This chick film REALLY IS a chick film!, 25 June 2008 Author: cosmorados from United Kingdom
Don't get me wrong, I'm not one of those guys that binds all chick films in the same category. Hey, I like "Bring it on", "Enchanted" and "Stardust", but this film stunk.The contrived script that tried to turn a reasonable box office success into a bland romantic comedy is dismal and is like a kind of royal version of pretty woman. Hey, wouldn't it be great, to have all that money and a palace and imagine what fun you could have with it? Blah blah blah! The male that is supposed to be cad she falls in love with is played without charm by Chris Pine, kills any kind of sympathy or like that one may have or his character and bearing in mind that she is supposed to be entering into an arranged marriage it kind of kills the charm that Anne Hathaway had in the first film.The comedy is handled with about as much skill as George Bush handling a doorknob. The romance is weak and in spite of the fact that Julie Andrews and Hector Elizonda handles their roles well, it is an uninspired and tragic affair that leaves one hoping that the Princess Diaries will now stop being written.
1 out of 2 people found the following comment useful :- My daughter loves this but usually has better taste, 10 November 2007 Author: french-michaelfrench from United Kingdom
*** This comment may contain spoilers ***
Perhaps over-exposure to this fluffy stuff has jaded me. But the best thing that could happen to Genovia is a brutal revolution followed by a bloody civil war; the second best is that John Rhys-Davies grabs power and outlaws Anne Hathaway. The most irritating thing about the film is that it assumes Hathaway's character - pleasant enough but feckless, lazy, selfish and irredeemably clumsy - is in some way the queen that Genovia desperately needs. Um, no. She would be much happier without the responsibility and Genovia would be a lot better off with someone who actually wanted the job and was determined to be good at it. I know, it isn't even close to a film to take seriously. But even in fun should it be handing out the message that with great power comes the ability to muck about and it doesn't really matter how you treat people who respect you and to whom you have an obligation?
1 out of 2 people found the following comment useful :- A Royal Pain (yes, indeed), 17 July 2006 Author: mish234
I am a huge fan of the book series, admittedly after the first movie came out, and was terribly disappointed by this poorly-made sequel. The first one was original and well-made in it's own right, although I was pretty annoyed when I realised how much they had changed in the transition.However, Disney seems to have crossed a limit in this one. The entire agenda of this film seems to be Anne Hathaway, who is, I will admit, quite pretty, in a variety of costumes that ought to fulfill every little girl's "princess" fantasies, and the strategic placement of eye candy (Chris Pine and Callum Blue) within the picture frame.The idea seemed a little shaky from the very beginning- an arranged marriage for the princess to claim her throne. If she doesn't, it goes to Chris Pine - and do we know he's even in line to the throne? Umm, we have his uncle's word. Which is just...... right. Genetic testing, much? Even a freaking family tree? Obviously too much work for the screen writers here. The only highlight of the film is Dame Julie singing (effectively ruined by Raven, who sports a terrible faux-Brit accent and looks like she swallowed her own character from the Bill Cosby show). The dialogue is cheesy (even the film acknowledges that) and some of the scenes are laughably pathetic - keep a sharp eye out (and some insulin, in case of of an overdose of sweetness) for the Independence Day parade debacle. Aww, Mia feels for cute little girls getting bullied! She has a heart! Make her queen! Yeah.The performances aren't even enough to carry the film off. Julie Andrews is terrifically underused, Hector Elizondo is unnecessary, Anne is overly sweet and chirpy and virginal (arrrgh), Chris Pine is pretty and.... yep, that's all. Garry Marshall deserves to be shot for serving up this kind of dreck (as well as "Rasing Helen") and the producers (one of whom is Whitney Houston - now I know why she does crack) need to find some other garbage to sink their millions into that can at least entertain. Very very poor, indeed, a Royal Pain.
1 out of 2 people found the following comment useful :- awesome, 1 July 2006 Author: samx0031 from United States
i loved this movie, i also love the last movie. i am just wondering will there be a 3rd to it like the wedding or children??? just let me know if there is. i recommend anyone who loves the first movie to watch the second. if you never seen any of them i recommend you do!!!!! The movie is funny and has a good meaning behind love. Annie does a wonderful job playing Mia. you will laugh and maybe cry maybe. this movie will entertain you and your family. its a well written story and its easy to understand the concept. and plus Chris Pine is hot !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! you will love this movie and if you don't that is OK but people may think otherwise. so keep an open mind and enjoy it.
1 out of 2 people found the following comment useful :- It Was Awefully Cheesy, 23 May 2006 Author: Mr_Sensitive from THAILAND, BANGKOK
After seeing the first installment you probably have a little higher hope for the second movie. After all, the first one was youthful, energetic and very girly and somewhat fun to watch. This is what I expected from the installment.This time the princess got to get herself a husband as the rules of Genovia if she wishes to be queen. From the very story, I didn't quite get the same vibe I got from the first movie. This is a much mature version of the movie and yet very cheesy and predictable. And so might not be enjoyed by the younger viewer as it suppose to.Because it lost too much sense of its perkiness and its charm ness its not as good as I hope it should be. I feel there is a very gap between the two character of Princess Mia in school and the queen to be. It is no fantasy that the young girl can relate herself to.Rating: 5/10 (Grade: D+)
1 out of 2 people found the following comment useful :- B-Grade Schlock, 28 November 2005 Author: pirateradio from United States
It's nice that some movie companies are angling toward G productions so that kids & families can have a better selection of entertainment. However, G doesn't mean poorly written...well, in this case, it does. It's a Disney formula movie that's poorly made all the way around.To me, the only real redeeming value was seeing the Genovians. The Queen had an English accent, the head of the royal guard had a Texas accent, some people had a variety of European accents, some didn't even speak English, others had California accents, & the main press reporter was Scottish. I was laughing at this aspect throughout the movie. More flawed than something Ed Wood would create! Also, everything felt small the whole way through. One reviewer mentioned the wedding at a medium-sized church, not a cathedral. It seemed more like the Princess was in-line to be the mayor of Upper Sandusky, rather than the Queen of a country (even a small one).Tired of the sad attempts at humor, about 2/3 of the way through the movie, I went out into a cold rain and bought wood glue at K-Mart. Aside from the assortment of Genovians, this was the highlight of my evening.To be fair, considering that this is a little kid movie, my 9-year-old daughter said that she thought it was "Okay, but not as good as the first one." Also, she grinned at parts, but didn't laugh at all.
1 out of 2 people found the following comment useful :- Cheap production values, 24 September 2005 Author: buxtehude99 from United States
I saw this with my teen-aged daughter, so it has some value. But I think Garry Marshall was bored on this one. It's OK, not the worst thing I've ever seen. But a little more money and imagination would have gone a long way. Parts of this look like TV, in the worst sense, especially the church scenes. Did it never occur to anyone that a coronation, even in a small country, should not take place in something that looks like a small Methodist church in the suburbs? Most European countries are Roman Catholic, and a coronation would take place in some monster cathedral. This could be faked in any parish church in a big city. Did we run out of money at this point? We needed long shots, elaborate music, a real choir, the lack of which really showed. And the recycled set that is alternately a stairway/hall and throne room? And the procession through the "Small European Town" on the back lot at Universal studios? It all smells of cheap. Your pre and young teen daughters will like it, but adults will find themselves wondering if they left the gas on.
Add another comment
