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.