minmagi50 I honestly think Kam Heskin was a much better choice for this part! She added so much more enthusiasm, love, sweetness, dignity and humour to Paige Morgan - queen of Denmark wannabe - than Julia Stiles ever put into it.What pulled the movie down was the fact that Luke Mably hardly tried to hide how bored he was. It looks like he almost sabotages his part! I did not at all see the love, he was supposed to feel for Paige. He just looks tormented and whining.This movie would have been a lot better had Chris Geere played King Edvard in this movie as well as in the following.Apart from that, it's still enjoyable to watch. It's funny in places - Søren and the actress who plays Princess Kirsten are hilarious.Of course it's not at all realistic - not about Denmark or it's monarchy. It's a fairy tale and should be watched as such.Maybe the author could have done a tiny bit more homework about Danish. it's hilarious - though not intended, I think - when the Danish king - who supposedly speaks Danish perfectly - can say: "Du bliver hurtigt flydende" (= You'll get fluid quickly!)The word 'fluent' about speaking a language - doesn't translate like that in Danish.But that's a detail.It's still a cute, pleasant fairy tale worth watching - though not so good as nr 3 and 4, due to the better chemistry between the actors and a lot more humour.

jessica-kirk-ue Why is Eddie the only one in the second movie that was in the original movie. I think that they should of had the original cast, the movie would of been much much better. The people that were in the first movie had such great chemistry thats just not there in the second movie. In the second movie Paige has more chemistry with a friend from school then she does with Eddie. The plot to this story needs a lot of work, i mean ya it was a good movie but it needed a lot of work done on it. Also why don't we see Eddie sister in the second movie, she and Eddie had great chemistry together as brother and sister, she really seemed to care about her big brother. Also the person that played the Queen in the first movie played the part so well, it wasn't the same in the second movie. Also The king was really sick in the first movie and he was healthy in the second movie. Also the person that played Soren in the first movie played him so well, it wasn't the same as the second movie, with the new cast member. Over all the movie was good but this is just some things that could have been changed in the second movie or kept the same as the first.

ysic2 This sequel was dismal to say the least. The new Paige definitely can't act and I can't believe she is now in a Prince & Me 3 and 4. Huh? With such poor ratings in this one, why? It is the same old story, nothing new brought to the screen. One big fairytale. How does a normal girl fit into a world full of royals and the responsibilities that go along with it. She will make some big mistakes, yet in the end, the Prince will see all past that and say that he loves her, and live happily ever after. Oh yeah, in the beginning, they will be all fairytale and lovey dovey and then of course, not to bore us out of our wits with boredom of their lovey dovey, everything is grand kind of thing, there will be somebody who wants the crown and tries to spoil it for the happy couple only weeks before the wedding. Big shocker there! This time it is a girl in the name of Kirsten. She acts all sweet to Paige and Edvard but secretly trying to spoil things for Paige so she has some major stuffups. But Kirsten didn't need to try as Paige could make stuffups without help. Yes, the same thing happened in Princess Diaries, but at least you got to warm to Princess Mia. In this one, it seems to be all about revenge, that in this movie by the end, you don't care if Paige marries Edvard or not. He could've married Kirsten and I still would be happy.In the end of course, Kirsten is humiliated, ( a lot of copying from other movies) and Edvard and Paige are married. Okay, some rehashing of old stories can sometimes be good, but that is where the actors really need to shine and make you fall in love with them like I did in The Princess Diaries. This story however, is not much different to the Princess Diaries, and "What a girl wants" movies put together. In Prince & Me 2, I couldn't warm to Kam?? Maybe it was the whole cast's poor acting abilities, except for Kirsten. (She would be my reason for giving this movie a 2 instead of 1) She was the best person of the movie, she at least had a bit of personality. Maybe not the best, but at least she had something. Definitely a B grade movie.

heathentart I had the unfortunate experience of viewing the Prince & Me original movie just before the sequel, the Prince & Me 2. The sequel had none of the charm and believability of the first, Whatever on-screen chemistry Julia Stiles and Luke Mably had in the first is completely lacking in the sequel. It's safe to say that Kam Heskin can't act her way out of a paper bag. When the marriage is called off, she's shows as much emotion as one hearing it would rain that day; a momentary contemplation, a shrug and off.The only enjoyable part was seeing how Luke Mably matured from a care-free student to a more serious King of Denmark. As it should be.This movie was completely disappointing, not only in the majority of new actors from the original, but the overall cheesiness of the production. Anyone who viewed Lady Diana Spencer's marriage to Prince Charles knows what a royal wedding looks like. The Prince & Me 2 perhaps paid $99 at David's Bridal for the wedding gown. The church was woefully empty of attendees. Very little pomp and almost no circumstance.One thing that really gnawed at me were Paige's parents, also new actors. They dressed the father well in a very nice suit, but the poor bride's mother looked as if her clothes came from a rubbish bin. Yes, she's a farmer's wife, but believe me, lots of farmers I know have very attractive and well-dressed wives. And how did the parents fly from Podunk, America to Denmark in two hours? The space shuttle? The script was predictable, the actors weren't stretched by any means and, sadly, when needed most of all, Paige was a dud. She had none of the sparkle, determination, honor and depth of character as written in the first film.Others have gone into the historical inaccuracies and blase' treatment of Danish history, but 5,000 years indeed!!! There wasn't even a Denmark 5,000 years ago, much less a monarchy. Were they so low on funds that scene couldn't be re-shot??? If the writer made the mistake, was there no one - producer, director, even an actor - who didn't catch this? The role of Soren, so ably portrayed by Ben Miller, with sly sarcasm and stoic wit, in the original movie, was taken on by Jonathan Firth, the brother of able Colin. Unfortunately, the writing wasn't nearly as clever as the first, and subsequently, left Mr. Firth with nothing to work with.The ball scene was also unbelievable. That a princess of the blood (Kirsten) wouldn't know how to dance? Commmmme onnnnnnnnn. And that an American girl could pull it off flawlessly with no visible training? My suspenders of disbelief were stretched to the max throughout this film, although I stuck it out to the end to give it a chance.Best thing about the movie? The horses, purebloods all, unlike the actors.