Today’s Prayer Focus
MOVIE REVIEW
Madagascar: Escape 2 Africa
also known as “Madagascar 2”
MPA Rating:
for some mild crude humor.
for some mild crude humor.
Reviewed by: Jonathan Rodriguez
CONTRIBUTOR
| Moral Rating: | Average |
| Moviemaking Quality: |
|
| Primary Audience: | Kids Family Teens Adults |
| Genre: | Animation Action Adventure Comedy Family Sequel |
| Length: | 1 hr. 28 min. |
| Year of Release: | 2008 |
| USA Release: |
November 7, 2008 (wide—3,900 theaters) DVD: February 6, 2009 |
Relevant Issues
Review of the prequel to this film: Madagascar (2005)
Adventures in the rainforest! Learn about the Creator of the universe by exploring His marvelous creation. Fun for the whole family with games, activities, stories, answers to children’s questions, color pages, and more! One of the Web’s first and most popular Christian Web sites for children. Nonprofit, evangelical, nondenominational.
| Featuring | Sacha Baron Cohen, Jada Pinkett Smith, Chris Rock, David Schwimmer, Ben Stiller, Herman Almendarez, Cedric the Entertainer, Andy Richter, See all » |
| Director |
Eric Darnell Tom McGrath |
| Producer | DreamWorks Animation, Pacific Data Images, Mireille Soria, Mark Swift |
| Distributor |
 DreamWorks Pictures, aka DreamWorks Studios, a production label of Amblin Partners |
“The crate escape”
I loved this movie, plain and simple. The animation is splendid, the action is thrilling, the plot is far more complex than the original, and it's flat out a funnier film, too.
The cast of zoo mates—Alex the Lion, Marty the Zebra, Melman the Giraffe, and Gloria the Hippo—is back, this time trying to return to New York City with the help of their penguin friends, who have attempted to fix the plane they found in the first film. The flight does actually get off ground, but then returns to the ground after everything falls apart, crashing them into the middle of the African plains.
They stumble onto an African Wildlife Preserve (which Melman is 40% positive is San Diego), and meet hundreds of different creatures from their own actual species, giving them an opportunity to interact for the first time with animals just like them.
This has it's advantages (Gloria is looking for a man to settle down with), but it also brings about disadvantages and discouragements (the pack of Zebras leaves Marty feeling kinda ordinary and not unique at all). Alex is forced to prove himself to the rest of the lions, which winds up being far more difficult for a lion who is used to spending his time wowing audiences with his dance routine, not his fighting skills.
Trouble comes when the preserve's water supply mysteriously vanishes, leaving the animals near death and looking for help wherever they can find it.
For a movie aimed at children, I thought there were fewer potentially offensive moments than in the original, or in just about any other “kid-friendly” film—see the “Shrek” trilogy, but I will mention the things I did notice, and parents can decide for themselves whether or not it is right for their children.
- One of the penguins serves as flight attendant, and while explaining to the passengers how to use the oxygen mask says “Then kiss your (oxygen mask explodes) goodbye.”
- King Julien, the flamboyant lemur from the original, pops out of the farewell cake wearing a woman's hula outfit, asking the others if they are attracted to him as a woman.
- Melman briefly takes on the position of Giraffe Witch Doctor, healing the other animals.
- When the water supply runs low, King Julien suggests sacrificing one of the animals to his friends “the water gods.”
- The head penguin mentions over the plane's loudspeaker that the passengers need to “pray to your own personal god” that the plane would take off.
- One of the tourists visiting the preserve may use the phrase “What the Hell?” towards the end of the film, but I was not completely sure I heard it correctly.
- In one scene, a very mean looking shark pops out of the ocean unexpectedly, which frightened one youngster sitting behind me to tears.
- And, the opening shows a hunter stealing a baby lion away from the preserve, and the lion's father chases after the fleeing hunters, who shoot repeatedly at the lion, hitting him once.
These things may or may not bother you as parents, but I felt the need to share them anyway, just in case.
Like the original, “Madagascar 2” focuses heavily on the importance of friendship, and not always putting yourself first. It emphasizes how everyone is unique in their own way, even though they may resemble others in some shape or form. It teaches children that looks and attraction don't add up to love, and that truly caring about a person means knowing what they love, and putting their needs in front of your own desires. All in all, they seemed like pretty decent lessons to be dispensing to children.
While I really liked the original, “Madagascar 2” put a smile on my face for pretty much the entire film. The voice talent is once again fantastic (Sacha Baron Cohen nearly stealing the show as King Julien), with Bernie Mac bringing surprising vocal depth to his role as Zuba, the alpha male lion of the pride. If you enjoyed the first film even a slight amount, you will find “Madagascar 2” to be a very pleasant escape.
Violence: Minor / Profanity: Minor / Sex/Nudity: None
See list of Relevant Issues—questions-and-answers.
Positive
Positive—In reading the noted points that may be found offensive, I wanted to comment on one point that was left out. Not to give away the ending, but this movie could conceivably push the “tolerance” agenda when one species marries another. Of course, this is a children's movie and being such, we should all love one another. But I do believe there are hidden agendas in many forms that persuade our children to be tolerant of differences. I'm just saying, it's up to you to decide when you see the movie for yourself.
Moral rating: Better than Average / Moviemaking quality: 5
Moral rating: Better than Average / Moviemaking quality: 5
Deedra, age 39
Positive—I loved this movie! If you kinda liked the first one, then you'll love this one. It's got a lot more humor. …
Moral rating: Better than Average / Moviemaking quality: 4½
Moral rating: Better than Average / Moviemaking quality: 4½
Gracie, age 26 (USA)
Neutral
Neutral—I took my children to see this movie, and while I agree with the reviewer overall, he did not mention some items that a parent may want to know about. The relationship between Gloria (the Hippo) and Moto Moto (the hunky hippo on the preserve) is shown in a sexual manner. Every time the two talk, it is in low tones and with sexual innuendos. It made me very uncomfortable for my children to watch. My oldest son (20) commented that there were many unnecessary scenes and suggestive comments. Melman (the giraffe) and Gloria end up “together,” and while it is just a movie, I believe this is a deliberate attempt by Hollywood to portray that all love (even if it is not accepted by society) is okay. This is a message that is already shoved down our throats on a daily basis, and I don't think my children need to see it in a children's movie.
Moral rating: Better than Average / Moviemaking quality: 4
Moral rating: Better than Average / Moviemaking quality: 4
Patty Moliterno, age 44
Neutral—I went to see this film with my two children. Basically, it's a nice film with lots of laughter, but there are some love scenes that I think should not be in a children's film. For example, the meeting with the two Hippos (moto-moto and Gloria)—just to name one scene. Other than that, it's good entertainment. The kids enjoyed it and also their parents.
Moral rating: Average / Moviemaking quality: 5
Moral rating: Average / Moviemaking quality: 5
Richard, age 33
Neutral—I found this film interesting as to its choice of antagonistic story line. It wasn't until after I'd left and I was thinking about the movie and a marriage scene at the end when it occurred to me, the movie has a lot of similarities to the gay lifestyle. i.e. Plot one:
Father lion is disappointed in his son, Alex, because he's a flamboyant dancer/ thespian and doesn't live up to the macho “king” lion image/persona.
Plot two: penguin blackmailed during Union meeting with embarrassing pictures of him with an odd partner… seemed similar to countless media stories of local mayors/authoritarians in gay-love affairs…
Plot three: Giraffe and hippos, penguins and hula dolls marry… take home= anyone can marry anyone; it doesn't genetically have to make sense or be God's design, so long as you marry for love.
I almost forgot about the cross dressing lemur: “Are any of you attracted to me as a woman???”
As I write this, I feel like all the paranoid heralds I've chastised in the past… However, I think after the passing of Prop 8 and the new gay agenda, it's just suspicious, that's all. It seems like pro-gay diversity agenda couched in a children's movie.
Moral rating: Better than Average / Moviemaking quality: 3
Father lion is disappointed in his son, Alex, because he's a flamboyant dancer/ thespian and doesn't live up to the macho “king” lion image/persona.
Plot two: penguin blackmailed during Union meeting with embarrassing pictures of him with an odd partner… seemed similar to countless media stories of local mayors/authoritarians in gay-love affairs…
Plot three: Giraffe and hippos, penguins and hula dolls marry… take home= anyone can marry anyone; it doesn't genetically have to make sense or be God's design, so long as you marry for love.
I almost forgot about the cross dressing lemur: “Are any of you attracted to me as a woman???”
As I write this, I feel like all the paranoid heralds I've chastised in the past… However, I think after the passing of Prop 8 and the new gay agenda, it's just suspicious, that's all. It seems like pro-gay diversity agenda couched in a children's movie.
Moral rating: Better than Average / Moviemaking quality: 3
Chris, age 32
Neutral—I noticed that when the plane landed in Africa and Gloria says something along the lines of dating, Mel man is horrified and shouts you mean other guys, which I took as a subtle hint of homosexuality on his part, and I seemed to get reinforced with him hanging around other males only and they seemed to be on the guy side.
The constant scenes of Gloria and the other hippo insinuation the they wanted to have sex was somewhat disturbing. Gloria wanting to sign up for the breeding program without marriage was also upsetting.
Moral rating: Average / Moviemaking quality: 4½
The constant scenes of Gloria and the other hippo insinuation the they wanted to have sex was somewhat disturbing. Gloria wanting to sign up for the breeding program without marriage was also upsetting.
Moral rating: Average / Moviemaking quality: 4½
Jan, age 47
Neutral—I noticed that when the plane landed in Africa, and Gloria says something along the lines of dating, Mel man is horrified and shouts you mean other guys, which I took as a subtle hint of homosexuality on his part, and I seemed to get reinforced with him hanging around other males only, and they seemed to be on the guy side.
The constant sciences of Gloria and the other hippo insinuation the they wanted to have sex was somewhat disturbing. Gloria wanting to sign up for the breeding program without marriage was also upsetting.
Moral rating: Average / Moviemaking quality: 4½
The constant sciences of Gloria and the other hippo insinuation the they wanted to have sex was somewhat disturbing. Gloria wanting to sign up for the breeding program without marriage was also upsetting.
Moral rating: Average / Moviemaking quality: 4½
Jan, age 47
Negative
Negative—Don't waste your money on this one. At least a couple of times the entire audience seemed bored and not paying attention. The adults in the theater were either asleep or playing with their cell phones. When I asked my five-year-old son what he thought he said he liked the first movie better. There were a few evolution references and there seemed to be an obvious sexual overtone throughout the movie. My daughter said that the interaction between the two hippos made her uncomfortable. The storyline wasn't very original either. It seemed very Lion King'ish. Don't wait for this one on DVD either.
Moral rating: Average / Moviemaking quality: 3
Moral rating: Average / Moviemaking quality: 3
Rhonda, age 41
Negative—The reviewer on your web site actually caught a lot of “little” things objectionable with this film that I had not noticed. The reason it was easy to miss many of these things was the extremely fast pace of the movie, which also made it tougher for adults to enjoy if prone to nausea.
However, I'm writing to add one important concern: the whole giraffe-loves-hippo thing was cute and funny, but the filmmakers were obviously leaving their ideological fingerprints on the movie. This became more clear when the zebra (Chris Rock) commented, “Love knows no boundaries” following the marriage of a penguin and his bobble-head doll. Well, if kids are programmed to think that love can be inter-species, or with inanimate objects, then what's to stop them from becoming firm supporters of gay marriage when they're older?
Look, y'all, I've long been aware of the “just be yourself” message that comes with nearly every single kids’ movie as a vehicle for moral relativism. But Hollywood, especially now after the defeat of gay marriage in California, clearly sees the need to demonstrate this relativism more concretely in terms of romantic relationships.
This actually brings up another point which is now overlooked a great deal: what purpose does it serve, exactly, for explicit romanticism (such as in the form of two hippos getting cozy in the “hot tub”) to be on display for children of PG viewing age, anyway?
Overall, I'd say Madagascar 2 doesn't offer much for families of faith or those who wish to keep things values-oriented. You should probably pass on this one.
Moral rating: Offensive / Moviemaking quality: 4
However, I'm writing to add one important concern: the whole giraffe-loves-hippo thing was cute and funny, but the filmmakers were obviously leaving their ideological fingerprints on the movie. This became more clear when the zebra (Chris Rock) commented, “Love knows no boundaries” following the marriage of a penguin and his bobble-head doll. Well, if kids are programmed to think that love can be inter-species, or with inanimate objects, then what's to stop them from becoming firm supporters of gay marriage when they're older?
Look, y'all, I've long been aware of the “just be yourself” message that comes with nearly every single kids’ movie as a vehicle for moral relativism. But Hollywood, especially now after the defeat of gay marriage in California, clearly sees the need to demonstrate this relativism more concretely in terms of romantic relationships.
This actually brings up another point which is now overlooked a great deal: what purpose does it serve, exactly, for explicit romanticism (such as in the form of two hippos getting cozy in the “hot tub”) to be on display for children of PG viewing age, anyway?
Overall, I'd say Madagascar 2 doesn't offer much for families of faith or those who wish to keep things values-oriented. You should probably pass on this one.
Moral rating: Offensive / Moviemaking quality: 4
William, age 27
Negative—This is NOT a CHRISTIAN family/child friendly film. What might have been redeeming about this film was lost in the noise of poor taste and disrespect. There was a clear sexual undertone to this movie; from the very subtle (two male monkeys negotiating for maternity leave for their ‘brother’ monkeys—the penguin across the table remarks: “but you’re all male?” drawing attention to “the something” that, again while understated could almost be called pointedly political) to almost everything said and sung by Will.i.am as Moto Moto, the hippopotamus. My 14 and 16 year old daughters were repulsed by this character and called him ‘smarmy’. For anyone trying to remain pure, this stereotyped ‘let’s get it on’ (yes, I am THAT old) character will be like a commercial you wish that you could fast forward through.
Gloria, played by Jada Pinkett-Smith, Moto Moto’s object of desire, clearly lays the groundwork for this by inferring that it is her ‘time’ for a ‘special someone’, subtly altering a ‘biological clock’ reference, keeping the focus on the lusts of the flesh. The Bible has strong words for this: “For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world” (1 John 2:16). Even the secular world is now acknowledging that children need to be kept away from humor like this. In a recent study a link was found between the viewing of racy (TV) shows to teenage pregnancy: (find at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27506234/ and http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/11/081103084042.htm).
Originally being from New York City (something I am very proud of) I was embarrassed by the tough old grandma who was always ready for a fight and always ‘kicking below the belt’ while almost patriotically (in one image she is striking a Statue of Liberty pose) claiming the ‘pride and glory’ of being a New Yorker. I know that there are some that find this funny (a la Coen Brothers), but why would we want to portray our grey haired ones in this light as entertainment for children? Whatever the stereotype, when we don’t acknowledge each other with Godly esteem we are being disrespectful to God’s creation and prejudiced; is that really funny?
God’s Word gives a clear mandate: “Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.” (Phil 4:8)
As a parent, I am asking, if you are going for the laughs—PLEASE preview this BEFORE taking a child.
Moral rating: Offensive / Moviemaking quality: 3
Gloria, played by Jada Pinkett-Smith, Moto Moto’s object of desire, clearly lays the groundwork for this by inferring that it is her ‘time’ for a ‘special someone’, subtly altering a ‘biological clock’ reference, keeping the focus on the lusts of the flesh. The Bible has strong words for this: “For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world” (1 John 2:16). Even the secular world is now acknowledging that children need to be kept away from humor like this. In a recent study a link was found between the viewing of racy (TV) shows to teenage pregnancy: (find at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27506234/ and http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/11/081103084042.htm).
Originally being from New York City (something I am very proud of) I was embarrassed by the tough old grandma who was always ready for a fight and always ‘kicking below the belt’ while almost patriotically (in one image she is striking a Statue of Liberty pose) claiming the ‘pride and glory’ of being a New Yorker. I know that there are some that find this funny (a la Coen Brothers), but why would we want to portray our grey haired ones in this light as entertainment for children? Whatever the stereotype, when we don’t acknowledge each other with Godly esteem we are being disrespectful to God’s creation and prejudiced; is that really funny?
God’s Word gives a clear mandate: “Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.” (Phil 4:8)
As a parent, I am asking, if you are going for the laughs—PLEASE preview this BEFORE taking a child.
Moral rating: Offensive / Moviemaking quality: 3
Annie L, age 41
Negative—I could not recommend this movie to parents of small children because of the sexual undertones mentioned in the review as well as other comments such as King Jullian's comment of wanting his n_ts on a silver platter. And then there's the sleazy male hippo that was obviously only after one thing with Gloria. There's no reason for this “adult” humor in a children's movie. I'm finding it hard to believe that a Christian reviewer can highly recommend this movie.
Moral rating: Offensive / Moviemaking quality: 5
Moral rating: Offensive / Moviemaking quality: 5
Matt, age 43
Negative—This movie was out of this world horrible for a Christian family to sit down together and watch! From Melvin being a witch doctor, to them offering him over to the “gods” of the volcano to bring back their water in Africa.At first I let a few things go over me like the small monkey type animal acting as a woman (which he was a male) and asking the other animals which one of you like this? And the witch doctor part kind of bothered me but was tollerable.It was when the were all gathered around the volcano chanting save us save us to the “volcano gods” offering up a sacrifice, when my husband and I scooped up our three year old and left the movies.
As a Christian, we do not need to tolerate movies like this that go against our beliefs, and we have the choice to honor God in the things we view and watch.This had so much potential to be a great movie. But then again Hollywood got to put there hands on it.
Moral rating: Extremely Offensive / Moviemaking quality: 4½
As a Christian, we do not need to tolerate movies like this that go against our beliefs, and we have the choice to honor God in the things we view and watch.This had so much potential to be a great movie. But then again Hollywood got to put there hands on it.
Moral rating: Extremely Offensive / Moviemaking quality: 4½
Abby Atchley, age 22
Negative—When we went to this movie, I saw the PG rating, and assumed it was good. It was not. I think that people who see this as okay, have severely jaded consciences, and need to spend more time in their Bible, less time in their theatre. We walked out, probably halfway through the movie, when they introduced the lemur proposing a sacrifice to volcano gods.
Umm… am I the only one who has a problem with the worship of false gods, and especially the deliberate lying introduction of false gods? Does a profit motive exonerate such behavior, or compound it? Aside from that, the classism scene in the airplane was bad. The hippo scene was badly inappropriate, as well as immoral (I started speaking in favor of leaving then… but foolishly accepted my wife's demurring). The slapstick humor was not good. The violent old lady, while entertaining, does not keep our mind (as Paul instructs) on whatever is holy, pure, upright. The cross-dressing, the lemur ripped off the airplane wing, the theft of the cars by the penguins, and the abuse… the very male monkey kissing the very male penguin sergeant… all add up to unholy entertainment.
The list goes on. What wasn't offensive to Bible-believing Christians in this movie? I don't know. With most movies, it seems that what starts out a little bad gets worse. What starts out pretty good, sometimes gets better. This movie was no exception.
The be-all, end-all, of Christian entertainment, is not entertainment. It is still to be Christ, lest we risk losing Christ altogether. Was there anything of Christ in this movie? No. I advise Christians to stay far away from this one.
Moral rating: Very Offensive / Moviemaking quality: 4
Umm… am I the only one who has a problem with the worship of false gods, and especially the deliberate lying introduction of false gods? Does a profit motive exonerate such behavior, or compound it? Aside from that, the classism scene in the airplane was bad. The hippo scene was badly inappropriate, as well as immoral (I started speaking in favor of leaving then… but foolishly accepted my wife's demurring). The slapstick humor was not good. The violent old lady, while entertaining, does not keep our mind (as Paul instructs) on whatever is holy, pure, upright. The cross-dressing, the lemur ripped off the airplane wing, the theft of the cars by the penguins, and the abuse… the very male monkey kissing the very male penguin sergeant… all add up to unholy entertainment.
The list goes on. What wasn't offensive to Bible-believing Christians in this movie? I don't know. With most movies, it seems that what starts out a little bad gets worse. What starts out pretty good, sometimes gets better. This movie was no exception.
The be-all, end-all, of Christian entertainment, is not entertainment. It is still to be Christ, lest we risk losing Christ altogether. Was there anything of Christ in this movie? No. I advise Christians to stay far away from this one.
Moral rating: Very Offensive / Moviemaking quality: 4
Michael Rudmin, age 39
Negative—I viewed this entire film, with a slight diaper change interruption. I expected this movie to be cleaner. I had two major issues with this movie:
1. The use of voodoo (pagan) symbols and objects (often carried by the animals). This culminates in a scene near the end of the movie where they are offering a live sacrifice to “the gods” in a lava pool (pagan sacrifice). When one “bad” animal lands in the lava, “the gods” are given credit (albeit humorously) for brining about a much needed flood.
2. The emphasis on the rear ends of the animals, from the beginning of the movie to the very end? Why the focus on rear ends, often depicted shaking back and forth? Aren't there other aspects of these animals which can be focused on?
Some of the romance scenes were a little too “cute” for little children. I was disappointed with this movie and do not think it deserves any better than an “average” rating morally (if that), considering the audience being targeted.
Moral rating: Average / Moviemaking quality: 4
1. The use of voodoo (pagan) symbols and objects (often carried by the animals). This culminates in a scene near the end of the movie where they are offering a live sacrifice to “the gods” in a lava pool (pagan sacrifice). When one “bad” animal lands in the lava, “the gods” are given credit (albeit humorously) for brining about a much needed flood.
2. The emphasis on the rear ends of the animals, from the beginning of the movie to the very end? Why the focus on rear ends, often depicted shaking back and forth? Aren't there other aspects of these animals which can be focused on?
Some of the romance scenes were a little too “cute” for little children. I was disappointed with this movie and do not think it deserves any better than an “average” rating morally (if that), considering the audience being targeted.
Moral rating: Average / Moviemaking quality: 4
M Robledo, age 38
Negative—This film was a yawnnnnner… I fell asleep at 3 points in the film and was just glad it was over. I paid $6.50 for my ticket and forgot to use my school ID to get $1.50 off. Save your money…
Moral rating: Extremely Offensive / Moviemaking quality: 1
Moral rating: Extremely Offensive / Moviemaking quality: 1
Jonathan Tran, age 24
Negative—I viewed this entire film, with a slight diaper change interruption. I expected this movie to be cleaner. I had two major issues with this movie:
1. The use of voodoo (pagan) symbols and objects (often carried by the animals). This culminates in a scene near the end of the movie where they are offering a live sacrifice to “the gods” in a lava pool (pagan sacrifice). When one “bad” animal lands in the lava, “the gods” are given credit (albeit humorously) for brining about a much needed flood.
2. The emphasis on the rear ends of the animals, from the beginning of the movie to the very end? Why the focus on rear ends, often depicted shaking back and forth? Aren't there other aspects of these animals which can be focused on?
Some of the romance scenes were a little too “cute” for little children. I was disappointed with this movie and do not think it deserves any better than an “average” rating morally (if that), considering the audience being targeted.
Moral rating: Average / Moviemaking quality: 4
1. The use of voodoo (pagan) symbols and objects (often carried by the animals). This culminates in a scene near the end of the movie where they are offering a live sacrifice to “the gods” in a lava pool (pagan sacrifice). When one “bad” animal lands in the lava, “the gods” are given credit (albeit humorously) for brining about a much needed flood.
2. The emphasis on the rear ends of the animals, from the beginning of the movie to the very end? Why the focus on rear ends, often depicted shaking back and forth? Aren't there other aspects of these animals which can be focused on?
Some of the romance scenes were a little too “cute” for little children. I was disappointed with this movie and do not think it deserves any better than an “average” rating morally (if that), considering the audience being targeted.
Moral rating: Average / Moviemaking quality: 4
M Robledo, age 38
Negative—When we went to this movie, I saw the PG rating, and assumed it was good. It was not. I think that people who see this as okay, have severely jaded consciences, and need to spend more time in their Bible, less time in their theatre.
We walked out, probably halfway through the movie, when they introduced the lemur proposing a sacrifice to volcano gods.
Umm… am I the only one who has a problem with the worship of false gods, and especially the deliberate lying introduction of false gods? Does a profit motive exonerate such behavior, or compound it?
Aside from that, the classism scene in the airplane was bad. The hippo scene was badly inappropriate, as well as immoral (I started speaking in favor of leaving then… but foolishly accepted my wife's demurring). The slapstick humor was not good. The violent old lady, while entertaining, does not keep our mind (as Paul instructs) on whatever is holy, pure, upright. The cross-dressing, the lemur ripped off the airplane wing, the theft of the cars by the penguins, and the abuse… the very male monkey kissing the very male penguin sergeant… all add up to unholy entertainment.
The list goes on. What wasn't offensive to Bible-believing Christians in this movie? I don't know. With most movies, it seems that what starts out a little bad gets worse. What starts out pretty good, sometimes gets better. This movie was no exception.
The be-all, end-all, of Christian entertainment, is not entertainment. It is still to be Christ, lest we risk losing Christ altogether. Was there anything of Christ in this movie? No. I advise Christians to stay far away from this one.
Moral rating: Very Offensive / Moviemaking quality: 4
We walked out, probably halfway through the movie, when they introduced the lemur proposing a sacrifice to volcano gods.
Umm… am I the only one who has a problem with the worship of false gods, and especially the deliberate lying introduction of false gods? Does a profit motive exonerate such behavior, or compound it?
Aside from that, the classism scene in the airplane was bad. The hippo scene was badly inappropriate, as well as immoral (I started speaking in favor of leaving then… but foolishly accepted my wife's demurring). The slapstick humor was not good. The violent old lady, while entertaining, does not keep our mind (as Paul instructs) on whatever is holy, pure, upright. The cross-dressing, the lemur ripped off the airplane wing, the theft of the cars by the penguins, and the abuse… the very male monkey kissing the very male penguin sergeant… all add up to unholy entertainment.
The list goes on. What wasn't offensive to Bible-believing Christians in this movie? I don't know. With most movies, it seems that what starts out a little bad gets worse. What starts out pretty good, sometimes gets better. This movie was no exception.
The be-all, end-all, of Christian entertainment, is not entertainment. It is still to be Christ, lest we risk losing Christ altogether. Was there anything of Christ in this movie? No. I advise Christians to stay far away from this one.
Moral rating: Very Offensive / Moviemaking quality: 4
Michael Rudmin, age 39
Negative—…My husband and I started to watch it and shut it down not quite halfway through because we thought it was morally disgusting. When the children's leader at our church sent out notices to the kids that we would be watching this film in a few weeks I went to her to object, but she said it was fine, and that she had brought her kids to see it at the theatre. My husband and I decided to watch it again from the beginning all the way through (again—without our 7 year old son present). We even put the subtitles on to be sure we understood everything that was being said. I think if you read the other negative comments on this film that will sum up pretty much what I think of it as well. …We will NOT be allowing our child to view this film and I am going to fight to have it NOT be shown at our church for children grades Kindergarten through 5. I'm not saying we are perfect and don't let our child watch anything negative, but I've got to draw the line on this one. Too bad because the rest of the movie was quite funny, if you could ignore the blatant violence and sexual inuendo.
Moral rating: Offensive / Moviemaking quality: 4
Moral rating: Offensive / Moviemaking quality: 4
Angeline, age 39 (Canada)
Negative—As a Christian family we took a stand against today's over-sexed entertainment by getting rid of our TV and by not going to the movie theater. Some people would say that not having these two forms of entertainment would disconnect you from the world and I would say that they are right and wrong. Right in the sense that I am not being conformed to this world and wrong because it has brought me closer to God, closer to my family and closer to the community. I guess you can say it has brought us out of fantasy and into reality. With that being said, my family and I do watch videos from time to time and I agree with many of the negative reviews given for this movie on this site. One scene that was not mentioned was the crash landing scene that makes a reference to incest. I believe it’s when the leader penguin tells the other pilot to “put it down gently like your kissing your sister” and then he says “kiss your sister”. With sexual undertone throughout the whole movie this comment is very inappropriate. I do not recommend this movie for Christian families.
Moral rating: Offensive / Moviemaking quality: 3
Moral rating: Offensive / Moviemaking quality: 3
Desmond, age 39 (USA)
Negative—I have seen most of Madigascar (in the home of a relative). I would never spend my hard earned money to watch is movie. Why? The name of the movie is Madigascar—this is also the name of an island where Charles Darwin did his research about the orchid and the moth. Geez, the name of one monkey is Darwin… for me that is frankly quite enough… There many references to evolution and false gods. This movie promotes a harmful evolutionary and New Age worldview.
Moral rating: Extremely Offensive / Moviemaking quality: 4½
Moral rating: Extremely Offensive / Moviemaking quality: 4½
Roland, age 41 (USA)
Negative—…I watched this with my wife and three kids (ages 3, 6, 7), and I found it to be, not only disappointing, but also disturbing on various levels. The previous commentaries provide the details of the content so I won't needlessly repeat them.
There were many funny parts to the movie, for sure, that evoked laugher. But my wife and I found ourselves questioning WHY, in a kids movie, did there have to be such sexual OVERtones throughout the movie. The disturbing thing is this: As I read through the “Comments from Young Viewers,” it becomes, so, clear that our upcoming generation of children are clearly becoming desensitized to what is being put before their eyes. In comparison, this movie attempted the depth of an adult secular “love story” using CG, “kid-friendly” characters. WHY? What is the rationale here? What happened to, simply, letting a kids movie be just that? I understand that adults watch these movies with their kids but the bottom line is that the primary target audience should still be… kids.
Although not as pervasive in a serious level, the element of violence was less so a concern but also present: The opening scene where the father lion's ear gets partially shot off with a rifle and is bleeding, was one heck of an opener. My kids looked at me with some concern but we, regrettably, pressed on.
Moral rating: Very Offensive / Moviemaking quality: 4½
There were many funny parts to the movie, for sure, that evoked laugher. But my wife and I found ourselves questioning WHY, in a kids movie, did there have to be such sexual OVERtones throughout the movie. The disturbing thing is this: As I read through the “Comments from Young Viewers,” it becomes, so, clear that our upcoming generation of children are clearly becoming desensitized to what is being put before their eyes. In comparison, this movie attempted the depth of an adult secular “love story” using CG, “kid-friendly” characters. WHY? What is the rationale here? What happened to, simply, letting a kids movie be just that? I understand that adults watch these movies with their kids but the bottom line is that the primary target audience should still be… kids.
Although not as pervasive in a serious level, the element of violence was less so a concern but also present: The opening scene where the father lion's ear gets partially shot off with a rifle and is bleeding, was one heck of an opener. My kids looked at me with some concern but we, regrettably, pressed on.
Moral rating: Very Offensive / Moviemaking quality: 4½
Jamie, age 37 (Canada)
Comments from young people
Neutral—You forgot to mention in your review of the movie that there are two parts in the film which suggest gay relations. Like for instance, there is one part of the movie where one of the monkey's kiss the skipper aka the lead penguin. Their both males. I found it offensive, but was a little shocked at first to see something like that in this film. The second scene is one of when the four main characters, are talking about dating etc etc. Melman says something like this “dating …other guys?” I'm paraphrasing but he did say it. These may or may not be issues for you or children but I think that however, small they are, Hollywood was dropping a hint. Beyond those two small parts, the movie was great, it was very humorous, and I would recommend others to see it.
Moral rating: Good / Moviemaking quality: 3½
Moral rating: Good / Moviemaking quality: 3½
Scott, age 16
Positive—I must say, this was the best animated movie I have ever seen! I was a big fan of the first one and saw the preview for the sequel and thought that it wouldn't be nearly as good as the first one. But I was I wrong! This movie had a great plot, lots of laughs (most of which are not in the previews surprisingly), and some good life lessons. Some were like being accepted for who you are and there's more to liking someone then just their appearance, there's also inner beauty. (SPOILER WARNING) For example, Gloria realizes that Moto Moto only likes her because she’s big, not for who she is on the inside. Which is why she realizes that Melman is her true love. (END OF SPOILER) The only negatives I could think of were some slapstick violence from the old lady once again fighting Alex, and a scene where one of the penguins says “I'm so happy I could kiss” and the male monkey actually does. I know that my pastor was a little offended by this scene. But besides that, Madagascar 2 is THE animated movie of the year. I suggest taking your fives and up! Enjoy!
Moral rating: Better than Average / Moviemaking quality: 4
Moral rating: Better than Average / Moviemaking quality: 4
Matthew, age 14
Positive—A good movie, a little crude (not as crude a the first), and very funny. The part about praying to you're own personal gods was meant to be humorous, the shark wasn't scary, it was funny looking. So was the part about King Julian pretending (he isn't portrayed as smart anyway :) to be a woman. Oh, and when the hunter is shooting at the baby lion's father he only nicks him in the ear. The lion gets up quickly after, as it's only a painful cut. Nothing to brutal. But a great, hilarious movie!!!…
Moral rating: Better than Average / Moviemaking quality: 4½
Moral rating: Better than Average / Moviemaking quality: 4½
Caleb Northwood, age 14
Neutral—I liked it a lot but it just needed to have more funny parts at the end. The first one was better because it had a better story and funnier parts than the second one. So I just think it needed to improve a bit.
Moral rating: Excellent! / Moviemaking quality: 4½
Moral rating: Excellent! / Moviemaking quality: 4½
Evan Cabral, age 9
Positive—I must say, this was the best animated movie I have ever seen! I was a big fan of the first one and saw the preview for the sequel and thought that it wouldn't be nearly as good as the first one. But I was I wrong! This movie had a great plot, lots of laughs (most of which are not in the previews surprisingly), and some good life lessons. Some were like being accepted for who you are and there's more to liking someone then just their appearance, there's also inner beauty. (SPOILER WARNING) For example, Gloria realizes that Moto Moto only likes her because she's big, not for who she is on the inside. Which is why she realizes that Melman is her true love. (END OF SPOILER)
The only negatives I could think of were some slapstick violence from the old lady once again fighting Alex, and a scene where one of the penguins says “I'm so happy I could kiss,” and the male monkey actually does. I know that my pastor was a little offended by this scene. But besides that, “Madagascar 2” is THE animated movie of the year. I suggest taking your fives and up! Enjoy!
Moral rating: Better than Average / Moviemaking quality: 4
The only negatives I could think of were some slapstick violence from the old lady once again fighting Alex, and a scene where one of the penguins says “I'm so happy I could kiss,” and the male monkey actually does. I know that my pastor was a little offended by this scene. But besides that, “Madagascar 2” is THE animated movie of the year. I suggest taking your fives and up! Enjoy!
Moral rating: Better than Average / Moviemaking quality: 4
Matthew, age 14
Positive—A good movie, a little crude (not as crude a the first), and very funny. The part about praying to you're own personal gods was meant to be humorous, the shark wasn't scary, it was funny looking. So was the part about King Julien pretending (he isn't portrayed as smart anyway :) to be a woman. Oh, and when the hunter is shooting at the baby lion's father, he only nicks him in the ear. The lion gets up quickly after, as it's only a painful cut. Nothing too brutal. But a great, hilarious movie!!!…
Moral rating: Better than Average / Moviemaking quality: 4½
Moral rating: Better than Average / Moviemaking quality: 4½
Caleb Northwood, age 14
Positive—I loved “Madagascar…”! I didn't find it offensive. I guess the movie also has good morals, too.
1. cooperation helps everyone
2. don't date someone who only likes you for your looks
3. never let penguins fly your plane.
I found the movie very funny. I liked it better than the first! I think this movie is a movie that almost everyone will enjoy!!
Moral rating: Good / Moviemaking quality: 5
1. cooperation helps everyone
2. don't date someone who only likes you for your looks
3. never let penguins fly your plane.
I found the movie very funny. I liked it better than the first! I think this movie is a movie that almost everyone will enjoy!!
Moral rating: Good / Moviemaking quality: 5
Liliana, age 11 (Canada)
Neutral—I don't think this movie was near as funny as the first one. I did think the penguins were funny, and I liked the parts with Alex's dad learning to accept him. But I was a little offended by the romance between Melman and Gloria, I thought that was really weird. And the penguin getting married to the bobble-head doll was really weird too. And unlike the first movie where I thought he was pretty funny, I found nearly every word coming out of King Julian's mouth to be very unfunny and offensive. Not to mention the cross-dressing. And another thing: I thought it was very offensive how the camera kept zooming in on people's butts, especially with Moto-Moto. So I probably wouldn't recommend this movie, definitely not to little kids, but I guess it wasn't that bad for teenagers and adults. Just a little stupid.
Moral rating: Average / Moviemaking quality: 4
Moral rating: Average / Moviemaking quality: 4
Katie, age 16 (USA)
Positive—This movie gets bashed on way too much. It's a great movie and it deserves every little bit of good comments that it's gotten. I think it's better than the first one, but only by a little. There were maybe two lines that I found even slightly offensive. I think that's pretty good that a PG-rate movie of today can only have two slightly offensive lines in a full eighty-nine minutes.
Some of the people on this site fail to understand that it doesn't have to be completely biblical to be a good movie. Some people on this review are making it seem like Moto Moto the hippo is a role model. Like, that's what Dreamworks wants our kids to be like. Well, it's not. Dreamworks isn't sending subliminal messages to children saying "go be a gold-digging jerk to everyone". In fact, they even discourage it. Moto Moto turns out to be a lying filthy jerk who is only interested in looks and is dumped. He doesn't succeed.
Also, people have said that there was a “witch doctor” and “water god” line. First of all, the water god thing was discouraged and there were no water gods, so the film doesn't at all promote the worship of false gods. Plus, people have described the witch doctor thing to be about a character named "Melvin". There is no Melvin. It's Melman. If you're going to criticize a good movie, at least get the character named right. Anyways, this movie is awesome. I give it five stars, and it's completely clean…
Moral rating: Better than Average / Moviemaking quality: 5
Some of the people on this site fail to understand that it doesn't have to be completely biblical to be a good movie. Some people on this review are making it seem like Moto Moto the hippo is a role model. Like, that's what Dreamworks wants our kids to be like. Well, it's not. Dreamworks isn't sending subliminal messages to children saying "go be a gold-digging jerk to everyone". In fact, they even discourage it. Moto Moto turns out to be a lying filthy jerk who is only interested in looks and is dumped. He doesn't succeed.
Also, people have said that there was a “witch doctor” and “water god” line. First of all, the water god thing was discouraged and there were no water gods, so the film doesn't at all promote the worship of false gods. Plus, people have described the witch doctor thing to be about a character named "Melvin". There is no Melvin. It's Melman. If you're going to criticize a good movie, at least get the character named right. Anyways, this movie is awesome. I give it five stars, and it's completely clean…
Moral rating: Better than Average / Moviemaking quality: 5
Tim, age 12 (USA)
Neutral—Let’s start with the bad stuff—King Julien wears a coconut bra and to a crowd of lemurs, says, “Haha! Look! I’m a lady! Which one of you is attracted to me?,” jokingly. An old lady is beat up, but it’s very cartoony and she’s never actually hurt at all. One of the penguins says “I wish I could kiss you,” to a monkey, jokingly, and the monkey takes it seriously and kisses him. The penguin is a bit shaken.
And, now, the good stuff. For those of y'all complaining about Moto Moto—his lust for Gloria is portrayed as BAD. There’s a scene where Gloria asks Moto Moto what he likes about her, , and he just responds with stuff along the lines of, “Well, you're… uh… plumpy?” Melman interrupts them and proceeds to tell Moto Moto to treat Gloria right and like a queen, then runs off. Moto Moto just rolls his eyes and says, “Where were we?” to Gloria, and she sarcastically responds, “I’m plumpy?” I don’t now about y'all, but I think that screams, “LUSTING ISN’T GOOD.”See all »
Moral rating: Average / Moviemaking quality: 5
And, now, the good stuff. For those of y'all complaining about Moto Moto—his lust for Gloria is portrayed as BAD. There’s a scene where Gloria asks Moto Moto what he likes about her, , and he just responds with stuff along the lines of, “Well, you're… uh… plumpy?” Melman interrupts them and proceeds to tell Moto Moto to treat Gloria right and like a queen, then runs off. Moto Moto just rolls his eyes and says, “Where were we?” to Gloria, and she sarcastically responds, “I’m plumpy?” I don’t now about y'all, but I think that screams, “LUSTING ISN’T GOOD.”See all »
Moral rating: Average / Moviemaking quality: 5
Missy, age 17 (USA)
- King Julien does one scene in which he is a cross-dresser and says something like “See I am a woman, who finds me attractive?”
- Melman becomes a witch doctor. He doesn't do voodoo and is really just a regular doctor but if you have children that may be something you would have to explain to them
-Melman declares his love for Gloria and one of the penguins (I think it is Skipper) falls for a hula dancer doll (like the ones on a car dashboard). I just thought this was a little disturbing.
Overall, the movie is really fun though and SOOO much better than the majority of films out there.
My Ratings: Moral rating: Better than Average / Moviemaking quality: 5