User reviews

Once again, the animals and their corresponding voices from famous actors make up the bulk of the film (as opposed to real-life actors Robert Hays and Kim Griest playing actual people). Also, we have a similar theme as in the first "Homeward Bound" with animals lost and having to find their way home.

This sequel is not as good as the original. It dwells a little too much on the romance between the two dogs, and it doesn't show enough interesting scenes in San Francisco, which you would really expect from the title of the film alone. The animals stayed too long in one spot and should have been on the move more.

Otherwise, Michael J. Fox and Sally Field once again have a ton of gag lines to speak as the dog and cat, respectively. Many of their lines were good, some very clever that kids won't understand. The jokes of those two were the highlight of the movie. There were no annoying or evil villains, or even bad-guy dog catchers.

All in all, it was okay but nothing special.

I rented this mostly for my 4-year-old daughter, who enjoys both the 1963 original "Incredible Journey", and the 1993 remake. She thought the sequel was very funny, particularly some of Sassy the Cat's antics. I must admit, the movie took me in as well.

The sequel is a little heavier-handed than the 1993 remake. Not only do our three main characters have to get home, but they have to defeat a gang of city dogs, outwit two dognappers who are trying to sell strays to the "The Lab", rescue a child from a burning building, and find true love on top of it all!

Still, not a bad way to spend 89 minutes. Michael J. Fox is again excellent as Chance, Sally Fields is full of indignation as Sassy, and Ralph Waite does an eerily accurate recreation of the late Don Ameche's characterization of Shadow. Sinbad is wasted as Reilly, their new city dog friend. The character seemed to be more of an afterthought than anything.

Most pleasant surprise: Al Michaels, Tommy Lasorda and Bob Uecker as three dogs "broadcasting" a pee-wee baseball game. If you are looking for a movie to enjoy with your children without feeling totally insulted, Homeward Bound II is a solid bet. A few tense moments, but nothing that should upset anyone beyond the Teletubbies set.

Homeward Bound:The Incredible Journey was a beautiful charming film, that I have loved since childhood. And maybe it is just me but I feel it is underrated as well. This sequel is inferior, but in my mind, it is decent. It does have its problems, such as the lame direction, the not-so-crisp editing and one too many slow and corny moments in the plot. But what does compensate hugely is the witty script(of which Sassy gets the majority of the best lines), the lovely soundtrack and the voice acting. Michael J Fox and Sally Field once again do fine work, and while the late Don Ameche was a lot more noble and gentle, Ralph Waite does an above average job as the voice of Shadow the Golden Retriever. The animals also did wonderfully and came very close to stealing the show, and the camera-work is often excellent. All in all, worth the look, but be warned that it doesn't quite live up to its original. 7/10 Bethany Cox

"Homeward Bound: The Incredible Journey" is a beautiful, charming, emotional and timeless classic, as well as one of the best animal movies. But I can't say the same about its sequel.

"Homeward Bound II: Lost in San Francisco" is not a bad film. For a sequel, it's not all that bad. It is still entertaining enough and features the same main cast (except Don Ameche, who passed away in 1993). But the movie just can't reach the greatness of the first one, so the fact that it is disappointing comes to me as no surprise. This movie simply doesn't follow the spirit of the original neither the spirit of others like it.

The plot is somewhat similar to the first one's. However, instead of the Sierra mountains, this one takes our 3 pet friends to the urban life, more precisely to the worst streets of San Francisco. Basically it focus more on desert roads, empty streets and dirty alleys. We don't see that much of San Francisco, neither of its most beautiful things. This is a radical contrast with the first movie's environment, which shows us all the beauty of pure nature in the Sierra mountains.

In this film, our buddies Shadow, Chance and Sassy often face city's dangers, such as weird people, two dog catchers who lock street dogs in their van to take them to one of those creepy laboratories and two rival dogs: a vicious boxer-like dog and a goofy bulldog-like dog, despite the help of numerous street dogs (Riley and his gang).

The two rival dogs are particularly annoying, especially the boxer-like dog. Most of the street dogs here are annoying either, except for Delilah (a beautiful Kuvasz) and Riley. As for the dog catchers, the driver isn't that annoying, but his partner is. On the other hand, the cute little boy Tucker was adorable and his cute kitten Tiger too.

The movie isn't nostalgic, emotional or charming like the first one. While it has some funny gags, it isn't humor as pleasant as in the first one. The soundtrack isn't as good as in the first one, although this one still has some good music.

One of the few really good things in this movie is the Golden Gate Bridge (the enormous bridge in San Franciso), a construction that always fascinated me.

A lackadaisical sequel.

The wilderness is, arguably, the main reason why 'Homeward Bound: The Incredible Journey', and the film it remakes, is enjoyable. That's because it, obviously, feels peculiar seeing a cat and two dogs in the wild. So what does this film do? It puts them back in their natural habitat, so you're just left with emotionless animals talking telepathically in street alleys. To no-one's surprise, that's super boring.

Credit to Michael J. Fox for reprising his role as Chance. He doesn't mind doing sequels, even ones of a poorer variety; e.g. 'Stuart Little 3: Call of the Wild' - on that note, I guess 'Atlantis: Milo's Return' was a step too far, understandably so!

Elsewhere on the cast, all the main humans return as does Sally Field as Sassy. Ralph Waite comes in to replace the late Don Ameche as Shadow, I didn't actually notice a difference if I'm completely honest - astute casting! The film also adds a bunch of random cats and dogs to proceedings, absolutely none of them are memorable; despite a few recognisable names in the cast, including Carla Gugino (Delilah).

I'm sure some, especially younger audiences, will find enjoyment here. For me, it's a lame follow-up.

While watching the first Homeward Bound film, I was impressed by its cinematic ability to conjure up an emotional viewer response from not only children, but also adults as well. Almost everyone can relate to losing a beloved pet, so that theme was able to deeply resonate with any set of eyeballs. Unfortunately, this second effort, "Lost In San Francisco", fails to do likewise on a variety of different counts.

First, the plot is a complete rip-off of the original. The two dogs (Shadow and Chance) and one feline (Sassy) once again are accidentally separated from their familial owners and "decide" (since this IS a film about talking animals!) to set out to find them; this time on the streets of San Francisco. Essentially, all the same basic jokes and sight gags are repeated and the main "characters" aren't really developed any more than the first try. A few new animals are thrown into the mix, but few really stand out as being all that interesting or important to the overall character development.

Also, the themes in this film are a bit shadier than the much more traditionally-Disney HB1. The concept of racism (with some dogs speaking jive) and even subtle hints towards sexuality (a lone cat feeling uncomfortable among dogs, Chance developing a romantic relationship, etc.) only serve to water down a film franchise which, at its best, was always dangerously closing to crossing over the "weepy cheeseball" line. Though those themes will go right over the heads of most youngsters, these films are also made to at least keep adults paying attention and somewhat enthused, but these darker topics makes the message seem both clichéd and preachy.

Thus, although the kiddies may like this film just as much as the original, if you were one of the adults who were surprised to find yourself tearing up at the end of part one, don't expect the same sort of emotional material in this effort. It's decent, but just fails to capture the innocence and playfulness that was so readily apparent in the predecessor.

Lacking the beauty, charm and teamwork of the original film (the remake) this sequel makes up in adventure and romance! This one is probably slightly funnier, with another good adventure and almost as much proof as the last one that dogs really are man's best friend.

However, this sequel has its flaws, as in things about the film that don't completely make sense if you have watched the first film. For example, in the first film Chance learnt how to be a faithful and kind dog to Jamie, but in this it seem's he's even sillier. Another one of these flaws is that he explains in the first film that he lived on the streets and now Shadow is talking about how he can't live on the streets and he doesn't know how to. WHAT!?

Otherwise, an incredibly good sequel, with romance, adventure and charm, but just doesn't have the emotion that made the original film so special and captivating.

Chance's, Sassy's and Shadow's owners are going on a camping trip and taking the dogs with them. However, Chance, like in the last film, becomes incredibly confused with the situation and escapes out of his dog box before all three of them are loaded onto the plane. That means they are lost in San Francisco, while the humans go off without them! What can they do?

Recommended to people who liked the first film, people who were disappointed that there was no romance in the first film and just people who like dogs!

Enjoy "Homeward Bound II: Lost in San Francisco"!

Those three beloved pets Chance, Sassy, and Shadow are preparing for a vacation with their human owners. Unfortunately, the pets get stranded at the airport and find themselves running wild all over the city of San Francisco, befriending (as well as making enemies with) street dogs who distrust humans, eluding greedy dogcatchers, and trying desperately to make it home safely to their owners. Amusing and well-intended, this sequel has lots more vocal talents, hilarious wisecracks, and impressive Bay Area scenery, but the story is strained and lacks the heart, joy, and sheer entertainment value of its predecessor. **½

This would be a strange one to watch with the sound turned down. Much of it would consist of two dogs or a dog and a cat staring disinterestedly at each other for half-a-minute at a time. With sound it's a little more entertaining, although in this age of computer games it would probably struggle to keep even younger kids entertained for long. The story is essentially a remake of the original with the action transplanted to the city of San Francisco. Our heroes go through a number of mildly diverting adventures before making their way home. There's a pair of dastardly dog catchers – has, I wonder, any film been made in the history of cinema that featured a non-dastardly dog-catcher? I don't know, perhaps in a country where rabies is rife. The dog-catchers give the kids someone to hiss at, but there's nothing particularly threatening about them. Each of the animals involved has a voice, although this being the olden days of the mid-1990s, the cheap technology required to give the illusion that their mouths are actually moving obviously didn't exist, so we have to assume all animals are telepathic, I suppose. The voices, other than Ralph Waite as the older dog, don't really suit. Had I been in charge of the voices I'd have given each the voice of a famous old movie star. It would have kept me entertained.

After revisiting the first one I had to follow it up with this. It's basically hitting the same notes as the first movie, except notes instead of the wilderness, we're hitting the big city as the lovable pets traverse the urban landscape of San Francisco.

This is still a fun ride. We get introduced to a bunch of new dogs and go on some fun adventures. One of our main characters may even fall in love! It's got a moderate case of sequelitis that prevents it from fully living up to the first, but it's still a fun experience.

Fortunately, if you liked the first this should be enjoyable as well. And they're currently both available on the same streaming service, so that's a plus. If you check out the first and it's not for you, there's no reason to watch this one though.

Well, not really. This, David R. Ellis' first outing, is a pretty bland family movie which parents probably won't laugh out loud at, but won't find terrible either. Ellis is limited to kiddie stuff, has no Samuel L. Jackson on his side, and definitely no snakes, so what he's left to work with is a rather lackluster script in a movie whose target is to cash in on the original rather than expand on it. Still, the movie is alright for what it is, and with a name like "Homeward Bound 2: Lost in San Fransisco", what did you expect?? The dogs are cute, the cat is cool, and although I personally would have enjoyed the movie more if the animals went insane aboard their owners' flight, it's a perfectly passable and inoffensive movie for the kids. Overall, "Lost" is an OK way to kill a few hours together with the wee ones. Just don't expect anything on the level of "Snakes on a Plane".

Warning: Not recommended for teenagers. Corny jokes overload. (r#62)

While certainly not a bad film, this slacks the heart and charm of its predecessor. Shadow, the older dog, was almost certainly an afterthought to the plot, but in the previous film he was a crucial older mentor figure. Sassy, the cat character, it's just mean and not sassy anymore. The animals have gone through a traumatic experience in the first film, and the Chance character has been traumatized by an experience in a pound, and yet the cat character brings this up quite often to him as a kind of joke which seems really mean and not something a friend would do. The first film was an adventure through a wilderness, and this one is the trite idea that the city is an urban wilderness. The film is set in San Francisco, but there seem to be packs of feral dogs running around in the city. This seems to be a tad unrealistic, but is a feature of many films in which there are talking animals. The American city with the biggest problem with stray dogs is Detroit with 5,000 in 2023, so we can probably assume that the figures were lower when this movie came out, so there probably were maybe 200 stray dogs or something like that in San Francisco at the time, and they meet 10 of them. That is a slightly small thing to criticize about this movie. My biggest criticism of the movie is that they made it at all honestly, apart from that my biggest criticism is that in this movie the dogs can understand human beings. In the first movie a large part of the plot is driven by the fact that the dogs do not understand exactly what the human beings are talking about, and they think that they have been abandoned. Makes sense right? But in this movie they understand things that the humans say, so why did they misunderstand where they were going when they went to the airport? It doesn't make any sense at all. On top of that, there is a completely superfluous love story between Chance and another dog, and Chance says something like my humans will love you because I love you. Which you might think makes sense until you realize that his love interest is a stray dog who has never had any owner so has never had a bath in its life and lives in an urban environment so no dips into rivers or ponds or anything, and so must be infected with a lot of insects and other dog diseases. Very cute.

Not as engaging as the others, we will have an inferred experience if we make this analogy, however for pet lovers, who watch without expectations and avoiding purchases could enjoy a cute and simple work, almost unnecessary to me...

If you thought the first movie was great, that's awesome!!!!! But the second movie????? Come along and find out!!!!!

Disney made a sequel to the 1993 film in 1996. It was called "Homeward Bound II: Lost in San Francisco," and this is a very exciting Disney live action film. In it, we have the same family as before, and they were packing up on a vacation for Vancouver, Canada. However, the animals escaped at the airport, and now the family left without Chance, Sassy, and Shadow!!!!! Now, like in the last film, they had to find their way home (and it put a huge dent in the family vacation, too).

Most people might not like this film, but seeing as how the first film was great, this movie is the same, too. I like how exciting the adventure was, and I thought the pets' encounter with the Blood Red Van was funny, too!!!!!

"HB II: LISF" is twice as fun as the first one is!!!!!

10 stars

This is the sequel to the 1993 family adventure film, "Homeward Bound: The Incredible Journey". In my review of that film, I talked about my experience seeing most of it probably not long after its video release in 1993. "Homeward Bound II: Lost in San Francisco" must have been new (or fairly new) to the VHS format when I saw it for the first time in 1996. I was around ten years old when that happened, and can't remember much from my first viewing, but I do remember liking the film. After finally watching its predecessor from start to finish earlier this week, leaving me with mixed feelings, I watched this 1996 sequel for the first time in nearly fourteen years, and this time, I basically thought it was average.

Chance, Shadow, and Sassy are still living with the same family, but the troublemaking Chance isn't sure if his young owner, Jamie Seaver, wants him around anymore. The family decides to go on a trip to Canada and take the pets with them. However, at the airport in San Francisco, when the three animals are in carriers about to be put in the cargo hold of the plane, Chance panics and the three of them escape! The plane takes of with the humans on board, who don't know that they are leaving their pets behind. The naïve young Bulldog, wise old Golden Retriever, and arrogant Himalayan cat find themselves lost again, this time not in the wilderness, but on the streets of San Francisco! While walking through the city, they meet many stray dogs, some good and some bad, and Chance even falls in love with one of the good ones, a Kuvasz named Delilah. The animals have to try and stay away from two cruel dogcatchers who drive around in search of dogs to capture and take to a laboratory!

One thing that is meant for laughs in the first "Homeward Bound" film is the rivalry between Chance and Sassy, which continues here, and unfortunately, it's not that funny in either film. I once again didn't usually find either of these two characters funny, and was once again not that impressed with the voice-overs provided by Michael J. Fox and Sally Field. Just like in the first film, the humour in this sequel rarely works. There were times when I smiled, and I couldn't help but laugh a little when Chance runs off with a baseball player's catcher's mitt near the beginning, but this was not enough, and most of the dogs introduced in this sequel don't tend to help much. When I recently watched "Homeward Bound: The Incredible Journey", I found that it was dull for a while but then improved when the big adventure began. However, while watching this sequel, I found that it basically continued to be dull when the adventure began, and stayed this way for most of the film. The adventure of the three pets here takes place in a very different setting, and we don't get the nice scenery. There is SOME suspense here, especially towards the end, but definitely less than there is in the 1993 release. I almost forgot to mention that the dog romance here also wasn't done do well, and it's something the original "Homeward Bound" doesn't have.

Since I only found "Homeward Bound: The Incredible Journey" to be barely above average when I saw it this month, I may not have ended up watching this unsurprisingly inferior sequel if I had never seen it before, but since I had previously seen "Homeward Bound II: Lost in San Francisco" and remembered thinking it was good (better than the original at the time), I intended to watch it again and review it. Well, some movies one enjoys in their childhood can still be entertaining in adulthood, and some of them can't, and for me, this is one of the latter. I first watched it around the same time I first watched "Jumanji", and I've seen that film again twice in the past few years and it hasn't disappointed me, but that didn't turn out to be the case with this "Homeward Bound" sequel. It seems to be considerably less popular than its predecessor, as sequels often are, and even though I'm certainly not as big a fan of the 1993 film as many clearly are, I think I can understand why, at least somewhat. If they were to make another "Homeward Bound" movie, I highly doubt I would bother watching it.