Air Bud 2 - Golden Receiver - Movie Reviews - Rotten Tomatoes

Air Bud 2 - Golden Receiver Reviews

Page 1 of 2
Kevin Carr
7M Pictures
February 3, 2015
This sequel doesn't quite have the heart of the first Air Bud.
Full Review | Original Score: 2.5/5
Top Critic
John Hartl
Seattle Times
May 29, 2013
The original film's director, Charles Martin Smith... has been replaced by Richard Martin, who brings a family-hour blandness to every scene.
Full Review | Original Score: 2/4
Terence Henderson
Philadelphia Daily News
May 29, 2013
Although Air Bud: Golden Receiver is bit unrealistic (I know you're shocked), it does accomplish its purpose, which is to provide great fun for children.
Full Review | Original Score: B
Top Critic
Monica Eng
Chicago Tribune
May 29, 2013
[The film is] marked by dumbfoundingly bad dialogue, cliche-driven plotting and groan-worthy predictability.
Full Review | Original Score: 1/4
Top Critic
Leonard Klady
Variety
December 4, 2008
As sequels go, Air Bud: Golden Receiver is barking up the wrong tree.
John R. McEwen
Film Quips Online
February 8, 2003
If you're a 7-year-old, at whom the film is aimed, you'll probably have no problem with the idea of a dog being able to join a school football team. If you're a cynical old critic like me, you may feel differently.
Full Review | Original Score: 2.5/5
Gary Brown
Houston Community Newspapers
November 28, 2002
This doggie has fleas.
| Original Score: 1/5
Margaret A. McGurk
Cincinnati Enquirer
October 15, 2002
Air Bud: Golden Receiver is not quite as much fun as the original, but for youngsters just learning to enjoy movies in the theater, its hi-jinks are fair entertainment.
Jeffrey Westhoff
Northwest Herald (Crystal Lake, IL)
October 1, 2002
Air Bud: Golden Receiver has the same strengths and weaknesses as its predecessor. But this time the strengths are weaker and the weaknesses are stronger.
Full Review| Original Score: 2.5/4
Dwayne E. Leslie
Boxoffice Magazine
June 5, 2002
In addition to good-hearted humor, Air Bud: Golden Receiver offers up moral lessons and affirmative messages.
Top Critic
Anita Gates
New York Times
January 1, 2000
The film is pleasantly sweet and occasionally sharp.
Full Review | Original Score: 3/5
Top Critic
Roger Ebert
Chicago Sun-Times
January 1, 2000
Air Bud 2: Golden Receiver is a pale shadow of the entertaining 1997 family movie. It's a sequel that lacks the spirit and sweetness of the original.
Full Review | Original Score: 1.5/4
James Sanford
rec.arts.movies.reviews
January 1, 2000
If there's a little demon who's making your life miserable, "Air Bud: Golden Receiver" offers a prime opportunity for sweet revenge. ... charmless, preachy, flabbergastingly dull ...
Madeleine Williams
Cinematter
January 1, 2000
Air Bud: Golden Receiver is just as idealess as the original.
Full Review | Original Score: 1/4
Marc Savlov
Austin Chronicle
January 1, 2000
A decent way to settle the little ones down on a Saturday afternoon, sure, but so is Ritalin.
Full Review | Original Score: 1.5/5
Top Critic
Paul Tatara
CNN.com
January 1, 2000
Though the movie is inept in a number of key ways, what it really lacks is a lead actor who can carry his scenes with an un-doggish panache.
Jeff Vice
Deseret News, Salt Lake City
January 1, 2000
Monetary concerns have to be the only reason this lame kids sports comedy was made, because the surprise hit that spawned it wasn't exactly great cinema and didn't cry out for a sequel.
Top Critic
Bob Graham
San Francisco Chronicle
January 1, 2000
It's a Styrofoam-cup comedy, lightweight and disposable, but this G-rated fantasy of suburban family life is a good bet for its intended audience of 12-year-olds and younger.
Full Review | Original Score: 2.5/4
Walter V. Addiego
San Francisco Examiner
January 1, 2000
The Problem with the Air Bud sequel is simple: too many people and not enough dog.
Full Review | Original Score: 2/4
David Keyes
Cinemaphile.org
January 1, 2000
Air Bud 2 only has the ability to make you laugh (occasionally), and nothing else.
Full Review | Original Score: 2/4
Page 1 of 2