Disney's Live-Action Jungle Book

Yeah. If it was him, it was a bit of a surprise to hear him sing so well. I mean, I've only heard a "Walken song" outside of Shatneresque parodies with him doing a talk-sing in his normal Joisey voice, so it was a little shocking for me to see Walken go from this stilted Joisey accent to a flawless, beautiful singing voice within the span of what seemed like a few words.

Also, don't know if this is deserved of a spoiler tag, but I thought the use of Retraux was a nice touch, both in Disney's Vanity Plate and of the use of the literal "Jungle Book" at the end.

And to the person who said that the wolves' furs didn't look drenched in the rain scenes, I thought that there were moments where I could've thought their fur looked a little puffier and sleeker during the moments of rain.

edited 17th Apr '16 4:37:06 PM by Shippudentimes

Walken used to be a legit drama actor once◊

That's him as Romeo at the Stratford Festival of Ontario in 1968 BTW.

He also played Hamlet in the States He had a questionable soul patch.

edited 17th Apr '16 7:07:41 PM by Sisi

Was honestly shocked by this review from the New York Times. The author doesn't seem sure whether or not to bash it for her perceived irks with its supposed "environmental" or "political" messages, even calling Disney out for some supposed BS.

Apologies for the TL;DR, but it's utterly awe-inspiring how much she misses so she can get her political/environmental views across.

How was Kaa?

Kaa is only for a single scene, where her hypnosis causes Mowgli to have a vision of his pre-Akela life and what the "Red Flower" can do. She's still an antagonist like the animated film, but much much more menacing.

Oddly, the best comparison I can think of Scar Jo's performance as Kaa is GLaDOS from Portal, but when her voice lowers to indicate she's very dangerous now.

I still don't see why animals should have the accents of the human beings living in the same region. Technically they aren't even speaking the same language! Does a horse living in Argentina neigh like an Argentinean man while a horse living in Texas neigh like a stereotypican Texan? No, they don't!

I don't speak horse so I can't tell for sure.

A New York Times film critic. Oh yes. That's the same rag that employed Pauline Kael. Nothing really needs to be said on their standard of film criticism other than it is shit, and has been for a while.

Reviewing something to satisfy a certain perspective rather than as it is is the easiest way to totally misunderstand something. It happens a lot with reviewers who are trying to get a particular message across, and avoiding it is one of the big things that separates a good reviewers with a message and a bad reviewer with an agenda.

Kaa is still antagonistic in this movie, but they do a better of job of making her less of a villain and more of... well... a force of nature, I guess. She's a powerful thing that Mowgli has the poor fortune of coming across, and their encounter nearly kills him but also leaves him more knowledgeable than he was before. We never see what happens to her, either.

So I just saw it, and I loved it. It shows a lot of differences in both the kind of movie it is and the appeals of the time period it's based on, which really comes out with how Shere Khan is written. Khan it what ultimately makes it a very different kind of story, because he drives the plot rather than walks into it this time, and he's a very different kind of villain so that affects things in very different ways.

I also really liked the irony of how everything that Khan feared and predicted would come to pass did, but only because of his own actions. He outright forces Mowgli to become to fearsone man that he decided he was going to become, then has the audacity to accuse it of being In the Blood. It's a great dissonance, as on Mowgli's side he's only doing it to save the people he cares about.

If I were to give a criticism, it'd be twofold: the movie tries so hard to be familiar that, especially in the beginning, it almost expects that you would have already seen the original and thus already know what it's doing. The beats of the story are glossed over very quickly, and it was obviously made by a fan: lots of things seem to be there only for reminiscence (though in the latter case there's only one point where it actually took me out of the movie). On the other hand, the actual plot attempts to branch into its own thing yet inadvertently ends up becoming the plot of Tarzan instead. Seriously, does anyone else feel like the plot of this movie was like if they mashed the first and second halves of Tarzan together into one story?

But it's still a great movie. I left the theater wondering if I should buy another ticket. The score is great, but then it borrows a lot from the original score which was also great and I love hearing musical nods. Mowgli is a much more engaging protagonist this time around, and less of a hapless fool that keeps getting bounced around from peril to peril. Bagheera is awesome as always, and I feel like they improved well on his and Mowgli's relationship. Baloo, as well, comes off very nice - he has an almost "Timon and Pumbaa" vibe in this tale thanks to the differences in Mowgli's character and role.

That one thing that took me out of the moment for a second was King Louis singing "I Wanna Be Like You." Don't get me wrong, I loved the song, but it really doesn't gel well with there rest of his appearance and stops the scene dead - unlike the version of Bare Necessities, which really worked. And then when he finished, he's back to what he was doing before like it never happened. I would've liked it better if he had recited, rather than sang a verse - sort of similar to what they did with Kaa - and then kept the singing version to the soundtrack.

Also, and these are just personal preferences: I would've preferred it if Shere Khan lived, but ended up lame and unable to fight or intimidate anyone ever again. It would've felt like a more fitting punishment that just dying. And while I totally understand the reason for not including Shanti in the movie after having seen it, I would've liked it if she still had a cameo in that scene where Mowgli is hiding in the man village and watches the humans gather round the fire.

I'd recommend going to see it. I'll probably write a more comprehensive review, but then I said I'd do that for Zootopia and I've yet to actually do it...

edited 19th Apr '16 1:06:30 PM by KnownUnknown

My brother is seeing this tonight. I'm so jealous ):

Agreed about King Louie's song. Though to me Walken's voice sounded rather quavery while singing, the actual reason why the animated version trumps it, in my opinion, is because there's a lot more energy in that version of the scene, with everyone partying and Louie dancing around, etc. That said, the credits version is more lively, both in music and visuals, so that cover I genuinely like.

Also liked that about Shere Khan. His face sure shows what a grown man can do... if said grown man is fearful for his own life and that of his child .

edited 19th Apr '16 2:29:15 PM by Tuckerscreator

It's amusing how they managed to rhyme "gigantopithecus" not once but twice.

That's Richard Sherman for y'all, same guy who made up rhymes for "responstable" and "supercalifragilicious". I was surprised to find he'd come back for this film.

edited 19th Apr '16 2:52:37 PM by Tuckerscreator

Now I'm listening to Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious.

So Shere Khan invoked a Self-Fulfilling Prophecy ?

edited 19th Apr '16 2:55:18 PM by TheFarmboy

What did anyone else think about how they changed the ending?

In my opinion, I preferred the new ending. The animated Jungle Book, to me, didn't support its premise of "Mowgli doesn't belong in the jungle" very well; the villains lacked menace, the dangers seemed more comical than deadly, and there were long stretches of little happening. Especially since the primary reason Mowgli has to leave, Shere Khan, seemed all but guaranteed dead at the end. While there's a worthwhile point to be made of the "man must leave the jungle" theme (one could argue it's a metaphor for childhood to school, or youth to adulthood), the animated one didn't support it as well as it could have.

By contrast, in this film Mowgli's growing mastery of the jungle, alienation toward humankind, and acceptance of his toolmaking talents is clearly built up and progressed throughout the film. Not only do the pieces of its theme fit together better, but this film also makes the jungle more menacing overall so we can see Shere Khan is not its only danger (nor that the wolves can't just gang up on him to kill him). That menace is important because it makes the idea that Mowgli has to leave seem necessary, making it more triumphant and impactful when he finds his place after all. And one could argue that its ending is ultimately more optimistic because it suggests that humans and nature can coexist in harmony despite their differences. So that's my opinion.

edited 21st Apr '16 9:30:33 PM by Tuckerscreator

Jon Favreau is returning for the sequel!

Disney’s ‘Jungle Book’ Becomes India’s Highest-Grossing Hollywood Film

"Walt Disney Co. has managed to do something with its new remake of “The Jungle Book” that many Oscar-winning movies have failed to do: sell in India. [...] The Jungle Book’s Indian ticket sales are also not a huge haul compared with last year’s biggest domestic blockbuster, which took in more than twice as much at the box office. But it is a sign U.S. studios are gaining significant traction in the world’s second-most-populous country, a market that has long eluded them."

Didn't I post this earlier?

Searched the last few pages and didn't see it anywhere, as far as I know.

Having watched the movie finally, I can say the only major issue I had with the movie right now is that Mowgli seems to quite a knowledge of human engineering with his tricks and tools despite being raised by wolves and finding humans to be distant and alien. It kinda stretched my suspension of disbelief right there.

As for the potential sequel, does anyone believe that it will introduce Shanti as Mowgli's source of conflict on whether he should stay in the jungle or leave to try out the man-village? It's not like Disney has forgotten it since Shanti is very well known for that One-Scene Wonder at the very end even to this day.

It's funny, but among the several reasons I'd like the sequel to introduce Shanti is that I'd love for them to turn "My Own Home" into a powerful leitmotif/scene accompaniment the same way the movie did with "Trust In Me" and "I Wanna Be Like You."

Something like this.

Honest Words Montage.

I think this might quite possibly be their most positive video about a movie yet. Even The Winter Soldier one still got some plot point riffs in.

edited 23rd Aug '16 3:24:48 PM by Tuckerscreator

I remember their Wreck It Ralph trailer was almost entirely positive too.

The only one that gets to me, now that I think about it, is the mass honey collection trick. And even that's borderline. Somebody had to create these ideas to start with, so it wouldn't be impossible for a boy in the wilderness with keen eyes and a serious working brain to figure things out. The mass collection rig took some serious math to accomplish, unless we just never saw the trial and error whee Mowgli kept missing and figured out the markings as he went before going after the real run.