User reviews

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

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.

I agree with the reviewer of the DVD to this Disney sequel on the Ultimate Disney site (now more commonly known as DVDizzy): It's not on the same level as the first movie, but simultaneously it isn't that bad either and I still find it enjoyable, despite the flaws there may be. Someone mentioned that this is just a rehash of the original film. I didn't quite get what that other viewer meant or what that other reviewer was talking about at first, but I guess it is somewhat, in a few ways, but not all that much I don't think. Believe it or not, this is actually one of the few Disney sequels I was feeling to a degree. Those who think this is very bad, I can think of other movies that are much worse, such as the straight-to-VHS Bar-B-Q and I rather watch Jungle Book 2 again than that or before ever watching that again, looking back on it. To anyone who may be reading this, y'all might want to rent for yourselves or watch it online first though. I don't think I'll even bother bringing up what has already been elaborated by the other reviewers about this on here nor try to discuss what hasn't already been discussed on this. Anyway, I say it's worth giving a whirl and hopefully at least some will be on the fence with it like I am.

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.

The original is one of my favourites, with the great songs, originality, memorable characters and its good nature. Other than the existence of the characters, this sequel fails everywhere else, so is definitely inferior in comparison. I can't believe some people thought the original was racist, I personally think someone's ethnicity should not be an issue when talking about voice work. Another problem with the sequel was that the characters, who were funny and memorable in the original, were not very likable at all, not even Baloo. Though Phil Collins makes a brief and amusing appearance as a vulture. The biggest flaw, was the plot. It seemed non-existent, and if there was one, it was very uninteresting with no heart, fun or charm at all, all of which were in the original. It also felt too much of a re-hash, a similar problem I had with Little Mermaid 2. The pace was very limp, although the film is quite short.(some sequels like King of Thieves, Enchanted Christmas and Simbas's Pride were surprisingly good despite their short durations) The voice talents try their best, but with a very bad script, and they sounded too similar to the original voices. Haley Joel Osment does his best, but his Mowgli had no personality, likewise with John Goodman as Baloo. Bagheera, Kaa and Ranjan provide some laughs, halfway through, after a very slow beginning. One of the original's highlights was George Sanders' Shere Kahn. Whilst suave and charismatic, Sanders brought a sense of menace to the character. That said, I was deeply disappointed in Tony Jay as Shere Kahn, though it isn't his fault at all; the material they gave him was very bad indeed. He was amazing as the character in Talespin, why did the script writers decide to ruin him, by making him rather empty as a villain? Jay is a truly talented voice actor, like Tim Curry, evident in Beauty and the Beast, Talespin and Hunchback of Notre Dame, but through no fault of his, Shere Kahn was nowhere near as menacing as he was in the original. The songs from the original were legendary, here they were eminently forgettable, and slowed the film down quite considerably. Bare Neccessities even managed to be very badly sung. Though on a positive note, some of the animation was average, and there was at least some attempt at humour. I don't think it is as bad as Cinderella 2, but nevertheless it is very thinly-plotted. 4/10 Bethany Cox.

Jungle Book 2 is a pretty decent movie. It doesn't compare to the original but it does pay some respect to it. I gave a lot of credit to Jungle Book 2 because making a sequel to that classic movie is anything but easy.

The plot is surprisingly good and makes sense. It introduces problems to Mowgli as he misses his life in the jungle. Meanwhile Shere Khan is lurking in the jungle, looking for revenge.

I really don't think that a sequel to the masterpiece Jungle Book could of been better than this movie. In other words this movie was doomed from the start but it didn't fail.

I can't really describe what is bad about Jungle Book 2. What I can say is that it was missing key elements that made the original so great. This movie did have some good scenes and did keep me interested.

Overall I actually enjoyed this movie and my advice to future viewers is to not expect something as good as the original. The 5.2 rating is out of place for Jungle Book 2, it deserves better.

My rating: 6.9/10

You can say what you want about sequels, but some movies are suitable for them. That's the case of "Jungle Book", one of my dearest childhood memories. Although the Disney's sequels have earned a bad reputation (which it's understandable, but that's another discussion for now).

SPOILER) It's ironic that they took almost 36 years to make a sequel, but the movie takes place not many days after Mowgli came to the man village (SPOILERS OVER).

The story works actually better in this movie, the script is more tight and that's makes this movie watchable and enjoying. Mowgli's emotional journey is more well portrayed in this feature and almost (mark my word; almost) every character from the first movie appears again, which is nice. The new characters are also acceptable.

But the new songs and the humor are terrible and annoying. The animation is colorful, but I don't quite understand why this movie was released on theaters, when it has almost the same quality than a directly to video/DVD feature. Maybe the directors wanted this film to reach a bigger audience? Well, that's another discussion for now.

For those who like sequels; this is a okay movie and exiting movie.

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.

Average.

'The Jungle Book 2' doesn't come close to the film it follows, but there's enough to gain enjoyment from. The animation is satisfactory, while there are a few good voice cast additions.

John Goodman makes for a perfect Baloo. Phil Harris (1967) and Bill Murray (2016) do great in their respective films, but I think Goodman is my favourite in the role. Phil Collins is amusing as Lucky, a new character.

Other expanded/new characters, namely Shanti (Mae Whitman) and Ranjan (Connor Funk), don't add all that much though. Any scene with those two is way less interesting than the ones with Baloo, Bagheera etc.

The music is definitely the biggest gap that this has between the original production, with none of the the music standing out at all. To conclude, it's all OK but is probably a sequel that isn't needed.

I saw this movie with my 1 and a half year old daughter and i must say she loved it, but fell asleep around half but i stayed watching it...The Jungle Book 2 is another great disney adventurer....Good Job!

Okay, so I'm a HUGE fan of the original movie - it's right up there in my top 30! And yes, this one misses a lot of the originality, personality and timelessness of the original.

But putting that aside, this isn't a too bad little movie in its own terms. John Goodman and Haley Joel Osment put a lot of heart into their characters. I still can't believe Haley could pull off a musical comedy type role, where he actually sings **in character**, with a toe-tapping style and loads of charisma. Never figured the critically-acclaimed tyke had it in him.

And overall, the voice casting is pretty much on par with imitating the original. Maybe the script is a bit to contemporary and clichéd, with the action story feeling a bit ham-fisted. Shanti does feel a bit too contemporary to the story. And the resolution for Mowgli between settling down with the humans and having his animal friends in the jungle does seem a bit too pat. But at least it's fairly watchable. A bit above the cheesy TV cartoons that are mass-produced now. If only slightly.

This movie might be 1 hr long with previews it is 75 minutes long.I took my 5 year old grandson who seemed to like it, it held his attention but he laugh only twice through out the movie.When it was over he asked it that it? Nothing like the first Jungle book not enough thought was put into it. Very sloppy work on Disney part.

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.

this sequel pales in comparison to the classic and much loved original.the story(such as it is)is pretty lame,and doesn't really have a point,and most of the songs are lacklustre.still,the movie was mildly amusing and had a few funny moments.since it was released about thirty six years after the original,some of the original characters from the the first movie did not have the same voice talents,which is a shame.anyway,in my opinion,they should have just stuck with the original classic,instead of releasing a lacklustre sequel.though,to be fair,this sequel is not as bad as many of the direct to video sequels that Disney has and will continue to churn out.so i guess that's something.then again,this one should not have been released theatrically either.for me,The Jungle Book 2 is a 5/10

I really enjoyed it. Especially my 3 year old. We really liked the funky jazz music with a touch of jungle beat. Then, on the credits, it had a great remix. Awesome. I really laughed at Lucky, the condor, who was teasing Shear Khan the tiger. It wasn't bad at all, in fact it was well worth the money. My daughter certainly liked it. It wasn't as comical as the first movie, but very entertaining, when it comes to drama and musical performances. Who ever wrote the music score on this one is very talented. It did, however have some funny moments, like Kaa the snake, and when Baloo was running from his friend the panther, trying to get back to the village and see Mowgli. John Goodman is very talented. When I found out that Phil Collins did the voice of Lucky, the condor, I laughed even harder. He did a good job. Those condor characters are SO hilarious. I recommend it to anyone looking for a laugh and some good entertaining music.

The Jungle Book 2 is by far one of the worst sequels (whether Disney or Non-Disney) I have ever seen. It has a weak storyline, below average songs and terrible animation.

I remember when I heard that there was going to be a sequel to the Jungle Book (one of my favourite Disney films), I was extremely excited: my excitement went to waste. What makes this film even worse is how great the first Jungle Book film was. I think the same can be said for most Disney sequels (e.g. Pocahontas 2, The Hunchback of Notre Dame 2 etc).

Quite frankly, I like to imagine that this sequel does not exist.

I always liked this when I was a kid and as someone who grew up with both this and the original Jungle Book, I was 2 when this came out, I can say that while the original had a few more memorable songs I actually always preferred this film, the new characters where fun and memorable, I'm still nostalgic over one of the songs, the opening always seemed exiting to me when I was little, and the visuals where better than the original in my opinion, so I'm sure that kids would still enjoy this movie even if it's not a masterpiece. It also builds up the character of the originally unnamed girl-who shows up at the end of the original to sing about her future of being a domesticated house wife while her husband hunts and then flirts with Mowgli- into being quite a well rounded example of positive female representation in a film that appeals to kids of any gender.

what a rip off of a great disney classic. they should be ashamed of themselves. took my grandchildren to see it. ages 4, 7, 11. even they thought it was bad. i asked the manager of the theater (Regal) for my $ back. they refused.

A project designed simply to milk little kids parents of their money. The plot? Nothing happens !!! This is especially bad because of the quality of the first film. Straight to video instead? No, straight in the bin, where people who dream up these sort of vacuous non-entity efforts should also find themselves.

What I like is how well drawn and well animated JUNGLE BOOK 2 is.

It combines had drawn animation with computer generated backgrounds and special efx giving it a very special human quality. I would almost put it on a par with Beauty and the Beast or Aladdin.

Mowgli and Baloo the Bear are so likable as are all the characters in this wonderful film.

Our 7 year old son loved the music and was actually up dancing around the Living Room during the closing credits to the jazzy beat of JUNGLE RHYTHM.

Fun for the whole family.

"I use what is necessary. Only what is necessary. The extraordinary is too much. I say what is necessary. Only what is necessary. That is why I live this life in peace." the music is cute, but the movie is not that necessary, the 67 version was cuter, with more baby Mogli...

The surprisingly good "Return to Neverland" suckered me into thinking that this Jungle Book sequel might be worth seeing. I was wrong. It's a real mistake to essentially copy a classic Disney movie if you're not even going to bother trying for quality. The shoddiness of the animation in JB2 was just painful, as it was so easy to compare it to the original. The characters are drawn with thick, clumsy black outlines, like Hanna-Barbera cheapos; the scene with Mowgli walking across the floor of his room to look out the window is so poorly done, it looks like a cutout figure is being pushed across on a stick. The shadow puppets Mowgli makes at the beginning are more interesting. The background is static and without any of the nuance of the first Jungle Book, where the different parts of the jungle were lovingly drawn in depth and varied colour, and the fronds and leaves even MOVED. The new characters are just weird: the Indian father looks like they've recycled Stromboli from 'Pinocchio', and just slapped a smile and a turban on him. And Disney now seems to have a habit of uglifying any character too young to look sexy; it started with the pudgy (but still likeable) Lilo, and now we've descended to the absolutely porcine Ranjan. Apart from the crude look of the movie, the plot, as other people have noted, is non-existent, and the whole film is essentially an exercise in parasitism. Get the original 'Jungle Book' and forget about this junk.