George de la selva 2

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.

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

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.

On this website, this is currently ranked as the worst Disney movie of all time and it's probably in my Top 3. I admit there were a few funny jokes when they outright admitted they couldn't get Brendan Fraser back for this movie. Unfortunately, all that was drowned out by horrible special effects and bad jokes. The worst part is at the end where they have all these poop, fart, and crotch jokes. Looking back, I think the original "George Of The Jungle" was probably the funniest live action adaptation ever made. That's actually quite a compliment seeing as how the original show wasn't even that great.

The CGI in this is among the worst I've ever seen in my life. The elephant and kangaroo look absolutely terrible and it sincerely scared me whenever they appeared on screen. This movie offers no interesting new villains. I remember these funny henchmen from the first movie and now they're replaced by Charlie's Angels...for some reason. I guess this could have worked as like a sketch or something because it has only enough jokes for that short time. Direct to video sequels are always bad and this is no exception. It's sad when the best is "The Lion King 1 1/2 and that just recycles stuff from the first movie. *1/2

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!