Hugely disappointing


I was really looking forward to this. Saw it on demand.
1: The lead actor seems like he's sleep walking from one movie set to another, not like he's in a jungle.
2: Mougli chatacter comes across as 2 dimensional (what is his life like, what does he want etc no one knws)
3: Moigli character comes across as selfish. Not sharing his food, not showing sny appreciation for his wolf mother or the panther.
4: There is no story. Its just going from one set to another as an excuse to introduce new characters

reply

5: The tiger starts to live with the wolves in anticipation that mougli will return. WTF! Seriously wtf!!!

reply

6:?Toger lives with wolves Double wtf

reply

[deleted]

yeah tiger decides to live with wolves wtf

reply

Pick a spelling and stick with it. Clearly you didn't watch or understand the movie. And seriously, SERIOUSLY.
Tiger, toger?
Mougli, Moigli?
It's Mowgli.
Plus his dreams/desires/ambitions were clear hundreds of times throughout the film.. to be at home, in the jungle, with the.... wait for it... woOlves. Oops I meant woUlves. WoIlves?
Oh, right! WOLVES.
I'm betting his exhausted down in the dumps looks were probably acting out not being able to return to the only home he's known and not having a home or people. He didn't seem tired when he was being chased around or collecting honey or fighting Shere Khan (that's the antagonist *cough* "toger" btw).
As a brand new child actor it seems he did incredibly well with everything being CGI.
Compare it to the cartoon '67 version, I would watch this or for a throwback the 90's live version everytime.
The only thing that really hurt was Christopher Walken with his song and voice, plus Scarlett Johansson was not a great choice.

reply

Oh and final note, it's a fictional story.
All animals coming together for a truce? Befriending an orphaned child? Elephant being bowed to? A monkey temple? Etc, etc.
Shere Khan was king of the jungle in all versions of the story, so yeah, he took over the wolf pack to assert vengeance for being burnt my Mowgli's dad. Woah SO crazy of a plot the rest would be super believable!

reply

You left out talking animals! It kills me when jerks like the OP start looking for realism in films that scream fantasy.

"Nothing is more ill bred than trying to steal the affections of someone else's dog."

reply

Fantasy, yes. But that doesn't mean Jungle Book is meant to be surrealist. That's the Alice in Wonderland route.

reply

"Did incredibly well." Do you know what good acting is? Because Neel Sethi's performance was atrociously unconvincing. Even for child actor standards. Then again, he's not a real actor.
Also, the remake wasn't very good at delivering the moral of the story. All it was trying to do was to find an excuse for Mowgli to stay in the jungle. While in the cartoon, the whole story was a "coming of age" allegory (basically, the jungle represented Mowgli's childhood while the man village represented his adulthood). Which is why the ending was balanced, everyone was where they belonged. And at least the cartoon Mowgli did not have an inexplicable masters degree in engineering and despite not being raised by humans he was somehow able to get around every single obstacle he encountered, using "tricks", devices and tools in a way even human-raised children at his age would not have been able to do.
I agree with the ScarJo Kaa thing though. Not only was Kaa shoehorned into the story (and did not move the plot further at all), but was also pointlessly sexualized. ScarJo was probably only picked for the role because she has a monotone erotic voice. In general, I think casting a bunch of "a-lister" celebrities is a bad choice, it kills the mood for me so I prefer less known voices. I mean, in the cartoon, the only recognizable voice was George Sanders.

reply

Do you know what good acting is? Because Neel Sethi's performance was atrociously unconvincing.


Do you know what it means? I'm not sure what you wanted exactly from a kid portraying Mowgli, but I thought Sethi did an acceptable job. His emotional scene where he leaves Raksha and the wolves and his bonding with Baloo and Bagheera were fine. I much preferred him over the cartoon Mowgli who was mostly an annoying brat with little development.

Also, the remake wasn't very good at delivering the moral of the story


The remake was trying a different route than the cartoon. The remake explored the themes of growing up and individuality by showing how Mowgli learned from his experiences with the various animal creatures. He succeeds in unifying the jungle and while he doesn't return to the jungle (which he doesn't feel suited for), he has earned the respect of the creatures and has wisened up by the film's end.

And at least the cartoon Mowgli did not have an inexplicable masters degree in engineering and despite not being raised by humans he was somehow able to get around every single obstacle he encountered, using "tricks", devices and tools in a way even human-raised children at his age would not have been able to do.


If you accepted the cartoon Mowgli being able to figure out how to use fire and wield a burning branch to defeat Shere Khan, then how hard is it to accept him being adept enough to build contraptions to help out his animal friends? Even cavemen figured out how to build weapons and clothing! It's got nothing to do with masters degrees in engineering!

I mean, in the cartoon, the only recognizable voice was George Sanders.


Are you joking? Louis Prima (who voiced King Louie) was a well-known jazz singer and Phil Harris (Baloo) was a popular comedian. Even back then, Disney was casting popular names for their animated features.

reply

Do you know what it means? I'm not sure what you wanted exactly from a kid portraying Mowgli, but I thought Sethi did an acceptable job. His emotional scene where he leaves Raksha and the wolves and his bonding with Baloo and Bagheera were fine. I much preferred him over the cartoon Mowgli who was mostly an annoying brat with little development.


No, he wasn't even remotely good. Even Brandon Baker did a better job and he still sucked, but at least he wasn't as wooden and annoying as Neel Sethi. His face was so obviously forced when he left Raksha.
While I agree that the cartoon Mowgli was an annoying brat, at least he brought some heart to the audience. Not to mention the fact that his singing voice didn't make people cringe and want to cover their ears like Sethi's singing voice did. And Mowgli in the cartoon was also SUPPOSED to be a brat, which is common for boys at that age. Even Bagheera was so fed up with him at one point that he had to leave him for a time in order to cool off.

If you accepted the cartoon Mowgli being able to figure out how to use fire and wield a burning branch to defeat Shere Khan, then how hard is it to accept him being adept enough to build contraptions to help out his animal friends? Even cavemen figured out how to build weapons and clothing! It's got nothing to do with masters degrees in engineering!


Are you honestly comparing the instinctual ability to grab a branch (something which all primates are able to do) to the ability to create and manipulate tools and contraptions better than the average human without any engineering education or life in civilization? It would have been acceptable if Mowgli had only used basic tools like rocks to break things or that broken skull he used to get water with. But not complex machinery like he did in the movie. So no, the only acceptable things were that Mowgli was walking on two legs (because it's easier for him), the need to wear a loincloth (because nudity would not be acceptable for a family-friendly movie) and to use basic primate traits (like grabbing and manipulating objects he finds).
Yes, the caveman did figure it out. But unlike Mowgli, they lived together with their own kind and were able to teach each other those skills. But a mere child raised by wolves can't do those things. So yes, what Mowgli did was pretty much like having a masters degree in engineering.

The remake was trying a different route than the cartoon. The remake explored the themes of growing up and individuality by showing how Mowgli learned from his experiences with the various animal creatures. He succeeds in unifying the jungle and while he doesn't return to the jungle (which he doesn't feel suited for), he has earned the respect of the creatures and has wisened up by the film's end


Unifying the jungle? The jungle didn't seem to be out of balance and harmony before. The only thing he did was to motivate the animals to fight Shere Khan.
And while I respect the remake for taking some liberties, they should have done a better job executing their ideas due to the rushed storytelling. And Mowgli didn't really learn anything from the other creatures. From the beginning of the movie, he was convinced that the jungle was his home despite not being that faithful to the wolf ways. He hadn't changed at all in the end. In the end of the cartoon, at least he did change as he was able to realize his errors and that the man village might not be so bad after all. Wisened up? If you want a wise Mowgli, look for the Mowgli from the books, the Sabu Dastagir Mowgli and the Soviet Mowgli.

Are you joking? Louis Prima (who voiced King Louie) was a well-known jazz singer and Phil Harris (Baloo) was a popular comedian. Even back then, Disney was casting popular names for their animated features.


No. Phil Harris was a minor celebrity and a local radio host. Louis Prima wasn't well known outside of New Orleans. George Sanders, however, was a critically acclaimed and Academy Award-winning actor and was already known for several successful films.

But I don't have time for further debates. I never expected this to go so far. So if you liked the remake, then good for you.

Good day.

reply

Louis Prima was known for iconic songs like When You're Smiling, Jump Jive Wail, and Sing Sing Sing (although Goodman performed the last).

reply

You are hard to please. It's a fantasy. A fairy-tale type story with anthropomorphic animals. And the child was fine. He looked and acted scared or surprised or sad as the situation called for. Not a real actor in what respect?

reply

It being fantasy does not give it a free ticket to suck. You're just describing what the movie is about, I'm talking about how poorly it was executed. The child was fine? In what aspect? This is the worst acting from a child I have seen, even by child actor standards. And no, he did not portray any emotion convincingly, he just tried to. But failed. For example, his "sad face" looked more like he was trying to hold in a laugh. What do I mean with not a real actor? The fact that Neel Sethi had zero acting experience prior to this movie.

reply

Thorbergisak is like a mentally-challenged version of the Energizer bunny: you state that you liked the film, and he'll just keep going and going.

reply

Don't be so immature. You're the only one going on and on just because you don't agree with me and practically saying the same thing over and over.

reply

Nope

reply

This from someone who can't even spell the main character's name correctly nor consistently incorrectly. Lazy.

reply

As long as we're on the subject, neither of the Disney movies pronounce the name correctly. Kipling actually spelled out that the first syllable should be pronounced to rhyme with "cow." They got many of the other names wrong, as well. I've never understood why, since it has been written down since at least 1937.
http://www.kiplingsociety.co.uk/rg_junglebook_names.htm

reply