Related articles and links |  1 of 5

In his review of The Princess Diaries 2: Royal Engagement, Roger Ebert asks director Garry Marshall, "Did you deliberately assemble this movie from off-the-shelf parts or did it just happen that way? The film is like an homage to the cliché s and obligatory stereotypes of its genre. For someone like Marshall, it must have been like playing the scales."

Similarly distressed, Christian film critic Phil Boatwright (CBN), a champion of family-friendly movies, rants: "Directed with all the subtlety of Dr. Frankenstein … Marshall steals bits and pieces from every entry in the Cinderella genre, including his own attempts. Sadly, the resulting cannibalization leaves us with a lifeless, nearly witless movie."

Boatwright criticizes the cast for having "no energy" and says the characters' comical antics "just aren't funny. The slapstick gags are clumsier than the lead character, the story in desperate need of a rewrite and the lead actress as blah as Milk of Magnesia."

What else is wrong with the movie? According to Boatwright, the sets, the cinematography, and the direction.

And yet, Christian cultural commentator Ted Baehr (Movieguide) gives the film higher ratings than any other film currently playing. Baehr raves, "This virtuous movie is more than delightful. [It's] irresistible."

Who's right?

The Princess Diaries, adapted by Gina Wendkos and Shonda Rhimes from a novel by Meg Cabot, charmed mothers and daughters and a few film critics as well. The sequel, concocted just for the screen without the involvement of the original author, is being received more like an ugly stepsister than a princess. I'd summarize the plot for you, but, to quote Ebert once again: "There's no need for me to spoil the plot … it spoils itself. If I were to describe the characters, you could instantly tell me what happens in the movie." It's as predictable as any princess-falls-for-bad-boy tale.

Most critics lean toward Boatwright's opinion, finding this Royal Engagement quite resistible.

Listen to Annabelle Robertson (Crosswalk): "The sad thing about this movie is that, as a Christian, I'm expected to rave, simply because there isn't any foul language, sexuality, or negative message about God and faith, thus making it acceptable family fare. But in good conscience, I cannot."

She goes on to list her concerns with the film. Her greatest complaint is "its message that we must follow our feelings, even if they lead us to lust after someone who has been lying and deceiving us. No wonder the divorce rate is so high in this country!"

Problem number two: "Its absolutely shameless Americanization of everything European."

Robertson does praise Julie Andrews's singing, but says even that song is ruined by "an annoying promotion of Disney's latest pop star, Raven, who joins in for a silly duet."

She also reprimands the screenwriter's characterization of the princess: "The still-bumbling Mia seems like she's still in high school."

Christopher Lyon (Plugged In) says the film is "several steps less charming and funny than the first film. You get the sense while watching some of his films that [Marshall is] kind of making things up as he goes along, inserting scenes and dialogue as if brainstormed on the set. The resulting clumsy plot, trudging pace and sluggish performances suggest a movie that should be on the Disney Channel instead of at the megaplex."

"This time around, the derivative humor is spread thin and much more forced," says David DiCerto (Catholic News Service). "The film also lacks the freshness of the first installment, a common malady among sequels. Pre-pubescent princess-wannabes will undoubtedly find the Cinderella-like ball gowns and tiaras enchanting, but older viewers may find themselves pulling a Sleeping Beauty for much of the film."

next page... |  1 of 5

share this page

August (Web-only) 2004, Vol. 48