George of the Jungle 2 (2003) Reviews

• Disappointing sequel

  RhondaWeasley2003-11-22

  I'm not one to go into a movie that's meant to be silly, expecting shakespere. But like a lot of comedy sequels, the jokes were too set up and too planned instead of coming from the situatution. Angus T. Jones was sweet as Junior and didn't get enough screentime, Julie Benz is a wonderful actress but suffers in this role, Chris Showerman would have made a fine 'new' George with a better script, as would Thomas Haden Church returning as Lyle. But everyone suffers do to a bad and very unfunny story that attempts to manipulate you into laughing. But beyond the line about the reason for a new 'George', I barely laughed at all. And I certainly didn't believe in George and Ursula's love despite the extremely idiot situations (though I did in the first film). There's silly so funny you watch it over and over again (first George of the Jungle film) and silly so stupid you never want to see it again (the sequel). Even the kids, who loved the first film, didn't laugh much watching this one. And they kept wondering why the all important Junior was conviently dropped from the middle of the story only to magically jump in again at the end. This movie was one of the worse Disney sequels ever made.

  More

• It could have been a decent sequel... but...

  bobgreenwade2006-07-25

  There are just so many things wrong with this movie. To begin with, the first twenty minutes of the film could have been compressed into just five or maybe ten. The overall movie is (mercifully) short already, but this could have been made up for by giving a little more attention to the Mean Lion (how did the miss a reference to "The Wiz" on that one?) and working his subplot a little more closely into the main plot. In short, the script had the seed of a good idea, but needed quite a bit of reworking. Second, it could have done without the crude humor. The original also had some that it could have done without, but at least there it was almost an afterthought -- here, flatulence and urination abound. Third, the show is a little too self-aware. The original series had that well enough, as did the first movie, but here it's just way, way too much. The Brendan Fraser in-jokes were just a bit over the top (and why no mention of the "new Ursula"?). Other gags with the Narrator, especially a couple of interactions near the end, also exceed good sense. Fourth, a bit more attention could have been given to the CGI work. In the first it was hard to tell that Shemp wasn't a real elephant (except by behavior, of course), but here the CGI stands out like a sore thumb. Ideally special effects should merely tell the story whether they're good or bad, and they at least do succeed on that count, so it's a relatively small problem, but it's still there. All that said, Christopher Showerman's performance as George is decent enough. It lacks Brendan Fraser's charm, but Christopher only really fails in that specific comparison -- he even managed to give George a bit of personal depth, which should have been a major foul in a Jay Ward-inspired movie but wasn't here. Julie Benz as the new Ursula surprised me as being even better than Leslie Mann in the original. Most other performances were pretty standard, not standing out in my mind as either good or bad.

  More

• Awful!

  xredgarnetx2006-07-31

  Caught part of GEORGE 2 on TV recently, but couldn't get myself to watch it through to the end. Just awful! I can't even remember the plot. All I know is that George and Ursula were not the George and Ursula of the first movie, which was bad enough. There's a lot of scrambling around, but the direction and editing were so shoddy and choppy, it was like watching outtakes or deleted scenes. Having the original voice of Ape the Ape back was not nearly enough to make me warm up to this. GEORGE 2 is probably the single worst sequel I have ever seen, and that is saying something. Jeez, because of IMDb's 10 lines rule, I have to keep typing when I have nothing more to say about this crapulastic made-for-TV sequel. Disney, hang your head in shame.

  More

• Good acting, bad storyline

  yamipegasus2006-03-11

  I must say, this movie was almost great. The jokes were pretty funny, and the acting (except for Beatrice) was pretty good, despite the replacement of most of the cast. Even the music was fun and fitting. Where this movie really fell apart was the storyline. I won't get into details, but let's just say it was lacking, at best. Many things were poorly explained, or unreasonable. Another problem, though minor and only slightly annoying, was the way George's elephant, Shep, was portrayed. In the first movie, he blended well with the rest of the set and characters. In this one, he is obviously done with relatively weak CGI that will damage the mood of the scene. It really is a pity that it had a few major glaring flaws... It could have been really good otherwise.

  More

• Not a good sequel

  jvfunn12010-12-28

  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.

  More