Mischa Redfern I didn’t really have many expectations going into the movie (good or bad), but I actually really enjoyed it. I really liked the characters and the banter between them.

Ezmae Chang This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

Phillida Let me be very fair here, this is not the best movie in my opinion. But, this movie is fun, it has purpose and is very enjoyable to watch.

Jerrie It's a good bad... and worth a popcorn matinée. While it's easy to lament what could have been...

jvfunn1 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.

msfttaz 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.

metatron-9 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.

ctweb 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