The strangest thing I find about Disney doing remakes of their animated films, but in live-action is that it seems more unnecessary in a different way. Many of the stories Disney uses aren't their own. They add their own things to them, but they didn't overtly create them. That's actually what public domain's amazing existence is for. Disney added their own touches to these stories to make them memorable. So to me, Disney can , and actually in the case of "The Jungle Book" make a second/third etc. movie based off a public domain story not having to tie into their original animated movie. I think that would have softened the blow on some of the reactions to some of the remakes, they shouldn't have been remakes.
To "The Jungle Book" itself. The Jungle Book is the name of a collection of short stories and poems put together and published in 1894. Created by Rudyard Kipling. There's also a second book called The Second Jungle Book. The concept being about an Indian boy named Mowgli who is an orphan being raised in the jungle by animals, but also having to understand the concept of what it is to be man. It provides a sense of pure boyhood in a world of present danger and action. It also has fairy tale like sensibility. It's an easily adaptable thing where people can put their own touches on it.
The Jungle Book was adapted into the visual medium of movies and television. This brings us to Disney's 1967 movie. That movie has the distinction of being the last Walt Disney , the man, produced film. He died during the movie's production. They did their own things with it to make a fleshed out story, and included some songs. This was actually before Jungle Book went into public domain, which is also interesting. (It went public domain in 1969 back under the good old rules)
Travel by Bear it's cheap/ Copyright Disney
Disney, did of course, make some changes to the original text for their movie. First off , the original book(s) are more a collection of stories so they needed a narrative that fit the structure of a movie. And Mowgli had to wear like something. Eventually, the source material become public domain and others did their own takes on the story. This even us back to Disney. Disney made a couple animated series connected to the story and then even jumped back into movies. They made a 1994 live-action film, going in the zone having an adult Mowgli and using more of the 2nd book as their reference. Disney was really only a funder of that movie. They did make The Jungle Book: Mowgli's Story in 1998 that is live-action story based off the Jungle Book, but not a live-action remake of their movie from 1967. [might come up again here one day] The 1967 movie did get one of the famous Disney direct to video sequels with Jungle Book II. Now, after all that, here we are.
I , personally, like this movie. I don't think they needed to be like it's a live-action remake of their 1967 movie, and could have 1998 themselves and done another live-action story of the Jungle Book. I think there's room and flexibility for that. Disney does also believe that they have strong animated movies and wanted to use that as the basis for their remakes. It's like Mountain Dew is strong, let's make Code Red.
In 2013 Disney announced that this movie was in development. Justin Marks was tasked with writing it. I like how this is the 2nd ever movie he wrote. Jon Favreau was the director and producer. As I do this post, to keep it from being annoying, especially to me, I'm not going to do comparisons to the original film, except when something comes up like a song or a moment, or a detail, but otherwise, it's not that necessary. I won't be comparing to any other adaptations, and I may mention the original stories, but probably not. I'm mentioning here that this version is longer by 28 minutes, which also makes me wonder, 78 minutes wasn't a bad length for a movie, we used to be a real country.
The intro takes a nice way of taking the Disney movie intro and shifts it right into the title of the movie. I know the "live-action" Lion King remake from 2019 is noted for somehow being called that , whilst the entire film is just animated and realistic looking animals. There's no actual animals and there's no human people in the movie. This movie would be the test movie for the way that movie would done. This one was done where everything in the movie is animated, the locations, plants, trees, etc. and the animals. Only Mowgli is an actual human acting on a set that was green screen with puppets and real water used to help make sure the actor, would be able to interact with something to make sure the tangible met up with the intangible.
The filming looks like it would be insane out of context
In terms of how the movie looks, it looks good. There's really nothing that takes you out of the film and make you think computer mostly film, except maybe the animals. In the original movie , of course, the animals are drawn so they are allowed to be have some creative liberties for expressions and movements. Here hey went for realism. Bagheera, the black panther, looks like a black panther, movies like one, and has the normal face of one. He's not doing expressions like a full cartoon version of him would. The wolves look like wolves, etc. Whatever Bagheera is feeling isn't expressive in his face. Shere Khan looks like a tiger, well yeah he is a tiger, but he's only really threating and scary because he's a dang tiger. That to me is a weakness of the movie, but understandable. They couldn't make the animals too cartoon like to fit in with a real human, and this is not new for live-action Jungle Book films. It works better here than in Lion King 2019 because well, there's at least a human here to bring in the emotions and connection to the film. I do think that something is missing about the coloring at times, though not as bad as some other later movies but it is strange how much we have HD and stuff and yet color and brightness seems to be scary to do. The 1967 movie was colorful, at least this one wasn't like woah you should have just done this in black and white.
The movie starts with Mowgli , played by Neel Sethi , is running with wolves. It makes you think he's running from something dangerous, but really he's running from a black panther that being Bagheera. He's doing wolf lessons, which is interesting. One of the themes in this movie is that wolves and Bagheera are bothered that Mowgli does his own things when thinking about stuff and not doing typical wolf things. It's an understandable thing because they don't want the boy to rock the animal boat.
That's a big wolf/ Copyright Disney
Neel Sethi does a good job in this movie. The actor had to play a role where he was in a blue room talking to puppets and pretending he was walking on dirt and grass and wear just a red thingy so there's a commitment to this role. He does look very much like Mowgli from the 1967 movie. Not the most expressive acting, but he had to use the power of imagination harder.
It's the dry season (isn't it always) and the animals of different kinds are united a peace to get the remaining water, like real animals. It also seems that the wolf pack has mostly kept Mowgli out of sight if they are telling him that most of the other animals haven't seen a man-cub. For like at least the years he's been with them. I like how the animals know the other kinds of animals names given by humans. This peace and fun has been interrupted by Shere Khan. The tiger has a noticeable scar and blinded eye, and is very threating. He hates humans , justifiability. Idris Elba was a great pick for the voice of this character, he brings the threatening deep voice. He says he'll respect the truce, but when the rain comes he's going to kill Mowgli.
Mowgli I am your father! Wait no I killed your father and I want revenge for uh him being mad at me for me trying to kill him for no reason. / Copyright Disney
In the direction of it's mentioned then it's happening, the rain comes. the wolves decide if they are going to let Mowgli stay with them or heed the tiger's warning and get him to safety and for their own safety. Mowgli decides to tell the wolf pack that he's leaving. Raksha, the female wolf that adopted him, wants him to stay. In this movie she was given much more of a role compared to the 1967 movie and close to the book role. She is very much protective of Mowgli and defends him as her own cub. Giving her much more screentime and an arc.
Bagheera decides that he'll leave. I do like the motivations of the wolves here. There's a rightful worry about the looming threat and they hope that peace will be upon them if they do his demand. There is a sense of dread in a few ways including for the wolves that do care about Mowgli. The Mowgli here is played a little bit more mature as he takes the hard decision to leave the only family he knew for the value of keeping them alive and safe. It is interesting to note he didn't realize that he didn't know he was going to be brought back to the man village. He wants to stay in the jungle, but Bagheera says he in danger as long as he's in the jungle.
Shere Khan shows up and fights Bagheera, but he has Mowgli on his mind and the boy runs. The tiger gets caught off guard as he gets hit by stampeding water buffalo. (Silly tiger, this movie is only 21 minutes in, you don't get to even try to kill Mowgli yet. ) He decides fine, he's going to harass some wolves then. (as one does) Akela tells him that he has no reason to be there as the boy is gone and therefore no reason to quarrel. His motivation is silly but simple, he just wants Mowgli dead because he associates him with man and all man are a threat to him. He decides to straight up kill Akela.
Disney's Garfield and Odie coming in 2028 some how/ Copyright Disney
This is the movie being serious, the wolf is dead, there's no he's coming back , he was thrown off a cliff. In the original stories has a bigger role and closeness to Mowgli and dies but not the same way as here, and doesn't die in the 1967 movie. This is the movie's way saying it's a serious movie, and that Mowgli is in real danger that he'll have to work against or else he will die. Shere Khan really just wanted Mowgli, not gone, but turned over to him to kill him so he's going to be around for awhile.
Mowgli is alone and it's time for a strange scene. So this the part where Mowgli meets Kaa, the snake, who of course wants to eat him. In this movie the snake is made a female and is voiced by Scarlett Johansson. The atmosphere plays as a character here, it's misty part of the jungle, with shadows and only drips of light. Johansson's voice tone is echo-y and very mysterious as she hides in the shadows pretending to be a comfort to Mowgli then appears out of no where. It is scary because snake, it also probably the first time one of their animals kind of feel not real. Kaa tells Mowgli about the red flower, fire, and also gives the backstory of his life to him which is helpful.
My dog when I have food/ Copyright Disney
In the backstory, Mowgli's father was protecting him from Shere Khan but gets killed. But it also explains his scars and half blindness thanks to the fire. The toddler Mowgli gets found by Bagheera. Thanks for the back story, but she is putting a squeeze on the boy and planning to eat him. But then a bear shows up!
Bill Murray... more like Bill Furry/ Copyright Disney
We don't know if Baloo killed Kaa or not. I'm going to assume that she's dead. This movie's kill count is something. Baloo has brought Mowgli to his cave. I'm not sure Mowgli should trust a bear voiced by Bill Murray, I've seen "Ghostbusters. He wants Mowgli to do something for him after saving his life, he wants honey. Because bears want honey? Baloo kind of changes the energy of the movie. He makes the tone more light hearted after all the tense drama and him even showing up growling and possibly killing a snake, it's very interesting that shift changes to now the movie is him convincing Mowgli to go to live bees to get honey. I like Bill Murray as a bear, that's what this Baloo is. Mowgli and him are an interesting duo and I'm glad this version made sure to let them be close. Though it's not a natural friendship at start as Baloo really is using the boy for his own bear needs.
Back to the other tone of the movie where Shere Khan has more patience than most and even seems to be talking to wolf pups which would be a comfy scene if he wasn't talking in allegory and being threatening. He's playing the long game and also being lazy in looking for the boy himself.
The tonal differences of this movie is wild near this point as it goes back Mowgli having fun with Baloo and they even brought in the song "The Bare Necessities". It did play well as apparently Mowgli has never heard music before, I'm wondering how Baloo has heard music before, and where's that movie? Bagheera isn't dead and has found Mowgli. I like how he treated this all as just a minor inconvenience and says let's go back to our plans.
They re-did the thing, hey it's alright to make blue water, guys/ Copyright Disney
Guess I'll talk little more about the aspects the movie here too. Baloo's model also uses motion capture. So they were able to give him some Bill Murray expressions. They didn't the movie to over rely on this tech, because yeah I'd see why there are other movies that are good examples of using it the whole way and being very off putting. I do like here that it personifies Baloo to make him more personable to interact with with.
Bagheera isn't happy that Mowgli is using his "tricks" in the jungle to help Baloo who lied about getting ready for hibernation. I like that his motivations in this movie are to protect Mowgli since he has the most attachment to him; doesn't want him not acting like an animal because he doesn't want the boy to bothered by the animals and get hurt. Mowgli doesn't fully understand this as he wouldn't and makes nice tension.
These are parents/ Copyright Disney
Bagheera and Baloo have a time to talk to each other. I find it interesting that they know each other already. Bagheera tells him that Akela is dead and the best interest for Mowgli to go be with the humans. Even with the bear face, I can get the feelings that Baloo doesn't want to shoo the boy away, but he understands what he has to do.
We need something else to happen and that's Mowgli to get kidnapped by monkeys. This movie has really done the idea of not being dark and gritty, not being exactly like stories that could tend that direction. It's not light like the 1967 movie, it had a death happen a character is killed. It wants to play things very strictly to the idea of it being a little I'd say darker, to make a kid feel grown up watching it, but it does get goofy at a couple points. Wonderfully goofy.
Before that set up , I have to mention King Louie. In this movie the director didn't have him be an Orangutan because they aren't in India. To be fair, neither are talking bears, and made him a Gigantopithecus which wouldn't be around when the movie takes place; it wouldn't be around now either, unless you are reading this in the future and some guy decided we needed them back as you are calling an insurance claim on your car after a Wolly Mammoth has squished it. (hate when that happens)
I have to commend the idea of having Christopher Walken be the voice of King Louie, thank you to whomever did that decision. As I said before, this is where the movie does the strangest and goofiest thing of the entire existence. Now, really only incorporated two songs from the 1967 movie. The last song was "The Bare Necessities" and they kept in "I Wanna Be Like You". Having the first song kind of fits into the plot, it shows the more relaxed part of the movie as Mowgli and Baloo bond and helps as Baloo shows him the way of the bear. Here though, it's stranger to have the famous song by King Louie.
They tease a bit, where they keep King Louie in shadow, he's big and it's intimidating to the smaller human boy. It's well done. It's funny they decided to have Christopher Walken King Louie kind of speaking like he's Marlon Brando because sure and a mob boss. He wants know how to make fire, because Mowgli is a human and all humans know how to make fire. (It's true, it burns in all of us, when we're born we want to burn down things in our hearts) Mogwai says he doesn't know how and was instructed to not touch the red flower, but Louie doesn't believe him. We get the sillies thing they did, but I love it having Walken sing the song. It's silly, doesn't fit the tone of the movie, but I love it and glad they made this decision because it's just so strange and we needed it.
80% of this movie is something imposingly looking at Mowgli
Baloo walks in and makes sure to get Mowgli back. Not often there's a movie where Walken and Murray are in together in some way. Louie really wants the fire and chases still and then we get the moment that Mowgli finds out that Akela has been killed. Mowgli thinks he's lying and runs. Does King Louie die? The temple collapses and the movie wants us to wonder if Mowgli dies, but the movie is probably not going to let him die, I'm just wondering the death count here, is King Louie dead? Mowgli is mad that no one told him that Akela was killed and he's going to do something about it.
Pictured how the 2028 Olympic Opening ceremony will look, no change, Copyright Disney
Bagheera has decided that he has to let Mowgli be more human and tells him to fight Shere Khan like a man not like a wolf. The boy ends up luring Shere Khan to the top of the trees and finds a weaker branch to lure him to and this is how Shere Khans dies.
Frosted Flakes aren't really GREAAAAAAAAT/ Copyright Disney
There's always been different types of how this character has been delt with across the adaptations. In the 1967 movie fire was used there too, but mostly to scare off the tiger and that movie doesn't have the kill count this version has. The 1994 live-action movie makes them friends at some point, which is a direction. The idea of Mowgli using his human brain to kill him is interesting. Mowgli comes back and makes sure they put out fire there . (Only you can stop forest fires)
The other difference to this movie is what Mowgli does in the conclusion. Instead of having him see a girl like in the 1967 movie or have him return to man village he stays in the jungle and is allowed to not have to act like a wolf. It's kind of an interesting ending as it diverts in it's own way, but it fits for a movie where that was his goal, not to go with humans. I think this ending could be controversial in that feels like it keeps Mowgli stunted, but the movie's development here was to let Mowgli be more accepted as who/what he is versus trying have him conform to wolf/animal ways. There's also the idea that he has ideas and thoughts to do things his own way that can be expressed.
This a beautiful looking movie and I think that's the strongest part of it. That's probably its biggest selling point. I think the story is fine, it's in-between the original stories and the idea that Disney wanted to remake their 1967 movie, but this kind of uses the least amount of hallmarks from that movie. That actually benefits it. There's no reason to remake a movie and do it with shot for shot sameness. There is a problem where many of the Disney ones try too hard to go shot for shot but then do random changes to feel it's justified. I think this one decides to really use only a few from the movie its a remake of, but strongly trends to being it's own thing.
The End not an MGM movie/ Copyright Disney
I enjoy this movie it's fun. I liked the charm of the movie and even love the strange decision of having Christopher Walken sing a song. I need that strangeness inserted. I think it's a strong movie that kind of holds it's own standing without feeling too much like it's just a live-action remake of a great classic movie. It also feels like the creativeness was allowed to shine and not a corporate feeling which is something that more later Disney seems to have a problem of doing to their films and these remakes. I think, they really should have done movies with the public domain stories and just went wild with them. Especially the fairy tale ones that have some original dark endings. Oh well.
The voice acting was really strong in this movie as well, and I liked the version of Mowgli in this. Provides a nice balance of childishness but growing maturity.
That does it for now, tune in next time, when we write that fire departments should rebrand to red flower departments.
No comments:
Post a Comment