New Jack City.

Review #1978: New Jack City.

Cast: 

Wesley Snipes (Nino Brown), Ice-T (Scotty Appleton), Allen Payne (Gerald "Gee Money" Wells), Chris Rock (Benny "Pookie" Robinson), Judd Nelson (Nick Peretti), Mario Van Peebles (Stone), Michael Michele (Selina Thomas), Bill Nunn (Duh Duh Duh Man), Russell Wong (Park), Bill Cobbs (Old Man), Christopher Williams (Kareem Akbar), and Vanessa Estelle Williams (Keisha) Directed by Mario Van Peebles.

Review: 

“Typically, in a gangster movie, you’re emotionally connected with the gangster. If you watch ‘Godfather,’ you connect with the gangster, but in ‘New Jack City,’ you connect, not just with the gangster, but hopefully with the cops — but even more with the victim.”

Cliche as it may sound, the story of a filmmaker in this case of like father, like son. Mario Van Peebles was born in 1957 in Mexico City, Mexico to a photographer mother and a filmmaker father in Melvin Van Peebles. The Van Peebles family moved around between the United States and Europe, although the younger Van Peebles dabbled first in acting in his teens (which included Sweet Sweetback's Baadasssss Song, as you already may know). He studied and graduated in Economics at Columbia College (the oldest undergraduate college of Columbia University, located in New York); he had acted on the advice of his father, who told his son to work hard and advertise while getting a business education. After time spent in the City of New York Department of Enviromental Protection, Van Peebles re-entered acting in the 1980s, which included roles in films such as Exterminator 2 (1984), Rappin' (1985), and Heartbreak Ridge (1986). Van Peebles started as a director in television in 1988 before he got his chance to make a feature with this film. In over three decades as a director, he has done films of varying quality such as Posse (1993) and Baadasssss! (2003) along with countless television projects. The screenplay was done by Thomas Lee Wright and Barry Michael Cooper, while the story was done by Wright. Cooper was a writer for The Village Voice, going from music critic to investigative reporter for the New York City alt-weekly. He wrote an article called "Kids Killing Kids: New Jack City Eats Its Young" in 1987 that talked about drug trade (such as in Detroit). It spurred a meeting with Quincy Jones and eventually a job in re-writing a screenplay that was about a 1970s Harlem heroin kingpin in Nick Barnes (so you can guess how that plays into this film). In 1994, two of Cooper's scripts involving Harlem came out with Sugar Hill and Above the Rim. Wright had been an executive at Paramount Pictures that aspired to be a screenwriter and apparently made a script treatment for what a third film for The Godfather (1972, 1974) could look like. When Paramount was interested enough to have him do an early draft, Wright used experiences in interviews from New York's Little Italy and black kingpins that modeled themselves like the Mafia in Harlem...which was founded by Nicky Barnes.

When you are trying to do a slick piece of entertainment, most might wonder if a resemblance to Scarface (1983) is wise. But New Jack City is still entertaining for what it shows in the contradictions that come in making a film about the rise and fall of one pusher of crack cocaine that has many interesting players that engage with the action in comic-book style energy. It isn't just a movie all about a kingpin or the cops that try to bring him down but instead a film that encompasses both sides of the story that is a deconstruction of the drug trade. In a way, it a refining of what used to be called the "blaxploitation film", one with distinct music and characters that resonate with the flow of the story for what is basically a lyrical action-drama. Of course, it is also a movie that doesn't just roll only in action, because one can always sense the plight of unemployment, social inequality, and systemic racism within the seams. Snipes is the head of where the film works best, one that saw him rocket to further recognition as an actor beyond supporting roles (and for good reason). There is a devilish charisma to everything that he does in this film, one that the writers wanted to show to make one believe him akin to a vampire when it comes to the community. It works exactly to plan because of how much he resonates on screen in presence, sucking our attention as an angel of death, right down to one of the last sequences referring to "my brother's keeper", which is undoubtedly the most effective by the fact that it has lingered as an Internet meme for years (so yes, a somber sequence turning into a moment for humor is far better than you think); the inevitability of where things will lead doesn't degrade the overall experience when it comes to seeing Snipes in a leading role that matters. Ice-T (who got the nickname by his memorization and reciting of excerpts of Iceberg Slim novels) was better known for his music (hip-hop, rap, heavy metal) than an actor, and he apparently got the role because Van Peebles heard him mouth off while in a nightclub bathroom. It is apparent pretty quickly that he makes a quality counterpart to Snipes because of how he manages to hold his own in worthwhile conviction and energy, which makes for quite the pairing when against Snipes in cover or opposite Nelson. Payne and Rock (at that time a member of Saturday Night Live) are the other key aspects of the film that strike interesting chords in the effects of where the trade takes them, whether that involves the decay of brotherly devotion or the attempted decay of one's soul (incidentally, the film has inspired a live stage show that saw Payne return to the role in 2022). As a whole, the 100 minutes feel quite efficient in execution because the movie always seems quite "on", never lingering in unnecessary territory or becoming only just a cliche to pick at. It is a movie with a soul for the moment that still seems quite prescient now, which means that it still has worthy staying power three decades later that is ripe for celebration due to the efforts of Van Peebles and company to make it a worthwhile time to check out.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Next Time: Tyler Perry...in a non-Madea movie with Why Did I Get Married?

Boomerang (1992)

Review #1642: Boomerang.

Cast: 

Eddie Murphy (Marcus Graham), Robin Givens (Jacqueline Broyer), Halle Berry (Angela Lewis), David Alan Grier (Gerard Jackson), Martin Lawrence (Tyler Hawkins), Grace Jones (Helen Strangé), Geoffrey Holder (Nelson), Eartha Kitt (Lady Eloise), Chris Rock (Bony T), Tisha Campbell (Yvonne), Lela Rochon (Christie), and John Witherspoon (Mr. Jackson) Directed by Reginald Hudlin.

Review: 

"We wanted to tell stories that hadn’t been told yet. And for black audiences, they were like, “Oh my god, this is crazy — this is my actual life, and I’ve never seen that [on screen] before!”

Not many films exist where one could split the cast in half and have two decent potential films. This is exactly one of those films, particularly with the trajectories to come for a significant portion of its cast, whether involving film stars, television regulars, and futures in between. Think about it: You have a prime star in Murphy, who hadn't had a failure yet with audiences (critics is a different story, but who's counting?), and you have folks that were near the point of stardom with Berry, which goes right with television players in Grier, Lawrence, and Rock. One can't forget about the director in all of this. This was the second film of Reginald Hudlin, who had started his pursuit of filmmaking with study at Harvard University, as his eventual first film came from his thesis project short film in House Party, based on his experiences growing up in Illinois. He made the film alongside his brother Warrington (an occasional documentary maker who served as producer), and House Party (1990) turned out to be a huge hit, one that Hudlin found to be a take on films like American Graffiti and Risky Business but with a black focus. Shortly after that, he was sent a script by Murphy that dealt with a playboy that gets involved with a man-eater just like him. He responded to it well from the very get-go, liking that type of romantic comedy that Murphy had yet to really do for himself (Coming to America sort of did this, but that one also had Murphy play a whole bunch of characters). In short, Murphy wanted someone to help him do a film where he could be his whole self, not just a persona. This was the fifth film that Murphy would contribute in the writing department. He wrote the story while David Sheffield and Barry W. Blaustein (who wrote for Saturday Night Live during Murphy's tenure) did the screenplay (which occurred before with Coming to America four years prior). Believe it or not, the film did not have its original ending in the script retained for the final finish. It was originally supposed to end after the scene with the three friends (Murphy, Grier, Lawrence) reconciling on a rooftop, with no closing sequence involving romance, but Hudlin was convinced to make an ending where there had to be a definitive decision (this is a rom-com after all).

With a budget of $42 million, the film managed to pull in audience returns that were triple of the budget. I sure can see why, because I found it to be a fairly enjoyable rom-com, one that while predictable is at the very least interested in making a breezy film involving love and friendship with a few gags in between. Between this and Harlem Nights, it might prove a worthy double-header of films I liked that don't have as much attention to them as they probably should - one was a bit understated in its attempts at crime comedy, while this has some raunchy moments without becoming a parody of itself that I found pretty interesting, even if its 117 minute run-time (which incidentally matches the other film) could be a bit too much. In this sense, I think Murphy pulls off a well-to-do performance, mostly because his self-satisfied charisma seems more interesting to sit through than if it was just a role to make faces and instead play a rendition of Cary Grant, albeit for the 1990s. He proves to be quite interesting his contrasting sequences of pursuit with Givens or Berry, showing tenderness in its varied forms when looking at the prism of love. Givens (whose biggest role to that point was five seasons on Head of the Class starting in 1986) proves a formidable match. She plays the role with carefree confidence, one that springs to mind similarity to her counterpart co-star with cool detached spirit that works to what is needed without being treated for a silly gag or a moral handwave. Berry (in her fourth film role, having entered show business in 1989) seals the triangle of romance with grace and warmth that resonates well for some charming little moments. When it comes to the triangle of friends, Murphy, Grier, and Lawrence do pretty well with what is needed, for which the latter two play foils in their own respective ways. Grier (best known for Streamers and In Living Color) plays the square aspect with reason and fair timing to go with interesting moments, one of which involving the typical (at least for some...) embarrassing family Thanksgiving dinner with one-scene wonder Witherspoon. Lawrence (who had been featured in House Party while having his own sitcom premiere a month after the release of this film) proves quite spry in parts, such as one sequence involving pool and racial nature due to the the color of the balls used in the game that is a pretty good rant. As for Jones, the role she plays is one written specifically for herself (with nobody else in mind for the role). With a chance to do a few wild things that start with a great entrance, she does quite well in showing commitment to the parody, never quite winking at the camera but also not missing a chance to have fun at the same time, and Kitt also reflects that side of the coin as well in smaller portions (she had accepted the role after the script toned down some of the bawdier aspects of the role). To top it off, you have a right-at-home Holder playing a Dali imitation while Rock and Campbell play peanut gallery jokes to Murphy that land fine. On the whole, one will know where they are going pretty quickly with a film involving a lesson about one's place in commitment and honesty between loved ones that makes it worth the ride. It certainly pulled a ride worthy enough for its own television series, which was created for airing on BET (with Berry as an executive producer) over two decades after the release of the film that ran for two seasons. On the whole, I found this to be a fair gem in the aisle of romantic comedies, packed with a game cast that clearly seems to be in their element that overrides any detours of overwrought narratives or outdated notions to make for a fine time for those in the mindset for a fresh director and an established star trying to branch out. 

Next Time - No introduction necessary. Malcolm X.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

A.I. Artificial Intelligence.

Review #1528: A.I. Artificial Intelligence.

Cast: 
Haley Joel Osment (David), Jude Law (Gigolo Joe), Frances O'Connor (Monica Swinton), Sam Robards (Henry Swinton), Jake Thomas (Martin Swinton), William Hurt (Professor Allen Hobby), Brendan Gleeson (Lord Johnson-Johnson), with Jack Angel (Teddy), Robin Williams (Dr. Know), Ben Kingsley (Specialist), Meryl Streep (Blue Fairy), and Chris Rock (Comedian Robot) Directed by Steven Spielberg (#126 - Close Encounters of the Third Kind, #168 - Raiders of the Lost Ark, #169 - Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, #170 - Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, #302 - Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, #351 - Schindler's List, #480 - Jaws, #563 - The Sugarland Express, #573 - E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial, #642 - Jurassic Park, #958 - Always, #1068 - Ready Player One, #1305 - Catch Me If You Can, #1478 - The Color Purple, and #1520 - Saving Private Ryan)

Review: 
"While there was divisiveness when A.I. came out, I felt that I had achieved Stanley’s wishes, or goals."

This was most definitely a film I anticipated and feared ever watching. On the one hand, it has sensibilities of two great directors mixed into one prolonged experience both in length and the time it took to actually develop it to the screen. For starters, the film is an adaptation of the short story "Supertoys Last All Summer Long" by Brian Aldiss, written originally in 1969. The original work included just four characters (David, his parents, and Teddy), which talked about the doubts of a boy's existence and what is real while his "parents" wait for the chance to have their own child. Stanley Kubrick had acquired the rights to the story by the 1970s. An array of writers would come and go in writing/consulting a script for Kubrick, which included Aldiss, Bob Shaw, Ian Watson and Sara Maitland, with Kubrick treating the soon-enormous script as resembling The Adventures of Pinocchio. One key thing that stopped progression of getting pre-production going was a perception by Kubrick that effects-work had to evolve enough to suit what he wanted (the release of Jurassic Park helped spur the idea of potentially doing the film again, but Kubrick ultimately retained focus on what ended up being his last project, Eyes Wide Shut in 1999). In the middle of all that searching for the right tone, Steven Spielberg had been approached by Kubrick to direct it, and it was after Kubrick's death in 1999 that led Christiane Kubrick to approach Spielberg to take on the project; Spielberg would develop a screenplay based on the story done by Watson, with the most notable aspect being the "Flesh Fair" sequence.

The ambition shown here in bringing such a project like this to life is admirable, regardless of how the final result turns out. It is a decent film, for better or worse. It has some of the edge needed when it comes to a visual level that makes an interesting curiosity that may perhaps inspire some thought about its deeper implications involving machines, that much is for sure. And yet there is just something about it that seems hollow when it comes to being consistently interesting in actually springing a story that really makes care all the way forward, which combines with a quiet ending that really seems to try to cover too many bases without truly deserving it. In other words, it is a fine movie, but I can't say I really, really liked it enough to justify 146 minutes of runtime, where it seems more clinical verging on silly than properly bleak and innovative, which basically means you get the decent but not perfect writings of two visionaries. Osment does just fine when it comes to a really tough task: a robot boy built to love, complete with an enduring spirit and robotic actions that carry this film as much as he can in unblinking fashion that will either lead to great heights or meandering. Law does fine, amusing in the manner of trickery to go along with the other side of what makes Mecha made to love. O'Connor and Robards don't really do as well, strangely enough, since they really don't help the first half seem that involving. Evidently the 22nd century has led to parents and children made out of wooden acting, where a voice of a teddy bear has more charm in comparison. Hurt does do a fine job, but he is gravelly underused, having basically just two scenes in the whole (meaningful in terms of hammering in the whole aspects of a robot child yes, but still). Williams is funny in his one scene to shine in exposition.

I really just wish I enjoyed this more, because there certainly are bits and pieces that seem suited for greatness that get slogged out of enjoyment. At least the original author Aldiss thought it was "inventive, intriguing, involving film", so to have a film that at least doesn't make the author mad is okay by me. For a story originally just about the plight of parents who struggle with loving a robot child, it sure is strange to have a film go from that to a "Flesh Fair" involving beating down old robots and a quest to become a real boy as Pinocchio with mommy issues. In a future that has cultivated the flooding of New York and had to rebuild itself with exploiting robots, why should it be surprising that at some point in time someone wanted to make a robot that loves you - basically this is the story of an advanced robotic pet looking for a way for their master to come back. The "Flesh Fair" sequence is in some way the make-it-or-break-it sequence - either it will help the film gather depth in the underbelly of robot use, or it will seem a bit too much for its own good. I'm fine with it, but it just seems so jarring when compared to the first half. I appreciate the look of the film, which does fine with featuring the future with some decent robotic effects, although its last trick for the end is a bit unwieldy. And then of course there is that ending, one that tries to resolve the pursuit for the "Blue Fairy" with a half-measure for a fable, as his plight for chasing down this delusion is thought of as like a human's ability to chase down their dreams (I...suppose). Keep in mind, this was the ending devised by Kubrick (not Spielberg), so it only goes to show that sometimes you just can't please everyone when it comes to resolutions. The setup to its little ending was ridiculous enough (because the odds of making a robot into a boy are pretty much nil, so either I expected him to wither away or give up), and the payoff is just an eye-roller more than a tear-jerker when it comes to meaningful science fiction. It is quite possible a re-viewing would help in seeing the layers beneath a vaguely provocative film, but honestly that really seems like a tall order - why not just spend time watching a better movie again instead? If one wants to compare and match, if I want a better Kubrick sci-fi time, I'll pick 2001: A Space Odyssey, and if I want a better Spielberg sci-fi time, I'll pick E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial. What we have here is a film that is too cloying and too much for its own good to really become something other than a parable gone awry. I am glad that I saw the film in curiosity for measurement as a film of the 21st century, even if it is ultimately just a decent experience in the long run.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

The Longest Yard (2005).

Review #1066: The Longest Yard.

Cast: 
Adam Sandler (Paul "Wrecking" Crewe), Chris Rock (James "Caretaker" Farrell), James Cromwell (Warden Rudolph Hazen), Nelly (Earl Megget), William Fichtner (Cpt. Brian Knauer), Burt Reynolds (Coach Nate Scarborough), Bob Sapp (Switowski), Michael Irvin (Deacon Moss), Terry Crews ("Cheeseburger Eddy"), Bill Goldberg (Battle), Bill Romanowski (Guard Lambert), Brian Bosworth (Guard Garner), Kevin Nash (Sgt. Engleheart), and Steve Austin (Guard Dunham) Directed by Peter Segal (#466 - Nutty Professor II: The Klumps and #826 - Naked Gun 33⅓: The Final Insult)

Review: 
Remember the original 1974 film (#778)? The film managed to generate a good deal of laughs that is finely aware of what it wants to be, complete with a fairly entertaining and brutal game of football, with Reynolds being a key highlight due to his charisma. It may interest you to note that this is the second remake of the original film, with Mean Machine being done in 2001, revolving around soccer. In any case, this is a movie that is mediocre in its approach, not doing anything too new with its material nor being anything too terrible to sit through, but it also isn't anything too noteworthy either. Sandler can't compare to Reynolds in terms of his portrayal of Crewe, not having too much energy nor being particularly funny, but it isn't anything that becomes loathsome to watch, at least. Rock has a bit of wisecracking energy that makes for a few amusing moments. Cromwell does okay with the material he's given. The other inmates are all okay for their moments on screen (such as Nelly and Sapp), even if they are used at times for some cheap gags - for better or worse. The guards don't have much time on screen, but at least they provide themselves to be the necessary foil. There weren't many moments that I got any big laughs from, just a few mild chuckles from time to time, but I can't say that it was consistently funny. It is strange to see Reynolds in the film, who looks a bit tired while serving as a reminder of the contrast between him and the other Crewe; it's just weird to see him star in a remake of a film he did, and I can't imagine that would be the case for something like Deliverance (#975) or even The Cannonball Run (#034). I didn't really get much enjoyment from the gags, but at least the football action is fine to watch. I can't hate the movie nor really give it a ringing endorsement, because it just feels like a middle-of-the-road type of film, where the gags can hit or miss depending on the kind of mood you are in. It won't top the original in any real discernible way, but it also won't be anything offensive to someone's sensibilities. If you're up to watching it, I suppose 113 minutes isn't too much of a chore. For others, I would just suggest the 1974 film.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Lethal Weapon 4.

Review #734: Lethal Weapon 4.

Cast
Mel Gibson (Martin Riggs), Danny Glover (Roger Murtaugh), Jet Li (Wah Sing Ku), Rene Russo (Lorna Cole), Joe Pesci (Leo Getz), Chris Rock (Detective Lee Butters), Kim Chan (Uncle Benny Chan), Steve Kahan (Captain Ed Murphy), Calvin Jung (Detective Ng), Jack Kehler (U.S. State Department Official), and Eddy Ko (Hong) Directed by Richard Donner (#075 - Scrooged, #355 - Lethal Weapon, #356 - Lethal Weapon 2, #547 - Superman, #619 - Maverick, and #731 - Lethal Weapon 3)

Review
It's hard to say how I feel about finally finishing this series of films. On the one hand, the first two movies are really, really excellent buddy cop movies. On the other hand, the last two don't exactly cut it. It really is hard to stay fresh when you've already done three films. Remember how I said the last movie had a lack of punch? This film essentially is a sucker punch when it comes to action, though the effectiveness of it all depends on the audience. It does have a good deal of night-time action, and even Riggs and Murtaugh get bloodied up, which I guess is some sort of variety (seriously, they have more than just bruises - one's on crutches!), and shows that...yeah, they really too old for this-you get the idea. But was this film really necessary? I suppose if you like fours, sure. The cast is fine, and Gibson-Glover is about enjoyable as they have been earlier. Russo is given barely any time, but she does fine. Li doesn't speak too much, though at least he knows how to beat the snot out of people. Is he a good villain? Not really, but at least he puts up a fight. Pesci and Rock are (mostly) endearing, being relevant to the plot just enough. The underlying problem with the movie is that it isn't as funny (or fun) to watch. Remember the toiler bomb scene in the 2nd movie? It was funny, in a movie that really set the bar for action-comedy. In this? Murtaugh's house gets burned down, and unless being saved by a kid is funny, that whole sequence to me just sums the relative lack of fun emitted in this one. Sure, there is a scene with laughing gas that is fun (unless you've already seen people laughing and laughing over and over *cough* Fresh Prince of Bel-Air), but the action and tone pretty much suffocate the movie. The opening sequence is entertaining, and even the ending is poignant enough, but the movie isn't so lucky. Don't get me wrong: This is not a bad movie. It is entertaining, though not so much as before. At least it is a good way to end the series, no matter any attempts Hollywood will try in remaking the magic.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Madagascar 3: Europe's Most Wanted.

Review #651: Madagascar 3: Europe's Most Wanted.

Cast
Ben Stiller (Alex), Chris Rock (Marty), David Schwimmer (Melman), Jada Pinkett Smith (Gloria), Jessica Chastain (Gia), Bryan Cranston (Vitaly), Tom McGrath (Skipper and First Policeman), Chris Miller (Kowalski), Frances McDormand (Captain Chantel DuBois), Sacha Baron Cohen (King Julien XIII), Martin Short (Stefano), John DiMaggio (Rico), and Christopher Knights (Private) Directed by Eric Darnell (#154 - Madagascar 2, #165 - Madagascar, and #254 - Antz), Conrad Vernon (#162 - Shrek 2) and Tom McGrath (#154- Madagascar 2, #165 - Madagascar, and #195 - Megamind).

Review
The first two Madagascar films were alright, not too shabby. 7/10 star ratings, but again, decent enough and entertaining enough for at least children or teens. But hey, what do I know, right? Anyway, the third movie is more wild, more ambitious and also more entertaining. The animation this time is really good, I especially like the circus show with the use of black lights and trapeze work. It's so colorful to watch, and the use of "Firework" oddly enough goes really well with the scene, which is about as wild as you expect. The characters (old and new) are entertaining, especially Bryan Cranston, though admittedly that maybe just my preference for the rugged but entertaining to watch actor. Or maybe I just have Malcolm in the Middle (go watch it if you haven't already) on the mind, but whatever. The comedy is more fun to watch, and most of that comes from how awesomely insane the villain is, I especially like the scene where McDormand sings "Non Je Ne Regrette Rien". It comes out of nowhere, and the character reactions to the song are just priceless. Is the plot anything special? Probably not, but it makes up for it by having enough enjoyment and just having fun. Is it great? Not really, but it is better than the first two films, which I guess matters the most.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Madagascar.

Review #165: Madagascar.

Cast
Ben Stiller (Alex), Chris Rock (Marty), David Schwimmer (Melman), Jada Pinkett Smith (Gloria), Sacha Baron Cohen (King Julien), Cedric the Entertainer (Maurice), Andy Richter (Mort) Directed by Eric Darnell and Tom McGrath (#154 - Madagascar 2)

Review
Madagascar isn't a perfect film, but it is a good film. It is better then Shark Tale and Shrek the Third, but it isn't better then Shrek 2 or Chicken Run. The voice acting is good, especially from Stiller and Rock. The plot is decent, as this film entertains with bright animation, a decently catchy song, and some subtle jokes at points. The film is the start of a franchise (with the second film having already been reviewed). This ends Part VI of Dreamworks Animation Week. Stay tuned for Part VII...

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Madagascar 2.

Review #154: Madagascar 2.

Cast
Ben Stiller (Alex the Lion), Chris Rock (Marty the Zebra), David Schwimmer (Melman the Giraffe), Jada Pinkett Smith (Gloria the Hippopotamus), Sacha Baron Cohen (King Julien the Lemur), Cedric the Entertainer (Maurice the Aye-Aye), Andy Richter (Mort the Lemur), Bernie Mac (Zuba the Lion), and Alec Baldwin (Makunga the Lion) Directed by Eric Darnell and Tom McGrath.

Review
I should mention the original title is "Madagascar: Escape 2 Africa" I was tempted to type it to confuse people or make them wonder who would have this kind of grammar. Anyway, this film is essentially a mash of the first and The Lion King, but despite that, this film still works. The voices are alright, as this film has charm to make you entertained for its relatively standard 89 minutes. Dreamworks Animation and Pixar are both decent studios. Pixar better than others. This is decent at best, not the worst or the best of DreamWorks I've seen.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.