Lack of good storyline.

It's easily one of the freshest, sharpest and most enjoyable films of this year.

I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

The movie is made so realistic it has a lot of that WoW feeling at the right moments and never tooo over the top. the suspense is done so well and the emotion is felt. Very well put together with the music and all.

This movie lacks everything that was good about Princess Diaries 1 - a witty, honestly funny, smart storyline. They realized they could make a lot of money off of this movie, no matter what crap they put out there; this was the result.I suppose this film has its good moments, which are mostly romantic moments that I enjoyed. But the whole basis of the relationship was preposterous; Mia sure got rid of Michael quickly.I recommend this movie to little girls 11 or younger and who can't afford a more decent movie. To everyone else, skip it or find yourself rolling your eyes every 5 seconds into this cringe-inducing movie.

I enjoy both of the films. I 1st watched them simply to see Julie's performance. The film is cute but flawed, NOT near perfect. Some scenes work, others drive you crazy on how cheesy they are.After the surgery that hurt Julie's ability to sing the chance to see her sing in the film Disney HAD TO RUIN TO ADD THAT RAVEN GIRL IN THE SONG JUST BECAUSE SHE HAD A SHOW ON THE Disney CHANNEL AT THE TIME. JULIE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN A SONG SHE COULD DO ON HER OWN. Do we need to point out Julie's Disney history? Her 1st film "Mary Poppins" won her the Oscar. The soundtrack won an Oscar & Julie sang several memorable songs. Did Disney forget this? I did NOT like Larry Miller's character in either film Hector Elizondo was good as Joe in both filmsGood, not outstanding, extras on the DVD.Songs in the film did NOTHING for me.REVIEW FOR DVD

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?

I thought most of the leading players did a good job here. Julie Andrews and Hector Elizondo gave especially fine performances. And I particularly liked Mia's servants Brigitte and Brigitta. Anne Hathaway did a good job most of the time, though I couldn't help but think she fell short of Audrey Hepburn in "Roman Holiday". Mia was such a sweet and caring character, and she looked great with all that hair and her nice smile. Heather Matarazzo, as Mia's best friend, gave the film just enough of an edge.John Rhys-Davies enunciated quite well but his character seemed too silly. He was the scheming uncle of Nicholas, the "rightful" heir to the throne. What I didn't enjoy that much were the conflicts between Nicholas and Andrew, who was supposed to marry Mia. Sometimes I liked the two characters, and other times I couldn't help but think of Vince vs. Henry and Dean vs. Jess.But what I really wanted was comedy (poor Mia still doesn't really know what she's doing), plus the tender scenes where Mia showed she cared about the people.There was nothing offensive here, truly rare in this day and age.