Sure, all the other remakes so far have been fairy tales, which you can argue the point that those older stories would probably benefit from an update (especially the ones with passive heroines). The Jungle Book is a different animal altogether (the pun was not intentional, I swear!).
Both the original book by Rudyard Kipling and the Disney adaptation released in 1967 are classics in their own right. Even worse, this is a story that would require a TON of CGI because of all the talking animals involved in the story. Since that is the case, I thought to myself, why make it a live-action film in the first place? I thought there was no possible way this could work.
Then I saw the trailer. The CGI put on display was absolutely gorgeous. The models for the animals were so detailed that I had to check Wikipedia to make sure they weren't real. The cast looked great on paper. All the actors fit their roles, and in Scarlett Johansson's case, she felt far superior to Sterling Holloway's take on Kaa. This snake was not funny in the least; this snake was both seductive and completely terrifying. This trailer totally changed my feelings towards the film. My dread had turned to hype.
Ladies and gentleman, I am pleased to announce that not only is this a good movie, I consider it to be better than the original film. Living up to one classic is hard enough. Surpassing it is very rare indeed. The movie pulls off a careful balance of paying homage to the original book and previous film while giving the audience a whole new experience to enjoy.
You will notice this approach as soon as the movie starts. The opening shot shows us the very impressive visuals of the almost completely CGI jungle while the opening music of the original film plays over the credits. Right from the first shot, we are treated a good blend of old and new.
All throughout the film, Favreau and the screenwriters consistently keeps the best parts of the original movie while using the book to fill in gaps of that original adaptation. For example, we learn that the animals all follow an unwritten code of law, aptly named "The Law of the Jungle" that every animal follows, especially in times of crisis. The wolves and Mowgli even explicitly repeat the opening stanza of of Kipling's original poem from the book.
As the story opens, Bagheera the panther (played by Sir Ben Kingsley) explains to us that during times of drought, all animals, predator and prey, must share the water equally. No violence is tolerated at the watering hole while this truce is in effect. Already we are given more information on how the animal society works.
The expanded role of the wolves was also a nice surprise. In the original, they are given barely two minutes of screen time, if that. Here, you can see the close and loving relationship between the "mancub" Mowgli and his adopted family, a pack of Indian wolves. The wolf cubs clearly look up to their older "brother" while Mowgli's adopted mother Raksha (played by Lupita Nyong'o) clearly loves the human child as if he were her own son. They have an especially tender moment just before Mowgli must leave his family behind and travel with Bagheera through the jungle to reach the human village which lies on its outskirts.
In the first half an hour we are not only shown Mowgli's personal relationships with his animal friends, but also his complicated status within the jungle's society. For while the wolf pack loves him dearly, all the other animals are wary of him because he is unlike any other animal living there. He uses tools, which, while not outright forbidden by the unwritten code the animals follow, is heavily frowned upon. Animals are expected to use only their natural abilities to survive. Mowgli not only behaves in unexpected ways, but the animals are scared of what he might become. The animals are clearly aware of mankind's capacity for destruction.
One big advantage this film has over the original is that it is longer, which gives the plot more room for foreshadowing, exposition, and just letting us get a grasp of the characters and setting. While the original has plenty of good moments, it felt like a a bunch of theatrical shorts with a similar theme strung together. To be fair, it mirrors the structure of the book (which is an anthology of short stories and not a singular, long plotline) but there's undeniably some padding. The first scene with the elephants wasn't necessary. Here they're just given a quick cameo to appease older fans.
The next biggest strength of the movie is not just how Mowgli's characterization is handled in this version, but also newcomer Neel Sethi's performance. Not only does he behave like a real kid, he is also far more sympathetic, resourceful and clever than the Mowgli of the '67 film. In the original, Mowgli felt like a stubborn spoiled brat who couldn't survive 5 minutes alone in the wilderness. The plot may have revolved around him, but I think we can agree that Sebastian Cabot and Phil Harris' performances a Bagheera and Baloo carried the movie. Mowgli is far smarter here, comes up with a lot of plans that help him succeed. By the time he goes with Bagheera on his journey, you've already grown to like him.
Also, keep in mind that this is Seethi's first role in a feature-length film. He not only had to pull off a good performance working against a green screen and alongside mo-cap suited stunt people and actors, he's in almost every scene. He may not blow you away with his performance, but we should be grateful that it is more than solid enough. I sincerely wish him the best and hope that he will give us many more good performances in the future.
The supporting cast is unanimously good. Bill Murray is great as Baloo, clearly having a great time as the good ole "papa bear". Kingsley gives Bagheera the proper sense of wisdom and stoicness. Kaa has surprisingly little screentime in the movi but Johansson's great acting makes the snake's presence unforgettable.
Idris Elba as Shere Khan. This is the only casting choice that I disagree with. Elba is very good, don't get me wrong. He gives the villain a lot of appropriate maliciousness and barely controlled rage, not to mention a disturbing amount of cunning. But I think this role would have suited a voice actor known for playing great villains, like Clancy Brown or Kevin Michael Richardson. Elba makes Shere Khan sound like a West End thug all the time. There's nothing necessarily wrong with that.
But for me, what made George Sanders performance so good is that he made Khan sound like a charming old English gentleman. Until the mask comes off and the claws com out at the end. The Khan in the original movie could give you a false sense of security, and also make you laugh at an animal that had impeccable manners. So in my opinion, Sanders is the superior villain. Feel free to disagree with me.
Christopher Walken is great as King Louie. Not only is he very kooky (of course), but King Louie's motivation for getting Mowgli to give him the secret of making fire is given an interesting twist in this version. He comes across more like a gigantic hairy mob boss wanting to expand his territory than the wacky Beatnik musician of the '67 film. I mean no disrespect meant towards the great Louie Prima. His cameo is still one my favorite scenes in a Disney film.
Oh, and the action. The action is great! While the action in the original was more lighthearted (even the finale put in some slapstick and jokes so the kids wouldn't get too scared), the action scenes here are more elaborate, edge of your seat thrill rides. The final fight between Mowgli & Khan is far superior to the original movie's ending. Even if your brain is telling you that you are watching CGI animals fight in a CGI jungle, it is impossible to remember that fact as you watch. It's all so photo-realistic and visceral and fast-paced that you will get pulled in and be invested in what is happening on screen.
Now on to my complaints. Yep, I got complaints, even after gushing about this thing for so long. No film is perfect.
The musical numbers should have been scrapped. I like the musical numbers of the original a lot. But Murray and Walken for all their talents, cannot sing worth a damn. The inclusion of the songs is even more baffling for three reasons. One, they come out of nowhere and wreck the mood of the scene(s) they are in. Johansson's cover of "Trust in Me" is left for the credits anyway, and "I Wanna Be Like You" also gets a reprise as well. Two, they don't use the full lyrics of the songs. If you're going to put in fanservice, go all out or don't bother. And three, the vultures and elephants just have cameos. They don't have lines let alone musical numbers What about their songs? Heck, the vultures gave us a great comedic scene in the '67 movie. How come the screenwriters only put them in for a few seconds? You could've made a parody One Direction instead of basing them off of the Beatles. It would've been funnier than the original. C'mon, where's the love for the carrion eaters?
Hmm, what else? Well, Seethi isn't great in every scene. He's a kid, he's got plenty of time to learn the ropes. Bagheera has less screen time than the original too. Kingsley plays the part well. It's just that Cabot had much more good dialogue to work with in my opinion.
A few of the scenes might drag a bit for some people, but I was never bored or annoyed with the pacing. Everything just looked too damn good to get bored. Every time a new animal appeared on screen I wondered how in the hell had the animators had made it look so real.
So, with all that said, this should be required watching, not just for Disney fans new and old, but also for screenwriters. This is how you do a reboot, so please take notes and put those notes in your portable hard drive for safekeeping, Hollywood. Only The Dark Knight, Mad Max: Fury Road and The Mask of Zorro are higher on my list of reboots. And my friends let me tell you, that is a very short list. Too often reboots fail to please old fans, and bring in too few new ones. This movie succeeds at both, and seems to do so easily, which still feels shocking to say, I mus admit.
I think that by the end of the year, The Jungle Book will still be on critics' Top 10 lists, including mine; and we still have a long ways to go before Oscars season.
My doubts about the live-action Disney remakes may have been largely put to rest because of this film, but I still know one thing for certain. Warner Bros. cannot possibly do better than this.
Let's just hope the Tarzan franchise is in equally capable hands.
