IMDb user comments for
Daddy Day Camp (2007)

advertisement

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 1 of 2:

[1] [2]

Index

15 comments in total

---

74 out of 101 people found the following comment useful :-
God-awful Family Film with Little to Offer, 9 August 2007

Author: PoisonKeyblade from Long Island, New York

After sitting through the entirety of Daddy Day Camp, I have to wonder what was going through everyone's minds who were involved in the making. The most likely reason was probably them thinking, "Is it really possible to make a movie this year that is worse than Evan Almighty and Delta Farce? Let's go for it!" Fortunately, Daddy Day Camp is nowhere near as horrible as those other two films, but lord know that it does come very close. This abomination of a movie somehow manages to feature a great actor, Cuba Gooding, Jr., in by far his worst role yet.

Anyone even slightly familiar with the first film will know the deal here. Low on money, Charlie Hinton decides to open up a camp similar to the day care service he ran in the first movie. Along the way, he must resolve problems with his father and show his son that he really loves him.

Yes, I know the plot sucks. While the first movie wasn't anything to write home about, Daddy Day Camp is about a thousand times worse. In the few scenes where there is supposed to be something meaningful occurring, everything just comes off in the wrong way. It might be because everything about this careless sequel is just ridiculous. Was it really necessary to make a sequel? The first film is almost entirely disregarded and almost every role is recast (although I haven't seen the first one in quite some time so there might not be any of the original cast members returning.) When Eddie Murphy turned down the movie, they should have just dropped it and forgotten about it. He was part of what made the first movie work, to some sort of level. His manic energy, his great comedic timing, his general appeal… Cuba Gooding Jr. is a great actor, but this role was just altogether wrong for him. It just didn't work as well as it should have. That being said, however, he was certainly the best aspect about this utterly atrocious film.

Daddy Day Camp is missing much of the magic that made the first movie watchable. None of the scene meld together very well (some of the younger characters go from heartfelt moments, to being rude to other kids for no reason to be rude and increasingly annoying) and the writing and dialogue are as unbelievable as they come. The villain is just pathetic, and the lesson that is supposed to be learned by the end of the film is a very weak one. Since none of the younger characters follow this lesson throughout the movie or seem to have learned anything by the film's end, it all feels just so useless. There are also, of course, those same old gross-out gags that you find in any boring family comedy. Here, however, they are not done as tastefully as in Underdog or as effectively as in the Cheaper By the Dozen films. In Daddy Day Camp, just like with the first film, it is pretty much lame gag after lame gag, watching flashy boring moments thrown onto the screen in the hopes that something will stick and not come off as completely and totally immature. In the first film, more often than not, most of the gags worked to a certain extent. In this film, there are very few redeeming factors, though. Barely any of those gags work. In fact, I didn't even crack a smile throughout the whole movie, and I am incredibly easy to please.

Another huge problem of the film was that most of the child actors were not only annoying, but their acting was so bad that I wanted to kill myself. Each person had their moments, but the kids mostly came off as incredibly inexperienced. Movies as bad as Daddy Day Camp could at least have the common decency to provide us with a semi-likable cast of children that won't annoy us to death throughout the movie. The people who cast this predictable shame of a movie should have learned a lesson from the talents of the kids in the feature film adaption of How to Eat Fried Worms. All of those kids were incredibly likable, and I loved every minute spent with them and their childhood lives. That film is much more interesting and complex than this simplistic bore-fest that cannot even credit a single laugh to its name. With Evan Almighty, I did at least laugh quite a few times. In Daddy Day Camp, I cannot even give it that compliment. The only reason that it ended up better than Evan Almighty was because of the story between Charlie and his father. Surprisingly enough, it actually worked at times, and it worked very well I must say. And not all of the kids were completely terrible.

So all in all, Daddy Day Camp was a pretty crappy movie filled with wasted talent and some of the worst child actors I've seen on screen. It is really obvious from the get-go that very little effort was put into this boring sequel. I just hope that nobody goes into this movie expecting even a relatively good movie, because it disappoints with even the lowest of expectations. 2.5/10

---

19 out of 21 people found the following comment useful :-
Send Fred Savage to Movie-making Day Camp, 11 August 2007

Author: criticlh-1 from Seattle

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

It is impossible to have a spoiler for this movie, because it is already rotten. At age 31, Fred Savage should know better. Directing his first feature film after years of work in television, he allows Cuba Gooding, Jr. to shamelessly mug the camera as if his eyebrows needed exercise. I have had high school student directors who exercised more restraint than this. I really don't mind fourth-grade gross-out humor either (my wife teaches fourth grade), but the bits in this sad excuse for a movie are merely gross without being remotely funny. Brown (did it have to be brown?) water gushing from the most disgustingly filthy toilet in history is not funny. Having a small boy throw up in the camp director's tent is not funny, no matter how tightly Gooding can clench his facial muscles in response. The most amateurish comedian knows that jokes have to be set up. In this movie there is no setup, there is no payoff, hence there is no joke. Having Gooding's character take a pratfall every third time he stands up doesn't help. In a theater full of families we were 50 minutes into an 80 minute movie before anyone actually laughed.

It would be tedious to note every major problem in this movie. Here is one. The big bully kid (there has to be one, of course) who looks to be about twelve going on thirteen, turns out to have a bed wetting problem (note the originality of this plot twist). A big, bad Marine colonel admits that he had the same problem until he was ten. This means the bully must be under the age of ten. But in his first appearance in the movie this same kid complains, "I wanna stay home and watch nudie movies." For those who may have forgotten fourth grade, this is not normal nine-year-old dialog. I begin to wonder about Fred Savage's childhood. Oh, that's right. He grew up in Hollywood.

There is only one exception to the annoying hyperactivity of the entire cast: the quiet dignity of Richard Gant as Gooding's Marine colonel father. An excellent actor who has never made it big, Gant almost manages to make his scenes work. The problem is that even though others are on screen at the same time, Gant is always working alone.

Not even the moral of the story - and this being a "family film" there must be a moral - provides any redemption for this movie. The closing scenes seem to establish that if the other guys cheat, you should cheat right back. Let's hope director Savage watches a few good comedies before he tries again.

---

11 out of 14 people found the following comment useful :-
The director must have been high, 5 September 2007

Author: e_barker from United States

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

OK look we all know studios love sequels, just look at how Disney whores out its stuff, they make money, usually. This time however the studio and the director could get no one from the original movie to come back. I think the preview was funny when it said "from the studio that brought you Daddy Day Care", like the studio ever really matters. That's like saying, "Yea we made that one and then we made Bikini Sluts 9", since studios make a wide variety of movies. Anyway, OK so you want to make a sequel and you can't get anyone from the original, they why would you use the same character names. I mean what are we supposed to think that people morphed overnight. We aren't talking about like one minor actor decided not to come back, no one would even be associated with the film, not even for a brief walk-on.

---

11 out of 16 people found the following comment useful :-
Average movie..definitely NOT worst in the history!, 23 December 2007

Author: toh-3 from Russian Federation

This is my first comment on IMDb, because i am not very good in English. But seeing that this movie was so underrated, i cant resist to write review. This is good kid-movie! It kinda remind me my childhood. Kid's acting was not annoying, and directing - not boring. Storyline - simple, but not crazy unbelievable. Jokes makes me smile, but not laugh of course, i am probably too old for this humor :) But kids may like it very much. And most important, movie is not stupid and has some moral thoughts.

It is definitely NOT 2nd worst movie in history! I see A LOT of movies every day and to half of them i am not paying attention too much or just turn off after few boring minutes. Daddy day camp i watched till the end (and with some pleasure). 5/10

p.s. but if this movie had 3/10 i am probably never would watch it :) "Worst in the history" take my attention.

---

5 out of 5 people found the following comment useful :-
I liked the first one, this one was horrible though., 10 March 2008

Author: videogamer3960 from United States

I saw this movie when they forced us to see it in summer camp. It was a lot worse than i expected. Most of the movie is 'pee' jokes and shallow kid humor. It doesn't help that the acting is terrible, and even though the movie is short, it feels as if you have been tourtered for days. If you even want to think of getting this movie for your kids, put it down and get the billionth season of spongebob. So if you want a horribly made summer movie that should have won the razzie award for best picture, go ahead and see this movie. If you want a good movie go see juno or ratatouille for the kiddies. Well i've hope i got my point across, do not see this movie. Bye.

---

1 out of 1 people found the following comment useful :-
Don't Bother, 25 March 2008

Author: (isaackamp@yahoo.com) from Istanbul, Turkey

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

The first film in this series was okay, a lighthearted comedy that managed to appeal to different age groups. The sequel is so much different that... well, it really isn't a sequel. Every roll has been recast. The plot, instead of being humorous, is nonexistent. Eddie Murphy, who was a highlight of the original, isn't here. The children seem passive-aggressive, one moment having a heartfelt conversation and the next screaming at each other or breaking into a snack shack for ice cream. But the real problem is, this film is just... not funny. It tries to be, and several scenes, if they were in another film, would have been. However, the idiocy of the plot, stale acting, and psychologically disturbed children take away from a possible slapstick laugh. Of course, the adults are stupid too. Why have a mock-war with someone who vandalizes your camp? Why not just call the police? Great things to teach three-year-olds, alright. Other things they love to teach kids? Underlying stereotypes run rampant in the film. There are scenes where girls, "jocks", and "gamers", are all stereotyped, (albeit unfairly). If this film were actually funny, there would be nothing to complain about. But the stereotyping is actually serious, and comes off a little strangely. The only highlight of this film is the man who plays Cuba Gooding's father. Never seen him before, but being able to actually act well in this mockery of a movie awards him some merit.

---

2 out of 3 people found the following comment useful :-
a bad sequel, 14 April 2008

Author: hedin_88 from Bosnia and Herzegovina

i saw the first part in the cinema and the second ant home, not expecting much. I was right, the movie was boring and not much funny at all, the first thing was that Eddie Murphy was missing, he did an great job in the first part and gave a lot to the humorous part of the movie. This second part had a more serious lead actor that does bot seem to be funny enough. The idea was also a bit boring and one-sided. Predictable and lacking reality. The kinds also had no idea about acting and that had its on contribution to the boringness of the movie. What else to say than the characters were not developed enough... one by one, the puzzle shows to be boring, predictable and plain humor. But hey, the movie is made for those younger folks and if they don't give a damn about the acting and the story, still like it. The first one is a great family movie but the second is just too childish....

---

Worse than "Ace of Hearts", 25 June 2008

Author: freakfire-1 from Texas, United States

You have go to be kidding me. This movie actually got the budget and the go ahead to be made? Were the people at the studio so cheap that they wouldn't even afford the original main actors? I am shocked this sequel to "Daddy Day Care" was given to Cuba Gooding Jr. Besides the latest Land Before Time sequel, what else has he done? And why did they get people that only sound and maybe slightly look like original cast members? If they were going to use sub-par actors, Richard Karn needed some work. I sure he and Cuba would work out fine together.

The cheesy sequel revolves around a camp that is about to be destroyed, which sounds like "Ernest Goes to Camp" in my opinion. But have no fear, Cuba is here! He somehow, through movie magic, saves the day. I don't need to go into details because it has been done one-hundred times before with a better cast and acting.

This movie is deserving of its Razzie Award. I am disappointed it didn't win more of them. "F"

---

All in all, it's still terrible..., 15 June 2008

Author: mvd102000 from United States

Really, I'm only commenting because the original "most useful" comment was idiotic, and praised the movie. Upon seeing the case for the movie, I realized that Eddie Murphy was not in the movie. I turned the case around, and discovered that the same character was being played by another actor; an actor who shouldn't be in terrible sequels, playing an already well-known actors character, only a few years after the original had come out. The film itself delivers a lack-luster storyline and secondhand laughs. The acting isn't so great and the believability of the entire thing is low, much unlike most of the first movie. I'm going to have to say, for Oscar-winning Cuba Gooding Jr. to take a role such as this, he may have risked his entire career's great overview. The original itself wasn't exactly sequel prone, but at least it was watchable.

---

3 out of 7 people found the following comment useful :-
Not as bad as everyone says it is, 5 March 2008

Author: rdhigg1 from NJ

This was not bad at all. Be honest, most of the negative reaction came before anyone even saw this movie (due to Eddie Murphy's absence). Everyone is stuck on "Cuba won an Oscar and now he's making this?". I thought it was a good idea not to have Cuba Gooding Jr act like Eddie. Cuba doing an "Eddie" impression for 90 min would have been a mistake. He's his normal neurotic/slightly geeky self. Director Fred Savage did a capable job. Hopefully, he gets another shot at a major studio release. Yes, the first one is better, but this is not a bad sequel. Maybe it could have saved itself some abuse by being released direct to video.

---

---

Page 1 of 2:

[1] [2]

Add another comment

---

Related Links

Plot synopsis	Ratings	Awards
Newsgroup reviews	External reviews	Official site
Plot keywords	Main details	Your user comments
Your vote history