Blue Chips.

Review #2365: Blue Chips.

Cast: 

Nick Nolte (Coach Pete Bell), Mary McDonnell (Jenny Bell), J. T. Walsh ("Happy" Kuykendahl), Ed O'Neill (Ed Axelby), Alfre Woodard (Lavada McRae), Bob Cousy (Vic Roker), Larry Bird (himself), Matt Nover (Ricky Roe), Shaquille O'Neal (Neon Boudeaux), Anfernee "Penny" Hardaway (Butch McRae), Anthony C. Hall (Tony), Marques Johnson (Mel), Robert Wuhl (Marty), Cylk Cozart ("Slick"), with Jim Beaver (Ricky's Dad), and Louis Gossett Jr. (Father Dawkins) Directed by William Friedkin (#037 - The Exorcist, #1438 - The French Connection, #1477 - To Live and Die in L.A., #2085 - Sorcerer)

Review: 

 “It wasn’t going to be the way coaches have been played in the past—you know, usually as the wise father figure. This guy was a deeply troubled man. That’s how I looked at Bobby, and that’s how I looked at this character. He had this overwhelming desire to win at any cost.”

There is a certain curiosity that comes to this film, really. This was the second of three movies that William Friedkin would direct in the 1990s, which you might remember included such works as The Guardian (1990) and Jade (1995). Oh, but this was a movie produced and written by none other than Ron Shelton, who you might remember was behind the scripts/directing of films such as Bull Durham [1988]* and White Man Can't Jump [1992] (fun fact: one scene in the original script of Blue Chips proved an inspiration for Jump). Apparently, the project had been in development hell since 1981, although it should be mentioned that Tates Locke claimed that the movie actually took inspiration from his 1982 book Caught in the Net (as co-written with Bob Ibach) that had detailed the offenses of Locke as a head coach at Clemson in the late 1970s (ironically, Bob Knight actually was set to write the introduction to the book but rejected it because he took the book as saying "that everybody cheats", which he disagreed with)**. Shelton couldn't direct the movie due to his involvement with Cobb (1994), but Friedkin's love for basketball got him interested in the project (he even got to direct his basketball idol in Bob Cousy). The movie was not a big success with audiences at the time (he was once quoted as saying that he couldn't overcome the difficulty of capturing "the excitement of a real game, with its own unpredictable dramatic structure and suspense"), but time has probably rewarded those who consider that college sports has only recently moved into the "NIL era" in which, well, now college athletes can control and profit from their name, image, and likeness. Timely or not, consider that one of the coaches appearing in the national championship game this year involved a coach in Kelvin Sampson who once endured a show-cause order that meant he couldn't coach in college for five years for a select group of violations committed under his watch.

The game of college basketball has never been particularly squeaky clean, anyway. Amateur athletes in the NCAA had interesting definitions when you consider the guy (Walter Byers) who created the term "student-athlete" also once called a team as doing “ghetto run-and-shoot basketball” (Jerry Tarkanian, coach of said team and justifiably hated Byers, happens to appear in this film)***. Scandals evolved from point shaving to slush funds. Blue Chips (1994) could not foresee the absurdity that arose with scandals involving universities and athletes, in which one school was accused of procuring a madam for athletes (which led to Rick Pitino being fired) and a murder that led to an actual scandal. So here we are with a movie about a man that rips himself apart in a decidedly non-heroic movie. But the movie is honest about where certain people in higher places are in terms of values: in the toilet. Cynicism runs free because the pursuit of the almighty victory (and dollar) has never been more blatant and, well, celebrated. Nolte actually shadowed Bobby Knight and went to practices and games. He pulls off a tremendous performance, riding the line of perceived morals with commitment that isn't just an impersonation or bluster for the sake of it. It happens to be a part with amusement in cynicism, as evidenced by how he says he happens to be a religious type that changes from recruitment to recruitment. By the time he gets to the last game, the juxtaposition of him versus Knight might as well be looking at a mirror (incidentally, Knight is only caught in barely audible dialogue, he apparently was mic'd up but said too many profanities). Walsh is the other highlight, managing to evoke great adversarial power that handles people as if they were commodities (with the exception of the climax, of course). The rest are fine, whether that is an ordinary but committed McDonnell, the delightfully cynical (if not underused) O'Neill or adequate work from actual athletes trying to do both basketball and acting - O'Neal is not in it that much, but he is quite engaging while Cousy plays the "wool over the eyes" just fine. The movie can't exactly capture all the fun and tension from seeing an actual basketball game, but it does leave one with a rush with what they see (particularly for those who recognize cameos such as Dick Vitale). The 108 minute runtime manages to make an effort in seeing the extent one could actually lose (or lie to) themselves in trying to win at all costs. As a whole, it is a committed Friedkin movie in charm and execution that is at least honest enough to prove a watch for the energy drawn out by Nolte in a morality tale that still has a resourceful bite to it. 

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Happy Monday and Go Cougars. If you want to hear more about college basketball movies, try Glory Road (2006).

*See, by having these little notes in the bottom, I save space in the actual review by not referring to Bull Durham as overrated. 

**By that point in time, Bobby Knight had already done such lovely things as hitting a head coach in the back of the head (Joe B. Hall) and choked and punched a sports information director. Never let anyone tell you about the glories of Bobby Knight without saying how much of a miserable human being he was.

***Tarkanian sued the NCAA a few times, fun fact. 

Tropic Thunder.

Review #2089: Tropic Thunder.

Cast: 

Ben Stiller (Tugg Speedman), Jack Black (Jeff Portnoy), Robert Downey Jr (Kirk Lazarus as Lincoln Osiris), Nick Nolte (Four Leaf Tayback), Steve Coogan (Damien Cockburn), Jay Baruchel (Kevin Sandusky), Danny McBride (Cody Underwood), Brandon T. Jackson (Alpa Chino), Bill Hader (Studio Executive Rob Slolom), Brandon Soo Hoo (Tran), Trieu Tran (Tru), Matthew McConaughey (Rick "The Pecker" Peck), and Tom Cruise (Les Grossman) Directed by Ben Stiller.

Review: 

''I was trying to push it as far as you can within reality. I had no idea how people would respond to it.'' 

Ben Stiller spent a couple of years making an idea involving actors filming a war movie. He would know, because this idea came about when he had appeared in a small part in Empire of the Sun (1987). He had seen a number of his friends undergo boot camp training for their roles that found them talking like they had become part of a real military unit that seemed like a "sort of self-important, self-involved thing". He kicked around ideas while getting his turn in television such as The Ben Stiller Show and directing with Reality Bites (1994) and The Cable Guy (1996) before appearing in There's Something About Mary (1998) made him a more name presence. At any rate, the script for what became this film was developed by Stiller and Justin Theroux while Etan Cohen helped them write the screenplay. Oddly enough, Stiller intended to cast Keanu Reeves in the lead role and himself as the agent, but when this did not come to pass, he instead took over the lead role. There also is a bit of improvisation present when it came to parts of the storyboard that didn't have scripted dialogue. Spoof, satire, parody, I think you get the idea of what you have with a film that seems right at home with others such as Hearts of Darkness: A Filmmaker's Apocalypse (1991), the documentary that detailed the "rough" time in the production of Apocalypse Now (1979). It sure must have been a surprise that the film attracted minor controversy (something involving disabilities or "blackface", but 2008 crowds had their own standards of ignoring that), because Stiller was even quoted as saying once it has "always been a controversial movie" while noting it as one he is proud of it.

I vaguely remember watching this film about over a decade ago, and I thought it was decent back then before somehow forgetting about it. I wondered a bit how the film was going to look now that it was past the 15-year mark. Hell, I should have realized it was going to be a good time, because, well, it is a fine time to spend in the art of making light of war moviemaking. It makes a solid 107-minute ensemble with plenty of fun spent making light of the excesses that come in moviemaking for those in front of the camera and behind it. The array of spoofs starts right from the get-go with the faux trailers that begin the film by showing four degrees of a star, whether that involves method acting, has-been action stars, Chris Farley models, or, well, rappers trying to be actors. Stiller proves pretty well with the insecure has-been that comes with flailing in the face of rising and dying stars in Hollywood, which includes trying to veer in "Oscar bait" for worthwhile silly insecurity. The best way to describe Downey Jr's performance is, well "dude playin' the dude, disguised as another dude." He is so absorbed in playing someone so different from himself (both in appearance and, well, personality) that is quite amusing in the fact he is all in for trying to trigger emotions like a man pressing buttons on a conveyor. You could make the argument that the actor he really seems to hone is not so much Daniel Day-Lewis (method acting and all) but in fact Peter Sellars (hey, The Party (1968) has its own debate over playing race versus playing comedy). Black succeeds fairly well in pathetic addiction, at least when compared to the moments of film acting for the fart-based trailer or those moments in the "war film", I mean. Jackson and Baruchel round out the cast with their own lingering flailing at the insecurities that infringe all of them in the jungle (technically Baruchel is the straight man, but the only different quality for Jackson is a punchline but stay with me on this). The adversaries presented are pretty one note, unless you try to posit that war movies sometimes have their own one-dimensional outlook, but one thing that is delightfully one note in the best way is Nolte, because his gruff outlook in the face of lies is endearing (particularly since he contrasts McBride). Cruise seems to be enjoying himself in the loudest and most obvious cliche (name me one benevolent studio head), which I was surprised to realize actually involved prosthetic hands, and it works out to a few decent jokes (I don't actually believe that a spinoff film would've been the best idea though, but you do you). As a whole, the gags work out pretty well for silly enjoyment over how much insecurity one can have with actors with a biting pace and tone that holds its own in all of the right ways. 15 years hasn't made the humor lessen in impact for those who are up for it.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Hulk.

Review #2039: Hulk.

Cast: 

Eric Bana (Bruce Banner), Jennifer Connelly (Betty Ross), Sam Elliott (Thaddeus Ross), Josh Lucas (Talbot), Nick Nolte (David Banner), Cara Buono (Edith Banner), Kevin Rankin (Harper), and Celia Weston (Mrs. Krensler) Directed by Ang Lee (#1525 - Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon and #1564 - Life of Pi)

Review: 

"[The Hulk represents] the true self we are all hiding in the dark. When the audience sees it they will be dealing with their own Hulk, the unknown, the truthful self we try to cover up."

In the spring of 1962, the first issue of The Incredible Hulk was published by Marvel Comics. As created by artist Jack Kirby and Stan Lee; both were inspired by different things, with Kirby having witnessed a mother lift a car off her trapped child and Lee being influenced by Frankenstein and Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. The result was a character in Bruce Banner, scientist and man who turns into a large green monster when subjected to emotional stress (like anger). In 1977, the character was first adapted to live-action television, as devised by Kenneth Johnson that had Bill Bixby as Banner and Lou Ferrigno as the Hulk, which ran from 1977 to 1982 with a handful of television movies (1988-90) that has served as the iconic interpretation of the character in some eyes. Production for a film about the Hulk ran for a decade, as organized by Avi Arad and Gale Anne Hurd, who produced the film for Universal Pictures. A handful of writers came and went (stay with me on this), starting with Michael France, which then led to John Turman, then back to France again, then back to Turman, then re-writes by writers not given credit in the final result like Zak Penn, J. J. Abrams, Scott Alexander and Larry Karaszewski, then to Jonathan Hensleigh to try to write and direct, then back to France, then to Michael Tolkin and David Hayter, then to James Schamus (a frequent partner with Lee in writing and producing), and I think you get the point. Schamus, France, and Turman were given credit for the screenplay while Schamus was listed as the sole writer of story. At the helm as director would be Ang Lee, fresh off the success of Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (2000) who once told his star in Eric Bana that he was shooting the film as if it was a Greek tragedy (which would be in contrast to the Hulk aspects created by Industrial Light & Magic). While the film was a modest success with audiences, the next Hulk film would instead be a "reboot", which had Edward Norton as the star that resulted in The Incredible Hulk (2008).

Maybe the timing just wasn't right for a mega-popular Hulk film. Schamus has been quoted as stating his fears about the potential of the film when it came time for the release of Spider-Man (2002) and the idea of the Marvel brand becoming a genre of itself. Honestly, I'm more surprised that he didn't take into account that Hulk was the third of three features released in 2003 that were based on Marvel characters, following in the wake of Daredevil and X2 (no points to which film is the better of those three). Of course, the real progenitor of making Marvel films goes first with Blade (1998), but that's another argument entirely (and yes, one shouldn't forget Blade is something I will argue in perpetuity); hell, it wasn't long after that Batman Begins (2005) came to give audiences a refined origin story to a familiar comic character. Honestly, the one film that I was reminded of when it came to certain techniques used to reach for a comic atmosphere was Dick Tracy (1990), although obviously the split-screen technique and psychodrama involving "the green monster in us" aren't exactly a clear match for the latter's attempt at style. The 138-minute runtime signifies two things: a movie that is somehow a bit too long and yet seems a bit lacking in the expectations department. It is a quality feature, because how could it not be with that level of casting and commitment, but it doesn't thread the needle on making its title character any more interesting than mild melodrama. Bana actually does make a quality presence to balance out this tragedy of man and beast, one who is vulnerable to the world in emotional distance in all of the facets that matter in viewing drama. He doesn't wash away from our mind when it comes to pass to actually see the motion capture Hulk (as voiced by Lee). Your milage may vary on how much of it you need to really see, but one thing I can say is that it certainly looks "interesting" when compared from day vs. night, which translates to "fine, just don't show me the Hulk fighting dogs again". I wish I could say Connelly and Elliott make the best of such mild roles, but that would be window-dressing for folks that are trying to sleepwalk through mildly involving dialogue. You could almost put anyone there and it might be the same result in mild lingering drama. Lucas at least seems venal enough to merit a ridiculous end-fate. It probably speaks something about expectations when the most interesting supporting presence is seeing Nolte chew all the scenery possible in power-mad haggard beardman of traumatic chaos. Oh sure, the climax is going to be a CG-muddle, but the buildup to Nolte deciding, yes, he can just chew on this little wire, is at least something to give me a smile (oh hell, you can play the angle of a man wanting to see his "real son", but the underlying curiosity of seeing Nolte engage in the role is always apparent, abuse or not). At any rate, the film is okay. Whether it is thought of as ahead of its time or a missed opportunity, it can be certainly be said that it is the perpetual misfit, one that is fated to stand out in its distinct stylings from other features of its time that cannot be tied down so easily as being any one thing. Being an average misfit isn't always a bad thing, so take that for what it is worth.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Another 48 Hrs.

Review #1728: Another 48 Hrs. 

Cast: 

Eddie Murphy (Reggie Hammond), Nick Nolte (Inspector Jack Cates), Brion James (Inspector Ben Kehoe), Kevin Tighe (Lieutenant Blake Wilson), Ed O'Ross (Inspector Frank Cruise), David Anthony Marshall (Willie Hickok), Andrew Divoff (Richard "Cherry" Ganz), Bernie Casey (Kirkland Smith), Brent Jennings (Tyrone Burroughs), Ted Markland (Malcolm Price), and Tisha Campbell (Amy Smith) Directed by Walter Hill (#1072 - 48 Hrs, #1091 - Last Man Standing, #1139 - Supernova, #1625 - The Long Riders)

Review: 

I'm sure you remember 48 Hrs (1982). That movie was the brainchild of one Lawrence Gordon, at least in the original idea, which somehow involved a kidnapped daughter of the Governor of Louisiana within a team-up of a mean cop and the cellmate of the kidnapper. Somehow, over the course of a decade, it evolved into what you saw on screen, with the result being that four writers were credited (Roger Spottiswoode, Walter Hill, Larry Gross, Steven E. de Souza) for a movie once described by Hill in pre-production as a "a shaggy dog story. Defiant Ones plus chuckles." While it wasn't exactly the first buddy cop movie ever made, it certainly was the one that helped to popularize the genre, and the credit for success can go to its main pair in Nolte and Murphy (making his film debut after years on Saturday Night Live), who certainly play off each other well enough in terms of tense interest that made a worthy action comedy. Despite fears from folks at Paramount Pictures to the viability of the movie (including threats that Hill would never work there again)...you already know it was a success, because who else would try to make a sequel eight years later? Well, it turns out it was Murphy who lit the match to do a sequel, as it was he (under the "name" of Fred Braughton) who wrote the initial story while later approaching Hill to do the sequel under the idea of wanting to get the spirit of the first one with "a lot of street energy and the hard edges of the original" (as quoted by Hill); it also might be a coincidence that he was near the end of his contract obligations with Paramount Pictures for films. John Fasano, Jeb Stuart, and Larry Gross were tasked with writing the screenplay. With a budget of $50 million, the movie made around three times its budget back at the box office, although it was felt to be a disappointment; Murphy and Paramount ended up not being happy with each other in regard to how each promoted the film.

Would you believe this film was a hack-job? Somehow, the original workprint was 145 minutes long, and even more strangely the original cut was 120 minutes long. Undeniably, that version might seem a bit long, but it also might seem a bit interesting...instead the film was cut again right before release to 95 minutes, apparently to make for a faster paced action comedy (Brion James was quoted as saying that most of his scenes were left on the cutting room floor). I do wonder what is more prevalent: sequels with the same star and director that end up just as good as the original or ones that prove to be a disappointment. This is one clearly on the latter side, one that hobbles all the way through in attempts at honing memories from what we saw the first time around without having the charm to back it up. Hill may be an interesting director, but this certainly is not his finest hour, unless one counts shooting a few decent action scenes a worthy distraction. Now, perhaps that is unfair, because it is the script that seems to have failed the movie most, one that is built on coincidences and clichés: outlaw bikers, guys going as "The Iceman", an Internal Affairs story that I'm sure you've heard before, and a sequence past the middle put there solely to explain what is going on. If one wanted to watch 48 Hrs again, they would simply do better just watching that movie instead of a sequel that just tries to coast on the fumes of before. Nolte and Murphy are fine here, but they seem privy to just going through the motions of what we saw from before, which involves grousing and charm under the idea of being loopier than before (of course, there's also a scene where one of them points out the clichés of a fight at a bar right before it happens, so...). The editing clearly has effected James, since one might not even remember he was in the last film too, and he only shows up from time to time before the clichés creep in; Marshall and Divoff have little to work with besides shooting and screaming, and it doesn't help matters if one has taken a guess as to who the real threat is early to go with Jennings seeming more interesting in a bemused state (i.e. one who wants to see a simple hitjob done right) with even less time. Tighe smirks through a thankless role, while Casey gets to grouse at Murphy and explain the plot at one point, so there's that. As a whole, one wonders why they even bothered to make this movie at all, since it seems more like an obligation rather than something done for fun and excitement. It is a very average movie that proves for disappointment for anyone looking for something fresh or interesting within the lines of a director and its lead stars that should know better. If one wants to see more of the same from what happened before with 48 Hrs, I guess this would work. Or, perhaps, one could just watch the first film instead. A decent duo and director do not, in the end, mean a good sequel.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

The Deep.

Review #1197: The Deep.

Cast: 
Robert Shaw (Romer Treece), Jacqueline Bisset (Gail Berke), Nick Nolte (David Sanders), Louis Gossett Jr. (Henri 'Cloche' Bondurant), Eli Wallach (Adam Coffin), Dick Anthony Williams (Slake), Earl Maynard (Ronald), and Bob Minor (Wiley) Directed by Peter Yates (#506 - Bullitt and #927 - Krull)

Review: 
Perhaps The Deep was destined to lurk in the depths of mediocrity due to riding on the coattails of Jaws, since both films were adaptations of novels by Peter Benchley, who also happened to co-write the screenplay for both features, doing this film with Tracy Keenan Wynn, although it was Tom Mankiewicz who provided a major re-write (while going un-credited for his help), with Shaw (in his third-to-last role before his death in 1978) having a main role for both movies. The best thing that can be said for this film is that while it isn't too particularly thrilling, it is at least a decent yarn that can be fine to look at and follow along with for a while if one has the patience to go through its 124 minute run-time. It isn't a classic by any means,in part because it doesn't really have much depth, but it probably works best as something to digest much in the same way one eats food from the fridge late at night, no matter how fresh or stale it seems.

The trio of Shaw-Bisset-Nolte is a decent one, carrying the film just fine at times, not being a particularly strong group by any means but being useful enough to serve the film and its shaky bumps. Shaw is fairly entertaining with his gruff mannerisms that serve to give exposition or to loosely interact with the others. Bissett does fine with her role, even if she only occasionally is given something interesting to say for the plot, which moves somewhat sluggishly. Nolte, starring in only his second theatrical role, is alright, but he doesn't really have much to do to give off more than a bare presence for a role that could've been played by near anyone. Wallach is okay in a brief role that doesn't prove to go too far within the plot. The weakest part of the film is the lack of a big presence of a villain. Sure, it is nice to see Gossett Jr on screen for a bit, but he doesn't really get much of a chance to bring menace to a kingpin role that probably could've done with a bit of re-tooling, with a bit of voodoo thrown in that doesn't really go anywhere. At least the little bits of exposition involving history prove intriguing. The characters feel drawn out from other adventure ideas, as if cut out from very thin paper that probably would've been made on the cheap in a previous decade. The stakes never feel too high, and at times the best thing going for it is the music from John Barry, with occasional success in water action, with an okay climax in the deep. This is not really a movie I can recommend, since it never really takes off into something truly spectacular on a consistent level, but it can serve as a bit of a curious sink of time, whether for some watery action or something deeper.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

48 Hrs.

Review #1072: 48 Hrs.

Cast: 
Nick Nolte (Jack Cates), Eddie Murphy (Reggie Hammond), James Remar (Albert Ganz), David Patrick Kelly (Luther), Sonny Landham (Billy Bear), Brion James (Ben Kehoe), Annette O'Toole (Elaine Marshall), and Frank McRae (Captain Haden) Directed by Walter Hill.

Review: 
Admittedly, the buddy cop genre is not something that came out of thin air for entertainment. Pairing two people together with differing personalities to work together has been done numerous times over the past few decades, whether involving cops paired with each other in some sort of mismatch (such as the Lethal Weapon series or the Rush Hour trilogy), or even parodying the genre (such as in Last Action Hero). In any case, 48 Hrs is considered one of the films that formed a blueprint for the genre that manages to succeed due to its chemistry between its main two leads, Nolte and Murphy. Whenever they are on-screen together, they just click together in their raw quirky nature, contentious but compelling to watch. Nolte sells his rough and cynical character well, a grouch that isn't grating as it could've been. This was the screen debut for Murphy, who had been starring on Saturday Night Live since 1980, and he manages to do a great job, selling this confident and clever role with the right sense of conviction and timing (interestingly, he was nominated for a Golden Globe for New Star of the Year in a Motion Picture, although he lost to Ben Kingsley in Gandhi). They are a fun duo to watch mess around with each other, with my particular favorite being the scene in a bar in which Murphy intimidates the rowdy customers in order to get some useful information, mostly because of how amusing he plays his hand to the patrons. Remar is a decent villain, fairly slimy and not too much of an evil cliche, and Landham makes for an adequate second-fiddle. The other members of the cast aren't too involved with the plot much, but they are at least decent sidepieces for the film. The action sequences are neatly done, riveting in their execution and satisfactory for ones looking for excitement. The plot isn't anything revolutionary, but the film goes at an energetic pace that makes for quality entertainment that never really drags itself out at a brisk length of 96 minutes that will click at the right moments (such as with its action and main duo) to make it all worth it.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Arthur (2011).

Review #203: Arthur.

Cast
Russell Brand (Arthur Bach), Helen Mirren (Lillian Hobson), Jennifer Garner (Susan Johnson), Greta Gerwig (Naomi Quinn), Luis Guzmán (Bitterman), Nick Nolte (Burt Johnson), and Geraldine James (Vivienne Bach) Directed by Jason Winer.

Review
I am aware that this is a remake (The first being made in 1981 with Dudley Moore, who I've covered before) However I haven't seen the film, so there ya go. Anyway, Russell Brand is...I don't know how to describe him other then a mix of a off-my-meds pirate with a bit of hazes added in. But playing the role of a rich alcoholic, he just works. Brand and Mirren have some good deliveries that keep the film from just being a remake. It can stand on its own legs and not need to be collapsed by fears of being not as good. A decent film that doesn't have much against it.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Zookeeper.

Review #059: Zookeeper.

Cast
Kevin James (Griffin Keyes), Rosario Dawson (Kate), Leslie Bibb (Stephanie), Joe Rogan (Gale), Nat Faxon (Dave Keyes), Nick Nolte (Bernie the Lowland Gorilla), Sylvester Stallone (Joe the Lion), Adam Sandler (Donald the Capuchin Monkey), Judd Apatow (Barry the Elephant), Cher (Janet the Lioness), Jon Favreau and Faizon Love (Jerome and Bruce the Grizzly Bears), and Maya Rudolph (Mollie the Giraffe) Directed by Frank Coraci.

Review
This film is actually a little funny. I didn't have much expectations for this film, but the film at least is trying with some actual good use of voice talents. James does a fine job, as he blossoming into a star. Dawson preforms fine with what she has to go with. The plot is a bit predictable, a bit like...Just Go With It, but the film isn't as lazy, it tries to do something with what it has. It's a bit funny, and enjoyable. The animals actually look good, as they don't try to be cute (probably the opposite), working okay. I swear the posting of the reviews one by one will end soon.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.