It’s surprisingly better than I thought it would be, all things considered. 'A Kid in Aladdin’s Palace' remains a flawed movie, however, it manages to surpass 1995's *'A Kid in King Arthur's Court'*. That was unexpected, particularly given that this one wasn't made with Disney's involvement; Trimark and Tapestry handled the production independently. The acting talent is comparable to what’s offered in the first film. Naturally, the earlier movie featured now-famous actors like Kate Winslet and Daniel Craig, who aren't back for this installment, but the cast here delivers just as much as their counterparts did in the 1995 version. Thomas Ian Nicholas does return to play his character again. I actually found him more acceptable this time around; he seems less stiff, and the lines given to him are a bit better suited to his performance. Rhona Mitra is good as Sheherazade, while the rest of the cast isn't particularly memorable but they’re adequate enough. I felt that the blending of the 'present day' scenes with those set in the past—something I criticized in the previous film—was acceptable this time; it still feels a little contrived, but it is handled more effectively than in the *King Arthur* version. The desert landscapes are also more visually appealing compared to the forest and castle setting seen in the earlier movie. As mentioned at the beginning, I still struggled to watch it all the way through, and it’s certainly not good—but it's worth acknowledging that it is an improvement.

Source on TMDB