George of the Jungle 2 (Video 2003) Poster

(2003 Video)

User Reviews

Review this title
29 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
3/10
It could have been a decent sequel... but...
bobgreenwade25 July 2006
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.
13 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Disappointing sequel
RhondaWeasley22 November 2003
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.
17 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Awful!
xredgarnetx31 July 2006
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.
17 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Good acting, bad storyline
yamipegasus11 March 2006
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.
9 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
This Disney attempt to milk one of their cash cows actually surpasses the original, thanks to some self-parody and a very engaging newcomer in the musclehead title role.
TheVid22 October 2003
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!
12 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
George Falls Flat from the Tree
msfttaz3 September 2010
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.
5 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
The first film was very entertaining, this one was plain lousy
TheLittleSongbird2 May 2010
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
5 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
This movie rocks!
CaseyDee14 November 2003
I loved this movie! Chris Showerman did an amazing job! Not only is he an incredible actor, but he is gorgeous with an awesome physique! He did a great job on the delivery of his lines, plus transformed into George better than Fraser did. A great performance for his first major roll! This movie is full of hilarious scenes that every child will love. My kids have watched this movie numerous times since we purchased the DVD the day it came out. In addition to the movie, the extras on the DVD are just as hilarious. Two thumbs up on this one! I highly recommend it to everyone!
11 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Disappointing bathroom humor
ctweb13 March 2004
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
11 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Not a good sequel
jvfunn128 December 2010
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.
5 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
gotj2
agro_nick_1819 September 2006
This movie was on t.v the other day, and I didn't enjoy it at all. The first George of the jungle was a good comedy, but the sequel.... completely awful. The new actor and actress to play the lead roles weren't good at all, they should of had the original actor (Brendon Fraiser) and original actress (i forgot her name) so this movie gets the 0 out of ten rating, not a film that you can sit down and watch and enjoy, this is a film that you turn to another channel or take it back to the shop if hired or bought. It was good to see Ape the ape back, but wasn't as fun as the first, they should of had the new George as Georges son grown up, and still had Bredon and (whats her face) in the film, that would've been a bit better then it was.
6 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Top-quality entertainment for kids--and adults with a sense of humor
metatron-931 October 2005
The kids, aged 7 to 14, got such a huge kick out of this film that we gave a copy to all of the other kids on our birthday list this year. They all loved it! Kids from 2 to 7 watch it repeatedly and frequently, and we get a kick out of watching it with them.

It's rare that a film entertains the kids for so long, and offers laughs for the adults, too. Most enjoy it more than the first.

Top-quality production and an excellent cast, led by Christopher Showerman as a superior George--athletic, energetic, and wholly credible, with a lovable innocence and a particular knack of taking a tree in the face--well supported by the inimitable Christina Pickles as the evil mother-in-law, Thomas Haden Church as the evil jerk rival, and everybody else. This is fun.
7 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
You got what you got. It's great for kids.
briandwright7777731 January 2019
I don't know why there are so many 1s here. It's George of the Jungle 2 and it's made for children. Did everyone expect an Oscar winning performance? My daughter was entertained the whole movie and that's worth 10 Shawshank Redemptions to me. Seriously people you aren't really movie critics. Keep it chill and let the kids have their fun.
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Me new George, studio to cheep to pay Brendan Fraser
limelemonrocks11 October 2015
I saw this movie again with my dad, and we thought it turned out to be better than the first live action film. George of the Jungle 2 didn't star Brendan Fraser as George in this one. Chris Showermen does the role this time around as George. Chris Showermen was an amazing George, he even played the part better then Brendan Fraser! This is funnier than the first! Keith Scott returns as being the narrator with some funnier jokes that will make you laugh out loud. Most of the jungle animals talk in this sequel, like the mean lion and some other animals. Thomas Haden Church comes back as Lyle, and John Cleese returns as being an ape named ape. I was surprised how good this turned out to be! Me new George, studio to cheep to pay Brendan Fraser! Do you agree that Showermen made a better George, or not? I agree, do you?
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Showerme
jodimoran25 June 2008
Allow me to just get to the bottom line here: I've got 3 kids, ages 5 to 10. I consider a trip to the theater a success when there are no talking animals. I've seen most of the children's videos in our collection at least 72 times. I can tell you when the film gets reversed in The Wizard of Oz, the over-18 sexual joke in El Dorado and the tragic flaw with the ending of Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer. I could probably storyboard Nemo from memory alone.

What makes me support the one child of mine (it varies) who suggests this title for the family movie of an evening? In a word: Showerman.

Moment of silence...

*sigh*
4 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
This movie is bad
ericstevenson12 November 2017
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
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Atrocious
ynjwpb1 September 2020
The single worst thing I have ever watched. Editing seems to be done by preschool children. Appears to be The lowest budget movie Ever created. Just painful to watch
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
If you liked George the First, you'll probably like this one, too, although Church and Cleese are the only returning actors
inkblot1120 December 2012
George of the Jungle (Christopher Showerman) has had five+ blissful years in the wild with his lovely wife Ursula (Julie Benz). Although he still runs into trees, it's a great life and the couple have been blessed with a son, Junior (Angus T. Jones, so little!). Only Ape (John Cleese) stayed in America, becoming a professional gambler in Las Vegas. However, Ursula's evil, smug mother (Beatrice Stanhope) still regrets the day her daughter ever took an African safari while ex-fiancé, Lyle (Thomas Haden Church) has a bizarre obsession with Ursula, too. These two, still residing in San Fran, hatch a plan to lure Ursula and Junior away from George and "back to" civilization. It starts with Junior's 5th birthday party in the jungle, where grandmother presents the little boy with a giant heap of gifts. She has also brought "girly" cosmetics and jewelry for Ursula. Against better judgment, Ursula, George and Junior decide to take a vacation in the states. Ah, but there is more skull duggery planned, for Lyle has heard George carries a deed to the jungle in his skivvies, and makes plans to get it. Also, a hypnotist is brought in to work on Ursula. Making matters worse is Ape, who loses big to Lyle in a card game and winds up in his clutches, too. Will George and company ever see their beloved, serene home again? This movie was fun but not overly clever, a book end for the first film, yet definitely inferior. Some of the stars of G1, such as Brendan Frasier, Leslie Mann, and Holland Taylor, opted out but their replacements are just fine. Jones, an adorable child actor who went on to Two and a Half Men fame, is darling, while Church and Cleese reprise their roles, anchoring the movie with their fine ways. Of course, the scenery and special effects are also nice while costumes, script and direction are adequate enough to keep the audience involved. If you liked the first film, you should try to get this one as well. It has the same silly humor and antics, to a lesser degree, that made G1 such a pleasure.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Should have not made a sequel.
vbrown-3294430 January 2020
The first one was great. The sequel is absolutely terrible, atrocious, and horrible. My goodness....
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Best Part? Church Returns
Hollywood_Yoda20 September 2018
The best and only thing about this travesty of a sequel was that Thomas Haden Church opted to return as Lyle. That's really the only connection between this film and the original, other than the title. Very sad!!

The plot is terrible, and the acting is subpar to say the least. That's what you get for a direct to video/dvd from Disney. If Brendan Fraser would've returned, this sequel could've been so much better, but here we are!!
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Sheesh, this sequel is atrocious
stormhawk202113 July 2017
Someone please explain why the hell we have been delivered George of the Jungle 2.

The silliness of the first one, coupled with Brendan Fraser's enjoyable slapstick, John Cleese's voice-over and Thomas Haden Church's funny portrayal of the villain is what made the film so fun, yet all of threat was taken away. No more Brendan Fraser. No more funny silliness. No more laughable antics from Haden Church, and Cleese is put to no good use as Ape the Ape.

And to make matters worse, GotJ2 insists on assuring the viewers that the film is a sequel, a Disney sequel, and a Disney sequel without Brendan Fraser, this time with the less-famous Christopher Showerman, who isn't even closer to Brendan; which is extremely unprofessional and even more tiring and boring to watch and listen to.

The narration is terrible and the subplot of teaching Geroge's young son, portrayed by Angus T. Jones (Jake from "Two and a Half Men") how to rope swing falls flat, just an excuse to advertise toy products for the boy, which was probably the film's main source of funding, because I don't know who the hell would want this film on their credits list.

A shame, a mess and not worth the time or effort it takes to watch it. This film is terrible, don't see it and if you have... may God have mercy on you.

P.S.: To the positive reviewers of this film, I'm sure that you're appealed to one of the Lyle's henchwoman, especially the blonde (Kowalski), who looks like Melissa Joan Hart, because the actress who plays this character was born in 1978 (MJH was born in 1976). If you want actresses born in 1978 go to watch a Japanese TV show called "Jiban" (a Robocop-inspired series), because a child actress who portrays a character named Mayumi was born on '78.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Terrible!
jade-lohr13 September 2011
I watched about 10 minutes of it because it was on TV. I did not see the beginning, but I watched the middle part. I immediately disliked it when I saw that Brendan Fraser was not in the movie. George of the Jungle was my favorite movie when I was a little girl, and now it just sucks. The first one was FANTASTIC I'd give that one 40/10 stars if I could. But the sequel deserves about a 1/10. It wasn't funny, it didn't make me laugh like the first one did.Ursula was my favorite character when I was little, and they replaced her too! I'm just curious on why they replaced them. They were made for the part in the movie, so I don't know why they would replace them. I know I only watched 10 minutes of the movie in the middle, but those are 10 minutes I won't get back.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
A sequel that should have never been made
rayca78 January 2018
The first 'George of the Jungle was really funny. Sequels always have an uphill battle, but this one starts at such a low level, it never reaches the base of the hill. The lame attempts at bathroom humor, the same gags done over and over, and a lead who fails to live up to the standard set by the original, makes this a movie that Disney should not be proud of. Worst of all, this is supposed to be a 'G' movie, but the level of ribald humor calls for a PG-14 at a minimum.

As much as I usually enjoy Disney movies, I found myself losing interest in this one within the first twenty minutes. Save yourself some disappointment and give this one a miss.
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Corny
soccerbabe70715 August 2004
Okay, the reason I even decided to see this movie in the first place, was: I'm a Buffy/Angel fan. Figure it out, I saw it cause Julie Benz was in it. However... even if I'm a fan of an actress, this movie was really, really, horrible. I'm sure the actors did a great job with their parts, it's just the storyline that suffered. The narrator constantly making comments during the movie really annoyed me. This movie is made by Disney because... 1. It's a squeal and 2. the humor is set to like.... five year olds. It's good for little kids, but overall... very corny movie. Hope Disney would find some better plots; but... who am I kidding?! It's Disney! Can't expect much from them now can you?
1 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
A sequel nobody asked for
bekirertai2 January 2021
Different cast,not funny and bad CGI,a dissapointment,too bad Disney
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed