Opiniones de usuarios

Thumbs up to the director and the stars of George of the Jungle. They have made one of the funniest children's films that you will ever see. You know that they had a great time making it because it's clearly evident on the screen. George of the Jungle is simply just a Tarzan parody. (Ape-man meets girl, falls for girl, leaves for city, returns to jungle). But the predictable plot doesn't destroy the performances and the movie is peppered with some laugh out loud jokes.

Of course the special effects are impressive - a talking ape, an elephant that thinks he's a dog - but it's the humans that steal the show. Fraser is fantastic as George - he is one of the most talented actors out there at the moment - though this film doesn't test his range much, he shows a nice comic flair. Mann is a lovable foil for our hero, though her squeaky voice is at times too cute. None of the other characters disappoint. Both Mann's parents are great in supporting roles and Lyle as Mann's nasty fiance is sensational.

Kids will love this. Adults, I think will find a lot to enjoy in it also, but don't bring along any cynics. They'll miss out on all the fun!!

Brilliant smashing comedy movie! The characters are original and fun. As if you're seeing a big family in a movie, everyone's interacting perfectly.

The animals are definitely the best. The ape, especially the elephant. Very funny and spectacular!

Just watch it with the whole family. It's really fun. I promise.

This was a pretty entertaining comedy with a few twists added, such as a talking gorilla, which made it fun to watch. We also see an elephant act like a dog and along the way our hero (Brendan Fraser) is a likable boob. Sometimes it's just plain stupid but that's what you get with any comedy.

Disney has this in the "PG" mode so we get some of the standard peeing, farting, sex jokes and innuendos, kicking people in the groin....you know, all those supposedly-hilarious gags that have become so commonplace in modern family comedies. There is enough original material in here, though, to enjoy this a couple of times.

Big screen adaptation of the much beloved cartoon character recounts how George (admirably played with affable density by Brendan Fraser) met his wife Ursula (played by the adorable Leslie Mann). The only thing standing between them being Ursula's mom (played by Holland Taylor), Ursula's obnoxious fiance Lyle (Thomas Haden Church) and poacher duo. Helping George is his loyal elephant/dog Shep, the toucan, and the Ape Named Ape (voiced with biting cynicism by John Cleese).

Yeah it's not great cinema but hey, it's not a misfire either. It's funny most of the time and it shows that Fraser has cornered the affable stranger in a strange land market. Very few actors can play characters who are essentially idiots without losing audience sympathy or credibility, but somehow Fraser manages to do it.

Best gags include include the smart ass narrator, George getting hyped up on coffee, the women at Ursula's party fawning over George's deep spiritual connection with animals, George swinging into various objects (most notably the San Francisco bridge sequence) and George's climatic battle with the poachers.

"My noble kinsmen, thou has served me well. Now stand aside while Shep doth dispatch these villains." - George speaking ape

Actually, a lot of fun.

Sure, it's lame. It's supposed to be lame. It pokes fun at itself for being lame. ("George can't die -- he's the hero.") Don't expect great special effects, real Nature, a solid plot, or Oscar-caliber acting. This is mind candy.

In a lot of ways, the plot is like "Titanic" -- nice new boy steals girl away from sleezebag fiancée she's just marrying to please her mother. However, since Ursula ditches Lyle before taking up with George, there's none of the moral bankruptcy that made Titanic such a stinker. "George of the Jungle" has the added benefit of not taking itself seriously.

This promised to be an entertaining family flick. The ingredients seem just right, talking animals, lady falls in love with a jungle man, fiancé gets jealous etc. Brendan Fraser pulls of the role reasonably well. John Cleese is well cast as the voice of an ape. However the rest is pulled off terribly. Barring the special effects (which are actually very good), there is little more in this film that might move it up the 'must watch holiday family flick' list. A lot more could and should have been made of this and what little slapstick there is could have been even funnier. the action however is reasonably well choreographed. The problem is that most of it is quite 'reasonable' and not a single element is outstanding.

I'm sorry, but this film is one of the worst I have ever seen. I rented it because of Brendan Fraser ( who plays George ). I saw him in ' School Ties ' , a delightful film and one of his earlier ( and I think best )roles. Because of that film he caught my attention as a great and promising young actor. After seeing this horrible, not-funny-at-all copy of the Tarzan movies, I'm beginning to have second thoughts about his acting talents. Why does an actor with so much talents agree to star in a film like this ???? That's what I asked myself the entire 88 minutes of this absolutely boring film. I've seen a number of other films ( like ' Still breathing ' or ' Blast from the past') in which Brendan Fraser is really great, so why on earth did he need to accept a role in which the only thing he seems to be doing is smiling stupidly, flying around in a jaguar-print bikini and making irritating attempts at being the funniest guy in the jungle ?

And not to mention the 'special effects'.....fake trees, silly puppet lions, and actors in shabby gorilla-outfits............. The only thing that I thougt could be called a ' special effect' was the computer generated elephant Shep, who thinks that he's a dog. It was the only thing in the film that looked ( sort of ) realistic to me.

For little kids it might be entertaining, but I actually found this film in the adult section of our videostore, and thought it to be a little bit out of place there. As I said, I only rented it because of Fraser, and expected it to be silly, but at the end it proved to be even more stupid and meaningless as I imagined. Not funny at all, and a real shame for such a promising actor as Brendan Fraser !

I give this wouldbe comedy 1 out of 10 for adults, and 6 out of 10 for children.

Even though it's a Disney movie and can be viewed by the whole family, the movie was quite funny. Not Naked Gun funny, but still funny nonetheless. It is definitely worth the price of rental or purchase, so long as you like silly/unrealistic circumstances, talking animals, etc.

For those of you keeping score, this movie was much funnier than Dudley Do-Right, which had some similarities.

George of the jungle could have been a quite good Childrens movie if the editors or script writers hadn't decided to replay the same jokes over and over and over again in the film. i lost count how many times the stupid and irritating george hit the tree when swinging from his vine but i do know that after the 34th time it lost it's appeal! My advice would be to stick this movie on for the kids but get the hell out of the room if your an adult , it will do your head in! 5 out of 10

The people who don't like this masterpiece have gone full-Karen in their reviews😂

This movie definitely helped to shape millennial humor. It raised our standards for men by giving us the amazingly beautiful, amazing, strong and soft Brendan Fraiser. He's fantastic both in his element and as the fish out of water.

At first, I was not really struck on this movie. I enjoyed it enough to buy it on DVD, but it spent most of it's time on the shelf. That was until my 6 year old niece watched it with me. Twice in a row. One of the few movies she will actually sit there the whole time for, just staring at the screen. After seeing the enjoyment on her face I began to look at the movie from a child's perspective. Take your mind back to when you were a kid. Then press play. You'll enjoy it a lot more. And you'll also get to spend more time with your kids!

Please recognize that my unbelievably generous 5 is based on a rating a kid would probably give this movie. I realize most kids will like it, but most kids will like almost every kid movie. I am claiming that GOTJ is a very weak movie on the kid-o-meter, though I am light years from being "kid-o-meter" hip.

As an adult, it is the worst piece of stupidity I have seen in a long, long time - probably ever. I generally like kid's movies, but this was just junk. I'm not fond of talking animals, humans in gorilla suits, the same gags repeated at least 100 times, subtitles, slapstick, idiot behavior, etc. The problem here is that it had all of those things - and I really hate the compounding effect miserably created.

Actually, to be fair, I only watched the first half. It is a metaphysical impossibility for the second half to be worse than the first half. But as bad as the first half was, I think it is also (strangely) a metaphysical impossibility for the second half to be any BETTER than the first half as I believe both halves were written, directed and produced by the same persons.

I have not seen a movie that I would rate less than a 4 in years. I try to be reasonably careful before I spend my time. However, I would rate this movie at about a 0 (negative, if allowed) for adults - easily the worst movie of all time! I hate to use up such a wonderful stigma on such a meaningless three year old film, but I have waited for many years to assign such a lowly title and now I feel really, really good!

Years after a plane crash in the heart of Africa saw him separated from his parents as a baby, young George has been brought up by the animals, specifically his friend Ape (who is an ape). Many decades have gone by when George's quiet existence is interrupted by a group of explorers and their guides. When two of the party get attacked by a lion George is forced to intervene and carries the unconscious Ursula back to his tree house. As her boyfriend tries to track down the mysterious "white ape", George and Ursula get to know one another.

Opening with a cartoon opening sequence and a wonderfully absurd and catchy theme song, the switch to live action doesn't affect the tone of the film at all as it remains as silly as the opening. Of course in many ways this is a problem because the whole thing is very silly and you really need to buy into it to stop yourself being annoyed by it. But if you do get into it then it is actually quite a fun little piece of nonsense that can be watched in mixed groups of adults and children. The material is very obvious but the knowing humour and cartoon-style delivery make it work on this level and although I laughed only once or twice I generally found the energy of the film quite engaging. The plot is not really important but it does just about enough to hold the whole thing together.

The cast are very much secondary to the whole air of the piece but they do well to buy into it. It is strange to see Fraser in this now as he has since been a "good actor" and also an "action star", but here he is a good sport and takes to the role pretty well even if he is found wanting in anything other than daft moments. Mann is obvious and lacks the material to have a good time. Church is the butt of many a joke and wears it well, matching the material and tone. Cleese is always welcome and is amusing while minor support from Taylor and Roundtree is good fun. Scott's narration sets the tone well and he has nice lines to deliver.

Overall this is a very silly film that will annoy anyone who doesn't get into the right mindset really early on. However to those that enter its own daffy universe, it is actually quite good fun – unrelentingly childish and silly, it does have a cartoony energy to it that somehow manages to work, producing a film that will please children and some adults.

I teach 4th grade and have opportunities to treat my class to down-time in form of "video afternoons" about once each month. When I screened this "comedy" for possible viewing in my classroom (I can't afford unpleasant surprises), I was soon convinced that 10 year olds' intelligence would be insulted if presented with this nonsense.

This "big budget" film version can't hold a candle to the cartoon series I remember from my childhood. What happened? Why do Hollywood executives assume that today's kids are a few notches behind their parents? The jokes seemed "dummied down", which makes them appear "forced" and completely unfunny.

This film, obviously, did not "make it" to the show. The only film I've "screened" lately even worse than this one was "Ace Ventura: When Nature Calls". Destroy that one on sight! This year's biggest hit with my 4th graders: "Dennis The Menace" (with Walter Matthau) and anything starring the character "Mr. Bean" (available in bite-size TV show format, 2 30 min. episodes per video).

Such a fun family film to watch, lots of laughs and adventure- a classic!!

George of the Jungle is hands down the worst movie of all times. Here you have it all rolled into one: incredibly bad acting, yawnfully unstimulating story, flat characters, hollow jokes, cheap sets, budget television cinematography, and half-hearted stunts.

This movie doesn't offer any of the appeal of the original cartoon which was funny and charming for what it was. In typical Disney fashion, beloved concepts are smashed and rendered into something that can be singularly translated into mass marketing. From videos to fast-food kid meals, we're served up a dish of slop that used to be a tasty confection of light entertainment in it's original form.

Watching Brendan Fraser (who's budding career was luckily not destroyed by this movie) and Leslie Mann do the jungle dance to an uninspired Disney tune was terribly painful. One can only imagine the conditions in Hollywood that lead actors to gleefully sign such Devil's pacts.

When this movie came out I loved it. My little brother loved it. My older brother loved it. My little sister loved it. It's just a really fun movie, and I'm really shocked it has a rating this low.

It's a movie that really can't be taken too seriously. It's not meant to make you stop and think "Hmmmm, could a boy raised in the jungle function in our world?" No. It's meant to be a fun and enjoyable movie. And in that respect in succeeds greatly.

There are lots of laughs with John Cleese as a talking gorilla, an awesome narration, and just all around great characters. Brendan Fraser is great as George.

Of cause being a Disney movie it has the basic love story, bad guys and toilet humour... and there special effects are far from spectacular, but I don't think people should let that hold them back from enjoying this awesome movie.

I see this as being one of those movies you look back on when you're older and still find a lot of the scenes really funny. It seems impossible to me that people could not find this funny. It kinda makes me feel old.... and young at the same time.

As I type this review I remember more and more scenes from the movie and it makes me feel like watching it again.

If you have kids... buy them this movie. If not.... buy it anyway.

What can I say? An entertaining and fun movie. It is however a little too overlong, Thomas Haden Church is underused and some of the story leans towards the predictable side of things. However, it is very nice to look at, the scenery is colourful and the sets are splendid. Even the cinematography is very good. The music is fun and catchy, it is probably just me but after seeing this film I have had the main title song stuck in my head for days. The script is witty and quotable and the jokes are funny. And then the performances really do add to the sense of fun. Brendan Fraser gives a very likable lead performance, and Leslie Mann is appealing as Ursula. As the intellectual ape "Ape", John Cleese is fitfully amusing. But the star of the show is the sardonic and hilarious narration from Keith Scott. Overall, a fun and entertaining movie, not perfect, but I recommend it. 7/10 Bethany Cox

I was very surprised when this movie debuted, as the reviews were generally quite good. And, since I had kids who were seven and three at the time, I took them to see this film. Unfortunately, while they liked it, I thoroughly hated it and felt that the film was designed almost exclusively for kids or those with very low standards. The problem was that Brandon Frasier was NOT enough to carry the film--even with the assistance of John Cleese as his best friend. And to make matters worse, the writing was just stupid and awful. The original George of the Jungle cartoons were pretty bad and it's a shame that this film didn't do much to improve on this. This film is strictly for young kids, as even teens will most likely think that this is a hokey mess.

George of the Jungle is a seriously goofy film. A slapstick live-action summertime cartoon aimed directly at young kids. One might be tempted to review it with bumpers; because it's for kids, give it a break. But George of the Jungle is better than that. It's a smart, witty family comedy, bursting with charm and good cheer. It may be silly, but it's a real film, with real filmmaking qualities, and a real heart.

The movie is based on the short-lived 1960s Jay Ward cartoon of the same name, but the words 'based on' are misleading. George of the Jungle takes the basic vibe (and banging theme song) from the show for use in an original comedic tale of a meathead Tarzan knockoff (Brendan Fraser) and the wholesome romance that sparks between he and Leslie Mann's big city heiress, Ursula. In the way is her slime ball fiancé Lyle (Thomas Haden Church) and the requisite 90s goon partners who want to capture the swinging white ape. The premise is excellent comedic fodder. Early jungle shenanigans are great fun, showcasing a confident, free-wheeling slapstick spirit. Writers Dana Olsen and Audrey Wells are unbound to the lazy conventions of the family comedy, instead having an obvious blast with inside jokes, fourth wall breaking narration, and knowing winks to the parents, before that became cliche unto itself. And of course there's the pratfalls too.

But better than that is the fish-out-of-water turn the film takes when George is taken to San Francisco. George of the Jungle separates itself from its contemporary self aware live-action cartoons (a big craze in the late 90s and early aughts) with a downright charming love story at its center. Brendan Fraser and Leslie Mann are doing deceptively impressive work as the puppy lovers. Fraser gives a role broader than a barn door an amazingly lovable sweetness. Almost any other actor on the planet would be an abrasive embarrassment as the sculpted dork. Fraser is adorable. His goofy naïveté is more naturally enchanting than maybe any rom com lead I've seen. Mann, on the other end, is equal to Fraser's masterful clown act. She's a winsome presence as the uncommonly cute city girl who falls for George. Here's another tricky acting challenge, trying to straddle the line between cartoon character and real girl. She might have been a disaster if she pushed too far in either direction, but she turns out wonderful.

Wonderful. Apply the word to everything about George of the Jungle. It's a movie I have cherished since the days watching it religiously with my cousin and brother on my Grandma's ancient VCR. Some of my most beloved memories are attached to Sam Weisman's innocent little kid's flick (I'll proudly admit to tightly lacing up a pair of Nikes and running shirtless through the middle school football practice field like George through the African savanna). Nostalgia is a powerful drug. It's the primary reason for George of the Jungle's spot among my top 10 all-time favorites. But nostalgia is not all this delightful film has going for it. Squint your eyes, and between all the hilarious absurdities, the apes named "Ape" that sound like John Cleese, the elephants that play fetch, the "Oo oo, ee ee, tookie tookie"s, you'll find genuine sweetness. A real air of good-humored joy. I'm always surprised that such a goofy, screwball adventure picture would end up feeling so impressive, but George of the Jungle is really that good at what it does. I could call it "a very funny live-action comedy, with a playful stupidity that delighted the kid in me, and a core of clever wit that tickled my adult sensibilities too", but that wouldn't tell the whole story. I see a more special quality in this colorful entertainment. A sense of truthfully felt innocence. Most childhood favorites don't stand up to adult scrutiny. George of the Jungle does one better. It keeps growing in my appreciation as the years pass.

88/100

I thought that George of the Jungle was a good family movie, because it is family oriented. The movie was funny and Brendan Fraiser did a good job as playing George. I thought everyone involved with this movie did a good job and should be watched for family entertainment.

Yes this film is what it is. But what it is is terrible. It is a badly conceived load of utter rubbish which could only appeal to the lamest of brains or children. I like Brendan Fraser a lot, he is a good comedic actor but this is not a good comedy. Richard Roundtree must have been desperate to appear in such a film and has completely blown any credibility he used to have. I am aware that John Cleese has to pay loads of alimony to ex-wives so needs to do whatever comes his way and as he does not actually appear (just a voice performance) I imagine he simply did it for the money. It is a stupid movie for kids and has no other pretensions but when one compares it to , say Nanny McPhee, which is in similar unrealistic tone then it suffers very badly. It is the sort of film in which actors appear and then spend most of the rest of their career living it down.