stormhawk2018 I liked it a lot, I laughed a lot watching it. It is a humorous version of "Tarzan". Brendan Fraser is really nice and the story is unique to spend some time distracted and entertained. Also, Leslie Mann was good as a Jane-like character and Thomas Haden-Church as the villain, too. It has good moments and a touch of absurd comedy that convinced me enough. The kids in the house are sure to have a good time and adults who do not ask for too much and just want to have fun will enjoy it too. It's not that I'm fascinated but I certainly have a special affection since I saw her as a child. It is a movie with the charm of children's films that have not been made for a long time and that are missing from time to time.

ejl-41750 Being a 90's and early 2000's child, I wouldn't have heard of the original cartoon series if it weren't for my parents having a couple VHS's of them. I watched them and I enjoyed them, so when the movie was coming out, I was excited. Unfortunately, we weren't able to see it in the theater,but my parents did buy the VHS of it. When we did watch it, we loved it, especially me, and maybe even more so now. Why?First, the most important step of a good comedy is to make your audience laugh, and it did just that. How it managed to keep me laughing both as a kid and now was that it switched between different types of humor rather than sticking to just one. The best done here is the physical gags including the swing gags and the slapstick style fight scenes. Of course, there are very effective verbal humor that adults will enjoy, and that's not to say that there is an abundance of mildly suggestive comments, only like one or two, but even they make the adults laugh while just flying right over the children's heads. And there is also some mild toilet humor that will definitely make the children giggle.Second, the film has plenty of heart. The movie does a great job of depicting a nice and believable love between George and Ursula. At the same time, it shows great friendship between George and his friends Ape, Tooki his toucan messenger, and Shep his elephant dog.Third, the characters and the performances from the actors playing them are spot on. First of all, we have the naive but lovable George played in a hilarious performance by Brendan Fraser, the beautiful and sweet Ursula played by Leslie Mann, the shady egotistical and idiotic villain of the movie Lyle played by Thomas Haden Church, Ursula's snooty and not-so approving mother played perfectly by Holland Taylor, and last but not least: George's hilarious intelligent and sometimes sarcastic friend An Ape Named Ape voiced by John Cleese.Fourth, the backgrounds and scenery are some of the best you'll ever see from the jungle to the waterfalls and rivers to the savannas.With all the things about the movie that are great, are there any negatives about the movie? Yes, but they are extremely minor. First is the story, which is a bit unoriginal therefore having some predictability, but because of all the things positive about the movie, chances are you won't mind it. Second is that there are a few moments from the film that feel a bit dark, but they are very brief and won't do anything that will ruin or contradict the all around goofy and lighthearted tone of the movie.So, all in all, this is a great family comedy. Parents, I highly recommend you share this movie with your children. I really think they'll love it.9/10

breakdownthatfilm-blogspot-com Cartoons are difficult to convert to movies. With a short running time of only 20-25 minutes of plot, it can be fatal to drag it out for more than an hour. This is not the first of its kind but it possibly one of the better live-action adaptations that have been presented to broader audiences of recent memory. There are a number reasons to why this stands true compared to other cartoons but it also contains flaws that many others have too. Therefore, it only constitutes as slightly above average.Audiences are introduced to George (Brendan Fraser), a simple-minded man brought up by the local Apes of Africa. One day he stumbles upon a beautiful tourist named Ursula (Leslie Mann) and they immediately began to fall for each other. To George's dismay, Ursula isn't single, for her fiancé Lyle (Thomas Hayden Church) is also in love with her - thus beginning the plot. There are a number of pluses that come with the bad here. Thankfully, there's a tad more good than bad. First are the characters. Brendan Fraser as George of the Jungle was perfect. Fraser not only can do action but also handles comedy with ease. His persona resembles that of a human cartoon; like Jim Carrey but not as extreme. Leslie Mann as the damsel is OK. She is definitely cute enough for the role but doesn't make her character stand out. For a female character that stands up to some high-end people, she's still ditsy. However, the other cast members help overshadow her performance. Thomas Hayden Church is funny because of how naive he is and his perception of the lower class locals when in fact; he is the lowest of the low. Heading the locals is Kwame (Richard Roundtree from the original Shaft (1971)) and he too has funny moments. Along with that is John Cleese's voice work as George's friend Ape. The intellectual dialog that he is given sounds preposterous but in a silly fun kind of way. Topping it off is Keith Scott's narration; he is possibly one of the more comical of characters even though he is never seen. What helps these characters actually make the film worth a watch is partly due to the writing, which involves breaking the fourth wall. This is not done once or twice, the count exceeds far more than many comedies actually do nowadays. But this particular element is what help makes it work and be funny. Unfortunately, the other part of the writing that doesn't work is what every other live-action cartoon movie includes; throwing the main characters into the current day. Relying on a character from decades before to make scenes comical by putting them in real world situations don't work very often. It's clichéd and it doesn't give a unique universe for the main characters. Originally it started out fun and different because it took place in a jungle where things would happen that many audiences don't see, but in the city? If it's called George of the JUNGLE, why is it taking place in the CITY?There's also some noticeable loopholes in the story that don't give any explanation to how certain characters knew or remembered various information. However, in some cases some of the situations that take place should not be considered because the movie does play out like a cartoon, which is important if it's based off of one. That also doesn't mean the special effects should remind audiences of that. Since this movie was released at a time where CGI was really starting to boom, it can be seen clear as daylight what is fake and what is real. Unfortunately, that badly dates it. It could be worse though because Marc Shaiman's score kept fidelity to the original theme but made it fun to listen to for the whole ride of the movie. It's better than most.The majority of characters and parts of the comedy are funny at times along with appropriate music. Yet, the story is cliché and the special effects are dated.

harjinder lallie This promised to be an entertaining family flick. The ingredients seem just right, talking animals, lady falls in love with a jungle man, fiancé gets jealous etc. Brendan Fraser pulls of the role reasonably well. John Cleese is well cast as the voice of an ape. However the rest is pulled off terribly. Barring the special effects (which are actually very good), there is little more in this film that might move it up the 'must watch holiday family flick' list. A lot more could and should have been made of this and what little slapstick there is could have been even funnier. the action however is reasonably well choreographed. The problem is that most of it is quite 'reasonable' and not a single element is outstanding.