This afternoon found me sitting in a cozy little cinema, settled down with a hot chocolate to finally see one of my most-anticipated films of 2016 - Jon Favreau's live-action remake of Disney's classic animation The Jungle Book, which was made all the way back in 1967. From a time point of view alone this film was well overdue a remake.

When it was initially announced that Disney was going to be making this film, I remember people's reactions varying from very positive to very negative. Some were very happy at the thought and others were of the opinion that it was completely unnecessary. I can confidently say I was among the former - when I first heard the news I was utterly thrilled and I'm not ashamed to say it. The original Disney Classic was one of the defining movies of my childhood. Along with Disney's Robin Hood, our VHS copy of The Jungle Book must have racked up well over a hundred plays. The storyteller/soundtrack LP similarly. As such, the idea of a remake being in the works in today's age of photorealistic CGI was exciting, to say the very least. Just the thought of lifelike animals including a tiger, a panther, a bear, wolves, monkeys, etc. gave me the shivers. Perhaps foolishly, I didn't once think it was a bad idea. Hearing later that Favreau would be directing just served to confirm it in my mind as an absolute must-see when it came out.

Subsequent announcements similarly served to heighten my hype, such as cast and composer. Although I'll admit when I heard that Idris Elba and Scarlett Johansson had been cast as Shere Kahn and Kaa respectively I have to say I was sceptical. Much though I appreciate them as as actor and actress, Johansson particularly, I wasn't at all sure about them as a tiger and snake, particularly Elba as Shere Kahn. However, Bill Murray as Baloo and Sir Ben Kingsley as Bagheera were perfect fits in my mind from the get-go.

When the first poster appeared online, back in July/August last year, I was very excited. The tone of the film looked perfect - very atmospheric and beautiful, yet darker and more realistic than the animation. Not long after, the first teaser dropped. I've almost never been so excited by a trailer before in my life. So far, it was living up to my expectations. And with every new trailer I became more and more hyped. When we finally saw Shere Kahn speak in the first full-length trailer, all doubts about his casting were completely and utterly obliterated from my mind never to return.

So here we are, in the middle of April 2016 already. Reviews started coming in about a week ago.

And today, after many months of eager anticipation and waiting, I can finally say that I have seen The Jungle Book. How strange that sounds.

Here are my thoughts.

-------

(Be warned: spoilers for both the 1967 and 2016 film are ahead. But let's be honest, if you've not yet seen the original Disney Classic, you deserve the spoilers.)

-------

What an achievement. What an utterly fantabulous achievement. I very respectfully bow to Favreau and his team for producing what must be one of the best, if not THE best live-action remake ever made. Yes, there were one or two little tiny things here and there that I would have done differently, but overall? Wow. Expectations? Overwhelmingly met.

So what did I like about it?

Firstly, the overall look and feel. Visually, it was stunningly shot and produced. The CGI animals and landscapes were phenomenally well done. It is almost beyond comprehension that this level of photorealism is possible, even with today's technology. Favreau has indeed pushed the limits of what is technically feasible, and the results are truly astonishing. There's really not much more I can say.

The casting was spot-on. With the slight exception of Kaa, every character was cast perfectly, with particular notice of Idris Elba and Bill Murray as Shere Kahn and Baloo respectively, with Ben Kingsley and Christopher Walken as Bagheera and King Louis close behind. I note the exception of Kaa - this is almost certainly because it is physically much harder to make it look like a snake is speaking with a human voice than it is other animals with more defined mouths and lips, similar to us humans. Scarlett Johansson's performance is, however, suitably spell-binding.

The take on the story. This film is a perfect example of how a remake should be done. It pays a huge amount of tribute to the original, whilst at the same time managing to very successfully stand out as it's own film. What's more, as a bonus, this film also pays suitable homage to its ultimate source material, Rudyard Kipling's book of the same title. Do not go to see this film expecting to see an exact copy of the '67 animation. It's not. But it's perfect for those who grew up on that and are wanting to see both a re-imagined version and something simultaneously new. The elephants particularly were a grand example of this and, although they don't appear very much at all, they are done very well indeed.

The set pieces. Wow. There were a couple of stand-out action sequences that had me on the edge of my seat, despite my ultimately knowing the end result for the characters. As I watched the teaser trailer for the first time last year, which showed snippets of a fight between Shere Kahn and Bagheera, my heart nearly missed a beat. Just the "shere" prospect of those two big cat characters going up against each other, the CGI being so photorealistic, was enough to make me stop breathing for a moment. There is no fight between those two characters in the '67 classic, so it was an aspect of this film that I wasn't prepared for and was very excited to see, and it did not disappoint.

As anticipated, the ending of the film was also suitably intense. I would probably not take a child to see the film under the age of 7, due to the intensity and realism of the final showdown. It was breathtakingly good and suitably satisfactory. It's always frustrating when the final act of a film is underwhelming, whether because it's too short or because it's simply badly written/directed, but I'm very happy to say that this is most certainly not the case with The Jungle Book.

The music overall was pretty good. For the opening titles, score composer John Debney has included a recreation of the original music by George Bruns, which was a complete surprise, but a pleasant one. In a very similar manner, the incidental cue from Kaa's scene in the animation has again been recreated here to good effect. The rest of the score itself doesn't stand out much during the film, but upon further listening improves. The inclusion of two songs from the animated classic during the film is welcomed, particularly The Bear Necessities.

Was there anything I particularly disliked about the film? Not overall, no. But there are one or two little things that are perhaps worth a quick mention.

As I said before, voice-matching the character of Kaa wasn't as convincing as the other animals, but we've already covered that and it really wasn't that big a deal. What was particularly disappointing was the choice of music for the end credits. The new recording of Trust In Me isn't great (sorry ScarJo!), and the new recording of The Bare Necessities (performed by "Dr. John And The Nite Trippers") is positively awful. Though that is my personal taste. However, Bill Murray's performance of the same song in the film is fine. Although you would have thought they could perhaps have given Neel Sethi at least a couple of singing lessons. No? Ok. The Monkey Song almost felt out of place when it happened, but they still managed to keep it within the realms of believability.

Was there anything from the Disney Classic that was left out? One or two things, yes, but nothing to detract from the re-imagining of this story. The vultures are missing completely, which is perhaps disappointing, but is also perhaps understandable, as they would have been quite dramatically out of place had they been included. The girl at the end of the film, who entices Mowgli into the Man Village, is also noticeably conspicuous by her absence. In fact, that entire ending has been axed. Mowgli does not end up entering the village to become a man, but it is instead implied that he continues to live in the jungle with the wolves. This, of course, helps open the door for a potential sequel, which would be very interesting. If Disney feel they can delve into Kipling's original literary source and find more worthy material out of which to write a sequel, then I'm game to give it a go. Seeing as the ending of this film was so different to the '67 classic, another instalment will at least not be a remake of the flop that was 2003's animated sequel.

So, marks out of 10? I'd give The Jungle Book a solid 9.

Good job, Disney. Good job.

I'm pretty on-the-fence about seeing this one. On the one hand, I'll watch it knowing it was all filmed in a green-screen room. The kid portraying Mowgli seems a bit out of his league.

On the other hand.... the digital work is convincing and it seems like it's enough of a departure from the original that it's worth the time.

I've never really liked the animated ending, so I'm glad they changed it for this one.

Also, no mention of Debney's score, whether it's good or bad? C' mon, Sulley! :p

I felt the inclusion of the songs were a bit forced to be honest. But Christopher Walken singing The Monkey Song is one of the funniest things I've ever heard.

I'm pretty on-the-fence about seeing this one. On the one hand, I'll watch it knowing it was all filmed in a green-screen room. The kid portraying Mowgli seems a bit out of his league.

On the other hand.... the digital work is convincing and it seems like it's enough of a departure from the original that it's worth the time.

I've never really liked the animated ending, so I'm glad they changed it for this one.

Also, no mention of Debney's score, whether it's good or bad? C' mon, Sulley! :p

I consciously decided not to let the reality of all the CGI affect the film, and also seeing the human cast in my head whenever their voices were heard. And you get used to it fairly quickly.

Yes, it's definitely worth the time. It's a solid effort.

I forgot to mention Debney's score as I'd already mentioned the songs and because the score wasn't actually that memorable, but I've added a paragraph now. Thanks for the reminder!

Nice of Debney to include those musical easter eggs. I wish I was a scholar in Disney music like you guys!... maybe one day.

But as usual, his score seems to be a bit of dud. He's not a very energetic composer. I can't wrap my head around why Favreau likes him so.

Nice of Debney to include those musical easter eggs. I wish I was a scholar in Disney music like you guys!... maybe one day.

But as usual, his score seems to be a bit of dud. He's not a very energetic composer. I can't wrap my head around why Favreau likes him so.

Haha I think it's just the crazy repetitious viewing of a Disney film that qualifies us "scholars" as you so eloquently put it. :p

Yeah, I do like some of Debney's stuff but I've not yet heard a score by him that's really stood out to me. Pity really.

So much of his music feels like it's on the crux of being fantastic, but he dials it down a notch before anything remarkable can happen.

Wholeheartedly agree with you, Sulley, on everything, I thought the CGI was fantastic, (thanks to Weta) and I adored how every little movement of the animals was completely realistic; a ear movement, whisker, anything, and there's a lot of good job there. Though one thing I disagree with you; I love ScarJo's rendition of Trust in Me, and is my only favourite cover of the movie :P

Wholeheartedly agree with you, Sulley, on everything, I thought the CGI was fantastic, (thanks to Weta) and I adored how every little movement of the animals was completely realistic; a ear movement, whisker, anything, and there's a lot of good job there. Though one thing I disagree with you; I love ScarJo's rendition of Trust in Me, and is my only favourite cover of the movie :P

Yeah, I just thought her singing was a little... flat. Not in pitch, but in emotion. It felt very flat and rather too metronomic. Especially considering the original, which is pulled around almost too much. And you guys know how much I adore ScarJo - so this is me being very honest right here!

But The Bear Necessities cover was absolutely terrible. I'm still absolutely befuddled as to why they put it in.

I guess I probably like the original melody more than her rendition, though. And yeah, agree with you again, though I tell you, "Wanna Be Like You" looks way more off in this movie than Bare Necessities.

I guess I probably like the original melody more than her rendition, though. And yeah, agree with you again, though I tell you, "Wanna Be Like You" looks way more off in this movie than Bare Necessities.

No, I wasn't talking about in the movie. The Bear Necessities in the film is fine (apart from Sethi's appalling excuse for singing) - I was talking about the crap cover in the credits. The first track on the OST.

No, I wasn't talking about in the movie. The Bear Necessities in the film is fine (apart from Sethi's appalling excuse for singing) - I was talking about the crap cover in the credits. The first track on the OST.

Oh yeah. Agreed. Dr. John's rendition of Cruela de Vil was much better than this slow-paced boredom..

Oh yeah. Agreed. Dr. John's rendition of Cruela de Vil was much better than this slow-paced boredom..

...wait wut?

...wait wut?

The credits rendition of Bare Necessities is sung by Dr. John who also did the credits rendition of Cruela de Vil for 101 Dalmatians' 1996 live action movie, which is also pretty good. And I'm saying his Cruela de Vil rendition is much better than the one for ths movie.

I can't believe they actually had singing in it.
I thought that was just for the OST...

The trailers make it look like an epic saga of adventure and action.
No hint about a musical act.

That's going to piss off my friends and family.
They're going to be confused by the trite efforts to pay homage to the original.

I loved Maleficent because there was no musicals in it.
The cover song was great for the end credits and trailers. As where it should be left.

When I heard Jungle Book remake, I was thinking along the same lines as Sleeping Beauty remake.

That's disappointing to hear.

I don't think I'll be watching it when it comes out.
I've got Planet of the Apes movies plus there's a million other CG movies, and a million more to tide me over.

That's going to piss off my friends and family.
They're going to be confused by the trite efforts to pay homage to the original.


Yeah... a quick few moments of Baloo reminiscing and humming about the Bare Necessities would have been more than enough. The other songs shoulda stayed in the animated film, where they're more at home.

But that's what fanedits are for, I suppose.

But that's what fanedits are for, I suppose.

Hmm. Maybe there will be a reason to download the bluray then.

I'll sit through it (ugh) and then make a nice edit for friends and family before they get a chance to watch it.
I'm certain there'll be a few other scenes that can be chopped down. I have a feeling that 105 (credits included) is going to be too long of a movie as it is.

I mean, even though not the same studio, but we still have The Legend of Tarzan (2016) (with True Blood's own Eric Northman) to look at.
That's a lot of jungle in one year.

And then right after, the King Kong remake.

Jungles are pretty in HD. But c'mon. They're all the same story, really.
Something/someone distant from civilization learns about "society". They're all coming of age stories.
And slavery. Tarantino made it clear that King Kong parallels with slavery in Inglorious Basterds.

The credits rendition of Bare Necessities is sung by Dr. John who also did the credits rendition of Cruela de Vil for 101 Dalmatians' 1996 live action movie, which is also pretty good. And I'm saying his Cruela de Vil rendition is much better than the one for ths movie.

Ah ok. I have yet to see those films.

---------- Post added at 03:01 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:55 PM ----------


I can't believe they actually had singing in it.
I thought that was just for the OST...

The trailers make it look like an epic saga of adventure and action.
No hint about a musical act.

That's going to piss off my friends and family.
They're going to be confused by the trite efforts to pay homage to the original.

I loved Maleficent because there was no musicals in it.
The cover song was great for the end credits and trailers. As where it should be left.

When I heard Jungle Book remake, I was thinking along the same lines as Sleeping Beauty remake.

That's disappointing to hear.

I don't think I'll be watching it when it comes out.
I've got Planet of the Apes movies plus there's a million other CG movies, and a million more to tide me over.

So basically, it's not a musical. It's really not anything like the original in that respect. There's no elephant song, there's no Kaa song, there's no Vulture song, there's no girl song at the end. Really, it's not a musical. Don't get that impression. Maybe I should edit my review to make that clearer.

The only songs in the film are "Bear Necessities" and "I Wanna Be Like You". The first of which is fine, although it's still painfully obvious Neel Sethi can't sing to save his life. It's presented in a way where there's a bit of a food gathering montage during which they sing. So it simply implies that they sing as they work, which is fine. It's not a straight-up musical number in one single scene.

"I Wanna Be Like You", however, is different. Unlike the way Bear Necessities is presented, this one is like a musical where the main character starts randomly singing in one scene, not a montage or anything. But it's obvious King Louis is weird, so it doesn't actually feel hugely out-of-place. Only a little. I'm still not sure how I feel about it. I'd have to see it again to make a better judgement.

Will you guys chill? Bare Necessities is there as a little talked moment, it's not a fully fledged musical moment, for a minute, it's more than a talked singing than actual musical singing, this one is fine, the worst of the movie is I Wanna Be Like You because it doesn't fit there, but otherwise, nothing more.

Other than these two, there are no more songs in this movie, the rest are for the credits. Don't exagerate. It is not a musical.

I don't mean like a hardcore musical, all the way through.

"Only a little" is enough to merit disgust.

It does sound forced. Given it's a Disney remake.
They should have repeated Maleficent and omitted the singing.
It seems like they had to pick what songs to keep and find an excuse to validate them in the movie.
Crazy monkey? Sure, let him sing. No explaination necessary.
Singing while you work? If the Dwarves can do it, so can bears.
A snake? Johannson feels left out. :noonecares:

Johansson doesn't sing in the movie. Only the end credits. Tbh, that would have been the one exception where I think the singing would have fitted very well. If she'd sung as she hypnotised Mowgli that would have been very captivating.

The Jungle Book made my heart beat faster!

Boy No Singing In A Disney Movie,.... Just Wait Till Beauty and the Beast Next Year... lol

Johansson doesn't sing in the movie. Only the end credits. Tbh, that would have been the one exception where I think the singing would have fitted very well. If she'd sung as she hypnotised Mowgli that would have been very captivating.

Agreed

Nice of Debney to include those musical easter eggs. I wish I was a scholar in Disney music like you guys!... maybe one day.

But as usual, his score seems to be a bit of dud. He's not a very energetic composer. I can't wrap my head around why Favreau likes him so.

Have you ever listened to Cutthroat Island,The Passion of the Christ, Dreamhouse, LAIR, Hocus Pocus, Dragonfly or White Fang 2?
I think Debney is a great composer, and even though I haven't listened to it on album yet, his score for the Jungle Book was great in the movie, which was also really good! :)

HOCUS POCUS! One Of My All Time Films, And Scores!

Indeed! He has a lot of good stuff.

Bette Medler's rendition of I Put A Spell On You isn't the only hip thing about Hocuc Pocus.
A fun movie to watch every year for Halloween.

Indeed! He has a lot of good stuff.

Bette Medler's rendition of I Put A Spell On You isn't the only hip thing about Hocuc Pocus.
A fun movie to watch every year for Halloween.

Not just halloween i watch it a lot and listen to the score. I just live the film.

I've been listening to The Jungle Book more, and it's growing on me quite fast. Particularly the first few score cues on the OST. Really beautiful stuff in there. It's a lovely score. I'm sure I'll appreciate it even more when I see the film for the second time.

I jyst back from seeing it, was great songs aswell, 3rd adaptation of an animated classic. Bring on n.4 BEAUTY AND THE BEAST.

I jyst back from seeing it, was great songs aswell, 3rd adaptation of an animated classic. Bring on n.4 BEAUTY AND THE BEAST.

Oh Beauty and the Beast is gonna be fantastic.

Damn Right it is!

HOCUS POCUS! One Of My All Time Films, And Scores!

The score is great!
I don't remember the movie, even though I've watched it several times as a kid with my sisters.
Did you know that James Horner composed Sarah's Theme?

I'm surprised at how much i agree with just about everything you said, right down to the "nit picky" things i thought weren't quite right. The vultures missing disappointing me tremendously. :(

But yes, overall an amazingly fun ride. Well worth a trip to the theaters. :)

I saw it earlier today and loved it. My only niggle is no vultures and the absence of my favourite scene from the 67 film: Kaa trying to hide Mowglu from Shere-Khan. I suppose the humourous tone of these scenes wouldn't have fit though. And the score was pretty decent. I loved how the songs were worked into the score; "Trust in Me" becoming the basis for the "Red Flower" theme stands out in particular as well as playing throughout Kaa's scene. Also loved that Debney paid tribute by reprising parts of Bruns' score in parts.

And I loved the covers. "Trust in Me" is my favourite. As for it being emotionless, I think that's the point. The song's meant to be hypnotising and the common trope for hypnotists is talking in a slow, emotionless voice.

---------- Post added at 06:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:38 PM ----------


I can't believe they actually had singing in it.
I thought that was just for the OST...

The trailers make it look like an epic saga of adventure and action.
No hint about a musical act.

That's going to piss off my friends and family.
They're going to be confused by the trite efforts to pay homage to the original.

I loved Maleficent because there was no musicals in it.
The cover song was great for the end credits and trailers. As where it should be left.

When I heard Jungle Book remake, I was thinking along the same lines as Sleeping Beauty remake.

That's disappointing to hear.

I don't think I'll be watching it when it comes out.
I've got Planet of the Apes movies plus there's a million other CG movies, and a million more to tide me over.

There's only two songs from the original in it and they're really short. And tbh... being disappointed that a remake of a Disney musical film has the songs in it is a bit silly IMO. No offense. It just seems like a weird thing to be disappointed about.

you all seem to be fucking retarded if youre complaining about CHRISTOPHER FUCKING WALKEN SINGING. AS AN ORANGUTANG

you all seem to be fucking retarded if youre complaining about CHRISTOPHER FUCKING WALKEN SINGING. AS AN ORANGUTANG

Calm down, nutcase. We're not complaining that his singing was bad or anything like that. His voice was perfect for the role and he sang great. We're talking about the creative/artistic decision to have the song in the film like that, as it didn't quite fit the genre/tone they were going for with the rest of the film. Seriously.

gigantopithecus to be exact, it actually in the song.

I loved it and it fitted perfectly.

I love the live action films having their animated song even Cinderella had bibbidi-bobbidi-boo.

I saw this last night.
I echo Sulley's rapturous response, as well as Sparktank's quibbles on the misguided musical moments.

I can't wrap my head around the ending though... Mowgli stays in the jungle? Why? The whole movie was Lesson 101 on why man doesn't belong in the jungle! Shere Khan was right all along!

Why? To make a sequel, of course! Which is actually happening for real.

Fuckin' hell...

Why? To make a sequel, of course! Which is actually happening for real.

You'd think the retired direct to DVD animated sequels would be enough to tell them not to, but no...

I know a lot of people who didn't enjoy it, and I didn't understand why. I actually this was a crazy year. Jungle Book, Pete's Dragon, and Tarzan. Sort of similar plots. The one I wanted to love the most (Tarzan) was the one I disliked the most.

Jungle Book was a Disney film by Jon Favreau. Tarzan was a WB film by David Yates. No competition there. :laugh:

:this:

I know this is all about "The Jungle Book", which I only enjoyed the second time I watched it.
Heaven knows why... XD Anyway, I love it now! ^^
But I just have to say how much I look forward to "Beauty and the Beast"!
Everything I've seen about it makes me strongly believe that it'll be the best life action Disney movie ever!!! :D
Besides, I'm already flipping out, if I only think of the (certainly marvelous) soundtrack! Can't wait!