George of the Jungle

MPA Rating: PG-Rating (MPA)

Reviewed by: Kevin Burk
CONTRIBUTOR

Moral Rating:	Better than Average
Moviemaking Quality:
Primary Audience:	9 to Adult
Genre:	Comedy
Length:
Year of Release:	1997
USA Release:

Featuring
Director
Producer
Distributor

“George of the Jungle” is a film remake of the old Saturday-morning cartoon about the Tarzan-like swinger with a strong sense of nobility and a very bad sense of direction. Surprisingly, this adaptation retains the cartoon’s goofy sense of humor, while George (Brendan Fraser) retains his sense of sweet innocence.

The plot resolves around George and his lady fair, Ursula, a wealthy city socialite on safari with her snooty, scheming fiancé. Ursula becomes separated from the party and is saved by George. Eventually, romance begins to bloom in the jungle and Ursula returns with George to the big city, while her fiancé does everything in his power to break up this match. The audience is then treated to the usual fish out of water type jokes. Yet, I was pleasantly surprised by this film and laughed a lot at George’s antics. “George” never takes itself too seriously and spoofs itself often with the type of humor that seems to come right out of the “Naked Gun” or “Airplane” series. The computer animated animals are quite impressive and John Cleese is quite amusing as George’s simian sidekick, Ape.

Morally, this film contains little that is objectionable. There is a little profanity and very cartoonish violence (e.g., lots of running into trees). If you are not a fan of silly movies that make you groan after every joke, avoid this film. But, if you like very crazy, low-brow humor, you might want to give “George” a try.

I agree with the reviewer. George of the Jungle was a silly movie. When George licked the side of Ursula’s face, I thought of it as a doggie kiss (you know how dogs lick people). And when Ursula said, “That was great!” it was obviously because she enjoyed the elephant ride. When George noticed her breasts, it was because he had never seen a woman. True, there was that scene when he came out of the shower. And when George dressed up in Ursula’s clothing, it was because he didn’t have anything to where (it’s good that she didn’t have men’s clothing in her apartment). And yes, the parents didn’t have that great of a relationship, but it was a fun and enjoyable movie.

Noelle, age 14

I remembered the cartoon of years ago, so thought the movie to be a safe bet for my young daughter. I was wrong. The relationship between George and Ursula was not an innocent one. While Ursula is sleeping, George licks the side of her face—not immitable behavior for christians! In another scene he comes close to touching her… while passsed out questioning what those (breasts) were about. In yet another scene, while George and Ursula are riding double on the back of Shep (the elephant), as they go up and down on the back Ursula says “That was Great!” as though they were engaging in intercourse! George is shown dressing in female clothing, and so many other things that I don’t like explaing to my young daughter. I think Jesus gives this movie a big thumbs down. I find that young people giving reviews on this sight have more wisdom discerning the spirit of this age than reviewers. An awesome testimony of a coming holy generation!

Mike Lockwood, age 41

I was very disappointed in this movie. I took two children to see this and felt bad for doing it, First of all the man playing this part may as well had nothing on. I thought it was disgusting. I can’t beleive the shows they have out that are supposed to be for kids! What ever happen to the GOOD shows like “Savanna Smiles”? This was one of the best! Its no wonder kids are growing up not knowing right from wrong, parents are taking their kids to see this trash.

Lisa, age 27

There is now a review up for my least favorite movie of 1997. There is not one laugh in “George of The Jungle.” The preposterous scene where he comes out of the shower was extremely sexist. The jokes were a cross between the unfunny “Full House” one-liners and the “Beavis and…” crudeness. Oh, look! George gets hit in crotch! Man falls in elephant feces! Oh, the laughs keep coming. If there is any entertainment or redeeming value in this $100 mil hit, please give me a call. I prefer the $20 mill and less box office masterpieces like 1994’s “Black Beauty” or “The Indian In The Cupboard.”

Zack, age 16

This movie had some parts the would be offensive to any Christian. The main part that upset me and my friend was the they showed man as being dumb (even the girl was) and the Ape as being very smart. The Ape played chess, cooked all the food, read medical books, and talked in good English. George, on the other hand, hit trees, tripped all over the place, acted like a monkey, and spoke like an idiot. The girl was a total airhead and did not obey her parents or listen to them. The good parts were that good overcame evil. The “Bad Guys” all ended up in jail and George and Ursala got married. They had a son who also ran into trees. There were about 4-5 bad words in it and once George walked out of the Shower without any cloths on. Once in the movie George got shot and the poachers apenapped Ape and tried to kill Shep (the Elephant). I believe the parents were shown in a bad way. Also I will warn you that if you have little ones, run out before the very end. It is not a pretty sight!

Amanda Dutton, age 16