User Reviews

The biggest hurdle for THE WILD is that MADAGASCAR beat it out of the gate, so MADAGASCAR got all the notice. This happens in Hollywierd all the time: remember when two asteroid movies (DEEP IMPACT and Armageddon), two volcano movies (DANTE'S PEAK and VOLCANO) or two bug movies (ANTZ and A BUG'S LIFE) hit the movie screens close together? With so many films always in production, you are inevitably going to have overlap. So quit griping about THE WILD! It's a lotta fun if you give it half a chance. I liked the LION KING and MUTINY ON THE BOUNTY references, and I found the humor more of the chuckle and smile variety than the guffaw type. The animation is beautifully rendered in a more realistic than overly stylized manner, which, unfortunately means the characters, for the most part, don't have big facial reactions. For myself, I would have liked the bigger, more cartoony expressions, but what they did worked just fine. The story of THE WILD actually has only a few plot points in common with MADAGASCAR, and when you see it you'll understand what I mean (no spoilers here!) And the voice talent was excellent: Kiefer Sutherland, Jim Belushi, Eddie Izzard, Janeane Garofalo, William Shatner (yes, Bill Shatner!), Richard Kind and the always welcome Patrick Warburton head up the characters and add their inimitable contributions to the comedy. So, don't go in to THE WILD with preconceptions: just enjoy. I did!

If you saw the previews, and thought this movie would be an inferior ripoff of "Madagascar" and "Finding Nemo", well, you would be right. The plot is terrible, the movie is not funny, and it's all been done before. Worse, much of it doesn't make sense. A tugboat that can cross the ocean? Chameleons that can make things invisible? Even my kids (7, 5 and 3) thought that was dumb. Matter of fact, they were bored senseless withing 10 minutes. My wife fell asleep. My youngest started wandering the aisle (not disturbing anyone. Hardly anyone was there). Usually when we leave the theater, they talk about the movie, want to get the toys and DVD (when it comes out). Guess what? Not a peep out of them. It's as if the movie didn't exist.

Plot Summary

** spoilers **

A young cub lives in the shadow of his father. He accidentally gets taken away! The dad and friends must save him, and they both must learn a lesson in the process. Wow, it's like they took Madagascar, and Finding Nemo, threw it into a blender (strained out the good parts),and came up with this. A squirrel/Giraffe love affair? What forward thinkers! (not)

** end spoilers **

If you're thinking about watching this because of the "good reviews", think about how funny it is that many of the good reviews are all from Canada (where the film was made) or LA(the distributor). Almost like the people who made it and their friends are here talking it up so they can keep their jobs. Fortunately its a big flop, and even their ballot-stuffing won't make a difference. Shame on you!

I saw this movie with a friend in a theater. We wasted 95 minutes of our life that we cannot get back. The movie is very similar to Madagascar. In some parts, the movie resembles Finding Nemo and the Lion King. It's like they put the 3 movies in a blender.

The movie is supposed to be funny, but it's not. There's a few bad puns and some sound effects, but those aren't funny.

There's a ton of parts of the movie that make no sense. How can a tugboat cross the ocean? Why is a Squirrel in love with a Giraffe? How can Chameleons make things invisible? Why does a Koala have a British accent?

The curling scene has to be the worst scene in the movie. All that happens is that a bunch of antelopes run on the ice, and Samson claims that Ryan endangered everybody. How? All the antelopes did was cause Samson to lose.

I know that this is a kid's film, but I doubt that most kids would like it. The Wildebeest are frightening, and the song and dance they perform will give most little kids nightmares. The alligator scene would also scare most kids. There's also quite a bit of adult humour in the film.

This is one of the worst movies I have ever seen. Instead of watching this movie, watch Madagascar, Finding Nemo, and the Lion King.

For the record, even though the plot of The Wild has all too many similarities to that of Madagascar, I must note that The Wild - or Madagascar 2.0, as I like to think of it - is on an order of several magnitudes better.

-Of course, let it be noted that some say work on The Wild was begun before Madagascar, and Madagascar was simply released first, while others say the Madagascar was begun first. Let's just say they were created in parallel, and independently.- When originally viewing the commercials I wasn't impressed. Like others, Madagascar was too fresh in my mind, and the comedic clips extracted seemed artificial and flat when taken out of context. On viewing, I'm glad I gave it a second chance and allowed it to win me over. Furthermore, those who demonise this film because of its alleged similarities to The Lion King are really misunderstanding the whole point of the Lion King references - this is *comedic satire*, not plagiarism. Please learn to see a running gag when one presents itself. (The Snake character is also a stab at other snakes who have appeared in past Disney movies...) Sure, The Wild wasn't perfect; admittedly, I had a few of those cheesy cringe moments whenever the musical montages came on (I had far more during Madagascar - Chris Rock's character grated somethin' mightier than two lions at times)... as well as through most of the musical numbers. There is the one huuuuuge plot hole in The Wild: Tugboat... fuel?!. Although a hoot in her own right, Janeane Garofalo's giraffe 'Bridget' is all too similar to Ellen DeGeneris' 'Dory' from Finding Nemo, one among many similarities to this film's aquatic Disney cousin. The overall premise - even where it varies from Madagascar - is tired and predictable. However, while the penguins are really the only reason I would buy Madagascar, I would actually consider purchasing this DVD... Hey, you can't beat William Shatner - as the *villain* for once! I was unexpectedly impressed with Shatner's characterisation and performance, and the special details he put into his voicing. Jim Belushi's squirrel was also quite memorable.

The animation quality of the The Wild has miles on the first in terms of textures, realism, character design (I disliked the too-"stylised" look of the characters and animation in Madagascar), and motion. The script, dialogue, comedy, wit (all the tongue-in-cheek moments were keepers), plot, and characters too, are all vast improvements, with the possible exception of Madagascar's penguins. The secret agent chameleons of The Wildcertainly give the penguins an excellent run for their money, though. One more note about characters: it is the secondary characters that really shine in this movie. The chameleons are used in a very interesting way, given their abilities. The villains of the film turn our notions of good and evil on their tails... or hoofs. That is where The Wild shines the most.

Measured purely by LOL moments, I found I had many more for this film but then again, I'm an adult viewing this film. And... Oh... being Canadian, the rif at Canadians helping out Americans was one for the books. That, and *curling*! And as for crazy squirrels, if you liked Over the Hedge, you should quite enjoy this film.

There is some debate about "Madagascar" having plagiarized this movie. I don't know if that is true or not, but it really doesn't matter. If they did, sincerely, I hope they steal more material from other studios, because "Madagascar" is an amazingly funny movie. My mother, that doesn't like animated movies, loved that one! No one stays more than a few seconds without laughing while watching "Madagascar", even on the more serious parts! Oh, for sure, this IS a comment about "The Wild", but it is very important to realize that the same basic idea, runaway animals from a zoo park, can become a wonderful movie or a complete disaster! Straight to the point, here is what you will (or would) get in "The Wild":

1) The story is boring: some people claimed that in "Madagascar" there was no reason for the animals to run away. If that's true or not, is really up to each one to decide (as a wildlife veterinary, I know most non-domestic animals do have a "wild instinct" built-in and do resent confinement, even if born in a cage and never knowing what it is to be free). In "The Wild", there was an explicit reason... Do you know that saying about never making a movie with animals and children? Well, that fits perfectly for "The Wild", for it has a character that is both an animal AND a child! At some points, I really wished the baby lion dead (oh no, I never worried, I knew it was a Disney Corp. story, he would never die). Later in the movie, the animals get involved in another plot that has absolutely nothing to do either with their escape or with being in the "wild".

2) It's a musical: while in "Madagascar" there is a reason for the animals to be singing, there is absolutely no one in "The Wild". They sing because it's a Disney Corp. movie, period. I don't care if the songs are original, what really matter is that they are boring! If a movie is a musical, the songs must be really good. They were worst than the score of "Anastasia" (you know, songs thrown in just to extend the length of the weak plot and to cover bad lines).

3) The characters have no charisma: in "Madagascar", the animals cared about one another, for they were friends. In "The Wild", they barely knew each other's names. Somehow, the writers thought the more animals they put in, the better. Well, all those animals are flat (they couldn't be flatter if they were made in 2D...)

4) The voice casting stinks: the voices simply don't match the characters' looks or personalities! For example, the little squirrel's voice is stronger than the lion's! Besides, the baby lion complaining got on my nerves, but that's personal, you may ignore this... Perhaps...

5) The animals stole a nuclear powered boat: that's the only explanation I could find for a tugboat to be able to go to Africa and then come back without refuelling...

6) The direction is reckless and mindless: in the first, say, five or ten minutes, we get a thousand animals running aimlessly, screaming nonsenses, doing meaningless things and finally playing a game in a really stupid way. Well, the rest of the movie is just the same, running for nothing, screaming for nothing, doing dumb things for nothing. I blame the direction. Too many (useless) things happening at the same time, at the wrong moments and for the wrong reasons (like using a small snake to lift something that weights a hundred pounds in real life, as if they used to do that all the time).

7) It's NOT funny (plus, the sound effects stink): it has the pace of a drama, a boring and meaningless drama, but it is made like a comedy. You "know" that because they filled "The Wild" with stupid boing-zip-plock canned sounds of old low-budget TV cartoons. They play them at the most inconvenient moments, like saying "please, laugh, that was a funny joke!" Well, to begin with, there are no jokes, just a few puns. Second, using those old SFX only make them embarrassing. The movie is so pathetic that they tried to make fun with a dung-beetle (not a smart-line beetle like in "Ice Age 2", but a dumb one to "laugh at it, not with it").

There are many other mistakes in this movie, which completely obfuscate any good thing it may have. "The Wild" is a movie aiming for children (or so it seems), but it only manages to be "childish". If you plan on watching it, make sure to have something else to watch afterwards, to wash it from your memory quickly...

(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.

OK i went to a early screening of this at Disney tonight and i went in with low expectations thinking well this i Disney's take on Madagascar.

Well Boy Was I wrong this movie has a great story good acting and a OK script. The only thing i did not like was the fact that the animation is a little weird because it looks like they are stuffed toys.

The Story is about these animals at a NY Zoo, One of the lions is a big wig of the park from his story's about his days in the wild. His son who is not upholding the family line because he can't Roar. SO feeling like he dose not belong he jumps on a crate headed for lady liberty, once his dad gets wind of this he goes after him with his best buds A Garaffe a squirrel a Quayle bear and a snake. And they set off in to the wild land of New York City.

the Script was overall funny but tried to hard to be funny with a few mindless fart jokes but overall made me laugh.

The showed New York and times square it was cool to see the advertising company's that no doubt payed good money to get in there: I.E.: Tivo, Toys R Us, Quaker Oats, Coke and even Pepsi.

Well worth the time so go see it April 14!

7/10 stars

It's nothing short of a miracle that the world is about to witness the re-birth of the Disney animated film. With the creative juggernaut of John Lassiter and that wonderful gang at Pixar ready to guide the House of Mouse back to it's rightful place at the forefront of animation industry, hope has risen in the eyes of every toon nut on the planet for the first time in a very long time. Sad to say that this film's only legacy will be nothing but a footnote in a yet-to-be-written textbook on how NOT to create a cartoon movie.

Sloppy, unimaginative and downright boring, "The Wild" is the 3D equivalent of the odious drivel we've been subjected to courtesy of "Eisney's" Cheapquel department. Blatantly ripping off "Madagascar", "The Lion King" and God knows whom else, this 112 minutes of digital drivel isn't even funny enough to draw smiles from the Cabbage Patch and Furby set........ironic considering that this is the age group that the film is aiming for. Gotta give 'em credit though....with the complete lack of talent, guidance and overall imagination that created this unbearable mess I'm surprised to that it turned out as well as it did.

There's an occasional flurry of ha-ha cutesiepie-ness, usually with (semi-spoiler here) the scenes depicting Ryan ( Samson and Ryan the Lion.......how original is that? SHEESH!!) and the ongoing injoke about the Koala......other than that it's an unequivocal disaster that's plastic, uninspired, and well........not even good enough to wipe the hem of Pixar's sanctified robes.

The overall design is about two notches above what you'd expect from those happy slobs that made "Hoodwinked"...nothing too stinging and quite expected from anyone else but when you suddenly remember that this is a Disney film, that's when the abject horror sets in. Do you and your kids a favor.......steer clear of this one and wait for "Cars"...you'll be so glad you did.

I 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.

I took my daughter to this movie because a record-breaking heatwave made our no-AC apartment unendurable. I think the movie was worse. We missed about the first 5 minutes.

If the concept of a religious fanatic leading a revolutionary cell in a cavern on an active volcano isn't freakish enough, the addition of an inexplicable wildebeest song-and-dance is painfully bizarre, and not in a good way. My child flinched every time an animal's head hit a hard surface, which was roughly every 17 seconds. The scary beasts trying to capture and kill Samson and Ryan, the backstory of Samson's abandonment by his father, the complete absence of mothers (a Disney trademark), and the dark, fiery visuals combined with poundingly loud scoring, made this a horrible film. It actually might have been a much better film if it hadn't been marketed for little kids -- add some four-letter words and it could almost work as a teen flick.

The sewer alligator scene was funny, if you're old enough to get the joke -- scary if not. The stuffed koala business was amusing as well. But I think we're going to rent Madagascar just to take the singed wildebeest taste out of our mouths.