It's a 5.7... and it's trying to be a tribute to the first film-which was epic-but not a good tribute. Some jokes are good, some characters are ok (e.g Wesley Snipes) but the story and the writing are so lazy and uninteresting that instead of a comedy, it's a sleep-athon.
I give it above 5 because I liked the music, the performances, the costumes and the fact that the original cast got together for this. And for some nice jokes here and there. But...why didn't they try a bit more? With the likes of Eddie Murphy and Arsenio Hall you can get a great comedy. However, these guys didn't seem to enjoy much being there. The pace is slow and the energy is low in about 80% of the film. Tracy Morgan is not adding anything new and Leslie Jones... was more annoying than funny. The plus points here are that it's indeed a feel good movie if you don't fall asleep... 5.7/10 They could have tried a bit more.
2,215 Reviews
More reunion special than movie
cliftonofun7 March 2021
When I rewatched the original Coming To America this week, I was struck by its timelessness - every scene still worked, every laugh line still felt quotable/funny. In 1988, it somehow managed to be both a classic fairytale and something that felt remarkably fresh (All Black cast?! Actors playing multiple characters?!). This movie meanwhile is...fine? I could not help but enjoy seeing the actors and their characters again, but that's not a movie. That's a reunion special. So we wound up with 2 different things happening: an updated version of the first film starring Jermaine Fowler and a bunch of cameos from the original. It is entertaining in fits and starts. But it is not timeless. It is not even cohesive. I have probably watched Coming To America 20 times, but I'm not sure I'll watch this one more than twice.
Was that trip really necessary?
ElMaruecan8217 March 2021
I'm a longtime fan of Eddie Murphy, he belongs to that breed of likable comedians who can make a film that fails without failing by himself. "Coming 2 America" succeeds at least in one department: it makes you realize how good he used to be and how good he can be like in his recent (and better) "Dolemite". Now, to describe my feeling about "Coming 2 America" I will paraphrase Dewey from "Malcolm in the Middle": "I expect nothing but I'm still let down". In fact, that quote should be the stock answer to all these tiresome trends of rebooting, remaking and sequels or prequels that sprayed all over Hollywood creation like a certain virus in our everyday lives.
It's not that the film is bad but it's just a benign nostalgia-driven project that keeps basking in the shadow of the original whose references are expectedly countless. Some are cute like the three old guys' cameos and some downright funny like the promised bride who was still barking and jumping on one foot after thirty years; but unfortunately, the film can't live up to the same levels of fun and the material isn't original enough to be referenced to in ten years. The costumes and set-designs were visually creative but same can be said about "Cats".
What's the story about? Prince Akeem, now King of Zamunda, has three daughters, he's pressured by General Izzi, the tyrannic ruler of the neighboring country Nexdoria (got the joke?) into marrying his daughter Princess Meeka (KiKi Layne) with his son and thus guaranteeing an access to the throne because Zamunda can't be ruled by queens. At that precise moment, anyone can guess the obvious trajectory the plot will take. The problem isn't that the film takes a long detour through Queens to get to the obvious solution: change the law, but that the solution all depends on Akeem's good will. Indeed, the prince who challenged his own father, who rejected the tradition, wouldn't change the rule. Of course, if he did, there would be no story and maybe the first film didn't need a sequel to begin with.
To his defense, Murphy throws in the script a few lamentations about Princes generally changing once they become kings but that aspect left me with an uncomfortable thought: in the end of the first "Coming to America", Akeem resigned himself and if it wasn't for Lisa having an afterthought or his father Jaffe Joffer changing the rule, he wouldn't have married the girl of his dreams. Now, why wouldn't he make the same move to let his rather competent daughter fulfill her dream? I started looking Akeem as a hypocrite and I blame the sequel for that. And when he is put in his place by Lisa (Shari Headley) and everybody's supposed to be "about time!", I was like "couldn't that conversation happen before and spare all the trouble?".
But I'm reading too much. You can tell there's a reason why this problem exists: the same than the 'forced marriage' thing, it's the unfair law that must be canceled. That's the point. And so it's a foregone conclusion that Meeka will become the queen. If you don't get that instantly, you've missed many movies of the 2010s (not that you missed much). My suspicions raised with the martial arts fighting sequence with Akeem practicing with his daughters, it was as if Eddie Murphy just discovered the "girl power" thing almost one decade too late, making the film dated in its attempt to be in touch with today's trendy streams of inspiration. The problem is that his daughters aren't given much screen-time anyway so the script begs us to root for them while dedicating the whole storyline to the illegitimate son: Lavelle played by Jermaine Fowler.
Lavelle is referred with the b-word (the film's most memorable running-gag), the unwanted result of an intoxicated night with one distinguished lady they met in the nightclub. That's the best they could come up in a flashback sequence that provides a few clips reminding us how awesome the original was. Akeem has no trouble finding Lavelle, he's a likable loser who welcomes with enthusiasm the prospect of being a prince, and so does his mother played by Leslie Jones. And so what we got is a reverse formula of the original where you never exactly know whether Africa is honored or mocked, Zamunda was supposed to be an expositional joke to highlight the contrast with America but Murphy handles the matters of succession with utter seriousness while providing the worst caricatures about the continent.
That African fantasy is a source of one-note jokes awkwardly contrasting with the whole theme of inequality. Even the romance between Lavelle and a groomer named Mirembe (Nonzamo Mbatha) has to get in that territory. Had the film delivered its share of laughs, that would have made for a more enjoyable experience. It started well but went downhill after the death of Jaffe (James Earl Jones). Arsenio Hall is underused as Semi, Tony Amos add some gravitas to Akeem's position recalling his more progressive mother, and well we have the "references" to ornate the rather half-baked comedy and so many musical cameos I felt like watching MTV. The film put me in such a sorry state of mind that when I saw the three guys in the barbershop, I thought they should be logically dead. My spirit was.
This is not a bad film because it is predictable, the original wasn't a masterpiece of originality either, but it just didn't have that energy, that gentle silliness the original had (Craig Brewer is no John Landis), it was like Akeem: too pompous and civilized for his own good and so obsessed with rules and the etiquettes he wasn't aware of his own contradictions. I said about the original that it was pure 80s fun, in a way the sequel also exemplifies the 2020s: a lackluster era where remaking what's old stands for newness. Like I said, I expected nothing but...
It's not that the film is bad but it's just a benign nostalgia-driven project that keeps basking in the shadow of the original whose references are expectedly countless. Some are cute like the three old guys' cameos and some downright funny like the promised bride who was still barking and jumping on one foot after thirty years; but unfortunately, the film can't live up to the same levels of fun and the material isn't original enough to be referenced to in ten years. The costumes and set-designs were visually creative but same can be said about "Cats".
What's the story about? Prince Akeem, now King of Zamunda, has three daughters, he's pressured by General Izzi, the tyrannic ruler of the neighboring country Nexdoria (got the joke?) into marrying his daughter Princess Meeka (KiKi Layne) with his son and thus guaranteeing an access to the throne because Zamunda can't be ruled by queens. At that precise moment, anyone can guess the obvious trajectory the plot will take. The problem isn't that the film takes a long detour through Queens to get to the obvious solution: change the law, but that the solution all depends on Akeem's good will. Indeed, the prince who challenged his own father, who rejected the tradition, wouldn't change the rule. Of course, if he did, there would be no story and maybe the first film didn't need a sequel to begin with.
To his defense, Murphy throws in the script a few lamentations about Princes generally changing once they become kings but that aspect left me with an uncomfortable thought: in the end of the first "Coming to America", Akeem resigned himself and if it wasn't for Lisa having an afterthought or his father Jaffe Joffer changing the rule, he wouldn't have married the girl of his dreams. Now, why wouldn't he make the same move to let his rather competent daughter fulfill her dream? I started looking Akeem as a hypocrite and I blame the sequel for that. And when he is put in his place by Lisa (Shari Headley) and everybody's supposed to be "about time!", I was like "couldn't that conversation happen before and spare all the trouble?".
But I'm reading too much. You can tell there's a reason why this problem exists: the same than the 'forced marriage' thing, it's the unfair law that must be canceled. That's the point. And so it's a foregone conclusion that Meeka will become the queen. If you don't get that instantly, you've missed many movies of the 2010s (not that you missed much). My suspicions raised with the martial arts fighting sequence with Akeem practicing with his daughters, it was as if Eddie Murphy just discovered the "girl power" thing almost one decade too late, making the film dated in its attempt to be in touch with today's trendy streams of inspiration. The problem is that his daughters aren't given much screen-time anyway so the script begs us to root for them while dedicating the whole storyline to the illegitimate son: Lavelle played by Jermaine Fowler.
Lavelle is referred with the b-word (the film's most memorable running-gag), the unwanted result of an intoxicated night with one distinguished lady they met in the nightclub. That's the best they could come up in a flashback sequence that provides a few clips reminding us how awesome the original was. Akeem has no trouble finding Lavelle, he's a likable loser who welcomes with enthusiasm the prospect of being a prince, and so does his mother played by Leslie Jones. And so what we got is a reverse formula of the original where you never exactly know whether Africa is honored or mocked, Zamunda was supposed to be an expositional joke to highlight the contrast with America but Murphy handles the matters of succession with utter seriousness while providing the worst caricatures about the continent.
That African fantasy is a source of one-note jokes awkwardly contrasting with the whole theme of inequality. Even the romance between Lavelle and a groomer named Mirembe (Nonzamo Mbatha) has to get in that territory. Had the film delivered its share of laughs, that would have made for a more enjoyable experience. It started well but went downhill after the death of Jaffe (James Earl Jones). Arsenio Hall is underused as Semi, Tony Amos add some gravitas to Akeem's position recalling his more progressive mother, and well we have the "references" to ornate the rather half-baked comedy and so many musical cameos I felt like watching MTV. The film put me in such a sorry state of mind that when I saw the three guys in the barbershop, I thought they should be logically dead. My spirit was.
This is not a bad film because it is predictable, the original wasn't a masterpiece of originality either, but it just didn't have that energy, that gentle silliness the original had (Craig Brewer is no John Landis), it was like Akeem: too pompous and civilized for his own good and so obsessed with rules and the etiquettes he wasn't aware of his own contradictions. I said about the original that it was pure 80s fun, in a way the sequel also exemplifies the 2020s: a lackluster era where remaking what's old stands for newness. Like I said, I expected nothing but...
As painful and entertaining as a turd finally pushed out after 33 years of constipation.
ukproject27 August 2021
If I didn't have any affection towards the original, I would probably have turned this movie off about 15-20 minutes in.
The only thing that kept me tuned in is just sheer fascination to see how bad this crapfest could get.
And boy it just kept getting worse and worse.
If there is a hell, then everyone associated with this shameless piece of garbage should be forced to watch it on repeat for eternity.
The only thing that kept me tuned in is just sheer fascination to see how bad this crapfest could get.
And boy it just kept getting worse and worse.
If there is a hell, then everyone associated with this shameless piece of garbage should be forced to watch it on repeat for eternity.
It's not funny at all
Gordon-114 May 2021
Some people look too deep into movies!
neilowen_7411 March 2021
Is this as funny or as good as the original? No, never was going to be either.
Is this as bad as the 1 star reviews? No it's not either!
It's entertaining & funny, with some good links to the original.
Apparently the story is weak, well yeah it's a comedy, it ain't written to get an Oscar or golden globe!!
It's written for laughs, to sit down, unwind, switch off the brain and smile.
One of the Worst Movies I've Seen
fatcat-734503 December 2021
40% or more of this movie is choreographed group movement (I won't say dancing because sometimes it doesn't have music) or terrible musical numbers that spoof popular songs but change the lyrics in an amateurish way to pertain to the characters in the movie. The main character even gets a freestyle rap in... Ohh, did I accidentally change the channel? Is this a live-action 2021 movie or a bad 90s cartoon?
It's pathetic that while this musical mess is going on the characters watching it are snapping or swaying along like it's so good. You're trying too hard. Just stop.
30% of the movie is woke virtue signalling. They repeatedly, crassly, and directly continuously state how it's messed up women don't have as many opportunites as men, how sexism is bad, how there's systematic racism, how it's wrong to grope women... Was the script written by a ultra-liberal children or an out-of-touch high school teacher or what?
Then they imply that society has changed and now people consider all that stuff bad. Is it implying that the first movie was miogynistic and culturally backwards? Uhh... I didn't see Eddie Murphy groping women or denying women their rights in the first movie. How is this relevant or necessary? It's not on both counts.
Now we can talk about the shrimp larva of a plot. Basically Eddy Murphy's character has a son and we meet the son.
That's the whole plot. It's not about anything in particular because there are many storylines, none developed beyond the outlines, none of them logical, and all regressing at some point:
1. Fish out of water trope? The son and his family are from the hood and they go live in this African king's palace. Except the son's not really very hood, knows how to behave himself appropriately when going into an interview, and quickly settles into the princely life. He doesn't play the role like a poor boy but like a middle class person.
The mom is a little bit more exaggerated and urban but she disappears for most of the movie. He also has an uncle of the same persuasion but he only comes out near the end. All of these characters drive the royals up the wall but are reconciled with them at the end and become close friends with no explanation.
2. Poor guy suddenly becomes rich trope? He's (supposedly) poor, but not really. He wants to get a job for the sake of his dignity. His king father comes to get him. At first he doesn't want to go. Then he sees money and gold and wants to go. Once he's there he decides he doesn't care about money or luxury and wants to go back. Once he goes back he cares about money again and wants to return... Ad nausem.
3. Love story: Rehashes the same plot from the first movie. Except at first he wants to marry the shallow girl because she's hot. Then he talks to some other girl for a week and wants to marry her... If he could fall in love with a girl he barely knows in a week and he's 30 wouldn't he have done it by then?
4. Son is needed to ascend to the throne: They say a son is needed to ascend to the throne and never explain why. Kind of because some other guy wants to attack Wakanda or whatever their country is called if there's no male heir - for no reason. It's forgotten at the end.
If you're a huge, huge fan of the original, the only redeeming quality is the cameos. All of the main characters and even some minor characters who appeared in the first movie show up again.
I've seen a lot of movies, but this is truly shameful and pathetic and I don't hesitate to say it is one of the worst movies I have ever seen. It's barely a movie. More like a series of tik tok shorts badly sewn together.
Ohh, and no, it's not funny.
Honourable Mentions: Yes, I hate Chariots of Fire (1981) with a passion, but I much prefer it to this movie. At least it had ONE good scene.
It's pathetic that while this musical mess is going on the characters watching it are snapping or swaying along like it's so good. You're trying too hard. Just stop.
30% of the movie is woke virtue signalling. They repeatedly, crassly, and directly continuously state how it's messed up women don't have as many opportunites as men, how sexism is bad, how there's systematic racism, how it's wrong to grope women... Was the script written by a ultra-liberal children or an out-of-touch high school teacher or what?
Then they imply that society has changed and now people consider all that stuff bad. Is it implying that the first movie was miogynistic and culturally backwards? Uhh... I didn't see Eddie Murphy groping women or denying women their rights in the first movie. How is this relevant or necessary? It's not on both counts.
Now we can talk about the shrimp larva of a plot. Basically Eddy Murphy's character has a son and we meet the son.
That's the whole plot. It's not about anything in particular because there are many storylines, none developed beyond the outlines, none of them logical, and all regressing at some point:
1. Fish out of water trope? The son and his family are from the hood and they go live in this African king's palace. Except the son's not really very hood, knows how to behave himself appropriately when going into an interview, and quickly settles into the princely life. He doesn't play the role like a poor boy but like a middle class person.
The mom is a little bit more exaggerated and urban but she disappears for most of the movie. He also has an uncle of the same persuasion but he only comes out near the end. All of these characters drive the royals up the wall but are reconciled with them at the end and become close friends with no explanation.
2. Poor guy suddenly becomes rich trope? He's (supposedly) poor, but not really. He wants to get a job for the sake of his dignity. His king father comes to get him. At first he doesn't want to go. Then he sees money and gold and wants to go. Once he's there he decides he doesn't care about money or luxury and wants to go back. Once he goes back he cares about money again and wants to return... Ad nausem.
3. Love story: Rehashes the same plot from the first movie. Except at first he wants to marry the shallow girl because she's hot. Then he talks to some other girl for a week and wants to marry her... If he could fall in love with a girl he barely knows in a week and he's 30 wouldn't he have done it by then?
4. Son is needed to ascend to the throne: They say a son is needed to ascend to the throne and never explain why. Kind of because some other guy wants to attack Wakanda or whatever their country is called if there's no male heir - for no reason. It's forgotten at the end.
If you're a huge, huge fan of the original, the only redeeming quality is the cameos. All of the main characters and even some minor characters who appeared in the first movie show up again.
I've seen a lot of movies, but this is truly shameful and pathetic and I don't hesitate to say it is one of the worst movies I have ever seen. It's barely a movie. More like a series of tik tok shorts badly sewn together.
Ohh, and no, it's not funny.
Honourable Mentions: Yes, I hate Chariots of Fire (1981) with a passion, but I much prefer it to this movie. At least it had ONE good scene.
Deserves Credit
jamyers856 March 2021
All the Bad Reviews are Correct
marymcfarland-018667 March 2021
Good God....this was a terrible movie. I made it halfway through and then I couldn't take it anymore. The storyline is ridiculous, the Leslie Jones, Wesley Snipes and whoever the hell the son is characters are intolerable. This movie is not even a little bit funny...I mean...jeez. Everything about this stupid sequel is an insult to the excellent original film. What a disappointment.
ED-EEE... ED-EEE...
dtnmusic5 March 2021
Probably the most surprising sequel ever! Like, 33 years later, that's hilarious in itself. Eddie and Arsenio were great together in pt 1, so I was happy to see both of them back. Plus, I haven't seen much of Arsenio lately. The premise is great in that, Akeem, left a little secret behind in America and it's time to answer that call. So much time passing works well for that premise also. I don't want to give anything away as it's not exactly a thick plot. I will say some of it, plot and jokes, was predictable. Sequels always have that uphill battle. But, overall it did the job and as far as I was concerned, the surprise of it simply showing up after all these years won me over. Don't overthink it, just enjoy it.
Horrible movie 2021 and as other reviwers said: insult to first movie.
mailtaskservice11 April 2021
I thought this will be good as part 1 but I am very disappointed by this horribly made movie. It tried to be funny in many aspects but failed miserably. I regretted wasting my time watching this horrible movie that is poor directorship, poor comedy, illogic, bad storyline, lousy special effects and so many more horrible things.
I give this a low grade 2/10 because has a big star actor, part 1 was a hit, this movie supposes to be good and at least show some real movie dignity respect but all failed. Thi movie looks like a budget movie too and if they invested lots of money, all be in a big doubt: What the heck they did with the money to produce such a standard of movie!
I give this a low grade 2/10 because has a big star actor, part 1 was a hit, this movie supposes to be good and at least show some real movie dignity respect but all failed. Thi movie looks like a budget movie too and if they invested lots of money, all be in a big doubt: What the heck they did with the money to produce such a standard of movie!
Well I liked it!
fathead-555-92696613 March 2021
A forgettable movie with bad plot
BlazingBolt14 June 2022
Eddie Murphy should have never made this movie. The plot is predictable, dumb and takes away from the original. I didn't laugh or even chuckle a single time. He should have just made a spin off movie about the barber shop.
I am going to forget this movie exists and you should too.
I am going to forget this movie exists and you should too.
Horribly Disappointing
Linda19735 March 2021
The movie looks cheap with some bad and obvious CGI. There is no charm like the original had. The actors seem like they're doing an imitation of their characters, if that makes sense. Too many lame and recycled jokes. And there was a strange scene near the beginning that felt totally out of place where they jam Morgan Freeman, En Vogue, Salt N Peppa and Gladys Knight all into a five minute period that felt horribly forced and painfully unfunny. Which pretty much sums up the whole movie...horribly forced and painfully unfunny.
Entertaining
gous215 March 2021
Not bad
melias-514405 March 2021
Quick cash grab
peter-lejon23 May 2021
Good sequel
davidcla-471-61794010 March 2021
Not sure what folks wanted or expected but glad I tried this instead of giving up after the abysmal rating. This sequel delivers entertaining performances by an impressive cast. The plot is simple and moves along quickly. It never takes itself seriously, and you don't want it to. The barbershop group rocks. Eddie still has it. There's nothing wrong with this production. Enjoy!!
Good light fun!
didcrywolf5 March 2021
Don't bother reading the negative reviews of the haters. As usual they don't get the product so they decide to write a label. This Murphy produced movie is beautiful visual candy with some nice dance numbers and production values. If you need a tight script and a plot, get a book!
Enjoy!
Sad there's so many bad reviews
helenduthie5 March 2021
I feel like people aren't taken this sequel the right way, it's meant to be tongue in cheek and wouldn't be the same without all the throwbacks to the first film that made us laugh, defiantly worth a watch and is a lighthearted reminder of the humour of the first film. Not something I watch more than once but great if you remember the first film.
Painful
rjgrund-123-60343814 June 2022
Remember the time
kabajaz235 March 2021
Even Wesley can't save it
TheOneThatYouWanted20 November 2021
A far cry from the first one. The only thing good about Coming to America 2 is Wesley Snipes. And what is up with all the songs? If I want to watch singers singing their pop songs, I would just watch them on YouTube. Skip it.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
