George of the Jungle 2

Thomas Haden Church should've followed the previous stars' lead and avoided this script. The replacement stars are passable, but really lack the spark of the original cast and play it more as imitators than inhabitants of the characters. The script itself crosses the line from just stupid enough to be funny to just simply stupid, most evident in George's transition from sweet, innocent and naive to annoyingly stupid. Chris Showerman's performance fails to convince us that his clumsiness is anything more than intentional pratfalls intended to elicit a laugh. Unfortunately, they just aren't believable enough to be funny and happen way too often. The script takes Beatrice Stanhope's matronly meddling beyond plausibility, having her stoop to unfathomable depths to end her daughter's socially unbecoming marriage and reunite her with the clearly deranged Lyle van de Groot. Although her actions in the first film were somewhat believable, it is hard to imagine any mother would engage in such heinous activities once a grandchild is involved. There is also no explanation given as to the obvious absence of Mr. Stanhope. Far too often the script repeats gags from the first film, only they've lost their element of surprise and charm. Even the special effects are poor shadows of the original - the animals look more cartoonish than real.

Although she sat patiently through this one, my 6-year-old never even giggled while watching this "bonus feature" that came boxed with the original on DVD. I think curiosity and the simple fact there were some animals kept her attention, and at least she didn't fall asleep, but I doubt this will ever be on her list of favorites and really wasn't worth the money we didn't pay for it. I wouldn't recommend anyone waste their precious time watching this horrible sequel. Next time Disney should shell out for the original team rather than torture fans with such a pathetic follow-up to a surprise gem like the first "George of the Jungle" film.

Could have been funny, but our family was turned off by the bathroom humor of this supposedly "G" movie. It wasn't enough to have people kicked in the genitals or be urinated on. No, one of the scenes includes birds defecating on the animals and a treaty to fix it. One of the fight scenes includes throwing wet animal feces and using fiery flatulence as a flamethrower. This movie is not appropriate for children under age of 13.

Disney seems to have departed from the old slapstick humor guidelines of getting hit with something wet/messy that is not gross. The same plot and fight could have been done with rotting fruit and not changed the overall theme of the movie

Disney continues to milk success out of their theatrical successes with direct-to-video sequels, a generally annoying practice of theirs, like calling all their cartoons masterpieces and labeling their discs Disney DVD (as if they invented the format!). This live-action cartoon is as good, if not better, than the Brendan Fraser original, mainly because it keeps the satirical humor of the Jay-Ward-cartoon original intact and maintains the production qualities and effects work of the first picture. Unknown Chris Showerman replaces Brendan Fraser and he's up to the task, in spite of the fact that he's at an immediate disadvantage substituting for a recognizable star. It's as lively and humorous as it needs to be and should definitely entertain family elements of all ages as necessary. One more Disney quibble before I close: and that's the pandering, condescending attitude they seem to have for the audience, by labeling their widescreen presentation of the film on DVD as "family friendly", as if filmgoers are nothing but uneducated consumers who might find the black bars on their square TVs offensive and forego the purchase (rental or whatever). Disney just continues to typecast themselves and their audience with their obvious, overt approach to their product!

I really enjoyed the first movie, it was silly and predictable at times but it was lively and amusing. This sequel is anything but that. Starting with the few good things, Julie Benz is lovely as Ursula, Christopher Showerman does a decent job replacing Brendan Fraser and John Cleese is fun as "Ape". Everything else though didn't work. I loved the narration in the first film, but here with the exception of a funny exchange between the narrator(Keith Scott again) and George right at the beginning, the narration wasn't sardonic or hilarious this time around. And that is the main problem with the film, it is neither original or funny. The script is very weak, the plot is predictable and slow and there are too many flatulence jokes. The scenery wasn't as colourful, the editing was slip-shod, the graphics were weak and the direction was sloppy. The music isn't as catchy either, in fact it was very forgettable here, and asides from Showerman, Benz and Cleese the other acting doesn't even reach so-so level. Overall, very disappointing sequel, has two or three good things, but everything else is lousy. 3/10 Bethany Cox

I must say that George of the Jungle 2 wasn't a good film at all. The plot was okay but it just didn't have the heart of the first film in it and the casting wasn't so good. The new actor playing George didn't do a good job playing the role as Brendan Frasier did. The new actor I thought played the role kinda stupidly and not intelligently and the rest of the new cast just didn't seem to fit the original cast although I did like Angus T. Jones playing Junior. He's a pretty good Child Actor but the rest of the film to me was just stupid. If you like the first George of the Jungle movie don't bother watching this cheesy sequel! It's pretty dumb and not all that good. 1 out of 10.