Rudyard Kipling's The Jungle Book

joy

source: Rudyard Kipling's The Jungle Book

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

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.

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...

This was one of my favorites as a boy, I had it on VHS and I watched it a lot. I always thought Jason was amazing in the role and very believable, and Lena Headey is just gorgeous, I had a crush on her when I was young. And of course the highlight is the animal actors, it's sad now days if this film was remade they'd probably do it in CGI. If you love beautiful landscapes, great adventure and a bit of romance, you'll love this underrated flick from the 90s, it's definitely one of the best. 10/10.

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.

Lena Heady is young and beautiful, Wesley from the Princess Bride is in it, and a few other great actors, it's safe for kids butbstill entertaining for adults, and I am picky picky with movies, this is cute and touching, and teaches to respect animals and the earth.

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.

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)