Stometer Save your money for something good and enjoyable

Lucybespro It is a performances centric movie

Keeley Coleman The thing I enjoyed most about the film is the fact that it doesn't shy away from being a super-sized-cliche;

Mandeep Tyson The acting in this movie is really good.

Dom Nickson Spoiler Alert: This movie sucks so bad that even the gorillas used for this movie look faker than in the original. I mean this completely kills the original with it's crappy humor. There's not one funny thing I can remember from this miserable piece of cinema crap. It's also so bad that even the new actor admits how cheap the company is rehire Brendan Fraiser for this. All I got to say is stay far away from this crappy film! Don't let any body you know see this because it is that bad! You'd have a better time watching somebody getting tortured then when watching this piece of pathetic crap. I wonder how many kids are left mentally destroyed by this inhumane abomination. It's a -100 out of 10.

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

Nick Kennedy This movie was on t.v the other day, and I didn't enjoy it at all. The first George of the jungle was a good comedy, but the sequel.... completely awful. The new actor and actress to play the lead roles weren't good at all, they should of had the original actor (Brendon Fraiser) and original actress (i forgot her name) so this movie gets the 0 out of ten rating, not a film that you can sit down and watch and enjoy, this is a film that you turn to another channel or take it back to the shop if hired or bought. It was good to see Ape the ape back, but wasn't as fun as the first, they should of had the new George as Georges son grown up, and still had Bredon and (whats her face) in the film, that would've been a bit better then it was.

yamipegasus I must say, this movie was almost great. The jokes were pretty funny, and the acting (except for Beatrice) was pretty good, despite the replacement of most of the cast. Even the music was fun and fitting. Where this movie really fell apart was the storyline. I won't get into details, but let's just say it was lacking, at best. Many things were poorly explained, or unreasonable. Another problem, though minor and only slightly annoying, was the way George's elephant, Shep, was portrayed. In the first movie, he blended well with the rest of the set and characters. In this one, he is obviously done with relatively weak CGI that will damage the mood of the scene.It really is a pity that it had a few major glaring flaws... It could have been really good otherwise.