JanieJane Reviews

The Princess Diaries 2: Royal Engagement (2004)

Princess Diaries 2: The good, the bad, the ugly

[5/10 · 27 April 2011]

*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. ;)

The Parent Trap II (1986 TV Movie)

Takes me back to the good old days

[28 April 2003]

Just about any 80's kid who had the Disney channel remembers this movie with great fondness...this was one of my favorite movies, and my sister and I loved to watch it over and over. I wanted to BE Nikki and Mary...I wanted their clothes, their bikes, their rooms, their parents...they even made me want to go to summer school! (Sort of.) Watching the movie always takes me back to when I was 8 years old and a big fan of the "Parent Trap" movies (I saw the original first). This is a great movie to watch as a kid (especially when you're a girl) since it shows the kids trying to control their parents' destinies by scheming to get them together. It's always fun to watch a movie where the kids are in control, instead of the parents!

As for the movie itself, it's a cute and fun sequel to the popular original, but don't expect a movie in the same caliber. This was a made-for-the Disney Channel-movie, after all. And since it's told through the point of view of the kids, it's clearly targeted to a pre-teen audience. Keeping this in mind, you should enjoy the film once you realize that it's completely different than the original in terms of production value, writing, setting, plot, you name it. Fans of Hayley Mills should get a kick out of seeing her reprise her role as the famous twins 25 years later.

Savannah Smiles (1982)

Similarities with "Monsters, Inc."

[1 April 2003]

This was one of my favorite films as a kid, as I often had runaway fantasies of my own (who didn't want to get away from their parents at some point in their childhood?). This movie parallels a more recent, widely popular movie "Monsters, Inc." Think about it: both movies involve two male characters who are friends/co-workers/partners-in-crime. These characters are encountered by a small, cute, little girl from another world (in "Savannah Smiles", the girl is from a world of wealth while the guys are from "the wrong side of the tracks"; and in "Monsters, Inc.", a girl from the human world enters into the monster world). Also, Alvie and Boots are seen as "monsters" (since they are criminals) and are misjudged by others. (It can be argued that Alvie is like Sulley from "Monsters, Inc." since he's the leader and Boots is a lot like Sulley's sidekick Mike). As in both movies, the two main characters do not want the little girl at first and are desperate to get rid of her (for fear of the repercussions)--but they soon grow to love her, ending in a tearful goodbye when the girl is returned home.

Try watching both movies back-to-back and see for yourself the similarities. I'm not implying that the writers of "Monsters, Inc." stole their ideas from "Savannah Smiles", I just thought it was a neat coincidence that they had such similar themes.

Happy Days (1974–1984)

A great nostalgia trip!

[30 March 2003]

"Happy Days" is one of my favorite shows--having been born in the late 70's, it takes me back to a simpler time I can only dream about. I love Richie and his sweet nerdiness, and I love his goofy friends. The Fonz added some much-needed edge to this otherwise saccharine bunch, though his character was over-played in the later episodes. The show provides a nice escape from reality, where the biggest problems are who Richie should take to the dance and whether the guys' band can get a gig.

I agree with a lot of people that the show took a nosedive after Richie left the show. His character was the heart and soul of the show, and they should have ended things after Ron Howard decided to leave. But unfortunately ratings won over creativity, and the show lasted well past its prime. After Richie left, there was no geek-boy counterpart to the Fonz's character, and the show lost its chemistry and got bland. After the main character left (along with Ralph Malph), the show focused on lesser characters--ones which, up until then, held only supporting parts. Soon, Richie's little sister Joannie and the Fonz's cousin Chachi took the spotlight, but their characters weren't as compelling as the older characters. And the Fonz just became a cliché. With the numerous mistakes and bad judgments this show made during its 10 year run, it's no wonder the show launched the term "Jump the Shark" (which means the point in which a show starts to go downhill, named after the episode where the Fonz jumps over a shark on water skis). But despite all the flaws of the later episodes, this is a thoroughly enjoyable show that will be enjoyed for ages! It's that rare show that has had a significant impact on American pop culture, so much so that the Fonz's jacket is on display in the Smithsonian and everyone knows the meaning of "AAAAYYYYY."

America's Funniest Home Videos (1989– )

This show's still on??

[10 August 2002]

I was flipping through the channels the other day and came across a show I thought was cancelled years ago--"America's Funniest Home Videos." There was a different host (Tom Bergeron replacing Bob Saget) a different set, and a different title ("AFV")--but same bad jokes and same bad writing as always. Why they decided to expand this show from 1/2 hour to one full hour is beyond me. It gets tedious watching other people's home movies for an hour. I guess ABC really needs a filler show for their paltry Friday night line-up. Plus Tom Bergeron is an even worse host than Bob Saget, if that's possible. But then again, the jokes and writing are so incredibly bad it would make ANY host appear bad. Even more pathetic, though, are the audience members who really don't think the host's jokes are funny, but are forced to laugh anyway (either out of politeness or because they're forced to by the production staff). I do love the videos, though--watching people getting hurt is funny! And you know the people themselves would have thought so, too, or else they would have never submitted their videos to the show. (Oh, and another good thing--no more appearances from "Full House" kids!)

It's hard to believe that this show was one of the most popular shows in the U.S. when it first came out in 1990. It was my favorite show when I was in 6th grade at the time! But then it was only 1/2 hour long, and the big $100,000 prize was given at the last show of the season. Now, for some unknown reason, the big prize is given out several times throughout the year. In fact, the show never seems to have a season finale--which just proves this show will probably never end.