The Jungle Book Review - Misleading but Good

Sometimes, even Disney can get carried away. They chose to call their newest spin on The Jungle Book a "live action" film. That implies real actors, real settings, and real animals being involved in the production process. Everything listed there, except for the actor (Neel Sethi) playing Mowgli, is far from anything we would see in a natural location. The movie is built around animated figures, who might possess the movement patterns of their actual counterparts, which look like they should be featured in a Disney Animation production.

Now, imagine a scenario where an entertainment kingpin hasn't misled you into believing the movie depicted real-life action. After that, eliminate any notions of the movie seriously addressing the environmental and endangered species issues present in our society. Yes, the setting is supposed to be in nature, but still cut out those political expectations. If you can do this, then you will find The Jungle Book remake to be a competently carried-out and entertaining film.

Sorry folks, this isn't a live action film. But, hey, it's still good!

At the risk of being obvious, perhaps, let us say the creative minds who turned out the picture were successful because they didn't deviate too much from the original animated feature. That starts with the writing. Justin Marks's screenplay is light, tight, and hits all of the right notes. There's essentially no self-gratuitous fat, a trap filmmakers all too often fall into.

Jon Favreau's capable direction was also definitely a positive. He doesn't veer off on tangents and chose to keep just enough of the 1967 version's music, especially the "Bare Necessities," which is one of the main reasons why it remains an endearing and indelible piece of animated cinema. Although Favreau makes it clear throughout that this isn't a musical, the music keeps the film tied to its lighter roots.

Let the cat fight commence!

Where this version sets itself apart is in the tone. While obviously upbeat at various points, the majority of the movie is shrouded in darkness and danger. That seems to fit right in with the story's central point - a hunt. Shere Khan, the ruthless (British) tiger, is hell-bent on killing the "man-cub" Mowgli. That hunt is always in the background. Also, the natural world is not kind to the lone human character. It's always fighting him and making life difficult for him. This lends a cynical edge to the generally heartwarming Disney story.

Another aspect that cannot be overlooked is the voice cast. Almost every actor plays their role to perfection. Idris Elba gives Shere Khan the brutal British bite that George Sanders did before him and Ben Kingsley's Bagheera is the epitome of a sagely panther. Bill Murray is perfect for the "Bare Necessities" spouting Baloo, who happens to be a shade more opportunist in this version than the original. Not to be overlooked are Lupita Nyong'o as Raksha the wolf who raises Mowgli, Christopher Walken as the large monkey King Louie, and Scarlett Johansson, who gives Kaa a seductive element.

Tell me, does that look real?

For those of you who know the story, there's no need for a summary. For those of you who don't, there won't be any spoilers here.

What should be mentioned, however, is that this film seems to be less about humanity's relationship to nature or the environment and more about religion. The metaphors appear to point upward (if you will) rather than around us. Mowgli can be seen as a messianic figure who unites individuals from a multitude of backgrounds. Also, since the elephants seem to be the powerful, omniscient creator figures, Mowgli's ability to gain their trust and get close to them like no one else can would add greater weight to the messiah view.

Anyway, here's the final word. 2016's Jungle Book is definitely worth seeing.

Review: Eye in the Sky - Politics and the Cost of War Collide

In context of the Middle Eastern drone strikes and the ISIS situation, Eye in the Sky is the most timely film released for some time. The One Entertainment and Raindog Films production zeroes in on of the elements that seems to get lost in war (and war films) - the value of a single life - especially where the video game feel of a drone strike is concerned. There are Shabab terrorists preparing for a suicide bombing in a Nairobi, Kenya "safe-house" and something has to be done to stop them, but there's a little girl's life at risk. This initiates the political, ethical, and humanistic debacle that drives the film forward.

A job well done.

There's a line in the historical drama Hotel Rwanda regarding terrorist attacks and distant killings: "If people see this...they'll say, 'Oh my God that's horrible,' and then go on eating their dinners." The cynical statement fits right in with the politicians' sentiments in the Eye in the Sky, albeit with a revised ending clause. They are afraid the people will vote them out, should a single drone strike kill anyone other than the intended targets.

For the military personnel involved, who only want to take action, one gets the sense that some won't be able to eat their dinner. The others capable of doing so are those who have been around and experienced firsthand "the cost of war." That cost - be it humanity, life, or reputation - is undoubtedly a central theme behind the movie.

The titular "eye in the sky" overlooking its target.

Eye in the Sky is both a war film and a political drama, and it is focused entirely on the ordering of one drone strike. The writing, carried out by Guy Hibbert, is tight and suspenseful despite the minimal physical action involved. Hibbert tells a cerebral story about decision-making and political responsibility, or lack thereof.

This film is also buoyed by an excellent directing job by Gavin Hood, whose work on Ender's Game appears to have served him sell. He infuses every situation with conflict. Nothing comes easy for the characters, and nothing should when there is a hard call to make. The consequences are large and as awful as they are noble, an ambivalence that is captured perfectly by Hood's skilled direction.

Additionally, all is well on the acting front, though the film has no real "star." Helen Mirren's performance as Col. Catherine Powell is sharp and she portrays a commander's frustration with her superior's inaction genuinely. Aaron Paul (of Breaking Bad fame) is also excellent in his role as a drone pilot and Pheobe Fox plays his new recruit co-pilot with weepy solidity. The politicians, who repeatedly pass-on responsibility to others, are portrayed in a capable fashion by the ensemble cast. The best performance, however, arguably comes from the recently deceased Alan Rickman, whose Lt. General Frank Benson has to deal directly with the political game of hot potato. It's unfortunate that there will be no further performances from the man.

Alan Rickman turns in a stellar performance.

Another area where Eye in the Sky succeeds is in its tight, cohesion. The stage is immediately set and virtually no time is wasted, unlike other films which choose to focus on the action side. There is one goal, kill the targets via drone strike, and there is one obstacle, a girl. The result is riveting and thought provoking.