A very common complaint about the modern film industry is that everything is derivative. Most of the big blockbusters are either adaptations of popular superhero comics, young adult novels, novels in general, or are outright remakes. Whilst not necessarily invalid, this doesn't mean that any of these films are bad by any measure. Most of the Marvel films have garnered mostly critical acclaim, for instance. And the recent crop of Disney live-action reimaginings have seen some positive reviews. Given Disney's recent live action offerings (John Carter, The Lone Ranger, Tomorrowland), perhaps that's a bit of relief to the House of the Mouse. Especially the critical and financial success of today's subject, The Jungle Book. The success of this, and other recent live action remakes, has ensured that other Disney animated films are remade. Relatively recent ones too, like Mulan or Aladdin. But, is this truly as good as the critics say. Let's take a look.
A remake of the 1967 Disney animated film (which is, in turn, very loosely based off the first three in the 1894 collection of stories of the same name by Rudyard Kipling), The Jungle Book revolves around Mowgli (Neel Sethi), a feral child raised in the jungles of India by a pack of wolves, led by Akela (Giancarlo Esposito) and Raksha (Lupita Nyong'o). During the dry season, a "Peace Rock" is revealed in a dried river, which is an indication of a truce amongst the animals. Basically, during this period, carnivores can't eat herbivores. However, during this truce, the ruthless tiger Shere Khan (Idris Elba), learns of Mowgli's existence. Given his hatred of humans, Shere Khan demands that Mowgli be turned over to him, or else. Mowgli decides, in order to protect the wolves, to leave, and his mentor, the black panther Bagheera (Ben Kingsley) accompanies him to the man village. Mowgli is reluctant to go to the man village, given his upbringing by wolves. However, Shere Khan ambushes Mowgli, and separates him from Bagheera. Mowgli wanders the jungle, encountering colorful characters, the sloth bear Baloo (Bill Murray) (who doesn't at all look like a sloth bear, a very small thing that bothered me through the film), the Gigantopithecus King Louie (Christopher Walken), and the python Kaa (Scarlett Johansson). Can Mowgli evade Shere Khan, or can he control the power of man's red flower (and apologizes if that song's stuck in your head for the next week) to defeat Shere Khan.
First, the film looks very impressive. Very distinct and colorful. The talking animals feel real, not just computer constructs. The jungle also looks very lively, and very real. While I do often complain about the use of 3-D in films, I did think this looked very impressive in 3-D, and if you wanted to watch it, I do recommend watching it in 3-D, because it does enhance the look of the film. Most of the actors do fine. Neel Sethi wasn't great, but I'll give him a pass, because he's only ten, and I'd feel like a jerk for criticizing his performance. Ben Kingsley and Idris Elba do fine in their respective roles (Kingsley sounding very similar to Bagheera's original voice actor) . Bill Murray was perfect casting as Baloo, and he is, of course, very entertaining to watch. And Christopher Walken as King Louie was hilarious. He's supposed to menacing, but with Walken's signature voice, and him randomly breaking into the chorus and second verse of "I Wanna Be Like You", it was frankly hard to take him seriously (also, insert Donald Trump joke here). He's not bad, by any means, and when he chases after Mowgli at the end of the scene. I just cracked up during his appearance. It was entertaining to watch.
A few odd, superfluous choices bothered me through this film. Like I said, Baloo is supposed to be a sloth bear, as he was in the novel and the film. However, this is what he looked like in the film:
And here's what a sloth bear actually looks like:
That relatively minor thing bothered me. King Louie being a Gigantopithecus also was unnecessary. India and Sumatra are not that far away, You could just had an Orangutan wash up there after a storm or something like that. Having him be a prehistoric ape seems excessive. Also, he and Kaa were just devices to explain important plot points. Otherwise, they serve no real purpose in the story. The rendition of "I Wanna Be Like You", like I said, comes out of nowhere. They sing "Bear Necessities", of course, but it made more sense in the scene it was in. While they are trying to take the animated version, and make a more serious version, they also bring in elements from the Kipling stories. The Wolves play a larger role, as they did in the story, the Law of the Jungle poem is recited, the monkeys are called "Bandar-Logs"(and they butcher the pronunciation of it) and several minor characters from the book make cameos. This doesn't come off as a way to balance the two, since most of the rest of the film is derived from the 1967 film. If you're going to remake the 1967 film, you could just take elements from that. Don't randomly place stuff from the novel, and do nothing with those, because none of those additions really add to film. Finally, the ending completely misses the point of the story, both the book and the Disney film. I won't spoil it, but you've seen or read any variation of this story, you get the general message of it. However, the ending just completely botches it, and misses the whole point.
If you were looking for a film version, which is very close to the Kipling stories, like I was, you will sadly be disappoint. Just for some recommendations in that case, animator Chuck Jones (who was a very prominent animator in the Golden Age Looney Tunes shorts, and later directed How the Grinch Stole Christmas) did an animated TV special based on Mowgli's Brothers in 1976, which is considered one of the closest adaptation of the story ever made (Sadly, he was never able to adapt the other two stories.) If you enjoyed the Disney version, it isn't a musical, and it is more intense, so you might not enjoy it as much, though you might like the Bear Necessities rendition. Some might enjoy just the visual and the action sequences, so I'd recommend it. Overall, this was okay. Can't really muster any strong emotions about it. It wasn't nearly as good as the original. In fact, just watch the original. It has all the classic songs, and the decent animation. Yeah, it hasn't held up particularly well, but it is much better than this. However, this wasn't bad. Just, not really interesting or new. Hopefully, the Warner Bros version coming out next year will provide a more interesting retelling of this story.
A remake of the 1967 Disney animated film (which is, in turn, very loosely based off the first three in the 1894 collection of stories of the same name by Rudyard Kipling), The Jungle Book revolves around Mowgli (Neel Sethi), a feral child raised in the jungles of India by a pack of wolves, led by Akela (Giancarlo Esposito) and Raksha (Lupita Nyong'o). During the dry season, a "Peace Rock" is revealed in a dried river, which is an indication of a truce amongst the animals. Basically, during this period, carnivores can't eat herbivores. However, during this truce, the ruthless tiger Shere Khan (Idris Elba), learns of Mowgli's existence. Given his hatred of humans, Shere Khan demands that Mowgli be turned over to him, or else. Mowgli decides, in order to protect the wolves, to leave, and his mentor, the black panther Bagheera (Ben Kingsley) accompanies him to the man village. Mowgli is reluctant to go to the man village, given his upbringing by wolves. However, Shere Khan ambushes Mowgli, and separates him from Bagheera. Mowgli wanders the jungle, encountering colorful characters, the sloth bear Baloo (Bill Murray) (who doesn't at all look like a sloth bear, a very small thing that bothered me through the film), the Gigantopithecus King Louie (Christopher Walken), and the python Kaa (Scarlett Johansson). Can Mowgli evade Shere Khan, or can he control the power of man's red flower (and apologizes if that song's stuck in your head for the next week) to defeat Shere Khan.
First, the film looks very impressive. Very distinct and colorful. The talking animals feel real, not just computer constructs. The jungle also looks very lively, and very real. While I do often complain about the use of 3-D in films, I did think this looked very impressive in 3-D, and if you wanted to watch it, I do recommend watching it in 3-D, because it does enhance the look of the film. Most of the actors do fine. Neel Sethi wasn't great, but I'll give him a pass, because he's only ten, and I'd feel like a jerk for criticizing his performance. Ben Kingsley and Idris Elba do fine in their respective roles (Kingsley sounding very similar to Bagheera's original voice actor) . Bill Murray was perfect casting as Baloo, and he is, of course, very entertaining to watch. And Christopher Walken as King Louie was hilarious. He's supposed to menacing, but with Walken's signature voice, and him randomly breaking into the chorus and second verse of "I Wanna Be Like You", it was frankly hard to take him seriously (also, insert Donald Trump joke here). He's not bad, by any means, and when he chases after Mowgli at the end of the scene. I just cracked up during his appearance. It was entertaining to watch.
A few odd, superfluous choices bothered me through this film. Like I said, Baloo is supposed to be a sloth bear, as he was in the novel and the film. However, this is what he looked like in the film:
 |
| Source: http://morungexpress.com/the-jungle-book-trailer-mowgli-is-back-with-his-army-of-wild/ |
 |
| Source:http://wildlifesos.org/indian-sloth-bears/ |
If you were looking for a film version, which is very close to the Kipling stories, like I was, you will sadly be disappoint. Just for some recommendations in that case, animator Chuck Jones (who was a very prominent animator in the Golden Age Looney Tunes shorts, and later directed How the Grinch Stole Christmas) did an animated TV special based on Mowgli's Brothers in 1976, which is considered one of the closest adaptation of the story ever made (Sadly, he was never able to adapt the other two stories.) If you enjoyed the Disney version, it isn't a musical, and it is more intense, so you might not enjoy it as much, though you might like the Bear Necessities rendition. Some might enjoy just the visual and the action sequences, so I'd recommend it. Overall, this was okay. Can't really muster any strong emotions about it. It wasn't nearly as good as the original. In fact, just watch the original. It has all the classic songs, and the decent animation. Yeah, it hasn't held up particularly well, but it is much better than this. However, this wasn't bad. Just, not really interesting or new. Hopefully, the Warner Bros version coming out next year will provide a more interesting retelling of this story.
