The Jungle Book 2 (2003) Reviews

• made for video....

  butlers-12003-02-14

  We just took our two daughters (ages five and four) to their first cinema experience...The Jungle Book 2. Though it had a few scary parts (Shere Khan close ups), overall it was pleasant and didn't contain the violence that has characterized a number of other childrens videos that we've rented. The above experience not withstanding, as I watched the film I kept thinking that this movie should not have gone to the theaters, but should have been sent straight to video. When you look at the voice talent (John Goodman, Phil Collins, Haley Joel Osment), you initially expect big gun entertainment. It is later that it dawns on you that you've paid cinema prices for a film that lasts only around 75 minutes and has a plot that is more concerned with having the original cast make almost forced appearance (look! Here is the snake! We've come across the monkeys! Are those elephant noises I hear?), rather than bringing them all back as part of a well devised plot. The film develops well in the village with Mowgli recounting his jungle life. Once the village is left, however, you feel pushed along. The most forced of the whole group are the buzzards, who go from being significant in the first film to basically showing up here and watching Lucky, the new vulture addition, ham it up. I guess Col. Hathi's wife knew better. She doesn't even appear in this one! The weak plot aside, there was something unusual for me in returning to these characters so many years later and seeing that they have not aged a bit....only in animation! Seeing this film from the 60s brought back with updated music, was enjoyable. Perhaps that is why the buzzards weren't really needed. Audiences of the first film would have been thinking "Ringo" during the buzzard scenes, here the Smash Mouths sing on the soundtrack. Some things just don't cross time well. So... as a sequel the film is weak. But it is enjoyable to watch...on video. Some sequels are a waste even in the 99 cent bin (Beethoven 3, anyone?), while others are worth the sitting (Homeward Bound 2). Disney has given us a sequel designed for a family with little kids, but its theatrical run shows a greed that does not fit well with the reputation for quality that Walt Disney was given. ps. We watched the film here in Argentina, so it was in Spanish. Lucky is presented as a doof whose Spanish has the thickest North American accent I've ever heard. Hmmmm.

  More

• Pretty good stuff... too short

  birdlandcc2003-02-14

  I was pretty entertained by this sequel. What I found most impressive was the excellent voice-over work. I have gone back and checked what the deal was and found it very interesting that both the Winnie the Pooh crews (new and old) were very much involved in the Jungle Books. Kaa the snake was my main interest, being done by the same voice over guy who now does Winnie the Pooh (Jim Cummings). Just as the original Kaa the snake, Sterling Holloway, was also the same guy who did the original Winnie voice . The other was the Black Panther, Bageera, originally done by Mr. French of Family Affair, the great Sebastian Cabot... now being done so well by Bob Joles who also narrates the Winnie series these days, just as Mr Cabot did in his day. Haley Joel Osment did a fantastic job of being Mowgli as well. John Goodman... good I guess... but the original Phil Harris just had that fluid jazz scat thing DOWN. So Baloo just isnt as cool as he used to be. No offense John, I seriously can't think of anyone who could have done better. But sometimes greatness is just great, and can't be duplicated. Nice try though. Sure the story wasn't really all that rivoting, the animation wasn't as full or rich in color. And no King Louis, but then again... the elephant marching army and the Beatles Buzzards were so great and are back again. Jungle Book was a great classic, certainly my favorite of all Disney animations... but Jungle Book 2 is certainly worth seeing for the next bunch of little guys who need that Disney fix. I have to agree with another critic in here... they should have spent a little more time and added a few more minutes of something. 70 minutes... and 15 of it in shadow puppet credits... stop short changing the Disney legacy with trying to reissue a cheaper version of the actual foundation that Disney was built on. Walt is shedding a few tears where ever he is.(actually I guess he sheds ice cubes, isn't he frozen somewhere?) Eisner, get with the program already.

  More

• Pointless, but not too bad

  Smells_Like_Cheese2008-01-11

  A few weeks ago, they re-released The Jungle Book on Disney DVD and I watched it after not seeing it for years and I just forgot how much I loved it. I saw that it had a sequel and I figured it might be worth a look. I watched it tonite and even though it wasn't a bad attempt, it was not really necessary to make it. The first Jungle Book ended so well and had a perfect happy ending, this was just a strange continuation on the story. They do bring back our favorite characters which I loved, like the snake, he's so cheesy, but he always cracks me up. Bagera, the panther, once again, I just love him, he tries to do right all the time, but he always gets hurt in the process. And of course Baloo is always there to bring some life and fun to the story with the simple bare necessities. Maugli is living in the village with a new family and life. But it's not the life he's always wanted, it has work and rules. He tells the other kids about the jungle, but they don't believe on how fun it is. Baloo and Bagera are in the jungle and Baloo just misses Maugli so much and brings him back to the jungle. But they're in big trouble, Shanti and her little brother(children from Maugli's village) follow Maugli and they are all being followed by Sher Kahn who wants revenge on Maugli for making a fool out of him. The Jungle Book 2 is a cute Disney sequel, but for those who love the original, it doesn't hold a candle up to the first Jungle Book. But for the kids and just a regular family film for the afternoon. I have to admit that there was a scene that definitely made me laugh, when the snake sees Shanti and tries to eat her, but her little brother beats him up, pretty good too, I couldn't help but laugh out loud. There are some fun moments, so it's worth a look, but I do of course prefer the first Jungle Book. 4/10

  More

• Another bland Disney sequel, and this one actually made it into theatres

  Electrified_Voltage2010-04-05

  Even though this film was made over thirty years later, it is a sequel to the 1967 Disney flick, "The Jungle Book", the last animated feature produced by Walt Disney himself, which was released the year after he died. I watched the 1967 film from beginning to end for perhaps the first time in January this year (I definitely saw at least SOME of it in my childhood, but I'm not sure exactly how much), and was not let down, as my review of it will tell you. It's been nearly three months since then, and it's taken me this long the get around to watching and reviewing this 2003 sequel, "The Jungle Book 2", made after so many other animated features produced by the Disney company after the man's death in 1966. I've seen several direct-to-video Disney sequels, most of which have been pretty bland, and this is a bland theatrical Disney sequel. Mowgli now lives in the "man village" with adoptive parents and a younger stepbrother named Ranjan. He is good friends with Shanti, the girl who lured him out of the jungle and into this village. However, he misses the jungle and his old friend, Baloo, and the friendly bear happens to be missing him. Baloo manages to make his way to the village, escaping from the elephants who try to stop him. Mowgli is obviously glad to see him, but when Shanti sees the bear, she thinks he means harm and screams for help! Baloo runs back into the jungle with Mowgli on his shoulders, and Shanti thinks her friend has been kidnapped, so she follows them. Mowgli and his bear friend are now back together, while Shanti and Ranjan search through the jungle for the boy. Unfortunately, the evil Shere Khan is also looking for the jungle boy, seeking revenge on him! Another problem for Mowgli on this adventure is that he finds himself unsure of whether he wants to live in the jungle with Baloo or in the village with Shanti and his adoptive family. A major problem with this sequel, one it didn't take long at all for me to notice, is definitely the humour. The film starts with Mowgli in the village, and nothing here made me laugh or even smile. When we see the jungle animals in this film, it's still not funny, even with the return of such characters as Baloo, Kaa, and the vultures. Sure, we have more of their antics here, but unlike before, they're not funny. In fact, nothing in the entire film made me laugh or smile at all, even if I may have very seldom come close! Another complaint I have about this "Jungle Book" sequel is that the Ranjan character is too noisy! I guess this is supposed to be funny as well, but it's not. Around the beginning, after Mowgli and Ranjan trick Shanti and make her fall in the water, she calls them, "Horrible, stinky boys!" What a cheesy line! Throughout the film, I did not find myself very interested in the plot (it may copy that of the original a little too much), and I think I had trouble following the "W-I-L-D" song because it was so uninteresting to me. There may be some mild suspense towards the end, and some parts later on may even be fairly poignant (or at least close to it), but these things are certainly not enough to make "The Jungle Book 2" worth watching. The first sequel to an animated Disney feature was "The Rescuers Down Under" from 1990. That film was released in theatres, but most of the animated Disney sequels have been direct-to-video, starting with "The Return of Jafar", the first of two sequels to 1992's "Aladdin". "The Jungle Book 2" was released the year after "Return to Never Land", which I haven't seen, but I know that it's a sequel to the 1953 Disney feature, "Peter Pan". Unlike most other Disney sequels, these two actually had a theatrical run, and I don't know about the "Peter Pan" sequel (though it wouldn't surprise me if I saw that it's the same as most of them), but this "Jungle Book" sequel is just like another direct-to-video one and probably should have been just that. As one would expect, since this sequel was made decades after the original, the animation is more advanced here, but it's so bland compared to its predecessor that I don't really care. I'm not sure whether I should be giving this a 4 or a 5 out of 10, but neither of those are high ratings. 1967's "The Jungle Book" is good animated family entertainment for many of those who want that, but this 2003 sequel might be just for kids.

  More

• Utter, utter, utter rubbish!

  Rob_Taylor2003-06-10

  Recipe for Jungle Book 2: Take one classic animated movie, loved by millions the world over. Carefully remove the plot. Add a couple of inconsequential new characters. Simmer gently without much loving care for very little time in a studio. et voila! You have the most pointless sequel I have seen in a long time. This is a shameless and charmless cash-in on the original Jungle Book. All the characters are there (with the exception of King Louie - who is absent for no explained reason) but they are there just because they were in the first film. No other reason at all. The plot isn't. There is no plot! Some vague hokum about how Mowgli misses the jungle, and that's it. Dull, dull, dull, dull, dull! You have to admire Disney's inattention to detail, though. For example. Mowgli, having been transplanted to the man village, has to obey all the rules of civilised society. Except, he still gets to wear his loincloth like some Tarzan wannabee. No smart man clothes for you, jungle boy! Just that raggedy old cloth! Haha! You're in the man world now, but we'll cruelly let you wear your rag to constantly remind you of the fact that you were once in a real movie with heart! And what's with everyone in that village? They are deathly afraid of the "jungle" and its inhabitants. So much so that they've placed convenient stepping stones across the river so that they can get to it anytime they like. Bah! There's one new song of any note "Jungle Rythym" which is OK, but that's it. Otherwise it's just an endless rehash of "Bare Necessities" several times during the picture. Talk about a one-song movie. The voices are done reasonably well, though how they roped John-Rhys Davies into this I'll never know. Mowgli (Haley Joel Osment) and Baloo (John Goodman) are particularly good. But otherwise its just rubbish really. Little kids will enjoy it, but it's a shame Disney didn't add a few more "adult" oriented gags into it. The only one of note was the vultures being portrayed as the Beatles. Even that wasn't funny the second time around. I can imagine parents the world over, having taken their kids to see this, dreading the little 'uns wanting to go again. Oh, and Disney guys? Just because Lilo and Stitch was a good film, doesn't mean you have to try and sneak the two main characters into every movie from now on. Shanti and the intensely irritating Ranjan are practically clones of Lilo and Stitch, but without the charm of either. The final insult was, after sitting through the movie and listening to far too many reprisals of "Bare Necessities" and NOT having King Louie in it at all, the end credits played out to "I Wannna be Like You". Yeah, that makes tons of sense Disney. Not have a major character in the movie, then use his theme song at the end. What a crock! Not so much of a straight-to-video production as it should have been a straight-to-the-cheap-bin-in-the-video-shop effort.

  More