Part Nine - Brendan Fraser is a Slapstick, Jungle-Crazed Hunk in 'George of The Jungle'

Why is the 1997 cult classic instilled so strongly in the childhoods of so many?

Now, I know what many of you may be thinking: ‘Wow, for a journey into film, she’s definitely made a misstep here.’ But, I’m here to tell you that there are no missteps. Because, just as I will get to the critically-acclaimed films, I will also get to the silly, little films that I just fancy when I need a laugh. And, as insanely wild and as odd as this film was, it definitely made me laugh. For good or for bad or somewhere in between, you will soon find out.

I was only really made aware of Brendan Fraser when he returned from his almost 20 year hiatus from acting. He returned to take the cinematic world by storm, gracing our screens in Aronofsky’s ‘The Whale,’ which secured him our beating hearts, and an Oscar for Best Actor. I woke up on the morning after the Oscar’s, like a child eagerly awaiting her Christmas presents, as I Googled the results with a pounding heartbeat in my ears. To see both him and Ke Huy Quan win - it felt like, even though we currently reside in the some of the most desolate years in history, we had this one little victory for humanity. It felt like something had been proven that night. History had been made, new stories were written and basic human goodness had triumphed. Admittedly, I haven’t even touched Fraser’s winning film, for fear of never quite recovering from its engrossingly tragic plot. But, after my dad told me about the reasons for Fraser’s disappearance from public life, I couldn’t help but feel that certain glow of sentimentality for him. He truly has made a comeback of the greatest proportions and I can think of no-one more deserving of this than him.

So, you can imagine how intrigued I was to see his humble beginnings, before the unfortunate chaos silenced his blossoming life. I wasn’t massively aware of George of the Jungle, I had seen people edit clips of it on TikTok and I knew it was, for many, a childhood classic. This wasn’t the case with me, it was a little before my time and, when I told my Dad that my brother and I were watching it, he just said ‘oh…’ and asked why we weren’t watching The Mummy instead. But, something about this film in particular intrigued me. I was sitting with my brother and sister, scrolling through Disney Plus, when I saw this and instinctively put it on. And, let’s just say, all of our reactions were varied.

The poster for George of the Jungle, featuring Fraser as George, swinging on a vine

George of The Jungle, released in 1997 by Disney and directed by Sam Weisman, tells the story of George, the lone survivor of a plane crash who has been taken under the care of an ape called Ape. The ape Ape can talk and is voiced by the legendary John Cleese. One day, Ursula Stanhope (Leslie Mann) arrives at the jungle, to film a documentary, when her overbearing fiancee Lyle (Thomas Haden Church) surprises her and tries to take her home. The two get themselves in a perilous situation and, after Lyle leaves her, Ursula is saved by George. After a series of increasingly stupid and wacky events, George is taken to San Francisco with Ursula, where he learns how to live a city life. Throughout the plot’s various twists and turns, he falls for Ursula and tries to find ways to gain her affections.

George of the Jungle and it’s 1 hour and 32 minutes of shenanigans left differing impressions on my siblings and I. My sister left the room after the first half an hour to watch the Formula 1 Grand Prix with my mum, which is incredibly boring for comparison. My brother didn’t enjoy it and after I asked if he wanted to stop watching it, he said, and I’m quoting him here, ‘it’s okay, I enjoy making fun of films with you.’ Me, on the other hand, was actually trying to just take this film seriously. Insane, right? I thought this deserved the chance, as I tried to explain to my brother, because we do need to go into these things with a closed mind. Where I would usually say films like this are bad straight off the cuff, I tried to live in this insane world that was being presented to me. Because, this was actually so successful that Disney had made a cartoon series, with derivations of the film’s original plot, that spanned 10 years.

The cartoon version of George of the Jungle (2007-2017)

There was a delightful blend of comedic tones which quickly proved to be the highlight of this film. On the one hand, we have this slapstick, sound-effect-loving, repeats of physical comedy; George is frequently crashing into trees and hitting himself on various objects. We have the talking animals and the humorous fight scenes with violence reminiscent of cartoons like Road Runner. Just straight up goofy, but predictable moments that play well with younger audiences. Then, we have the slightly more intelligent (and, take this word lightly here) humour. The narrator of the story quickly establishes this film to be incredibly self-aware, as he tells audiences not to worry as ‘nobody dies in this story. They just get really big boo-boos.’ There are frequent bouts of fourth-wall breaking, with characters addressing the audience or the narrator. There are also lots of reference made to the plot’s simplicity and it’s very predictable story, which is the sort of wry, dry humour that tickles me.

As a character, George plays incredibly well to audiences because of his nature; he’s very slow-witted, using small, broken sentences that obviously harken back to Tarzan. His physical comedy is excellent, as are his breaks to camera. Also, and I’m sure you’re all aware of this already, George is a whole hunk. It’s not often I get butterflies from actors I’ve seen on screen but oh my gosh. I’m not saying this helped me to enjoy the film (it definitely did), but it was an added bonus. Mann as Ursula and Church as Lyle were less enjoyable, but still gave good performances alongside Fraser’s standout moments. What was also pleasantly surprising was the flipping of the historically stamped script of the treatment of black characters. It was delightfully refreshing to see them, not as stereotypical stock character to enforce some sentiment of false diversity, but as having the upper hand on the white characters. There was a lot to enjoy about this film, from the absolute absurdity of John Cleese as a literal talking Ape to the cartoon, set to signature George of the Jungle theme song, at the beginning.

Fraser as the imposingly striking George, with the ‘Tookie Tookie bird’ on his arm, and Ursula on the right

The film’s rather significant errors, I’m afraid, mostly pertain to the plot itself. It was threadbare, with the obviously glaring relation to the story of Tarzan but with that 1990s Disney humour injected into it. George’s transition from the Jungle to the city was perhaps my least favourite part of the film itself - we just sort of instantly lost a great deal of charm as we just see Fraser, in nice clothes, doing a silly voice. There isn’t much George left in him at that point. Adding onto that, George himself was an odd character. One minute, he was speaking with clearer diction, using intelligent vocabulary, and then jumping back into his jungle dialect. This just had the effect of making his character slightly less believable. And I know I’m being picky here, but the characters were all supremely one-dimensional; the fiancee is possessive, Ursula’s only motivation is her affections for George and her creeping dislike of Lyle. Speaking of which, I cringed at the moment where Ursula truly realises her feelings for George, after all of her female friends watch him playing with horses with his top off. She realised it only after her friends were into him. Right. Got it.

There was also the side-plot I didn’t massively care for - Lyle brings some poachers along with him when he meets Ursula, who are quickly established to be hunting Ape, the talking ape. This is the event that causes George to come back to the jungle, but this could have easily been scrapped or replaced with something more interesting. Had the concept of George’s transition to the city been more successful, this could have been erased entirely. So, after taking all this into account, I gave this a 2 out of 5 stars, bumping it up generously from my brothers 1/2 a star out of 5.

So, why do I think this has been such a beloved instalment in so many childhoods? Well, because it’s silly and funny and innocuously delightful. It doesn’t take much thinking about, its colourful, endlessly stupid and perfectly aligns with what a young child will enjoy from films. You may think I’ve been too critical here, that this type of film isn’t made to be pulled apart and dissected. But I think it’s important to pick even films like this apart. Because, how else are we ever going to move forward with family films otherwise? This was a delightful little film I will probably never watch again. Or, as I joked with my brother, I may end up reminding him about when I’m 30 that we watch to reminisce. I guess it’s just that kind of film. And that’s not a bad thing.

BellaWatchesFilms