Movies

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

This one is mostly for your inner little kid. If you saw the first movie, and is going to watch this one mainly to compare them, my advice is to stay at home. Really. This film is not to be taken seriously, unless taking all movies seriously is your only idea of having fun. If so, then by all means get ready to criticize and go see it at once!

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.