George Of The Jungle 2 - Movie Reviews - Rotten Tomatoes

George Of The Jungle 2 Reviews

Page 2 of 33
February 15, 2013
first one was better
February 8, 2013
George of the Jungle 2 has the same sort of easy going vibe as the first one, and the film never takes itself too seriously. From the moment a reference is made to Fraser, it's fairly clear that we're not meant to treat the film as anything other than a live-action cartoon. It's the sort of movie that kids will enjoy the heck out of, forcing their parents to watch it again and again. And for us adults, it's not an entirely unpleasant experience - what with Showerman's enthusiastically clueless performance and an eclectic supporting cast (including Michael Clarke Duncan as the voice of a would-be lion king). But after being subjected to some truly atrocious examples of Disney's direct-to-video mindset, I'm willing to give "George of the Jungle 2" a half-hearted pat-on-the-back. But the rampant silliness becomes too much, and the film eventually wears out its welcome. The brisk pace and vibrant visuals go a long way, but it's just not enough to keep elevate the material to anything beyond a mildly amusing kiddie flick.

VERDICT: "Not So Hot" - [Negative Reaction] These films are truly terrible films. They are not the worst things ever made, but they are definitely awful and should not be seen by anyone. (Films that are rated 1.5 or 2 stars)
February 5, 2013
It was less than satisfactory. Not something you wanna glorify. Please don't make another sequel.
November 6, 2012
For a sequel I think it's ok it's funny in a lot of parts but sometimes it's a little dumb
½ October 25, 2012
George, george, george of the jungle. Watch out for that..........TREE!!!!!
½ October 25, 2012
one of my fav movies of all time
½ September 28, 2012
As the poster suggests, "watch out for the sequel."
½ September 12, 2012
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 voiceover and Thomas Haden Church's funny portrail of the vilian is what made the film so fun, yet all of theat 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 assurionfg the viewers that the film is a sequel, a Disney sequel, and a Disney sequel without Brendan Fraser, 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'un 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 sham, a mess and not worth the time or effort it takes to watch it.
Super Reviewer
½ September 7, 2012
Not even half as good as the first film, with barely any laughs or interesting dialogue, which carried the first movie so well. "George of the Jungle 2" is kind of a slap in the face to the original, but not really? I chuckled a few times at the shlock that they try to make fun out of, because most of the time, it works, even if it comes off as a bit lame. Honestly, if it wasn't for the actors changing, the story being very similar, and the visual effects being absolutely dreadful, I might actually call it a fun movie, but after watching it, that is really all it is. If you turn your brain off it could become fun, but at it's core, it's awful!
September 4, 2012
George of the Jungle 2 without Bredan Fraiser, well this can't be good and it isn't. They don't have him in it but all they say is the studio didn't want to pay Him. Wow. This movie has no laughs and really isn't fun.
½ August 8, 2012
Super Reviewer
½ July 28, 2012
Oh geez. What the heck is this crap!? And why did they think about making this in the first place!? George Of The Jungle 2 was an unnecessary sequel that made the first film look good. I remember seeing this when I was 12, and I didn't remember loving it, when I saw that they replace all the casts from the first one. Turns out that none of them were good, and that I expected something better. But no, because this is a direct-to-video, that tells you why this was never made in theaters. It was too crappy for it. The story was so messy that I just couldn't handle sitting through the whole movie, waiting for it to be over. If you are looking for a well-made movie, you will not find it here. Avoid this movie at all cost, please!!
June 30, 2012
"studio too cheap to afford Brendan Fraser" for that reason alone this film works
June 27, 2012
Who thought it was a good idea to make this movie? It become annoyingly self aware where you just want to screen "YES, WE KNOW YOU ARE A MOVIE!".
½ June 24, 2012
wasnt as good as the 1st one
½ June 22, 2012
A feature length movie where some guy tries to impersonate brendan frasier the whole time.
½ May 6, 2012
Bahh. Dont they realize changing the cast half way through always *#@!'s up a movie~ Jesus.
May 4, 2012
For such a stupid movie, it was funny.
April 25, 2012
Why would they make a sequel with a different cast? It's pointless and due to fail...
April 17, 2012
kinda stupid. i prefer the first one
Page 2 of 33