jodimoran 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*

soccerbabe707 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?

Dawn 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.

TheVid 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!