hyped garbage

A movie that not only functions as a solid scarefest but a razor-sharp satire.

While it is a pity that the story wasn't told with more visual finesse, this is trivial compared to our real-world problems. It takes a good movie to put that into perspective.

The film may be flawed, but its message is not.

I'll just put it out here, that was the Worst sequel to a classic Disney film I've EVER seen. In 1950, Disney released what I hail as one of his greatest films of all time. Now Take away the great songs, add a poor plot that resembles that of a lost TV show. "Put it together and what do you get?" the biggest load of Crud I've ever seen. After i saw this, I thought it was all over for Disney. Cinderella should've ended with, "and they lived happily ever after." not this garbage. This film did not deserve a sequel like this. I thought it would be like "A twist in time" which was moderate but better than this. Also, What do we care of Anastasia? She switched sides like Iago did, but it didn't help anyone.

I've got a question for those who thought of this idea. Why? What made them think to make a second movie of this. If memory serves, didn't Cinderella end with "They all lived happily ever after"? I'm pretty sure it did, or it was implied. Wait a minute, if they all lived happily ever after, how could there be a sequel? Unless they were trying to make the most boring story in history, there couldn't be a sequel. I mean sure, they could have Cinderella singing about nonsense for two hours, but why? A movie that ends in "happily ever after" can not have a sequel; if it does then they don't live happily ever after! Something's got to go wrong which causes problems with the first ending! Why? That's not right, it's evil. That's my final word on the matter.

Possible Spoilers, Perhaps. I must say that "Cinderella II: Dreams Come True" is one of the worst movies ever made. First of all, the movie was made during the height of Disney's sequel rampage. It was created around the same time as "The Little Mermaid II," "The Jungle Book II," and "Peter Pan II," all of which were disservices to their original film classics. (Disney also made "The Hunchback of Notre Dame II" and "Atlantis II," but I'm going to drop that topic because their original movies were never really classics in the first place.") Let me go ahead and say that I am an avid supporter of good Disney films, and I absolutely adore the original Disney "Cinderella." The sequel to "Cinderella," however, was a waste of time. The character of Cinderella in the sequel was so very unlike the original girl that I grew up watching. In the original, Cinderella was kind and loving. The new Cinderella had very out-of-character moments with current-era phrasing like, "I'm going to do this banquet my way!" Let me also tell you that new Cinderella (as I have affectionately named her) says, "Ewww!" That is the anti-Cinderella. I try to find the best in people, but in the sequel, Anastasia, one of the stepsisters, is good! What the heck? Why? They made it all out to be like Lady Tremaine and Drizella are just horrible family members for poor little Anastasia. My question to the world: did the people at Disney watch the original "Cinderella" when making this sequel? Well, it surely doesn't seem so. If I remember correctly, Anastasia was just as abusive to Cinderella as Drizella and Lady Tremaine. I am all for redemption and forgiveness, but there was no point of redemption for Anastasia in this movie. In the first one, Anastasia was evil. In the second one, she is good. One just can't leave a story like this. I hope Disney realizes that this movie, among other movies, is shaming Walt Disney's name. Perhaps now that Michael Eisner is gone, things will start shaping up around the House of Mouse.

Of course the animation is really bad, and it's not a deep movie, but at least the writers put some thought into the story and didn't just go with the standard. (Cinderella and her still-unnamed Prince have a daughter who falls in love with a peasant, and they have to convince the king that she should be able to marry him and not be forced to marry someone of royalty. Can anyone say 'Aladdin'? Ugh.) This movie is made of three separate stories instead of just one long yawn factory like some others I can think of (Cough. Hunchback 2. Return to Neverland. Cough.) so there is a lot more opportunity for variation and character interplay. They even involve a dour governess named Prudence (very nice to see a black-clad miser in a Disney film who is stodgy and stuffy instead of thoroughly evil.) and give one of the stepsisters a story of her own, and do something with Lucifer except having him be the (you guessed it) black, evil cat who does little but chase the mice. Even Jaques gets a place in the spotlight, and there are happy endings all around as everyone falls in love. No.. not a deep movie, but it isn't boring, either. There is enough happening here to hold your interest, and that's saying a lot for a Disney sequel these days. The only real failing is that they selected quite possibly the most "edgy" and downright obnoxious Hip Hoppish singer to warble some songs that would have sounded fine otherwise.. Some of the tunes and lyrics are actually quite good, but there's so much "groove" and "attitude" going on that any charm is completely lost -- And if that's how they sound *now*, you can imagine how much this music is going to grate on the ears in a decade or so, when Hip Hop has long since gone the way of disco and vinyl and VHS... Seriously, can't anybody just SING anymore? I will be really happy when the people at Disney realize that lavishing modern sound on their (ahem) "masterpieces".. only hastens their descent into the post-modern doldrums of such films as 'Oliver & Company' and 'Aladdin'. I'm sure I'm not the first to cringe upon hearing Cinderella say 'EEYew' with all the pouty, adolescent inflection of 2001's cohort of sexed-up, belly-baring Britney wannabes.