A Kid in Aladdin's Palace

Better than the original, I would not have predicted that in fairness. <em>'A Kid in Aladdin’s Palace'</em> is still very much a poor film, but they do improve on 1995's <em>'A Kid in King Arthur's... Better than the original, I would not have predicted that in fairness. <em>'A Kid in Aladdin’s Palace'</em> is still very much a poor film, but they do improve on 1995's <em>'A Kid in King Arthur's Court'</em>. That's a surprise, especially as this was made without the collaboration of Disney; Trimark and Tapestry went it alone with this. Cast-wise it's roughly the same in terms of what's given. Of course the first film has the (in retrospect) star names of Kate Winslet and Daniel Craig, who don't return for this, but this cast list give just as much as those from the '95 production did to be frank. Thomas Ian Nicholas does, however, return to reprise his role. I actually found him more bearable here, he's slightly less wooden and the dialogue written for him is a little more suitable. Rhona Mitra is solid as Sheherazade, none of the others are anything noteworthy but are OK. I found the mix between 'present day' and 'old day', a thing I criticised the other film for, passable, it's still a bit forced but at the same it does do it better than the Disney original. The desert surroundings, meanwhile, are more interesting that the forest/castle setting of the King Arthur release. As noted near the top, I still found this a slog to get through and it isn't anywhere near good - but it is worth noting that it is an improvement.