|
Directed by: Eric Darnell & Tom McGrath Starring: Voices of Ben Stiller, Chris Rock, Jada Pinkett-Smith, David Schwimmer... This is an amusing little movie that's a welcome departure from prior efforts by Dreamworks Animation. In New York's Central Park zoo, Marty is a zebra with a hankering for the wide-open spaces, while his friends Alex the lion, Melman the giraffe and Gloria the hippo are pretty much happy where they are. But when Marty takes an evening flyer, they all end up on a ship bound for Africa to release them back to their native habitat. But a group of penguins (led hilariously by Andy Richter), cause a detour, and the gang finds itself washed ashore on the islane of the title. I thought the film, while basic in plot, was great fun and a welcome alternative to all the latest "Star Wars" hype. If you have kids, they'll love it to pieces. And no matter who you are, you're going to get a kick out of Sacha Baron Cohen (a.k.a. Ali G) doing a scene-stealing turn as King Julien XIII of the lemurs. This is not the be-all, end-all of animation, nor is it a utter dud. It's a pleasant little diversion for 80 minutes that should be a welcome way to spend an afternoon at the matinee. http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/madagascar/ and http://www.metacritic.com/film/titles/madagascar (Though David Denby can eat my entire rear end.) RATING: 4.0 PROS: Hilarious silliness at the zoo & on the title island CONS: If you don't like any of the main actors, or lemurs, go away. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0351283/
|
#
?
May 24, 2005 20:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 22:22 |
|
|
I agree with the above review. Certainly not looking to make a significant and thought-provoking entry into cinema history, just a fun, well-done animated film. Jokes and animation are laugh-out-loud funny (much moreso than the tepid "Shark's Tale" and the better-than-Shark's-Tale "Robots") It's also a nice alternative to recent CG fare, which have all been more along the lines of realistic-animation, whereas Madagascar is unabashadly cartoony and slapstick in its animation. Voicework is the typically excellent fare with everyone filling-in their roles nicely, even if Chris Rock was, at times, overdoing his Chris Rockiness. Rating: 4.0 Pros: Slick, cartoony animation, wealth of good jokes, and the GREATEST CG DANCING YOU'LL EVER SEE Cons: It is what it is
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2005 03:04
|
|
|
This movie looks like poo poo. These animals are just hideous creatures, drawn with exaggerated features that are reaching hard for cartoonish campiness but just looking cheap and lazy. Hell, most of the models just look like cheap 3-D ripoffs of Lion King. The settings are lifeless and drab, and there's hardly a thing in this movie that doesn't look like it could have been pumped out with 1995 technology. Computer animation allows for incredible freedom in camera shots, but this movie feels claustophobic as if it were filmed in front of a blue screen. The celebrity voices add nothing to the one-dimensional characters that were completely sketched out within the first two minutes of the movie. The plot seems to exist as an homage to the days when movies needed that sort of thing. Basically, it's a heartfelt music scene every fifteen minutes bridging together the poo jokes. Why the hell does the lemur talk in an Indian accent? And should there really be a scene glamourizing hallucinogenic drugs? Then again, I guess it worked for Willy Wonka. Animation that is entirely artless, with almost no plot, lovely gutless characters, bad jokes and insufferable pop-culture references. It's a shame that most kids can't tell the difference between this and stuff like Toy Story, and in twenty years they'll look back on bile this with the same reverence.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2005 08:49
|
|
|
I can't say I liked this movie. The movie seemed to focus more on big-name actors and the seemingly mandatory "subtle adult humor" thrown in, rather than having fun and having a plot. It felt like they were trying to churn out another Shrek and failed. The movie's pace is very slow and I could see kids getting distracted easily or falling asleep, but it does pick up the pace later on. The humor seemed very forced and lacked "delivery", but it did have it's moments. It also had a lot of "New York/Big City/I don't know how to cope without modern convienences" humor and feel to it. Like a Woody Allen movie with less Jew jokes. Maybe it was myself neither being a New Yorker or not living in a crowded city that gave me a lack of apprecation. Maybe it's just that the jokes sucked. The artwork was ok, but I have a gripe about that too. The new trend of 3D movies was to make animation look realistic. This movie makes it look cartoony with strange angles on the characters and using exagerated bodies and faces, and overall seems like a waste of the technology. Overall, I'd give it a 2.0. Kobalt fucked around with this message at 00:15 on Jun 1, 2005 |
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2005 00:13
|
|
|
It was okay. The colors were pretty. I don't know why the gently caress non-Pixar studios persist in casting animation roles for the biggest names possible instead of finding the actor who can do the most for the part; did anyone in the world think, "Well, this doesn't look so great, but I'll see it because Ben Stiller's in it"? I thought his voice was totally miscast, and Chris Rock was better but distracting because he sounds so much like Chris Rock. But there are some funny bits, and actually some interesting visual stuff at times. Enough to pull it to a 2.5 rating.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2005 01:59
|
|
|
I agree mostly with the original review. This movie doesn't hold a candle to the likes of Shrek or anything Pixar's ever done, but it still manages to be better than most recent CG-animation fare. At the very least, none of the characters look like animal-ized versions of their voice actors, which was the biggest complaint I had with Shark Tale. Sure, some of Alex the Lion's expressions during the photoshoot in an early scene definitely reminded me of Ben Stiller's role in Zoolander, but that's pretty much it. The plot is paper-thin, the characters aren't too well-developped, and several plot points and resolutions are almost painfully predictable. But that's okay, really, because it's for kids. If you can accept the fact that this movie is not going to be as intelligent as others in the genre and just laugh at the silly jokes, then you're going to enjoy it more than if you're expecting Shrek 3. Personally, I thought several jokes were executed very well to the point where you can forgive their banality (examples include Alex's dreams about steak, and the Penguins' reaction to Antartica). For the most part, it's just silly fun for the sake of silly fun. The All-Star cast, mercifully not as All-Star as was Shark Tale, turn in decent performances that fit the situations well. Chris Rock's character's occaisional lapses into ebonics are painful to listen to ('Okizzay'? 'Cracka-lackin'? Come on...), but I'd blame the writers sooner than I would Chris Rock. I don't know why they bothered casting Andy Richter as Mort (the cute baby lemur), especially considering that the amount of lines he says can be counted on your fingers. I found the music to be really well-done, and am particularly fond of the piece that plays during an early Zoo montage, that later gets a more 'earthy' remix in the jungle. The animation, as mentioned, is much more unrealistic than most recent CG efforts, and one notices that not much attention was payed to the human models, being that they only appear in the first act and only for seconds at a time. The animals walk upright most of the time, and make human gestures and motions, further emphacizing that this movie is not trying to emulate the kind of CG ultrarealism found in movies like Finding Nemo. All in all, a movie for kids, but is enjoyable for adults who are willing to check their brains at the door and just enjoy the mindless fun. Also, the dancing character models that play during the credits is pretty fun to watch as well. 3.5 Plom Bar fucked around with this message at 11:45 on Jun 5, 2005 |
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2005 11:43
|
|
|
I thought this was a great movie. I can't really say much more than what already has been brought up, though to contrast another poster above, I thought the casting was very well done. Stiller and Rock have pretty obvious voices that you pick up on right away, though it never really bothered me as much as I had expected. Went in expecting a light, funny, animated movie, and I got a light, funny, animated movie. Solid 4.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2005 04:27
|
|
|
Hated this movie. Felt like watching a classroom of 3rd graders after copious doses of caffeiene and sugar run around and be "funny". The movie needed to settle down, slow down, and tell a joke. An hour and a half of feeble attempts at physical humor is not funny. There was no attatchment to the characters, no pacing, and no real plot to speak of. When Alex goes feral, I was hoping he'd actually eat some of them. Ben Stiller can be funny, but he seems like a guy who really, REALLY thinks he's the goddamn funniest guy in showbiz, but only comes off as mildly interesting, and it shows in all his roles. Another thing, I was confused by the message the movie was sending. A lion?! EATING MEAT?! He's a monster!! It's like the anti-lion king. Basically the movie was saying "gently caress you, circle of life. Carnivores can eat sushi to survive!" On the plus note, the penguins elicit a couple of chuckles. 1/5
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2005 13:11
|
|
|
I too really liked the movie and thought the casting was pretty good. My big gripe on the movie though is it's only about 80 minutes long which sucks. Because of that I say this movie gets a 3.5/5.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2005 05:54
|
|
|
I can only think, "This movie is only 80 minutes long?! Christ, it feels like it's as long as Titanic." The plot move very slowly, I did not have a truly good laugh at all during the film, and I did not like any of the characters. I would not happily watch this movie again. --Character spoiler ahead-- I'm surprised nobody mentioned David Schwimmer's character, Melman. Easily the worst character in the movie, with horrible jokes all centering around a ridiculous medication addiction. Hahaha medication! Hey everyone! The giraffe has a med addiction! What the gently caress. Yes, I realize it's a satire on people using prescription drugs to solve their every problem nowadays, but the execution was horrible. --End spoiler-- Everything about this movie screamed pop culture and I couldn't wait to leave the theater. Also, Chris Rock is a funny guy, but his voice SUCKS. My girlfriend really liked it, for which I secretly resent her, but I'm giving this movie a 2/5.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2005 23:02
|
|
|
Saw this today. I enjoyed this movie quite a bit, felt that the animation was generally very good, although some of the scenes were very cartoonish. There was a lot of quick slapstick humor, and I laughed out loud at a few of the jokes, which is all I expected from a $4 matinee. The movie's a bit short to really develop a plot like other popular CG films, but the jokes are good enough that I kept laughing. The celeb voices didn't really do anything for me, though. I would've been just as happy with random voice actors doing the job. Not great, but entertaining for my money. 3.5 / 5
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2005 23:29
|
|
|
Considering this movie is aimed towards kids, I thought it was pretty good. Some of the script was pretty terrible, and the characters are pretty much all forgetable, but it had a few very funny moments, and with all the slap stick and fart/butt/poop jokes the kids are bound to love it. It's not bad, but it's not anywhere near one of the better ones. I mean, the Lion has plenty to be angry about. He tried to save his stupid friend from making a mistake and got his life taken out from under him. I'd be pissed too. Then at the end, he finally adapts (king of the jungle), but that's not good enough for the others. So what the hell do they want? What is the point at the end? It's just too 'ok that was cool i guess lets go home' And I thought the animation was fine. It was perfect for that kind of movie. I think some of you nerds have ridiculous standards but what do I know. It didn't look like poo poo so to me that means it looks good. Overall, 3/5 Pros: a few good jokes and simpsonesque scenes (falling down the rocks and cactus plants), characters who are neutral enough not to hate, original story Cons: some bad jokes, too much slapstick for an adult to enjoy, pacing not that great, and the lions flipflopping (lol) Syjefroi fucked around with this message at 06:29 on Jun 15, 2005 |
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2005 06:27
|
|
|
If you go into this movie expecting high, edgy comedy then you'll be disappointed, although if you look closely, there are tons of pop-culture references that you wouldn't notice the first time - not even speaking of the american beauty and planet of the apes scenes, but of several other obscure references that you wouldn't expect to see in a kid's movie. If you go into the movie with an easygoing mindset and the intent to have a good time, then you certainly will. I really enjoyed the movie, especially the penguins and the lemurs. I give it a 4/5.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2005 17:46
|
|
|
This movie had to be the disappointment of the year. While it was good meaning kids will love it, it is no where as good as Shrek. It was better than Shark Tale though. Personally I thought that the Penguins carried the whole movie and it made me yearn for more of them. I would love to see a movie based around those characters. "You didn't see anything" OH YEAH Penguins kick rear end! 3.5 for penguin ower!
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2005 08:57
|
|
|
I could see this movie beeing an entertaining kids film, but it doesn't have nearly the generation stretch as Pixar movies seem to have. For a more adult audience, it lacks a subtle mature side that easily goes over childrens' heads, but keeps the older crowd entertained. I put this in the same grouping as Shrek; it's cute and not boring, but it's not memorable. Although Shrek was slightly better. 2.5 + 1 bonus point for penguins = 3.5/5 Edit: Cute and cuddly, boys.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2005 18:53
|
|
|
I was very disappointed. I was expecting a family film, and got a kiddie flick. The jokes, for the vast most part, are uninspired and fall flat. The characters ranged from neutral to annoying, especially Chris Rock, who ran the gamut of emotions from A to B. While his stand-up is great, he really should stop doing voice-over work because his voice is loving annoying. I cringed whenever he tried to be emotional. As was posted before I, too, was confused by what the movie was trying to say. You're a carnivore? YOU MURDEROUS BEAST  The only redeeming quality of the movie was the penguins. They were amusing, but not enough for $10 and 80 minutes. Pros: The Penguins. Cons: Dull, unfunny and possibly irritating for anyone over the age of 10. 2 / 5
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2005 00:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 22:22 |
|
|
Penguins, Sacha & Cedric pretty much steal the movie. Chris Rock is ok, the rest are boring. The good thing about a movie like this, is that it isnt very long, 86 minutes with the credits, which you'll probaby want to watch. Most will say to wait for the DVD, but for me it was better than the last two flicks I saw. Land of the Dead & War of the Worlds 4.0 elister fucked around with this message at 03:53 on Jul 9, 2005 |
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2005 03:49
|
|
