MamaGravity good back-story, and good acting

BeSummers Funny, strange, confrontational and subversive, this is one of the most interesting experiences you'll have at the cinema this year.

filippaberry84 I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

Darin One of the film's great tricks is that, for a time, you think it will go down a rabbit hole of unrealistic glorification.

Eric Stevenson I was only interested in seeing this movie because it was the last film reviewed by Doug Walker one year for Disneycember. I think this is actually the lowest rated theatrically released animated Disney movie ever made. He recommended it, so I really did want to check it out and judge for myself. I saw it and I really do disagree with him. I admit there's one or two good jokes but most of this film is just pointless. I remember when the trailers for the film first came out and I knew it would be bad or at least quickly forgotten. It is more or less a ripoff of "Madagascar".I was just thinking about how DreamWorks has been accused of ripping off Disney movies, but this one was actually released later. Then again, I did hear that production on this film actually started before the production of "Madagascar". I guess it doesn't matter because this movie is obviously worse. What really freaked me out was the animation. I mean, they were trying to make the animals look realistic instead of cartoony. Is there an uncanny valley for animals? The funniest bit is when the giraffe says that she deserves to be in kid's books starting with the letter G. Easily the best joke.There just seemed to be nothing original about this movie at all. It was about this son trying to prove himself to his father and a bunch of side characters who were dumb or had interspecies romance. It was mostly just bland. I guess there's a few creative ideas like the cargo cult, but for me, it was just pointless. I think it probably is the worst theatrically released Disney animated film ever made. I can't even believe Disney made this! It looks a lot more like some cheap knockoff film made by some obscure studio. *1/2

Amber Flowers Probably contains some spoilers, but the plot is so predictable it's not like there's much to spoil. I watched this film for the first time shortly after it was released in 2006, during the relative lull in Disney proper's output, between the end of the "Renaissance" with Tarzan and their return to the mainstream with Princess and the Frog and Tangled. During this time, Pixar flourished, but Disney came out with such flops as Home on the Range and Chicken Little. This is from a sub-studio of Disney (it's not part of the proper cannon). I recall watching this as a fairly young kid and deciding it was worse than the comparable Madagascar but not horrible. I'll start with the plot. YMMV, but I think it's exactly Madagascar with elements of Finding Nemo and the Lion King. I know Madagascar and The Wild came out at about the same time, but without question Madagascar won this fight. Madagascar didn't feel like it was ripping off other Dreamworks films, or Disney. Where Madagascar had characters I enjoyed being around, this gang seems too clichéd to be likable. Let's see, there's a koala (Nigel - Eddie Izzard) who was at times generally funny but kinda seemed like the creators were trying to push him to be this film's Olaf or Genie - pushing a breakout character is not a good idea, and I tired of Nigel quickly. There's a squirrel (Benny - Jim Belushi) that disappeared for some strange reason for about 20-30 minutes in the middle of the film and reappears in a weird way and time that I never really got to know. Then there's the only girl in the entire film, a giraffe (Bridget - Janeane Garofalo) acts like you expect the only girl to act, and that stupid snake (Larry - Richard Kind) weighed everything down, and the two of them disappear weirdly for another 20-30 minutes near the end. The heroes, lions Samson (Kiefer Sutherland) and Ryan (Greg Cipes) were generic and forgettable. I'll give them that the wildebeest dance team villains were at least something I've never seen before, but that doesn't make them good villains, which they aren't. The animation is kinda off putting - feels a little animal uncanny- valley-like. Nothing horrible, but nothing great. The comedy fell a little flat. Nigel was pushed as the comic center and thus became it as the only character with any real jokes. Samson, Ryan, and the others didn't feel like very good straight men as they weren't very good comics either. The one line I laughed at came from Bridget on the purpose of giraffes - when Nigel was miles away from them. All in all, not a very good film, but I'd say it's watchable. It's probably not worth your money, but maybe if it's on the Disney Channel. But don't expect anything that good. If you don't want to watch them both, watch Madagascar.

daitran199980 The beginning of the 2000s (2000-2006) is one of the weakest era of Disney (the first era is from 1972 to 1984) with many boring and weak animations like Dinosaur (2000), Brother Bear (2003), Chicken Little (2005) and some poor sequels like 102 Dalmatians (2000), The Jungle Book 2 (2003)... Well, The Wild is the last animation of this era and Meet the Robinsons (2007) is the beginning of the new golden age of Disney. When I and my brother saw the poster of The Wild, he said that it look like Madagascar. We wanted to see it. After we saw it, I feel disappointed. It wasted my time, too boring. I couldn't laugh although it is comedy. The Wild is the mix of Madagascar and Lion King: +Madagascar: Characters: Samson like Alex (Lion) and Bridger like Melman (Giraffe but different gender). +Lion King: Characters: Ryan like Simba (young). Both of them can't roar and want to show their power. Finally, they can roar (Simba can roar when he graduated). Kazar like Scar. Both of them are the main enemy. In the end of the battle of 2 movies, Kazar and Scar were killed by his army. Roger Ebert said: "This is the third animated feature in a row (after "Curious George" and "Ice Age: The Meltdown") which aims at children and has no serious ambition to be all things to all people, i.e., their parents. But for kids, it's OK". I agree, this animation for kids, only kids love it. Adults and teenagers like me couldn't love it, too hard.

daler001 First rate animation with third rate writing. Not much imagination evident in the project. Father and son lions argue, the boy sulks in a truck and gets shipped to Africa. The father goes looking for him with a group of other zoo animals. The voice actors have talent, but none of it is on display here. Listen carefully as Keifer Sutherland cries out his son's name dozens and dozens of times(well it felt like that many)in anguish. Lazy writing. The animation is well done but the character design is uninteresting (they look exactly like the animals they're supposed to be), so the film has little style in design or storytelling. My two-year old lost interest also,which is a rarity for a computer animated film.