The Jungle Book (1994)

7/10

Darker and more intense version is visually impressive...

Doylenf16 October 2011

Having missed this when first released, it was a pleasure to discover that this version of Kipling's THE JUNGLE BOOK has been photographed with stunning results in WideScreen color. It features an excellent cast headed by Jason Scott Lee, Lena Headey, Sam Neill and John Cleese, all giving admirable performances.

Detailed scenic wonders of the jungle with dense foliage, rippling waterfalls, exotic plants and animals--and best of all, the majestic looking sets for the hidden city holding all the treasures, are what make the film worth watching.

The famous story has its share of jungle thrills and these have been broadened to include even more conflict in the jealousy that evolves between Mowgli and a British officer who wants to marry the girl. His only interest in Mowgli is to have him lead him to the hidden city.

As the boy who finds out that Civilization can be more dangerous than any jungle, Jason Scott Lee is the perfect embodiment of Mowgli, capturing the character's innocence and naive nature in a way that is always credible. Lena Headey makes a lovely heroine as the girl he knew as a youngster who befriends him again, against the opposition of her arrogant British officer fiancé Cary Elwes whose untimely end makes for one of the story's most exciting and satisfying scenes.

Background music by Basil Pouledoris is highly effective and Stephen Sommers directs the whole piece in workmanlike fashion with only a few scenes a bit too intense for young children.

Summing up: An adventurous tale well told in a gorgeously mounted production.

19 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

7/10

Underrated Old-Style Adventure

oscar-stainton28 June 2014

Despite diverging in many ways from Kipling's classic novel, I love this film, and feel that it holds up well since when I was a child. It's been almost ten years since I last saw it and my affection for it hasn't declined. I cannot fathom why Disney hasn't attempted to revive it for a new release. It truly deserves more love.

One night in the jungles of India, Shere Khan the tiger attacks a convoy of soldiers of the British Empire whom Mowgli and his father were guiding. As a boy, Mowgli is smitten by the Colonel's young daughter, Kitty. In the chaos, Mowgli and his wolf cub Grey Brother are separated from the convoy and his father killed by the tiger and lost in the jungle. Bagheera the panther discovers the pair and leads them to the wolf pack where they are adopted as members of the pack. Mowgli also adopts a young Baloo as his brother. Mowgli grows up in the jungle and discovers his childhood sweetheart Kitty wandering through the jungle accompanied by her suitor, Captain William Boone. Mowgli follows her back to the British fort and his captured by Boone, but is freed on Kitty's request and is taught by her and Dr Plumford the power of speech and the ways of civilization, and Mowgli begins to fall in love with her over time. Captain Boone learns from Mowgli of the location of the lost Monkey City and its treasure within. Unable to adjust to life amidst the British aristocracy and saddened by Boone's proposal to Kitty, Mowgli returns to the jungle. However, Boone hatches a plan to lure Mowgli back to lead them to the lost city.

Famous Kipling elements such as the Law of the Jungle, the red flower as a symbol for fire and an affinity for nature are carried over which I believe makes it more genuine. Jason Scott Lee is emotive, innocent and sincere as Mowgli, and while I'm aware he's not Indian, I feel his performance solidifies his place in the role he truly feels closer in spirit to Kipling than the animated Mowgli (though I do very much like the animated film). Lena Headey is very likable as Kitty and has great chemistry with Jason, Cary Elwes is sinister and callous as the traitorous Boone, and Sam Neill and John Cleese both add humour and quintessential British charm to the film, especially Cleese in his interactions with Mowgli.

As any good film should I was swept up in the action, emotions and characters and being an animal lover I always rooted for Mowgli and his friends. While I was scared as a child at first, I still revisited for it's adventurous spirit and rewarding ending. I'd even go so far to say as this is Stephen Sommers' best film, balancing the more sentimental scenes with serious action and tension very nicely. The animal training is flawless; Shere Khan is an appropriately menacing force of nature, Grey Brother, Baloo and Bagheera are warm, benevolent brothers to Mowgli, and King Louie steals the show whenever he's on screen. The jungle and fort locations have a rich atmosphere and provide some beautiful visual elements, benefitting from actual location scouting in India. Basil Poledouris provides a romantic and exciting score that honestly deserves more attention, underlining the action scenes and moments of affection between Mowgli and Kitty. At 1 hour 50 minutes, it feels very nicely paced and manages to keep investment going.

My real problem with the movie is that, truth be told, this isn't really Rudyard Kipling's Jungle Book as the title would suggest. It can be too violent for a younger audience at times with the villains, Shere Khan, Kaa and the traps within the temple, and there are some instances of mild profanity but nothing I was especially disturbed by. And I suppose some people may be put off due to the fact that Sommers borrowed more from Tarzan (with Kitty as Jane) and Indiana Jones (with the human villains, temple and treasure) as opposed to Kipling that the movie's core concept does feel less original and the performances are just generally good enough to carry the story. Arguably its the best live action Tarzan film to date, only with an Indian setting, but it still pulls it off very effectively. Because of that same adventurous style, engaging visuals, romantic score and likable animal and human characters I still rate 1994's 'The Jungle Book' very highly and intend to watch it again soon.

7 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

7/10

Boys young & old like adventure yarns and this is a good one!

raymond-1529 August 2000

What a rollicking adventure story this film is - straight from the pages of Rudyard Kipling's Jungle Books and as uncomplicated as any schoolboy adventure yarn. It's really about the laws of man and the laws of the jungle and the divergence of opinions which continue even today. Most of the humans in this film are depicted as tiresome bores, courageous only when their finger is on the trigger of a rifle. The animals of the jungle seem to be the most maligned, but somehow get the upper hand. After all, the jungle is their territory. The film gives some hope for the future when Mowgli (reared by wild animals) and Kitty, a sweet English girl fall in love. The athletic Mowgli with the agility of a leopard in his jungle home is forced to lead a party of soldiers to the monkey palace where untold treasure has been accumulated. It's a difficult trek, but greed drives them on to the secret place. Action hots up as the animals fight back to preserve their territory. Kitty's life is threatened many times, but handsome Mowgli with his animal instincts is able to save her. A touching scene in the film (and one of the quieter moments) is Mowgli's discovery of a room in which the heads of hunted animals are stuffed and mounted as trophies on the walls. Without being too cynical, I must say that Mowgli is surprisingly adaptable as Kitty makes attempts to "civilize" him and teach him to dance. He is certainly a quick learner. But the English aristocracy do not accept him. If one can believe all that Kipling portrays, one feels his heart lies in the jungle which he trekked through himself during his travels in Africa. Maybe his attitude to the jungle is over-romanticized, but the resulting film adds up to great family entertainment. With regard to the monkey palace, it is truly a wonder to behold. The technological experts have done a great job in managing the special effects. They defy analysis. Better to just sit back and enjoy each exciting moment.

14 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

A fun movie

DMMII023 January 1999

A very enjoyably movie, it's kind of Aladdin meets Indiana Jones. It's a little intense for very young children. But overall a nice family action film.

9 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

7/10

Mowgli Jones of the Jungle

Wuchakk9 July 2021

From 1887 to the turn of the century a boy is raised by wolves in the jungles of India where Shere Khan the tiger dwells and threatens. With assistance from Baloo the bear and Bagheera the black panther, Mowgli (Jason Scott Lee) learns the "Law of the Jungle" before going back to civilization and learning the strange ways and corruptions of humanity, as well as love. Sam Neill, Lena Headey, Cary Elwes and John Cleese are on hand.

"The Jungle Book" (1994) mixes the sweet innocence of Rudyard Kipling's fables with "Greystoke: The Legend of Tarzan" (1984) and Indiana Jones. Don't expect talking animals as this is a relatively realistic adventure with some cute animal reactions, but not overdone. While I prefer "Greystoke" and "Raiders of the Lost Ark," it's at least on par with "Temple of Doom" and "The Last Crusade." It needed more human interest to keep the attention of adults, but has enough I reckon.

Some people have complained that Jason Scott Lee was miscast, but it's assumed Mowgli's mother (whom we never see and died when he was born) was of Asian descent. Keep in mind that, geographically, Southeast Asia is right around the corner from the Indian subcontinent, not to mention Nepal/China to the north, and so mixed marriages weren't exactly unheard of. Meanwhile Lee himself is a mix of Polynesian & Chinese blood. For the movie, making Mowgli part-Asian made him an outsider to both the British and the Indians, which works for me.

The beautiful Lena Headey does well in her role while Elwes is effective as the odious Brit snob. Lee, of course, kicks total axx while the live-action animals and spectacular locations are worth the price of admission.

The film runs 1 hour, 51 minutes, and was shot in Jodhpur in northwestern India (scenes featuring monkeys and elephants), as well as Bombay (Mowgli's urban interaction scenes), Tennessee (Fall Creek Falls & Ozone Falls) and South Carolina (Fripp Island & nearby Beaufort).

GRADE: B/B-

3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

7/10

A little weak for a while, but then it improves and turns out to be a captivating adventure movie overall

Beta_Gallinger24 January 2010

27 years after the release of the famous animated Disney feature, "The Jungle Book", a live action Disney movie with the same title came into theatres. Both films feature characters from Rudyard Kipling's book of the same name, which I have never read. I think it was on the last week of 1994, in between Christmas and New Year's, when I went to see this live action version in the theatre. I was eight years old, and can't remember exactly what I thought, but certainly don't recall finding it boring. Shortly after that, I remember seeing at least a bit of it again at school, but don't recall seeing any of it after that until last night, when I saw it for the first time in well over a decade. It looked mildly disappointing at first, but didn't stay that way.

Set in Victorian-era India, five year old Mowgli goes on a hunting expedition with his father in the jungles of India and quickly befriends Katherine "Kitty" Brydon, the five year old daughter of English colonel Geoffrey Brydon. After a tiger named Shere Khan kills Mowgli's father, the little boy finds himself lost in the jungle, and is raised by animals. He grows up here, living like the jungle animals and learning how to communicate with them. One day, Kitty happens to be in the jungle again, and Mowgli sees her, which lures him back to the village where his childhood friend still lives with her father. Kitty and Dr. Julien Plumford begin to reintroduce him to human life and teach him English, and Mowgli shows Kitty what life is like in the jungle. While these two are nice to him, there are other British colonists who look down on him, including Kitty's arrogant suitor, Captain William Boone. Mowgli is also disgusted when he learns about human laws.

Around the beginning, when Mowgli and Kitty are five years old, it gets pretty sappy between the two. The musical score is really overdone in some scenes, such as the one where Mowgli discovers Monkey City, and often gets too sappy in the romantic scenes. There are several groin-kicking scenes, which are unnecessary, especially for a family movie. Despite the severe flaws, however, there's more good than bad. Jason Scott Lee does a very nice job playing the likable lead, and the acting in general is good here, including memorable performances from Lena Headey as Kitty and John Cleese as Dr. Plumford. The humour in this film is never hilarious, but is sometimes at least mildly amusing, such as the part where Dr. Plumford says, "No. That's not a boat. That's Queen Victoria." I think casting a former Monty Python comedian (Cleese) in the movie helped. The adventure often gets exciting, very much so later on, and there are touching moments as well. One particularly heart-wrenching scene is Mowgli finding Baloo severely injured. This is a scene I clearly remember from my first viewing!

Even though the 1967 and 1994 films have the same title and several of the same characters, and they are both from Disney, one being animated and the other live action is not the only major difference. The plot is a little different, and this film is significantly darker than the cartoon version. There are live action movies with talking animals (such as the hit 1995 family film, "Babe"), but this is not one of them. I'm not saying this is a good or bad thing, but it is another notable difference between these two Disney flicks. However, despite being very different, both films are good. One of the reasons for the PG rating of this version is the violence, which occasionally includes some fairly gory scenes. I wouldn't recommend this film for kids much younger than I was during its theatrical run, but for older kids and others who like adventure movies, this COULD be entertaining. It's no masterpiece, but it is fairly underrated.

4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

7/10

Typical Disnification

garth-mailman19 July 2016

The hype surrounding Disney's latest animated take on Rudyard Kipling's Story moved me to dig out the 1994 live-action VHS version of the tale. The Goofy movie preview probably tells us more about the take we are about to see than the studio would prefer. To put too fine a point on matters one wonders where in the jungle Mowgli found a bodybuilding gym or a martial arts Sensei.

The grown Mowgli performs like a trained parrot with a fondness for kicking a certain sergeant in 'the sweets'--this is a children's show, and a smart aleck mentality. Cary Elwes plays his villain's role with malicious delight.

I have decided it's about time I read the original.

2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

6/10

Different compare to the 1966 and 2016 version

lisafordeay28 January 2022

Warning: Spoilers

Rudlyand Kipling's The Jungle Book is a 1994 adventure remake based off the 1966 cartoon of the same name and it features an all star cast from Jason Scott Lee,Lena Hadley, Sam Neill,John Cleese,Jason Flemying and Cary Elwes. A young man named Mowgli(Lee) was reared in a Jungle with wildlife animals. Things take a turn when Mowgli meets an old childhood friend named Kitty(Hadley) who is betrothed to a sleazy explorer named Boone(Elwes) who is up to no good. Will Mowgli save the Jungle and find a way to be with Kitty (who he has a crush on).

Overall this was a real surprise as it reminded me of the 1999 film Tarzan with Kitty resembling Jane Porter,Mowgli as Tarzan where we see him as a boy becoming a man and the villain resembling Clayton. Don't go expecting talking animals as there is none here as this version focuses on the romance between Mowgli and Kitty as well as him exploring the real world outside the Jungle.

Today was the first time I've seen this film as I had no idea that Disney remade the Jungle Book twice before.

1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

5/10

The Bungle Book

JamesHitchcock3 July 2013

One of my favourite films as a child was the Disney cartoon of "The Jungle Book", largely because I was so amused by the antics of the singing, dancing animals- I probably knew off by heart all the lyrics to "The Bear Necessities" and "I Wanna Be Like You"- so I decided to watch this live-action version when it was recently shown on television. Although it is described as a remake of the 1967 film, the plot has been considerably altered.

This film is officially known as "Rudyard Kipling's The Jungle Book", in line with the common nineties practice of prefixing the author's name to the titles of films based on works of literature, a practice which appears to have been adopted for technical copyright reasons but which was often interpreted as a promise that the film would be more faithful to the original text than earlier adaptations had been. Sometimes, as in "Mary Shelley's Frankenstein", this promise was kept, but in other cases it certainly was not. The so-called "William Shakespeare's Romeo + Juliet", for example, is much more Baz Luhrmann's "Romeo and Juliet" than it is Shakespeare's.

Similarly, "Rudyard Kipling's The Jungle Book" is only loosely based on Kipling's stories. In the original book, and in the cartoon, the hero, Mowgli, was a young boy. Here he is an adult, a sort of Indian Tarzan who has been raised by animals in the jungle after being accidentally lost there as a boy. The villain of the piece, both in Kipling's version and in Disney's, was the savage, man-eating tiger Shere Khan. Here Shere Khan is presented more as a sort of elemental force of nature, the enforcer of the Law of the Jungle, and the real villain is Captain William Boone, a renegade British army officer obsessed with finding a lost city in the jungle where, rumour has it, a vast treasure is waiting to be discovered. As Mowgli is here a Tarzan-figure he has to have his Jane, and one is provided for him in the shape of Kitty Brydon, his childhood sweetheart and the daughter of Boone's commanding officer.

Most of the animals familiar from the cartoon and the original stories are here- not only Shere Khan but also Akela the wolf, Bagheera the black panther and Baloo the bear. Baloo is generally assumed to be a sloth bear, the only species of bear found in the area of central India in which Kipling set his stories, but here he is a brown bear, and Kipling certainly describes him as brown. In the Disney version he was a generic cartoon bear, of no recognisable species. This film also perpetuates a goof which originated in the cartoon by introducing a character not found in Kipling, King Louie, the orang-utan king of the monkeys. (Orang-utans are not found anywhere in India). In this version the animals are seen interacting with the human characters, but they do not speak, and certainly do not sing and dance.

There are certain costume dramas films which reveal more about the period in which they were made than they do about the period in which they are ostensibly made, and this is one of them. The action takes place in the late Victorian or Edwardian era, but the film reflects two of the preoccupations of the late twentieth century, environmentalism and anti-colonialism. Kipling, for whom the "Law of the Jungle" meant preserving the balance of nature (not the dog-eat-dog tyranny of the strong over the weak, which is what the phrase has come to mean today), might have approved of the first concept, but I doubt if he would have had much time for a film set in colonial India in which all the British characters, with the exception of Kitty and the kindly Dr Plumford, are all shown either as villains or as silly asses.

Lack of fidelity to a literary source is not always a bad thing; there have been plenty of films which have played fast-and-loose with their source material and which have nevertheless ended up as good as, or even better than, the original book. The "Jungle Book" cartoon, for example, was hardly faithful to Kipling, but was still one of the best Disney cartons of its era. This live action version is not in the same class. The storyline is a derivative hybrid of Tarzan and Indiana Jones, and the acting was disappointing, with only John Cleese's Plumford standing out. Lena Headey as Kitty lacked the charisma she showed in "Waterland" a couple of years earlier, and Jason Scott Lee as Mowgli looks wrong for the part. If Mowgli is supposed to be Indian, why was a Chinese-Hawaiian cast in the role? If they couldn't find an Indian actor in Hollywood, they should have tried Bollywood.

Although the film was aimed at a family audience it does not really seem suitable for young children, both in terms of levels of violence and in terms of sexual references. (There is a running joke about a soldier who is continually getting kicked in the testicles to a cry of "Ooh, me sweets!"). "Rudyard Kipling's The Jungle Book" is the sort of film that does not really succeed on either level, either as a faithful record of the book or as an adventure film in its own right. More bungle book than jungle book. 5/10

4 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

6/10

More the kings Ankus than the jungle book

dasyk120 October 2014

The plot of this film owes more to the plot of The King's Ankus (one of the short stories in Kipling's second jungle book) than it does to the jungle book itself.

Typical tale of treasure greed and death

These are the Four that are never content, that have never been filled since the Dews began — Jacala's mouth, and the glut of the Kite, and the hands of the Ape, and the Eyes of Man.

The human actors are mediocre with the exception of Mowgli himself but the animal actors are absolutely fantastic kudos must go to the trainers of these. It looks to me like most of this was shot live action with editing to superimpose humans into scenes with animals that could be dangerous and to add animals that would otherwise eat each other.

Overall well told but hardly true to the title (at least its the same author)

1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

2/10

several good versions out there... skip this one

mr_hunchback4 January 2008

I bought the movie for Jason Scott Lee and his amazing pecs. I rate it a 10/10 for that erotic aspect alone. Very satisfying. Other than that there are a few cool tributes to the Sabu films along the way. Outside of those special interests, this is extremely flimsy storytelling and a film that simply can't stand on its own.

Stephen Sommers - a director often credited for taking worthwhile projects and ruining them completely - is mostly to blame. His approach to acting seems to be "whatever, dude". The lapse of focus is clear on the actor's faces - they actually look confused and have a hard time connecting their dialog to one another. Sommers prefers resting on the "production values" of a jungle that looks like it was made to order from Pier One.

If you like Kipling steer clear. If you like the '67 animated version, read the book instead. If you like jungle ambiance you'd be better served with a Ramar Of The Jungle episode or a Bomba programmer. John Cleese is not funny here and adds nothing except embarrassment. The wild animals are real, but one of Disney's Indian producers evidently drugged them because they just sit around for their photo op and are allowed no input on the storyline. Once the script makes that fateful detour into the soggy predictable romance it's game over.

This version was a bomb in 1994 and, along with Rapa Nui, affectively ended Jason Scott Lee's career in Hollywood. Sadly he was never seen topless again.

4 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

10/10

Such a great movie, very under rated

Smells_Like_Cheese1 February 2004

Warning: Spoilers

One of my favorite childhood memories of all time, the live action Jungle Book, in 1967 we had a classic animated movie of the same title, it's a great movie, has fun music and terrific characters. When my family bought the movie The Jungle Book, I don't think they realized the surprise that we got when we just enjoyed watching this film. It's strange because this is made a little more for the grown up crowd vs. the children, but still I absolutely loved The Jungle Book and every time I see it, I admire it a little more for different reasons. The story, the setting, the actors, I don't know what it was about this film that I just love so much, but it holds a special place in my heart.

In the Victorian period, Mowgli is the five-year-old son of a wilderness guide who accompanies his father on a hunting trip in the jungles of their native India. Mowgli becomes close friends with a British girl named Kitty Brydon, whose father, Colonel Geoffrey Brydon, commissioned the hunt. When Shere Khan attacks the camp and kills Mowgli's father, the boy and the wolf are lost in the confusion and are left to fend for themselves. Bagheera finds them and leads Mowgli to the wolf pack. Mowgli is befriended by the animals of the jungle including Baloo the bear cub, and they develop an unspoken bond as the growing boy learns to survive. While in the wild, the Bander-Log steal the bracelet Kitty gave him. Years later, after growing to adulthood, Mowgli once again encounters Kitty, who still lives in India with her father and her arrogant and deceitful suitor, Captain William Boone. Kitty and Mowgli recognize each other, and while his powers of speech are rusty, Kitty reintroduces Mowgli to civilization with the help of Dr. Julius Plumford and Mowgli introduces Kitty to his friends in the jungle. However, after spending most of his life in the jungle, Mowgli does not feel at home among the rude and snobbish aristocrats who are friends with Kitty's family. He falls in love with Kitty, but wants to go back to the jungle and to be with his real family.

The Jungle Book is an incredibly good movie that I highly recommend. It has great laughs, like watching Mowgli learning how to becoming "civilized" in society with the help of Dr. Plumford and seeing how Plumford is also trying to learn from Mowgli how to be in touch with nature. I loved to love story between Mowgli and Kitty, it was so lovely and their kiss was one of those sappy moments that got a big "Awww!!!" from me. Then there's one of the saddest movie moments ever, when Baloo gets shot and Mowgli finds him and just lies with him crying, then Dr. Plumford reveals Baloo at the end of the movie and I cry in joy, they had me on so many rollar coaster rides of emotions. But seriously if you haven't seen this movie, I would recommend it very much, it's a very special film and deserves more recognition.

10/10

69 out of 76 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

7/10

I love a good, fluffy, Sommers' adventure movie...

matthewssilverhammer21 June 2020

...big, comical, high-emotions, exciting action, impressive effects. Here, he also manages to make a re-quel that doesn't obnoxiously pander to nostalgia, something Disney's more recent remakes struggle with. Lee is great, bouncing between very funny & deeply sad, as his general physicality remains undeniably impressive. If it wasn't so corny (animal attributes speech) & didn't peddle in the cheapness of quicksand, it might have a better reputation.

0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

4/10

Watchable, but there are better versions

satterwh23 February 2002

There's a little problem with "truth in advertising" here. The only thing this film has in common with Rudyard Kipling's book is the title and the name of the principle character (Mowgli). After that, there is no similarity.

It's a decent adventure story, but if you're wanting to watch "The Jungle Book", you're going to be disappointed. For that, I might suggest the 1942 version with Sabu or the 1967 animated version.

Jason Scott Lee acts the part very well, but I simply couldn't believe him as Mowgli. He just didn't fit that part. Most of the other characters were fine ... but, of course, they weren't characters from the book. I gave it a 4.

3 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

an enjoyable adventure

Special-K8821 February 2003

Engaging, old-fashioned adaptation that captures the rousing spirit of adventure of Rudyard Kipling's classic tale. In the era of the British Raj, a young boy abandoned in the jungles of India is thought to be dead but survives after being raised by a family of wolves. Years later, as an adult, he attempts to rejoin civilization with the help of his only childhood friend: the genteel daughter of a British officer. Soon, circumstances put him into conflict with a scheming young officer out to plunder the jungle's enchanting lost city. Elaborate production and effects, an ideal cast, and a wonderfully adventurous feel throughout make this a thrilling ride from beginning to end. Too intense for the youngest children, but lots of fun. ***

6 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

6/10

When Jungle Book meets Tarzan

spencergauldin1 August 2020

I used to watch this movie a lot as a kid. Now as an adult, it still seems ok. Now I notice that it is pretty much almost the same story as Tarzan with of course some differences. Wild man learns English from English people. He starts to fall for English woman. Some English soldiers want to find something valuable that only the wild man knows the location of. Main bad guy dies from something related to the jungle. Pretty much same story but the differences that occur still makes it enjoyable. Some parts are genuinely funny. I just noticed now that the movie has 2 Game of Thrones actors. Lena Heady who plays Cersei Lannister and the actor who plays the fat old super long side burns in a braid from Winterfell guy who got his head chopped off. At least some parts of the movie surprised me since I basically already saw this story from Tarzan.

0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

7/10

Not Rudyard Kipling's Mowgli Stories-Good Cast but Weak Screen play

politicon20037 April 2013

Warning: Spoilers

Not a bad adaption, I would rate it a 7.0. Nevertheless, I still consider that "The Jungle Book" 1942 version in gorgeous Technicolor is rather better. On my seventh birthday I was given a Pan Book paperback entitled Mowgli Stories. The only illustration was on the cover: against a vivid dark blue and black background a naked adolescent Mowgli is depicted wielding a flaming red and orange branch in resistance to the villainous tiger Shere Khan, who has come to claim him from the wolf pack. I no longer have that book but my research indicates it was published by Pan Book's in 1948. The paperback contained all eight of the Mowgli stories in roughly serial order taken from a miscellaneous collection of stories found in The Jungle Book and The Second Jungle Book.

Although the movie's longer title is "Rudyard Kipling's Jungle Book", it does not deserve to have Kipling's name attached to it. The Mowgli tales as Kipling wrote them are far superior to the weak screenplay of the film which diverges widely from the original and develops an entirely new set of characters. Would a late Victorian army colonel really contemplate his only daughter marrying even a refined native boy in those days? I think not.

One may forgive easily forgive the numerous careless goofs. After all it is Walt Disney stuff not a documentary about British India in late Victorian times or whether the fuel containers on the horse cart should have the word "paraffin" or "kerosene" stencilled on them etc. However, I have seen far worse gaffs in some otherwise praiseworthy Oscar-winning movies, such as"Lawrence of Arabia".

I wonder if one day somebody will make a new non-cartoon film entitled "The Mowgli Stories" which is much more faithful to them than what has been produced so far. It probably could not be contained in a time span of less than three hours and who would want to sit in a cinema theatre that long anyway? Perhaps the best way of presenting the Mowgli stories on screen as Rudyard Kipling envisioned them would be to produce an eight-episode made for TV series.

Okay, I have grouched enough. In fairness, I enjoyed the film as it stands. After all my objections why do I give it a 7/10? First the cinematography and staged scenery were good quality, second animal handling was well done and third the cast was excellent. The lead star, Jason Lee Jones was first rate, just right for the part. Several Indian commentators on this site have disliked the fact that Jason is not an Indian and they also claim he does not even look like one. This is rather a pointless objection in my view. India (without Pakistan and Bangladesh) has about 1.2 billion human inhabitants and a long history of invasion and conquests with much interbreeding. Thus there are numerous tribes, ethnics and races in India. Indians themselves display a range of complexions from the ebony black of a Tamil to the light olive skins of a Mediterranean person further north. Jason reminds me of many Bengalis I have known where slightly Mongoloid features are common. To ignore the physical diversity of its inhabitants would be to deny India's cultural, ethnic and racial diversity which makes that country so interesting. Instead, I would have thought that Indians would more likely to have objected to the way they are depicted in the movie, either as rather silly or villainous. In fairness several of the British officers are depicted as silly and/or villainous as well.

Downgrading natives was definitely not Kipling's style. In the Jungle Books and his novel "Kim" Rudyard Kipling reveals a true love of greater India and its people and culture. He was one of the few intelligent imperialists (called "Empire Builders" until well into the 1950s) who sought to understand the local cultures in whatever corner of the Empire they found themselves assigned for years. The could either isolate themselves in compounds or mingle. Kipling mingled and studied the cultures and manners of Her Majesty's exotic subjects though as a man of his day he did not commit the "sin" of "going native".

As the film is deliberately light-hearted Disney stuff bordering on comedy one could even accept John Cleese portraying - as he did in the Monty Python films and as Basil in the "Fawlty Towers" TV show- a very silly, uncouth, and highly satirical Englishman.

One final point I need to make is that in my view the movie should have been rated PG-13 rather than PG. There are some particularly ugly scenes including man eaten by a tiger, by implication only, in one instance or another explicitly mauled to death by Shere Khan. That is scary stuff for a small child. Worse are scenes of a soldier slowing sinking to his death in a quagmire, an Indian bad guy being squashed by man-trapping devices and another man drowned in slow motion. Also young children tend to become very upset if animals are hurt or killed. There is a scene where an animal is shot and depicted to be in great pain.

Anyone who cares to read the Mowgli stories (best after and not before you see this movie) will find them published in full at:

http://thenostalgialeague.com/olmag/kipling-jungle-book.html

A site dedicated to Kipling's work that is well worth visiting.

0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

3/10

This is NOT the jungle book

Dudles31 January 1999

The first clue you get is the credit "based on the characters of...". This is not the jungle book. It is a bad copy of it with all the charm of the original sadly missing.

It's hard to pinpoint exactly what's wrong. From the stereo-typed characters, to a plot that's so predictable it becomes less predictable the 2nd time you watch it, to some patchy acting and some glaring timing errors...

2 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

3/10

The gorgeous animals provide some compensation...

moonspinner556 February 2008

Youngster in India is separated from his family during a battle in his village, soon taking refuge with the animals in the wild. A rather shameless return to proved territory by the Disney company, giving Rudyard Kipling's characters another go around. It's a handsomely-produced yet simple-minded and dull adventure, complete with ludicrous attempts at modern humor and a miscast Jason Scott Lee as the grown-up Mowgli (very grown as it turns out; Lee--his physique pumped to Rambo-like proportions--looks ready to play Tarzan, not this child of the jungle!). The 1942 version of Kipling's story (starring Sabu) wasn't exactly a barn-burner, but it captured the mysteries of nature and its creatures more perceptively than this version. Only assets are the animals (beautiful to look at), the elaborate art direction, and Basil Poledouris' sweeping background score. *1/2 from ****

2 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

8/10

A Solid Version Of The Classic Story

ccthemovieman-111 July 2006

This was pretty solid adventure story with colorful backgrounds of a the country of India and jungle scenery.

Jason Scott Lee as "Mowgli" is interesting to watch in the lead. Lee is an intriguing actor. He has an Asian background, but has played an Eskimo, here in Indian and other nationalities in other films. He is one of the more diverse actors I've ever seen, yet he isn't well-known.

Cary Elwes is usually effective as a villain. He has the acting talent that makes him easy to despise! The animals are fun, too, from Mowgli's friends in the jungle to the monkeys and giant snake guarding the lost caves with the treasure. Nicely filmed and a good adventure story for everyone.

41 out of 45 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

5/10

Good remake of a classic

ebiros222 November 2011

Made for kids, but this movie is shot lavishly so adults could enjoy too.

Mowgli gets separated from his surrogate family. He finds himself reared by animals of the forest until one day he is reunited with his surrogate family and restarts his life in civilization. He's the founder of the lost city. Now the greedy people wants Mowgli to show them the way to the city.

The production of this movie is done very well, and all the details comes out right. Jason Scott Lee portrays Mowgli who's a Tarzan like character, only it happens in India. He befriends many animals who helps him in need.

It's a good remake of a classic, and a good alternative to the one starring Zabu.

1 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Kipling would have liked it

Slice of LIfe16 June 2001

It's a good take on Kipling's masterpiece, and I liked it more (!) than the cartoon version. David Sommers did a great job on it; I always wanted to see Mowgli grown up.

Mind you, he's a fast learner. First he sees Kitty, then he starts a riot, goes to prison, gets discovered, and learns how to talk. It happens to fast. But that's the movies for you, and you can't really fault that.

There are a lot of cool moments in the movie, like in the beginning, when Kitty gives Mowgli her bracelet; in his...re-entry into the "human race", when he sees all the animal heads in a room, and you can feel this weird...presence. It's kind of beautiful, kind of sad, and very, very, Kipling.

He would have liked it, I think.

6 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

4/10

The Jungle Book

jboothmillard21 June 2005

Warning: Spoilers

If you have seen the original Walt Disney Pictures animated film, this is nothing like it. The animals don't talk, I didn't notice Shere Khan the tiger, and their's no Mowgli father (Sam Neill), Cary Elwes or John Cleese. Young Mowgli is left behind after a trip through the jungle, now after many years Mowgli (Jason Scott Lee) has been found by Dr. Plumford (Cleese) and a bunch of explorers living in the jungle. They try to help him become a proper human being. The animals are cute, fury or necessary, but I would prefer it if Baloo, Baghera and Louie would talk. They are just there as far as I saw to laugh at humans making fools of themselves. Don't bother seeing this unless your an animal lover, or a fans of the actors. Adequate!

2 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

2/10

Oh my.

emilyfnewman5 April 2020

Honestly so bold of them to call this ""Rudyard Kipling's Jungle Book".

So many liberties.

0 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

8/10

This movie has so much action and suspense and follows the same storyline as the cartoon version but with so much more detail.

rannynm8 January 2013

Interested in seeing an action packed movie? If so, watch The Jungle Book live version. I really enjoyed it. This movie has so much action and suspense and follows the same storyline as the cartoon version but with so much more detail. The movie is about a boy named Mowgli who is taken away from his village after a tiger attack. He gets stuck on a runaway wagon that is on fire. After he manages to get off of the wagon he is too far away from his village and no one can find him. Mowgli is raised by a pack of wolves and grows up with a panther and a bear named Baloo. Eventually, he is found by civilization and his childhood love named Kitty. He then has to learn how to fit in with everyone. My favorite character in the movie is Mowgli because he tries really hard to fit in with everyone once he is found. He also tries really hard to always protect Kitty. He is a really good fighter and climber. My favorite part in this movie is when Mowgli finds a secret hideout where a lot of monkeys live. It is packed with mountains of treasures. He finds a dagger but then a snake pops out and tries to kill Mowgli. So Mowgli fights with the snake and eventually uses the dagger to kill the snake. It is really suspenseful. I recommend this movie for ages 6 and up. Younger kids might get scared watching this movie because there is a lot of fighting and suspense. Credit: Anthony Aranda, age 9, KIDS FIRST! Film Critic.

12 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

User Reviews

See also

Opinion

Details

Storyline

Did You Know?

Photo & Video

Related Items

User Lists

Recently Viewed