The Wild Movie
| Resolution | Size | Download | ||
|
720x396 | 1160.36 MiB | hidivx | |
|
640x352 | 614.92 MiB | divx | |
|
320x176 | 198.2 MiB | ipod | |
|
320x176 | 212.11 MiB | hpc | |
Storyline
TAGLINES
Hitting the streets 2006
A whole new breed of tourist.
Start spreading the newspaper.
Hitting the streets April 14
The Circle Of Life, meets the big apple.
Ryan (Greg Cipes) is a lion who wants to go to the wild, where his dad (Samson, voiced by Keifer Sutherland) once lived. When he gets himself shipped to Africa, his zoo friends (and Samson) work together to bring him back. When they get to Africa, however, the animals find themselves in a pile of danger. They have to fight an evil wildebeest called Kazar (William Shatner). But Kazar's safe compared to the other danger on the island- a volcano that's on the edge of eruption. Can the animals find Ryan and get out of Africa before the volcano erupts in so little time?
| Kiefer Sutherland | Samson |
| James Belushi | Squirrel |
| Eddie Izzard | Nigel |
| Janeane Garofalo | Bridget |
| William Shatner | Kazar |
| Richard Kind | Larry |
| Greg Cipes | Ryan |
| Colin Cunningham | Hyrax |
| Colin Hay | Fergus Flamingo |
| Miles Marsico | Duke |
| Jack De Sena | Eze |
| Don Cherry | Penguin MC |
| David Cowgill | Hamir |
| Lenny Venito | Carmine |
| Steve 'Spaz' Williams |
5.30 out of 10 (3694 votes)
Visitor Reviews
Clean Movie But Not Funny.
posted on 08 Jul 2009The Wild Is A Very Clean Movie And Good For Kids Just Its Not Funny At All. I Don't Think I Laugh One Time In This Movie I Can't That For A Fact But It Was Very Broading. This Movie Was Very Short They Could Have Put More In There To Make The Movie Better. I Think The Storyline Of The Tiger Sneaking Out Of The Zoo And The Father Tiger Going To New York To Get His Son Back A Good Storyline But Something About The Movie That I Did Not Like And Thats Why I Did Not Ready Like The Wild. But It's A Good Kids Movie And I Think A lot Of Kids Will Like This Movie But A Kid Older Then Ten Would Be Like WoW Why Did I Watch This?Sooo If You Have A Kid That Likes Anamals And That Is Not Older Then Ten Take Him Or Her Out To See This Movie!!!
There was no need for this to be animated
posted on 30 Jun 2009What was the point of this? I'm not talking about the comparison with Madagascar but rather why were the main characters in this film zoo animals? It should have just been told with human actors as a father and son story because that's all it was. The makers animated them as animals and threw in a few puns about paws but it seemed like a big waste of money if you're not even going to try to understand your subjects.Keifer was so boring as the lead - right up there, but not as bad as Brad Pitt in 'Sinbad'.What was with the Star Wars homage with a trash compactor followed by an escape into a sewer? Were they that short of ideas? The positives would be that the character models were good. However while the animation was smooth, it was horrible. Not poorly animated but they just animated humans with animal bodies - so again, what was the point? Take a look at 'Snow White' again and you'll see Disney's original animators were able to animate animals and make them funny and relevant to humans without actually making them human.I also liked the fact they used animals that you don't normally see on film (Rock Hyrax, Chameleon). But without any attempt to form a connection between animal behaviour and humans then what's the point of animating them as animals?
Where Is The Daftness?!
posted on 10 Jun 2009Hmmm! What can I say about this film, it has its moments without ever hitting the heights. Well animated as you'd expect from a Disney CGI movie with all the characters brought to life and realized well.It falls into the same trap nearly every Disney movie does these days and overplays the moral schmaltz way too much, yes I know this is a given but it does so at the expense of the daftness that should go with every "kids" movie. There were just too few of the laughs that normally make these movies so enjoyable.Admittedly the clue was in the title sequence as the number of writers in the credits was ridiculous. It's almost as if it was written by committee and they wanted to check all the boxes for Middle America. Cutesy characters, check; each character to go on a journey of redemption to show the kids….. etc etc, check; a few cheeky jokes to keep the parents happy, check, erm no hang on, better tone it down!!!! The things the movie does do right is the animation, obviously, and the voice characterizations are spot on. Also it's not as if the film is completely without laughs. It's a very enjoyable little romp but I just felt as if the moral angle was being rammed down my throat. Yes it is a kid's film and there is always going to be a moral to the story but they really should have worked harder on the quality of the script rather than the message.
Could have been better with different casting in lead roles.
posted on 06 Jun 2009Before bringing up my own laundry list of issues with this movie, I must admit my nine-year-old son hasn't been able to get enough of it. He's watched it at least 20 times in the past two weeks and can now recite most of it by heart. I, on the other hand, will be glad when he finds other things to occupy his after school attentions.The animation is fabulous, which is fully expected of modern animated movies, but the dialog is often inconsistent and awkward and the plot strained. A great deal of the movie also seems to have been added simply to make it feature-picture length.Keiffer Southerland, usually an outstanding actor, was mediocre at best in the role as Samson the Wild, and James Belushi is completely miscast as Benny the Squirrel. He's the discordant note throughout.On the other hand, Eddie Izzard, Janeane Garafalo and William Shatner were very entertaining and, other than a couple of amusing lines and pratfalls, are the only highlights this movie had for me.
This is family entertainment?
posted on 23 May 2009This has been advertised as a comedy and family picture and I am sad to say it fails badly at either. It got off to a promising start, with the Disney logo stopping and restarting as the father lion had to think up a story his son hadn't already heard. Having told many bedtime stories, I know how that feels. Unfortunately it goes from there to a series of incidents that pinball between scary, depressing, uncomfortable, creepy, confusing, and wildly inappropriate. As for humor, there was very little to be found. The koala was funny to me, but most of the characters were incredibly annoying. Disney's CG department is capable enough, the movie looked very well-done, but they can't seem to find or create a decent script when they stray from Pixar. They made a very wise decision when they agreed to pay Pixar whatever they asked. First Chicken Little, now The Wild. One more stinkbomb and it's an official slump. Hope Cars is watchable.
Rip off to other works ):(
posted on 13 May 2009Rejecting this film is something you should think about. Unentertaining, boring, and downright terrible are what you should think about this movie. It rips off 2 or 3 of Disney and Dreamworks great animated films: First of all, it rips off The Lion King, what many people regard as the greatest animated film ever. They could've done much better. Its biggest rip off is of coping Madagascar, which was the one of Dreamworks best films. A British koala, Brooklyn crocodiles, a psychotic wildebeest, a moronic squirrel, and a useless Simba/Alex rip off lion make the film as unpleasant as recent Pixar and average Disney films besides Bolt and WALLE. What happened Disney? Where is the Disney we remember from the 90s? WE Don't WANT THIS S**T. Even children don't want it.
Plot review
posted on 07 May 2009Everything about this movie was forced, and the plot line is incredibly predictable. The characters were all very shallow, and didn't bring out any connection to them. We couldn't really figure them out, because we were never given a chance to. The story made almost no sense whatsoever, and was more like a random collection of semi-connected ideas spewed forth from a lush at a party than a cohesive plot formed by an actual writer. The story does have a massive number of parallels to Madagascar, but it is it's own separate story. Unfortunately for Disney, this movie would probably have been better if that had plagiarized it.The beginning of the film starts with Samson trying to tell Ryan an obviously false story about how he once did this or that amazing thing when he was out in the wild. The opening title sequence is blended with the stylized animation of Samson's narrative, and looks a lot more like a rough-cut of some 3-D version of the Lion King. Ryan buys every story that Samson tells, totally convinced that his dad is amazing, when it's clear to us, that he's obviously not, and might not even be from "the wild" as he says he is. (Spolier: He's not).We're then treated to a semi-montage of the characters breaking out of their pens after zoo hours and attending a game of curling, with our heroes teamed up against the penguins. We see that Ryan has trouble relating to his dad, and he hangs out with a rebellious pair of friends who manage to cause a stampede within the zoo. (We don't know what kind of part humans play in this movie, since we never really see any of them, just shadows or backs.) Ryan feels even more alienated when Samson rebukes him for causing trouble, and the lion cub decides to hang out in one of the "green boxes." We're not really sure why no one notices that he's inside the box before the zoo attendants close it up and head on their way, but whatever.After seeking guidance from a set of barely-intelligible pigeons, Samson and friends escape the zoo to track down Ryan who seems to be getting loaded onto a container ship. The main characters encounter plenty of other creatures in their brief romp through New York while trying to get to the boat, and none of the characters serve any real purpose whatsoever. They're less than shallow, and it's probably a good thing they're forgettable, because after a minute or two of interaction, we never see them again. Lion King references are everywhere, and often blatant. There's a gigantic "Lion King on Broadway" sign filling half the movie screen while they're in Times Square.Somehow, they manage to follow the ship in a tugboat which has enough gas to make it across the ocean and back. We learn that the "green boxes" are part of a program to relocate animals off an island where there's a volcano erupting. (This also makes no sense, because none of the animals would be found on an island that small.) Ryan panics and runs off into the jungle, with Samson and friends chasing after him. Trust me, you don't need to worry about spoilers because the story isn't worth holding out for. It turns out the local wildebeests have gone nuts and kidnap our heroes to try and turn themselves into carnivores. Apparently, a stuffed Koala falling from the sky out of a plane will have that effect. (One of the only fun things in the movie is seeing Eddie Izzard's character laughing maniacally when he finds out he's being worshiped as a god). Samson and Benny get shown the way to where Ryan is by a troop of chameleons which apparently have the ability to both colorize and cloak. Realism continues to go out the window as Samson manages to defeat Shatner using a roar which magically throws the wildebeest back. And oh yes, we can't forget the 50th Lion King reference where Samson (the lion dad, remember) is hanging over the edge of a cliff, barely holding on, while the villain tries to make him fall. Gee, where have we seen this before? Even before their leader is defeated, the other wildebeests pretty much say "Eh, whatever. We're sick of him" and everyone leaves Shatner's character to go completely coo-coo and get killed by the volcano. Hooray! Everyone boards the tiny tugboat and starts sailing for.... God knows where, since they never say, and none of them know how to find the way back to New York anyway. Ryan and Samson seem to work out their differences (what a surprise), the volcano blows up, the characters dance, music plays, and we're all happy it's over.To sum up, don't buy this movie. Download it on BitTorrent or something. And only do that if you want to see some cute animation. And shut your eyes for all of Nigel's scenes. I'm going to go watch Madagascar now, because it's actually entertaining.
Not good enough
posted on 03 May 2009Another animation film. In this one a young lion cub, born and living in a zoo, is accidentally shipped to Africa. His father, a proud lion, living in the same zoo travels to save him, together with a number of friends from the zoo.This is a typical kiddie film: all is well that ends well, and the scary bits are none too scary. I went to see this together with the kid and he enjoyed it, even the darker parts of the film. Animation is done good enough, but there is a lack of one-line jokes that might make the adults happy watching it.It could have done better, although I don't know to express what it was really lacking. I guess it lacked a bit in just about everything.4 dancing wildebeests out of 10.
I would give it a zero if it was an option.
posted on 25 Apr 2009I fail to see the greatness of this movie. As noted in other reviews, how can this be 'a great escape for the kids'? The plot was lame and there was enough slapping and and hitting that it should have been a PG. The delivery of the dialog is aimed toward the ADD generation. I saw this movie in a theater packed full of kids. There was one laugh in the whole movie! About the best thing this movie did was grab the McDonald's Happy Meal contract be it gets dropped from the theaters! There is far better entertainment for you and your kids than this. Comparing this to Madagascar doesn't make this movie any better. This movie proves that computer animated cute, talking animal based feature film formula is fallible.
Clone wars
posted on 18 Mar 2009I never posted a comment on IMDb, mainly because I'm not mother tongue English and I guess it shows, but enough is enough. I can't explain the amount of messages, stating huge differences between this movie and Madagascar or Finding Nemo, but presuming that the whole Disney staff mobilized their families and friends to saturate the site with such messages. This is a clone of the worst kind. I think that if any other company dared such a shameful plagiarism, it would be flooded in legal actions by Disney itself. The character design (oh yes, the giraffe is female and single instead of male and hypochondriac - come on!), the jokes, the plot itself sounds like an awkward copy of those movies plus perhaps The Lion King. While watching the movie I felt outraged and mocked. I guess it'll amuse 6yo boys, and sure it's an interesting rehearsal in 3D modeling and animation. Thus I give this film a 3 out of 10 instead of a 1. If you're older than 6 and aren't looking for just about anything to hush your kids for a hour, don't even consider this movie. It's a waste of your money and time.
Heart. You Gotta Have Heart.
posted on 16 Mar 2009(Note: technically, there are spoilers in this review, but if you're old enough to read, you're old enough to see them all coming anyway.)Remember when Disney movies had heart? It would seem that Disney doesn't, not judging by this shamble of a picture.Yes, the voice actors do a noble job (particularly Keifer Sutherland, Eddie Izzard, and Jim Belushi -- when aren't they great?), but their fine work can't save a script that is essentially DOA. We've seen this plot a million times before -- son, tired of living in his father's shadow, runs off to prove himself but quickly finds himself in over his head; father and friends seek to rescue him; all grow a bit and learn from one another in the process; wrap with a happy dance number -- but those times it was done better, and one gets the sense that the film makers know it. It is telling that most of the few moments of emotion in the movie are references to those previous films, including several nods to the incredibly superior Lion King, which is the, er, elephant in the room anyway.There are about two dozen too many characters, almost all of them appearing in half a scene and then gone forever: A surfer-dude hippo/kangaroo duo! Canadian geese, eh! Singing (Dutch?) dung beetles! New Yorker sewer crocodiles! Some of these color characters are cute and even original, especially those crocodiles and a secret-agent pair of chameleons that show up late in the picture, but with no time to develop any of them, one gets the sense that their main purpose is to distract from the paper-thin main characters and equally dimensionless plot.Visually, the film gets high marks for its realism. The characters look full and move with weight, and textures are sharp all around. The fur on the main lions, in particular, is commendably life-like; no small feat. There is some excellent art direction in general, as the story takes our well-animated characters to three different main locales -- Central Park Zoo, New York City proper, and a tropical island -- and each area looks and feels very different. Oddly, the city is completely devoid of human life; even Times Square is populated only by (it appears) a trio of rabid poodles. Given the utter creepiness that is human CGI, I can hardly blame Disney for avoiding all but the most necessary and brief shots of people. Still, it's somehow far easier to accept a snake, giraffe, lion, and squirrel traveling together across an ocean in a tugboat than it is to accept a New York City that isn't constantly crowded and noisy.All of that said, the film is at its strongest, visually and otherwise, in the opening sequence, a "tall tale" populated by a 14,001-foot wildebeest in an arresting, surrealist visual style that is sadly never reprised. Think some of the best moments from Fantasia 2000, including that legendary Disney humor, and you'll get an idea. I don't know if a feature-length movie could maintain the energy of those first few minutes (or if such an energy would be survivable by all but the young and the sugar-high) but I'd like to see Disney try. At the very least, I would have liked to have seen a return, if only briefly, to the rich palate and bold linework of the first few minutes.All in all, this film is a prime example of Disney's (and, more generally, the entertainment industry's) emphasis on a more-is-better, never mind the details strategy. Sure, there are dozens of characters, some of whom experience momentary flashes of originality, but none of them are allowed to become deep or, consequently, memorable. Sure, the fur is pretty, but in two years it will be eclipsed by some other technological innovation and won't seem very special at all. And then what's left?It seems you just can't replace heart.
Not even Kiefer Sutherland could save this movie...
posted on 08 Mar 2009No spoilers in this review!"You're gonna have to trust me." (Jack Bauer - "24" Season 2)When I first heard about this movie, I thought: "A movie with a lion voiced by Kiefer Sutherland? That's awesome!" All my friends kept telling me, that it won't be any better than Madagascar (which we unfortunately watched in the theater back in '05), and I told them: "No way, this movie's gotta be good, it has Kiefer Sutherland as a LION, man, how can this go wrong?" Well, sadly, it did go wrong.On the "+" side: + The animator and modeler guys did a great job. Everything looks great, especially the lions. Wow! + Some of the jokes are funny.+ It has a brief scene with the song "Clocks" (by Coldplay) in the background. Although the sequence ends rather abruptly, it really was a breath of fresh air. And I love Coldplay.On the "-" side: - It doesn't have Scarlett Johansson in the cast. OK, just kidding. Real cons coming right up...- The characters are so clichéd, there isn't any life in them. They're not living. Yes, I'm dead serious. And yeah, that includes Samson too.- Kiefer Sutherland sounds tired and bored. Well, it's a major minus, because we all know, that Kiefer Sutherland can be a voice of a lion any day of the week. But sadly, he sounded much much more badass in a hockey commercial i saw recently on YouTube, than now, as a lion. What the...? I just don't get it. Not to mention his voice as Jack Bauer: now, that's four billion times cooler than this. What happened? - Tries so hard to avoid copying Madagascar, it falls into imitating it on many levels. Both movies have a female giraffe as a main character. This time, she's not suffering from hypochondria, but come on... About the other similarities, well, you have to see them for yourself. But I warned you! - The plot of the movie... well, it's underdeveloped, clichéd and boring, but not bad. Let me explain: any plot relies heavily on the characters. If the characters work, the movie works. Simple as that. So it's no use to say that this plot flat-out sucks, because it has its moments, even in a situation like this. And the situation is: the characters are lifeless, the plot is lifeless, and the movie falls flat on its face... But with a little more character-development, it could have been a much better movie.Bottom line is that because of the shallow characters, the plot is bad, and even Kiefer Sutherland couldn't save this movie from hopeless mediocrity. And it's really sad, because we all know, that Kiefer Sutherland IS a lion, but all we get now is an average cliché-fest. Avoid it, if you can...Kiefer, keep up the great work in "24"! 5/10
Not bad
posted on 04 Mar 2009The Wild was Disney's second CGI film after Chicken Little. IMO it can't beat Madagascar, but don't get me wrong, this was a pretty good movie. It's quite much a good memory of how great Disney was. Now I'll explain some things about what was good about the film and it's problems.One nice thing about the movie was the animation. It was excellent, the characters looked very realistic and along with the backgrounds. The characters are funny and unique, and well voiced. Though I am not familiar with some of the voice actors but I am familiar with William Shatner, Kiefer Sutherland and Richard Kind. But hey, they were all great.Despite this, The Wild has a few problems. One problem was that the storyline and plot similar to Finding Nemo and Madagacar. And some moments in the film were quite ridiculous, but kind of clever. The Wild in all is a good Disney film, it's fun for the entire family.Rating: 8/10 Grade: B+
Oh Disney, where have all the fairy tales gone???
posted on 04 Mar 2009Not funny AT ALL, too much slap stick and not enough actual clever writing. Poor Keefer, it's a pity the only lines he really has are sappy attempts at being sentimental or repetitive calls for his son. All I can say is thank god for Blag( the beloved Kronk from Emporor's New Groove) and Eddie Izzard who were the only successful installments of humor. Character's were unmemorable and over abundant.And if you can't see the glaring similarities from Finding Nemo or Madagascar you're in denial. (same accent for pidgin and lemur king, same need to get out to "THE WILD", Son needing Independence sparked by a hurtful comment about being in their father's shadow, significance of a roar...etc)To be enjoyed by the VERY young to be quite frank. Absolutely dreadful.
Great entertainment in Disney Tradition
posted on 26 Feb 2009I found this to be entertaining.Kids will enjoy the different animals and their personalities.There are a few that are not tired and worn out animated characters: the Giraffe, Squirrel, and Koala. The relationship between the Father and son was sweet, with at least two good messages - always tell the truth and don't set your kids up with goals that are difficult for them to reach. As an adult, I enjoyed the humor for grown-ups while keeping the main humor for kids top-notch. It is a bit scary for small children - I would think kids older than 10 wouldn't be frightened; if "Lion King" on a big screen would scare your child, please hold off on this one. Know what your child can handle or see it first. The voices were fun to listen to and I always try to guess who they are: I only figured out four of the main characters. Songs are enjoyable especially the one co-written by Eric Idle. It's a kick-up-your-hooves kind of movie. I give it 9 smiles out of 10!
Its really all about Nigel
posted on 09 Jan 2009Similar to Madagascar but not the same this is the story of a zoo lion and his friends who race off to save the lion's son who has been shipped back to the wild. The movie is the race to find the son before he gets to the wild and what happens once they get there.I have to start by saying the voice cast is top notch here. Everyone does an excellent job. However I must single out Jim Belushi and Eddie Izzard as turning in classic animated performances. Belushi plays a street smart squirrel who is in love with a giraffe and he is a ball of fun. Its clear why he is the best friend of Keifer Sutherland's lion. He is a joy to behold. Even better is Eddie Izzard as Nigel, a koala who is totally crazed. Izzard is in constant motion and is constantly chattering about everyone and everything and he effectively turns a movie about a lion and his cub into a movie about a deluded koala with a tenuous grasp on reality. Izzard's Nigel will probably go down in history as one of the great cartoon characters of all time.This is a movie with fantastic animation. It all looks great. The director and some of his crew are from the effects team that made Terminator 2 and other big budget special effects movie look so great.The problem with this movie is that it was made by guys who until this film made their living making soulless special effects for soulless action films. The net effect is a soulless film. There is no pacing, there is little sense of danger. Worse the characters inhabit a world that isn't real. In this world, especially in the New York scenes, no one exists except the characters. They drive all through the city and encounter no one. There are no other cars on the street. To be frank there is no sign of life anywhere. Its terrible. It kills the film. Its sad but as alive the actors are their animated characters, while looking good, come across as dead constructs.Still the movie is worth seeing. Eddie Izzard, with an assist by Jim Belushi make it worth seeing. Clearly abandoned by Disney in theaters, you should make a run by this on home video or cable, where its less than the sum of its parts construction will be less annoying.
I thought the movie was awesome
posted on 30 Dec 2008Reading these reviews I'm not sure we've all seen the same movie. I really liked it, the story was simple but I wanted to see something uncomplicated and it was good for an animation movie. I especially enjoyed the visual aspects of this movie. I've seen it in a hd version at home and I was stunned by the quality of the animation, the aliveness of the motions. The ugly pigeons, the psychedelic elements in the end... The animators did a great job, I haven't seen such a good animation ever, but then again it's the first animation in hd I saw... If you like to have a relieve from forces plot twists and just wanna feel young again and enjoy some top notch animated animals talk go see this movie.
A bad recipe of different movies
posted on 24 Dec 2008Well, for cooking the recipe named 'The Wild', the ingredients we need are as the follows:1)1 kg 'Lion King' 2)3 t-spoons 'Finding Nemo' 3)500 ml 'Madagascar' 4)1 drop 'Aladdin' 5)3 drops 'Shark Tale'Then, we mix these ingredients and cook them for 2 hours. And then, we get an awful recipe called 'The Wild'This movie is a rip off of all these 5 films. There is a lion and his son who are enemies with rams ( Just as Lion King, where the enemies were hyenas), cub gets taken away and father and his friends search for him ( exact copy of Finding Nemo), lion goes to a jungle to find his cub along with a giraffe, a koala, a squirrel and a snake ( a tinge of Madagascar), A villain ram named Jafar (same name of the villain in Aladdin) and yes, the lion wants the cub to roar like a pucca lion (in Shark Tale, the father shark wanted his vegetarian son to eat non veg).This is one of the worst presentations of Disney, which is normally great in animation.1) The animals looked like stuffed toys. 2) No originality in script. 3) Jokes were unfunny. 4) The bad creatures were shown as if they were crazy. 5) Too long a movie.A complete waste of time for adults as well as children. Got I rented it on CD and didn't go to the theater too bear it! Oh, it didn't even release in Indian theaters!
Don't bother wasting the time and money to see it!
posted on 20 Dec 2008First, I will say that this movie is absolutely nothing like Madagascar or Finding Nemo and I didn't even think of those movies once during this one ... so you can lay that fear to rest.I will say that the animation in the movie was OK - not great, but OK - but the movie itself was probably one of the worst I've ever seen. At 94 minutes it's about 84 minutes too long and if I were a media film critic I probably would have left after the first 10 minutes.There's no "click" between the characters - it seems that each actor was just reading his lines into the microphone ... some in extremely annoying voices. Keiffer Sutherland does a wonderful job with his lines, as does Jim Belushi, as does ... oh, everyone did fine with their own individual role. But they don't CLICK, they don't flow, they don't interact and become BELIEVABLE.The characters are lame, the jokes are lame - the only ones that made me laugh (about 3 or 4 laughs, that's all) were NY regional and over the heads of most of the audience where I live.Sections of the movie are completely disconnected - as if groups/teams of animators worked on their own section and then everything just got edited together with no flow or reason. Or maybe I just didn't "get it" in some cases. If someone can explain to me why the dung beetles are playing polka music and wearing "Swiss Miss" type costumes and how that relates to ANYTHING in the movie I'll be happy to listen.There's unwarranted 3 Stooges type violence.The best parts of the movie are painfully close to the end ... the secret agent chameleons are an absolute hoot - that segment should have been longer, but I don't think the Disney team is up to maintaining the pace. And William Shatner and Patrick Warburton do amazing performances in their scary yet silly wildebeest roles and actually play off each other and make the dialogue roll the way it SHOULD. This whole section of the movie comes together nicely ... too bad it's so near the end! As to kids enjoying it - we went to a 6:30 show so there's the post dinner and close to bedtime factor to consider, but it was increasingly difficult to hear after about the 1/2 way point ... kids started talking and parents shushing. Two younger ones had to be taken out of the theater because of crying. So the kids were bored out of their trees too! Don't waste your money - or your time! This one just isn't worth it (except for the chameleons - which last only about 2 minutes).
The bane of live action storytelling adds yet another animated feature among it's victims!
posted on 03 Aug 2009This was Steve Williams first film as a director and I hope it is his last. Though he has demonstrated leadership on many effects-driven films, being good at doing eye-candy does not translate to being a good storyteller. This film is the epitome of what Hollywood has become - an exquisite gourmet dinner made of Styrofoam (flashy but with no substance). I lament that this may be a sign of what is to come with Disney's turn to aping Pixar's brilliant CGI work but with an absolute disregard for coherent or redeeming stories. This is yet another film catering to the lowest common denominator. It will no doubt quickly make it's way to the refuse pile where it belongs.