Alad'2

The imposition of antiquities on the modern world. Good special effects and a lot of humor.

Alad'2 is a painfully misguided attempt at comedy that fails on almost every level. What was already a flimsy concept in the first film collapses entirely in this sequel, where lazy writing, uninspired direction, and painfully awkward performances combine into something barely watchable.

Kev Adams once again delivers his trademark blend of forced humor and unfunny mugging, but here, the jokes are so flat and repetitive they feel like leftovers from a rejected sketch show. The plot is incoherent, the cameos are desperate, and the pacing makes the whole thing feel twice as long as it is.

Even the production design and effects, which could've offered a visual distraction, feel cheap and rushed. Alad'2 doesn't just lack originality, it lacks effort. It's a movie that screams "cash grab" from the opening scene to the credits.

It's not just a bad sequel, but a painfully unfunny mess that should've stayed in the lamp.

Positive: _It ends eventually _Some sets are "okay"

Negative: _Unfunny, repetitive humor _Pointless cameos and references _No story, no stakes, no charm _Embarrassingly lazy from start to finish.

No story, no fun, no good ending... felt bored... waste of time

This sequel to Arthur Benzaken's film (The New Adventures of Aladdin, 2015) is a dud. It lacks visual scope. Here, the staging is designed for the tablet or the iPhone, not for the cinema. The shots are closer together, and the characters are less well thought out in the frame. This film is more reminiscent of sequences from TV shows or short films for Internet video clips.

The screenplay (still credited to Daive Cohen) manipulates fewer characters than the first in the series, and seems constructed solely as a pretext for Jamel Debbouze's performances. Jamel Bebbouze is far too present, and his character unbalances the film: Aladin has become a secondary character, even an extra. Jamel Debbouze puts on a show, which is all very well, but it doesn't serve the film. Moreover, each sequence taken individually is sympathetic, even effective on a comic level, but taken together they don't give the whole a coherent approach, a feeling of togetherness. For example, the space/time travel gag, in which they come across Christopher Columbus, is a good idea, but of no interest to the film as a whole. There are a lot of good individual ideas, but there's no overall artistic direction.

How can someone be that arrogant and give this movie 10*, when one Godfather has 9*? You know it's high probability that actors of this pile of s**t gave it those ratings. This is probably the worst movie ever made.