It's the first anniversary of my blog. Whoop-de-fecking doo.
I imagine you all want something special for helping me carry the blog this far. Maybe a party? Would you like a party? One with cake and candy and punch and that sort of thing? Well, tough. Nobody gets a party here until I put my most hated film of all time to rest. That's right, because this film is riding my behind, I'm going to ride yours and put the celebration on hold until this is all sorted out. If the dungeon master ain't happy, then ain't nobody happy, son. But on with the review.
I remember when I was little, back in the early 2000s, when a nintendo DS was considered the greatest advance in technology and Blockbuster was still a thing. My dad would always take me to the rental place to pick out a DVD for me to watch while he slept. And practically every time, I went for the same DVD: George Of The Jungle, or as I like to call it, My Childhood.
George Of The Jungle was a simple guy, a parody of Tarzan who commonly crashed into trees while swinging on vines. And for some reason, he was amazing.
I freaking loved this film when I was little, and looking back on it now, I can see why: of all the films based on older cartoons that inevitably ended up flopping, George Of The Jungle seemed like the film with the least chance of success. But, interestingly, it turned out pretty well: Brendan Frasier as George delivered a goofy but enjoyable performance, and the rest of the cast followed suit, creating a unique sense of humor mixed with delightful comedy (and the best narrator in the history of film) and overall a surprisingly good film (Roger Ebert went as far as to give it 3 out of 4 stars). The fourth-wall references and reoccurring jokes actually work in a parody like this, and combine with the humorous cast and visuals to create a sense of comedic mastery. While I wouldn't go as far as to call it a masterpiece, Id be more than happy to say that it's a fairly good film and a decent way to kill some time if you want a few laughs. There are some genuinely good lines in the movie as well, whether they be touching or funny.
And then, numerous years later, a new film came along to place a stain on the legacy of my favorite childhood film. This, my friends, is the absolute worst sequel of all time, and it is known as George Of The Jungle 2.
It's rather curious how a sequel can ruin the legacy of the original with nothing more but a change of actors and the addition of poop jokes. Although most of the first film took place in the jungle, there weren't many dirty jokes: sure, there was one here or there (¨Bad guy falls in poop- classic bit of physical comedy. Now comes the part where we all throw our heads back and laugh. Ready?¨ ¨Ready! AHAHAHAHA!), but for the most part it was pretty tame (except for the castration joke). But here, dirty jokes are thrown around like Zug-Zug in the finale. This film was so bad and such a dumb idea that they couldn't even get most of the original actors back- there's a new George, a new Ursula, and even a new Shep (George's pet elephant, who for some reason they didn't apply the same CGI to- heck, he looks worse in the sequel). What was the point of this film if not even the original actors wanted anything to do with it? I have no idea, but this has bothered me my entire life- and to fully become a critic, I must face my fear and watch this once more. Grab your shovel and rain coat- we're heading into the biggest pile of Zug-Zug I've ever seen.
The sequel opens with a short animated bit with a refrain of that famous catchy theme song as George abd his new son get into mischief. We then see, in real life, that George has been replaced by a new actor. Let me give you my reaction to the first time I saw this scene:
¨Ahh! That's not George! Ursula! That's not your jungle husband!" (sees Ursula) And that's not Ursula either! Shep, who are these people? (sees terrible CGI Shep) Ahhhhhh! That's not Shep either! It's all a lie!¨
(sits in the corner crying and cradles a stuffed animal)
So yeah, it's a bit of a surprise to see entirely different actors playing these characters. At least New George looks somewhat like the original- I guess that's something. New Ursula, on the other hand, only has the hair down. Everything else is wrong.
The doppelgangers spend some time messing around in the jungle before Ursula's mother arrives and attempts to convince Ursula to move back to the city with her son. She refuses and the mother goes off in a huff.
After more pointless jungle gags, we see the main plot surface: George's jungle brother Ape goes bankrupt in Las Vegas (no mention of how he got to Vegas and gambled in the first place, but I have a feeling anybody can gamble in Vegas), and George needs to get him back for no apparent reason. Meanwhile, Ursula's mother and Ursula's ex-fiance Lyle conspire to hypnotize her to love Lyle again. And this brings me to my second major issue of the film:
It never really explains what happened between the first film and the second. At the end of the original George, Lyle is revealed to have joined a romance cult and is authorized to perform marriages. He kidnaps Ursula and drags her into a cave to marry. But due to a trick by George and Ape, he ends up marrying himself to a gorilla instead. If Lyle is married now, to a gorilla or otherwise, why can't he just grab her and force a marriage? Can you even do that if you're already married? Maybe he divorced the gorilla, I dunno.
Also bothersome is the topic of Ursula's mother. At the end of film 1, she was fine with her daughter marrying a jungle man, though being extremely disappointed. And now that they have a son, what reason does she have to remove the kid or her stepson from their home? What makes her think she's the authority on proper environment for animals and people? I think Ape put it best in film 1:
"Ma'am, I knew Jane Goodall. And you are no Jane Goodall."
So back to the plot (if you can call it that): George rescues Ape from the Las Vegas strip along with a random kangaroo (because kangaroos have a place in a film about the jungle) while the villains recruit Ursula's old friends to convince her to leave her husband and marry Lyle. (When these three girls enter, they are greeted and called angels by a man named Charlie- because every little kid's gonna get that joke) When their persuasion doesn't work, the group decides to hire a hypnotist after watching him force a lactose-intolerant woman to eat bowls of ice cream (whoopsies). He succeeds in hypnotizing Ursula for the time being, then telling Lyle that the first person she kisses will be the love of her life permanently.
On top of this, two of Ursula's mom's henchmen seek to bulldoze the jungle (although George is in the city and so is Ursula- why destroy the jungle if what you want to destroy is right here?). After getting up to a skyline and swinging into a tower, Ape says something odd: "You didn't think that we would miss this parody, did you?"So this city version of the joke that pioneered this film is considered a parody now? There's a fine line between using a joke and parodying it, and just taking the joke out of context doesn't turn it into a parody.
So before the climax of the film, I think I should mention the side plot about the evil lion who wants to challenge George's rule of the jungle. Did I mention that?
Yeah, this entire time the jungle has been in danger. You see, the lion from the first film has decided he wants to control the Jungle for no apparent reason, and George has to stop him along with all the trouble he's going through now.
Now in the first film, the lion isn't really seen as a villain: he appears near Lyle and Ursula scaring them before Lyle runs off and George saves her. George lets the lion go and as a thanks, the lion turns up later to help with another issue in the film. That issue is a cute scene where a little monkey is being excluded by the group and George helps him. The little monkey shrieks at the lion, who pretends to be scared and slinks away with a wink to George, sort of like a "my debt is repaid" wink and earning Little Monkey the respect of the pack. Now what reason does the lion have to want the jungle? We saw in the first film that given the chance, George can kick the lion's ass in physical combat. Assuming George and the lion have no qualms now and are both friends of Little Monkey, what reason is there for this plot point? I have no idea.
So finally, after getting a tip from Brendan Frasier about what's going on (no joke, that's actually what the narrator says), the gang heads back to the jungle, where Lyle and Ursula and her mom are waiting. We see that bulldozers have arrived to plow down the jungle and that the animals are trying their best to stop them. George rushes to help, but the lion blocks his way. They get into a fight and George ends up killing the lion, thus ending his entirely pointless reign as king.
As the animals ram and push and throw Zug-Zug (poop) at the dozers, George works to take them down, but to no avail. All seems lost until allies appear- Little Monkey, now the leader of his group, and George Junior, his son. They all work together and destroy the machines, Ursula's Mom is defeated and George kisses her daughter, breaking the spell and ensuring their love. Lyle attempts to stop them, but is grabbed and carried off by a giant cartoon hand in the sky. No joke.
Apparently, the narrator has had enough of this mother-bleeping Lyle in this mother-bleeping movie and removes him from it. This annoys me because the Narrator never really got involved in the plot in the first film- mainly heckling from the sidelines and quipping about the situation- but never really taking physical action- thus destroying the only other two characters I enjoyed in this film. George and Ursula remarry and live happily ever after. At least SOMEBODY'S happy about this.
OVERALL RATING: 0/10
----------------------------------------
Have you ever heard the song "The Straight Razor Cabaret" by Aurielo Voltaire? (If not, go look it up. It's pretty cool) It's about a man people call Straight Razor who runs a cabaret show. If you don't laugh and smile at his show, then he takes out a knife and slashes your facial muscles in a way that locks your mouth into a smile. As the song goes, "There's nothing he hates more than a stick in the mud.".
If it was between watching this film one more time or visiting the Straight Razor Cabaret with a permanent frown on my face, I'd say bring on the cabaret. Even Straight Razor's knife would pale in comparison to the pain I felt watching this.
I'm not going to sugarcoat it: I really freaking hate this film. Not because it's a pointless sequel to a film that didn't need one in the first place. Not because the jokes are corny and pointless. Not because it mentions Brendan Frasier for no reason so much it sounds like the film has a stick up it's rear end about him. Not even because of the terrible casting, or the CGI, or plot. In fact, some of the stuff I've seen is MUCH worse than this (I'm looking at you, Garbage Pail Kids). Those are all factors, but what really ticks me off is just what the original meant to me. That film was my childhood, one of the few things I can look back on and still enjoy, and probably my favorite kid's film of all time. And this film came along and took a crap on everything I used to love. You ruined the plot, you ruined the story, and you ruined my life. Good job, film. Good job. Your cauldron of boiling oil in hell is waiting for you.
But.....you know what? It;s kind of odd, but I actually owe something to this film. This abomination is what gave me my hatred for bad film. It's the first thing I ever really felt hate for, and to this day, I still haven't felt as angry at anything else as I did back then. This is the film that made me want to become a critic. In a way, it's not only the worst thing I've ever seen, but also the thing that made me want to expose it.
And now I finally put this film and saga to rest. Farewell, George Of The Jungle 2: my greatest enemy, but also my driving spark. I'm the Critical Frog, and I'm finally free.
No comments:
Post a Comment