TrueJoshNight
Truly Dreadful Film
Stometer
Save your money for something good and enjoyable
Usamah Harvey
The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.
TheLittleSongbird
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
lqe
Let me start out by saying this movie has 1 funny point at the very beginning with the exchange between the narrator and George: Narrator:Huh? Wait a minute! Who the heck are you? George: Me new George. Studio too cheap to pay Brendan Fraser. Narrator: How did you get the part? George: New George just lucky, I guess. Sadly, that's the only funny part in the entire movie.It was still entertaining...But then again, i'm easily entertained...I wouldn't say this is the worst movie i've ever seen (that title goes to the terribly un-funny Disaster Movie...), This movie falls #7 on my bottom 15 list...If your a small child who is easily entertained, you'll enjoy this movie. If you're a movie-watcher who wants a good, funny movie, You'll end up shooting yourself halfway through this one..
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.
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?
