The Jungle Book (2016)

[K1stpierre]

Thoughts here:

[kaijukurt]

I liked it..a lot.

 

The visuals are the real star of this one (but that was already to be expected). I found the voice work great for the most part, especially Elba & Murray.

 

Sethi's acting isn't perfect (but obviously I've got to cut him some slack), and some of the story didn't seem to flow right for reasons I can't put my finger on right now.

 

But going back to the visuals..wow. All of the animals & environments are rendered perfectly (biologically accurate for the most part!!!) Also liked how Kaa & King Louie were enormous in size. Those two really had screen presence visually.

 

(This is so getting an Oscar for its visuals :P)

 

I was pretty surprised that Mowgli didn't go to the human village in the end, and that we didn't get a scene of Mowgli being concerned for Baloo after the climax..

But I'm guessing Favreau/Marks decided to put a bigger focus on Mowgli's jungle roots and how man & nature can co-exist; also on Mowgli's relationship with his wolf family. Loved those developments.

 

3.5/4

 

 

 

 

[jb007]

The 1967 Jungle Book is my most favorite animated movie ever and I consider it a masterpiece.

 

With that in mind, I went to this CGI/live adaption. While the storytelling cannot match the animated version due to obvious live filming restrictions, this is still a very good movie. Neel Sethi is excellent. The voice work is very good. The cinematography is excellent. Songs which are a highlight of the 67 version  are sparingly used here.

 

The movie has an adventure element to it and ends with Mowgli staying in the jungle. Unlike the 1967 version, he does not go to the man village and meet Shanti at the end.

 

Rating: B+

[BK007]

It's beautiful to look at, is probably the best feature of this movie. That, and the diverse amount of animals they used for the Jungle. I'm always a big fan of any creativity and a break from just the usual suspects. 

 

But, this doesn't really compare to the animated version at all. I didn't even like that very much, but it at least knew what it wanted to be. This adaptation is missing a lot of the fun and sense of adventure and really feels like a movie checking in at checkpoints as opposed to an organic adventure. It feels very mechanical and nothing feels deserved. The stakes never seem to change, Khan's villainy is contained and forgettable, and in the end it just kind of sits there. 

 

It's a lot better than horrific movies like Alice in Wonderland and Oz the Great and Powerful, but it's not a classic. It's not in the same league as Zootopia, nor is it better than even Kung Fu Panda 3. I wanted to love it, but that sense of fun and adventure that these movies should have, no matter how they want to update it, was absent for the majority of the movie and it doesn't earn it's plot points as opposed to needing to happen because the script says so. Sethi isn't wonderful but he isn't annoying, which is the best praise a child actor can get in a movie like this. 

 

B or B- 

[Jan]

The Jungle Book has attracted a lot of attention. Sir Ben Kingsley has defended the series against critics who said it was unsuitable for children, by saying you won't achieve by "sugarcoating" things for kids. Indian censor board has given Jungle Book a PG rating for under 12 children- clearly Jungle Book is attracting a lot of flak. But the movie's realism is amazing and you get to see the lead character cope with adversity. That is quite exceptional for a children's movie that even adults will surely watch. But what makes Jungle Book a very intriguing movie is the introduction of new characters- the Python Kaa as female or King Louie- who finds no mention in Rudyard Kipling's classic. All in all, this is an interesting movie to watch even if you caught the previous version years ago 

[DAJK]

Most of what I say now would just be a copy/paste of what I already said in the Jungle Book thread. I still need more time to digest the movie, but I really, really enjoyed it overall with a few gripes however.

 

B+/A-

[department store basement]

"That's not a song, that's propaganda."

"What's propaganda?"

 

This is what a family movie should really be like.

 

Everyone knows the story of The Jungle Book, but Favreau still kept it fresh with outstanding visuals and great humor. He did a great job making it enjoyable for everyone; I counted zero jokes specifically aimed at kids. It was very well-cast. I especially enjoyed Scarlett Johansson's new spin on Kaa and Christopher Walken's (actually menacing!) King Louie. Favreau's excellent track record with kids continues by giving a very good performance out of Neel Sethi.

 

The big gripe I have with the film is that it calls too much to the 1967 version, presumably for nostalgia reasons. Louie singing I Wanna Be Like You to Mowgli was fine but the Bare Necessities sequence, complete with Mowgli lying on Baloo's chest in the river, was completely unnecessary.

 

Spoiler

I also didn't like that Shere Khan died from falling like a lot of Disney villains do. It felt so cheap. In the original stories he was stampeded.

 

I liked that Mowgli's ending was changed though, with him choosing to stay with the animals in peace rather than go home.

 

It's a great theater experience.

 

87/100 - A-

Edited April 15, 2016 by department store basement

[JohnnyGossamer]

Little hollow for me but remarkable work by the effects house and great voicework all around. King Louie stuff was great. Baloo stuff even better. Ending's more satisfying than '67 masterpiece from Walt.

 

B

[Kalo]

Proof that The Lion King live action/CGI is possible and needs to happen. those visuals were astounding. just give Jungle Book the best visual effects Oscar now, nothing else is toping it this year. P.S. it was fantastic, I loved it.

[AniNate]

While this film is a technical marvel, it also shows how there is still a ton of room for improvement. The animation of the animals didn't bother me as much as I thought and there's plenty of terrific vocal work, but Neel Sethi's alternately mannered and histrionic performance as Mowgli was a reminder of how difficult it is for a kid to nail down emotional beats when he has nothing tangible to react to. I also have issues with the film's unnecessary refuge in nostalgia for the 1967 movie with the out-of-place inclusions of Bare Necessities and especially I Wanna Be Like You. The whole King Louie sequence in general was a litany of dubious writing/directing decisions and really tested my admiration of Christopher Walken.

 

But as a whole the movie's a diverting watch and the rest of the supporting cast is entertaining enough that I'd say it's worth seeing

[La Binoche]

A-/B+ 

 

Looked great in IMAX 3D 

[The Panda]

I really liked the movie.  It was a technical marvel, with some of the best visual effects I've seen on screen (matched only by Gravity, Avatar and Life of Pi).  

 

The storyline was handled very well, and it was bolstered by strong vocal work (and a great performance by the kid who played Mowgli.  Obviously not perfect, but he's a child reacting to practically nothing, cut him a little slack).  Bill Murray was hilarious as Baloo, Kingsley was a near perfect Bagheera, Walken's King Louie had the right balance between light-hearted and intimidating, and Elba was a terrifying Shere Khaan (although the final action sequence was a bit underwhelming).

 

The plotline flowed fairly well, although it did feel a tad episodic at points.  I felt it kept the right balance between an original vision and giving a nice throwback to the animated version.  It respects the original but still gives its own take on a classic story.  I also honestly thought the ending change was more satisfying than the original ending, it feels more organic, although it trades that off by giving a more generic feeling to the ending than an artistic one.

 

My biggest (and my only major) complaint is that the two musical numbers don't mesh well with the story they give, and that it makes the tone feel rather inconsistent at a few points.  

 

However, it's a great family movie.  It treats the material and the audience with respect.  After Maleficient I was completely against any more of these classic remakes, and Cinderella really didn't help the case much (although I didn't dislike it, I just found it uninspired).  If Disney can treat the rest of their remakes like Favreu treated this movie, then I'm on board.  Sign me up for more of these.  This was a gorgeous movie with a warm, authentic touch.  It's nearly an A- for me, and I may bump it up after thinking more on it.

 

But for now

 

B+

[Water Bottle]

I thought it was pretty good and I enjoyed it a lot but I didn't fall in love with it. Some pretty amazing special effects though. I think it's kinda funny that we're seeing two successful movies with similar themes and talking animals have a lot of success in the BO.

 

B+

[WrathOfHan]

This was alright. Some amazing technical aspects and a pretty good score but the story and pacing weren't strong. The first act is good. Kaa's scene was the highlight of the movie and the red flower hallucination looked great in 3D. Once Baloo shows up things start going downhill. It wasn't the character himself (I had no problems with him, Bill Murray is always fun), but the movie enters a lull and doesn't know how to pick up. King Louie's scene was well done even if I Wanna Be Like You was out of place. After this is really when the movie started pissing me off. Mowgli gets all mad at Bagheera and Baloo for not telling him Akela died, so he runs back to the village............... just to get fire so he can destroy Shere Khan? WHY?!?! All of this felt really rushed, and it goes back to the bad pacing. If they didn't add in the scene where Khan is telling the cubs the story, you'd forget Shere Khan is even a threat. Overall, this is just an above average movie. Not bad but not something I'd tell anyone to go out of their way to see. 6/10 | C+

[filmlover]

Edges out Cinderella to become the best of Disney's recent live-action remakes of their classic properties and is actually a superior film to the classic animated movie. This is how you make a live-action family film. Jon Favreau brings the story to life with a rousing sense of fun and plenty of visual panache. The effects have already locked up one slot among the Visual Effects nominees. The cast is terrific too: Neel Sethi, the only human personality in the entire film, is a marvelous young discovery who more than holds his own against the seasoned big name stars providing the voices of the animals. Between this and Zootopia, Disney is on a roll right now. A-

[Blankments]

The Jungle Book is the rare live-action film that feels a little bit magic. Of course, it has a natural advantage of being made with some true Disney magic behind it, wonderfully repurposing the best aspects of the 1967 film while leaving behind all the forgettable interludes and dated references. It also revises the ending in a more earned way, allowing appropriate chills at the very end.

 

Neel Sethi's performance varies in quality greatly, but it somehow manages to add to the charm, and, hey, the kid looks like Mowgli personified, which is a true minor miracle. The voice cast features no weak points, with Kingsley and Murray being obvious standouts, although many will be pleased that Nyong'o's role is bigger than expected. The true lead of the pack is Idris Elba's Shere Khan, which is perfectly terrifying and darkly drawn.

 

The visual effects in this are astounding, and then you realize it wasn't shot in a jungle. Then, the effects become mindboggling. Debney's score mixes the classic songs with new themes, adding a true adventure vibe to the proceedings. It's not a perfect film; much like it's predecessor, Cinderella, it feels redundant at points It also lacks a certain visual panache. Nevertheless, The Jungle Book is an enchanting time at the theater, mixing a classic story with perfect visual effects. B+

 

I also appreciated Mowgli playing with a cowbell right before meeting Christopher Walken lol.

[Kalo]

On 4/16/2016 at 0:44 AM, tribefan695 said:

but Neel Sethi's alternately mannered and histrionic performance as Mowgli was a reminder of how difficult it is for a kid to nail down emotional beats when he has nothing tangible to react to

 

look he wasn't perfect, but he was acting against pretty much nothing, and it was his first film and he's a kid! I'd say he did pretty good all things considered.

[AniNate]

It's a big budget blockbuster, not an elementary school play. I think it merits critique so that it actually means something when you praise another kid's acting in a similar situation.

[ddddeeee]

The kid killed the movie for me too.

 

i didn't care for it in general. The Jungle Book is pretty much the only Disney classic I don't have much of a nostalgic connection to and I wonder if that explains my apathy.

[filmlover]

1 hour ago, tribefan695 said:

 

 

 

It's a big budget blockbuster, not an elementary school play. I think it merits critique so that it actually means something when you praise another kid's acting in a similar situation.

 

Sethi is wonderful in this. Wet blankets can take a seat.