The Princess Diaries 2 (Anne Hathaway)

(Amazon UK link)

Towards the end of July, we rewatched the 2001 film ‘The Princess Diaries’, and liked it very much. So last night, wanting something light, we decided to rewatch the 2004 sequel, ‘The princess diaries 2: royal engagement’. We last saw it in 2014, and had only vague memories of the story.

This film starts as Mia (perfectly portrayed by Anne Hathaway) graduates from university. And then, accompanied by the security guard Joe (Hector Elizondo), she flies back to Genovia. As well as studying academically, Mia has been trained to take over as queen, as her grandmother Clarisse (Julie Andrews) wants to retire. 

Genovia is a small, loyal (and imaginary) country. It’s supposedly another European microstate, and royalty is very important, with all the pomp of parades. Mia had been reluctant at first, but now she is looking forward to her coronation. However, she discovers a law that states that she can’t be queen unless she’s married. And she has just one month to find someone…

There’s a lot of humour in this film, as well as much that’s thought-provoking. Genovia is evidently quite a patriarchal society, despite having a queen rather than a king. All the government officials are male, and one of them believes that his nephew Nicholas (Chris Pine) should be the next in line for the throne. 

Mia meets and dances with a lot of theoretically eligible men at a ball, and feel some rapport with Nicholas, not knowing who he is. When she meets him officially, she is convinced he was fooling her and they have several quite acrimonious encounters when it’s clear that she’s falling for him. But she doesn’t trust him. 

She’s shown a series of slides depicting potential husbands around the world, most of whom are unsuitable for one reason or another. But she finds one who has all the right qualifications, and who is quite good-looking too. They both agree that arranged marriages are not ideal, but they get along well enough. And so the wedding is planned…

Despite looking elegant and beautiful most of the time, Mia is still somewhat clumsy. There are some very nicely choreographed scenes where she slips or slides, or drops something. And she pulls the most horrendous faces at times, when she thinks nobody is looking. She and her grandmother have excellent rapport, even when the queen is annoyed with Mia (as happens all too often). And Mia is essentially kind and caring. She’s a good example of a feisty young woman who knows her own mind as well as wanting to follow her destiny and do what she knows to be her duty.

There are some delightful and moving scenes involving children. Mia stops an important procession to talk to some orphaned children, and, later, we see her hosting a party which includes some wonderful sliding on mattresses; even the queen gets involved.  And I loved the scene where the queen is persuaded to sing; Julie Andrews had thought she would never sing again after failed throat surgery in 1997. 

The climax to the story is well done, and the ending somewhat predictable, but I didn’t mind that at all. The film perfectly fulfilled our wish for something light-hearted and amusing. It’s intended for teenagers so the romance parts are quite low-key. The rating is U, reflecting the lack of any bad language and only the mildest of tension. Having said that, it’s not a film for young children. The theme of trying to find a husband is unlikely to interest anyone under the age of about ten or eleven anyway. 

There are quite a few extras; the deleted scenes are introduced by the director, Garry Marshall, whom I’ve seen before doing this kind of thing. And the blooper reel is nicely done, without being repetitive. We watched some of the documentaries too, and found them interesting, but we didn’t see them all.

While the film stands alone, it’s definitely best to have seen the first ‘princess diaries’ film, as it gives so much background.  I understand that these films are based on books with the same title, although I haven’t read them.

Recommended. 

Review copyright 2025 Sue's DVD Reviews

Little Fockers (Ben Stiller)

(Amazon UK link)

Six months ago we watched the film ‘Meet the Fockers’, which I found inexpensively in a local thrift store. We liked it so much that I ordered (second-hand) the first and third in the series when I was in the UK.  We watched ‘Meet the parents’ last week, and thought it excellent. So we were looking forward to seeing the final film in the trilogy, ‘Little Fockers’, yesterday evening. 

The main characters are the same as in the other two films, and the chemistry between them is as good as ever. Ben Stiller is excellent as Greg Focker, a nurse who has other responsibilities in his hospital. He’s married, now, to Pam (Teri Polo) and they have twins, Samantha and Henry, who are nearly five. Samantha is considerably taller than Henry. Apparently the actress (Daisy Tahan) was eight in 2010 when the film was made, while Colin Baiocchi, who played Henry, was a year younger. 

There are several themes running through this film. Greg has bought a bigger house, which is undergoing some improvements, at least in theory. He is hoping to use it to host his children’s fifth birthday party, but work is going rather slowly, and it appears to be deteriorating rather than improving.

Kevin (Owen Wilson) who made cameo appearances in the other films, keeps cropping up in this one. He’s a caricatured egoist, talented in a ridiculous number of fields, with a lot of ex-lovers, including Pam. And he offers his mansion as an alternative venue for the birthday party.

Then there’s an attractive medical drug rep called Andi (Jessica Garber). She wants Greg to do some promotional videos and talks for a new sexual enhancement pill she’s promoting. She also, clearly, finds Greg very attractive although he has no idea… 

Meanwhile Pam’s father Jack (Robert De Niro)has been having some health problems, and wants to pass on responsibility for the well-being of the family to one of his sons-in-law. But the one he found more satisfactory has gone off with someone else, so he’s left with Greg. And they have a lot of ongoing stresses, despite quite liking each other underneath…

So there’s quite a bit going on in this film, and it’s mostly well-done. The actors, many of them well-known, are excellent and there are some amusing moments. But overall it didn’t feel entirely coherent. The subplots interweave, sometimes picking up on things in earlier films, sometimes introducing new elements. The title suggests that it should mainly be about Greg and Pam’s twins, but there are a lot of more ‘adult’ scenarios. 

The birthday party comes towards the end, as the climax to the film. But even that is more about Kevin and his talents than about Henry and Samantha. Greg’s parents are reunited after some time apart, and what goes on (in private) in one of the tents is definitely not child-friendly. Nor is the fist-fight that takes place between Greg and Jack - something that had been simmering for a while but which seemed to go on much longer than necessary. Some of it’s done for humour - they fight on the slide and in the ball pool, for instance - but it looks all too realistic. And there’s a very tense scene when Jack is taken ill again… something which I didn’t find at all funny.

I did like the fact that Greg and Pam really are committed to each other, and still love each other. The point is made that it’s not always easy to find time for romance when there are two young children in the house, and I thought that was well done. I also liked the final family scene which finishes the story nicely. But this is not a film for children; the 12 rating reflects the lack of anything explicit, although I would have thought that the fight and the fact that the name sounds like ‘strong’ language might have put it up to 15. 

I’m glad we saw this, but am also glad that it’s the last of the ‘Meet the parents’ trilogy. I think the humour between the two sets of in-laws has probably been done sufficiently. We watched some of the extras including an alternative beginning and ending which were amusing but, we thought, wouldn’t have worked as well as the actual start and finish. There are some other deleted scenes, a gag reel, and other extras which we didn’t see.

Review copyright 2025 Sue's DVD Reviews

Meet the parents (Ben Stiller)

(Amazon UK link)

About six months ago, we watched the 2004 film ‘Meet the Fockers’, and found it very enjoyable. When I was reviewing it, I learned that it was a sequel to the 2000 film ‘Meet the parents’. I was making an order from the ‘Worldofbooks’ site, to be collected when I was in the UK in the summer. So I decided to add this film, and the third in the trilogy as well, as both were priced very inexpensively. 

I expected used editions of these DVDs, and was surprised and pleased to find that ‘Meet the parents’ was still shrink-wrapped, either new or as-new. We watched it last night. It wasn’t a problem that we had seen these films in the wrong order, although we had some inkling of what the characters were going to be like.

Ben Stiller is excellent in his role as the slightly hapless and unambitious Greg. He works as a nurse, where he is sometimes mistaken for a doctor. But we only see him in this role at the start of each of the films. He then goes to meet his girlfriend Pam (Teri Polo) in his lunch break. We see her finishing her morning’s teaching in a class of young children, perhaps Kindergarten. She’s evidently a good teacher who cares about all her children and their health and emotional side as well as their academic education. 

Greg is about to propose to Pam, using an unusual visual display when she’s interrupted by a phone call. He discovers that he should ask her father first. And then we see them arriving at her parents’ home, a couple of weeks later, for her sister’s wedding after quite a stressful plane ride where his luggage gets lost.

Pam appears to revert to a young child, swung around in her father (Robert De Niro)’s arms, then greeted by her mother (Blythe Danner) as if she were about six. Greg is introduced almost as an afterthought. And while her parents seem to be welcoming, they are full of suspicion. Her father, in particular, doesn’t think anyone is good enough for his older daughter. He is particularly biased against male nurses, though it’s not clear why. 

Most of the film then takes place over the next couple of days. The action includes part of a wedding rehearsal, a meeting with Pam’s ex fiancé (Owen Wilson), a game of pool volleyball where Greg distinguishes himself in negative ways, and a lost cat. Disaster follows disaster as Greg tries, in vain, to impress his future in-laws. It could have been trite or silly, but the choreography is excellent, the script well-written, and the whole really quite amusing. It’s exaggerated and caricatured, of course, but we didn’t find that a problem. 

I suppose part of the appeal of this film is because many people have some apprehension before meeting the parents of a partner or future spouse. We all want to live up to others’ expectations, and all the more so when they are important to the people we love. Ben Stiller is extremely good in this role, which approaches but never quite reaches slapstick. Robert De Niro is superb, too, as the strict father who, nevertheless, has something of a sense of humour. Perhaps the eventual (and inevitable) reconciliation scene is a tad unlikely, but then so are many of the other scenes. 

This is one of the rare films that succeeds in being a true rom-com: the romance is there with some great chemistry between Greg and Pam. But it’s also full of humour, including places where we laughed aloud. It’s not to be taken seriously, although it makes some good points about honesty and being oneself, rather than trying too hard to impress others. It made a very good evening’s light viewing.

The rating is 12, which is probably about right, in my view. There’s nothing explicit, but many innuendoes and some passionate kisses. There’s one short scene of mild (accidental) violence with quite a bit of blood. There’s discussion about both smoking and marijuana. Then there are a few instances of mild bad language. Also, of course, Greg’s surname (‘Focker’) sounds deliberately like a ‘strong’ word. I don’t think any of these things would actually disturb or corrupt a young child, but since all the actors are adults and the story is about adult relationships, it’s unlikely to be of interest to anyone under 12. 

Review copyright 2025 Sue's DVD Reviews