Zookeeper
User Score
4.2 out of 10

Mixed or average reviews- based on 88 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 30 out of 88
  2. Mixed: 14 out of 88
  3. Negative: 44 out of 88

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
view
per page
  1. scrieciu
    Jul 15, 2011
    3
    Where can I start. There's not a lot of things to say about this movie. Well, it wasn't as bad as I thought it would be. The story concept is very unoriginal. Everything about this movie is cliche. Talking animals is so ten years ago. We already have '' Doctor Dolittle '' (1998), '' Cats & Dogs '' (2001) and more. These kind of movies are not popular anymore and people are getting bored by this. Also, I specifically want to point out Joe Rogan. His acting skills sucks. Why the heck did they casted him ? He really annoyed me. An other thing that I didn't like is the way Adam Sandler did the voice of Donald the Monkey. It was just stupid and retarded. He tried so hard, that it was ridiculous. I can't believe Sylvester Stallone (as Joe the lion) and Nick Nolte (as Bernie the gorilla) were apart of this movie. They should be a shamed of them self. At some points it was enjoyable, but it was to predicable. There's absolutely nothing special about '' Zookeeper ''. I manage to laugh four times, so don't expect this to be the comedy of the year. It's far from it.… Expand
  2. movieboy
    Jul 10, 2011
    1
    This is so bad. The animal dialogue is painfully unfunny. I laughed out loud once in the movie, my 11year old laughed twice. Starting to wonder if Sandler can be involved with a movie that's actually funny. Kevin James is OK in his part which is not saying much. One scene has him - taking advice from his animal pals - peeing in some plants at a restaurant and being mildly reprimanded by a waiter. That's funny?
    Now I hear some of the animals were not treated well. Nice.    … Expand
  3. Shiira
    Aug 19, 2011
    3
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. The gorilla sits in front of a wall, stoically, without movement or sound, never turning once while Griffin tries to befriend the large ape with fresh food and a tire. At the Franklin Zoo, Bernie has a reputation for being wild. Ten years ago, he attacked a zookeeper, so the authorities took away his view. No longer showcased as a star attraction, Bernie resides in a cell-like pit where the dispirited animal has been brooding ever since. If only the gorilla could have told his side of the story. Unfortunately, zoo officials had nothing to go on except for the testimony of its lone English speaker, so they leveled Bernie's open-aired home, the one that overlooked a faraway T.G.I.F., and replaced it with a food stand. What would the beast say in his defense? Finally, that time arrives when the animals, fearing the departure of the kindly zookeeper, reveal their bilinguality to Griffin, whose staying is contingent on wooing back his ex. With the moratorium lifted, following the lion's lead on talking to humans, Bernie recounts his physical abuse at the hands of Shane, who slipped and fell without any malice on the gorilla's part. The unkind zookeeper carried a longstick. What if he did more than prod Bernie? Sworn to a code of silence, the hirsute beast wouldn't be able to stop Shane with words. Foremost, the word NO. Aside from, perhaps, "Babe", rarely has there been any reason for a live-action talking animals movie to exist. Giraffes, monkey, lions, what have you, just end up looking ridiculous, and kind of creepy, when they're subjected to computer-generated ventriloquism. That's the irony of "Zoo", the 2007 documentary about an extreme horse lover society which came to light after a man died of fatal post-coital injuries sustained from interspecies intimacy. As the female narrator points out, a horse can't give its consent, lacking both the cognitive ability, and, obviously, speech, to do so. If only life could only imitate the banal cinematic art, just this one time, for clarification purposes, since the filmmaker reserves judgment on the question of whether these sex mavericks are moral or not. The audience needs to hear it from the horse's mouth, concerning the reciprocation of romantic love, in a language they can understand. That's because the men of "Zoo" have cultivated the fantasy in which horses yearn to be their b*tches; to be human, making the zoophiles guilty of the same anthropomorphism we see at the movies, even in the non-talking ones. Similar to the flightless Antarctic birds from "March of the Penguins", the men project onto the horses, the very attributes which make us human, with the slight difference being that in "Zoo", it's the subject, not the filmmaker, who shapes the rhetoric. Identified simply as "H.", the ranch hand insists that "you're connecting with another intelligent being who's happy to be involved," uncannily echoing the sentiments of a child molester who mistakes hubris for compassion. (Both horse and child have no say in the arrangement.) We need "Zoo" to be a talking animals movie, because who is the horse going to tell, but other horses, about the abuse or lack thereof. In the book "The Reality Effect: Film Culture and the Graphic Imperative", a meditation on our first filmed century, cultural critic Joel Black writes about sex, or rather, the suggestion of sex, in classic cinema, where the screen would fade out just as the two lovers get set to consummate their love. Like "Casablanca", the filmmaker leaves it up to the moviegoer's imagination, in regard to the specifics of the deceased man and the stallion, rendezvouing by moonlight inside the hippodrome. Show the unshowable, and the f*cked-up romanticism would be lost, not so dissimilar to the way hardcore pornography would destroy the idealized love between Rick and Ilsa, with sex's literality and utter visceralness. In "Zookeeper", Bernie's story is mitigated by the omission of a flashback, a psychical diegesis, which gives the gorilla the subjective means to bowdlerize his victim narrative, therefore regulating the comedy genre by sublimating orifices into metaphor: he wants to drive(the car key penetrating the ignition), indicating a need for control. (In "Congo", Amy shows no such perversion, choosing her own kind at the end.) As Bernie slow-dances with a T.G.I.F. waitress, zoophilia, the moviegoer realizes with a start, can work both ways. The animals want it too. Stephanie is objectified by the wildlife, since she's the focal point in their animal minds, projecting their essence onto Griffin, whom they live vicariously through, and vice versa, when the "manimal" pees into a potted plant at a wedding, marking his territory like a wolf. Is it just a coincidence that Rosario Dawson, who starred in "Clerks 2"(another film that prominently features beastiality), plays, in essence, the same role, the best friend that the leading man ends up with?… Expand
  4. andyeddy8
    Jul 22, 2011
    1
    This is just an awful film. Did not laugh through the entire movie. Its incredibly predictable. the acting and voice acting is also really bad. Do not watch it! Its a real shame that Kevin James has gone so low :(.
  5. Moviebuffreview
    Aug 1, 2011
    1
    There really isn't a lot to say about this movie. Besides Kevin James, who makes the movie slightly watchable, is the only sunshine in this awful dark cave. Uninspired, cliche, and laughably bad script topped with some horrible and annoying performances, bad effects, and most of all, a pointless message, and Zookeeper is one of the worst movies of the year. The trailer perfectly sums up how bad this movie is. Don't watch it!… Expand
  6. moviemonger
    Jul 30, 2011
    0
    One of the most unforgiving reviews is one where the statement "totally miscast" is thrown into the ring. This movie is so bad that voice-overs are miscast. The gorilla in this movie could have been pulled from a Three Stooges sketch, warranting a 4 year old screaming from his theater seat, "Is that grandpa in that Gorilla Suit?!" None of the voices are memorable - most annoying. The last time I saw so many trips, falls, and unintentional, intentional, accidents I was watching TV Land and Cindy was overacting on yet another episode of "Three's Company". Kevin James is easily the highpoint of this movie - high as in "knee-high to a grasshopper".… Expand
  7. Nick5414
    Oct 4, 2011
    0
    Incredibly unfunny.
  8. NJWolfgang
    Oct 24, 2011
    0
    I watched this because I enjoy Kevin James. The screenplay is just awful and there is nothing in it that even allows James to truly showcase his ability to be funny. The gags which could have been funny even though they are so dated fell flat and in some cases were painful to watch. When I realized that Adam Sandler was involved in this project I thought it could be fun but even that didn't help. I can't even imagine children finding this remotely amusing unless they were under the age of five.… Expand
  9. AtTheMovies
    Aug 9, 2011
    0
    Looks like there is a front funner for the Razzie's already.
  10. moviefloss
    Jul 10, 2011
    3
    This movie has an array of actors that lend their voices to make this a silly but semi-enjoyable movie. It starts off by introducing Griffin (Kevin James), the Lead Zookeeper who works at the Boston zoo, and wants to win back the love of his life. In fear of losing their most loving Zookeeper, all the zoo animals come together to plot a plan on keeping him around.

    This movie will entertai    n kids of all ages as they will fall in love with all the zoo animals. There is such a wide variety of cute cuddly live animals to incredible CGI ones. I especially liked the bears, they became my favorite of the bunch due to their quirky dismay. I wasnâ… Expand
  11. BenIsThisGuy
    Aug 2, 2011
    1
    Awful movie because I could not keep focus and so slow it was almost pointless to watch. I would not even watch this for free if I could watch it again.
  12. Kadeemluvmusic
    Aug 25, 2011
    3
    This isn't what talking animal movies are all about. As an excuse for being a Dr. Dolittle rip-off, sure the movie is Zookeeper. But Kevin James was a big stud when he played Paul Blart Mall Cop and the movie was absolutely funny. For the sad part, I couldn't find a Zookeeper around here. Maybe he's trying to steal jewelry or make a bad impression of an Eddie Murphy wannabe. But I like to be said that Zookeeper is one of the worst talking animal movie of 2011.… Collapse
  13. Darkstarshades
    Aug 12, 2011
    0
    Didn't laughed at all, really hated it, felt offended and wanted to leave, a group of children below me were falling asleep, please note that this movie is very much like that of the night in the Musseum, or whathever, that stuff, haha.
  14. Akkhar
    Dec 10, 2011
    3
    Zookeeper is the "Yogi Bear" of 2011 . With a damaged and unfunny script Zookeeper is just so dull . Keven is better then this . Its not that boring but its not funny and entertaining. There were whole brunch of ideas to make it good but they just ruined it . The only good moment in this film was T.G.I. Friday with Kevin and Gorilla . The whole segment was good . If that whole movie had that much vibe i would like that .… Expand
  15. Egypt1am
    Aug 20, 2011
    0
    I went to see planet of the apes and they accidentally started The Zookeeper, we got 3 minutes of it before they switched the tapes, it nearly killed me!!!! No thanks
  16. TacoPieOverlord
    Sep 4, 2011
    0
    i think this thing is stupid it isnt worth money theres no good comedy and it is with talking animals wow ive never seen talking animals did you pick up on my sarcasm i hate this i hope you do too
  17. Booleanflix
    Sep 10, 2011
    3
    Griffin, a committed zookeeper, proposes to his girlfriend, Stephanie, on a beach. Sadly, it did not go to plan since she was ashamed of being with a zookeeper. 5 years later, Griffin sets his mind only on his career and the animals, but Stephanie returns in the attempt to gain Griffinâ
  18. SmileyJamm
    Oct 16, 2011
    4
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Ah... man. This plot is stupid. The comedy part is somewhat funny but the plot is rather stupid all it is a guy trying to get a girl thats it. The kids will like the movie but you will find the movie stupid and the plot dumb..… Expand
  19. cameronmorewood
    Nov 7, 2012
    4
    A truly boring and mostly plotless film, but it manages to at the very least maintain a sense of likability throughout its duration, and that's more than I can say for some of Kevin James' other films.
  20. ReviewZone212
    Feb 2, 2013
    1
    This movie isn't funny, it just feels like a rushed comedy, if ur kids want to watch it, then go and waste ur money, otherwise, you should not give a about this movie.

Critic Reviews

All reviews »
Metascore
30 out of 100

Generally unfavorable reviews - based on 29 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 4 out of 29
  2. Mixed: 10 out of 29
  3. Negative: 15 out of 29
  1. Empire
    Reviewed by: Nick de Semlyen
    Jul 25, 2011
    40
    Some sparks of comedy and fun but largely a flat and unrewarding comedy.
    Read full review
  2. Chicago Reader
    Reviewed by: J.R. Jones
    Jul 16, 2011
    30
    The best thing I can say about this sleep-inducing kiddie comedy is that the need to bring in a PG rating must have precluded the endless series of giant-turd gags promised by the title.
    Read full review
  3. Time Out New York
    Reviewed by: Matt Singer
    Jul 12, 2011
    20
    Fans of the spectacle of Kevin James falling over (nine times in 104 minutes!) and shockingly brazen product placement ("Is T.G.I. Friday's as incredible as it looks?") may dig this deranged comedy; everyone else will be scratching their heads.
    Read full review
See all critic reviews »