XoWizIama Excellent adaptation.

Lightdeossk Captivating movie !

Contentar Best movie of this year hands down!

Bluebell Alcock Ok... Let's be honest. It cannot be the best movie but is quite enjoyable. The movie has the potential to develop a great plot for future movies

mark.waltz This sequel to "Thank You Jeeves" has some of the laughs yet none of the pizazz of the first entry. Arthur Treacher is back as the prim and proper British valet, minus David Niven and the class of the first film. With his new employer away, Jeeves is conned by two Russians involved in a property scam and ends up in New York City where he is taken in by social climbing former gangsters who think he's an earl. It's the droll class of the continental upper-crust meets the rough and tough nuevo riche who have the class of a cursing cab driver. Patricia Ellis is a reporter who pretends to be a secretary, taking a job for the determined Helen Flint who proves that class is something you are brought up with, not taught. There's a couple of gags equally funny to the much better first entry which ended with this, although Treacher ended up doing the same part with different names. This seems to have been rushed out, proving that some of the exec's of the classic era of movie making thought like some of the exec's today, with dollar signs instead of creative brains. Still, it's an adequate diversion that doesn't strain the brain and is over within a decent amount of time. A chase sequence makes up for slow patches and some lame dialog.

JohnHowardReid I agree with all the other reviewers. This movie was a bad error of judgment and has little to commend it. "Thank You, Jeeves" was so good in all departments, especially in writing, acting and production values, but this follow-up is just a weak attempt to take the audience's money and deliver very little in return. It's not just disappointing, it's plain boring. No, it's worse than plain boring, it's taking money under false pretenses. In fact, the movie has so little to commend it, one wonders why 20th Century-Fox bothered to offer it as a DVD. If they wanted to issue a "B" movie, I could enumerate over two hundred Fox releases that were far more deserving of a DVD pressing than this marking time, plain boring and totally inept excuse for a movie. No, perhaps "inept" is the wrong word. If it was inept, perhaps it would at least gain the attention's attention. "Lifeless"! That's what the movie is - lifeless in every sense of that word. Lifeless story, lifeless direction, lifeless acting, lifeless photography, lifeless sets, lifeless score, lifeless editing, lifeless...

MartinHafer This is one of two Jeeves & Wooster films released by Twentieth-Century Fox on a single DVD. However, oddly, this follow-up to "Thank You, Jeeves" does NOT have Wooster--just his manservant, Jeeves! So, while they were unable to get David Niven to return for this film, Arthur Treacher was on hand to reprise his role as the imperturbable butler, Jeeves. As for me, I didn't mind too much, as Treacher was the best character (by far) in the first film--the way Treacher underplayed the guy was terrific.While I did enjoy this second film, it was a bit of a letdown for two reasons. First, without Wooster there was a problem with the film's chemistry. Instead of a Jeeves & Wooster film, it was much more of a gangster film. Second, while Jeeves was supposedly the star of the film, Treacher seemed to have very little to do in the film other than to make a few appearances here and there. So it's clearly not up to the standards of the first film--though it is still enjoyable if you don't expect a Wodehouse story. Well produced...just not up to the standards you'd expect.By the way, if you want to know why Wooster was not in this film, try watching the DVD extra "The World of Wodehouse" on the same DVD. It explains this as well as discusses how different the first and second film were.

Ron Oliver When a couple of swindlers convince Jeeves, that impeccable gentleman's gentleman, that he is the long-lost heir to the fortune of Sir Francis Drake, he embarks with them to New York, where he is immediately embroiled with bank robbers & mobsters. To get yourself out of this pickle, you'll need to STEP LIVELY, JEEVES!In this, the second of two Jeeves films (following THANK YOU, JEEVES! - 1936), Arthur Treacher once again has a field day as the world's most famous butler. He is always great fun, with his icy stare & nasal tones. Too bad the plot doesn't give us more of him. With three sets of crooks & a couple of snoopy reporters, Jeeves sometimes gets lost in the proceedings.This is also a different Jeeves from the one created by Sir P. G. Wodehouse. Bertie Wooster is nowhere to be seen, nor is he even mentioned. Also, the Movie Jeeves is much too easily duped by the criminals - the Literary Jeeves would have sent the fellows packing with a flea in their ear. The Movie Jeeves gets falling-down drunk, unthinkable for his Literary Counterpart. The Movie Jeeves also claims his first name is `Rupert' - whereas from the novels we know his real name is `Reginald'. Ah, ha! An impostor!In the supporting cast, George Givot has some funny moments as a phony Russian prince. Franklin Pangborn shines in a tiny role as a headwaiter; too bad he has no scenes with Treacher.