Andy Serkis had a fantastic dark take on the legend of Moglwi. Finally Netflix produced a good movie that strongly differs from Disney's version of Jungle Book.
531 Reviews
Great
nickdinicola2 December 2018
lush jungle, terrific voices
ferguson-67 December 2018
Greetings from the darkness. If your idea of "The Jungle Book" is Phil Harris' Baloo singing a bouncy and memorable rendition of "The Bare Necessities" in 1967, or Christopher Walken voicing a giant orangutan in 2016, then be forewarned about this latest version of Rudyard Kipling's classic stories ... it's dark and, at times, terrifying. It's rated PG-13 to keep young kids away, so please keep your young kids away! One additional warning: this version is spectacular to look at and listen to.
Of course the story is quite familiar to most, but two things really stand out here: the amazing voice acting of the world class cast, and the look of the lush jungle with its vivid colors and textures. Director Andy Serkis is renowned for his stunning motion-capture work in such franchises as PLANET OF THE APES, LORD OF THE RINGS, and Peter Jackson's KING KONG (2005) ... along with many others ... and for this project, he combines his motion-capture Baloo with top notch CGI, and the live performance of young Rohan Chand (THE HUNDRED FOOT JOURNEY) as Mowgli, the man cub.
The voice acting is worth raving about. We first hear Cate Blanchett as Kaa, the ancient python, and within the first two minutes of the opening, we are captivated. Other standouts include an unnerving and intimidating Benedict Cumberbatch as Shere Khan, the always-threatening Tiger, Christian Bale (periodically lapsing into Batman voice) as the growling black panther Bagheera, Naomie Harris as Nisha the mother wolf, and a terrific Peter Mullan as lead wolf Akela. The deep cast also includes the voices of Jack Reynor, Eddie Marsan and Tom Hollander, while Matthew Rhys ("The Americans") appears as the hired tiger hunter, and Freida Pinto (SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE) appears as Mowgli's caretaker in the man village.
Many scenes are particularly captivating - some are exciting, while others quite scary. The "no rules" monkeys are comedic relief ... right up until they kick off one of the darkest segments of the film. And there is an ongoing theme of the fine line between being 'special', 'different', or a 'freak', and the lessons learned here would be valuable for kids ... if this were a kids' movie ... which it's NOT! Although it's difficult to discern the intended audience for this film, it's quite a visual spectacle and entertaining from beginning to end.
Of course the story is quite familiar to most, but two things really stand out here: the amazing voice acting of the world class cast, and the look of the lush jungle with its vivid colors and textures. Director Andy Serkis is renowned for his stunning motion-capture work in such franchises as PLANET OF THE APES, LORD OF THE RINGS, and Peter Jackson's KING KONG (2005) ... along with many others ... and for this project, he combines his motion-capture Baloo with top notch CGI, and the live performance of young Rohan Chand (THE HUNDRED FOOT JOURNEY) as Mowgli, the man cub.
The voice acting is worth raving about. We first hear Cate Blanchett as Kaa, the ancient python, and within the first two minutes of the opening, we are captivated. Other standouts include an unnerving and intimidating Benedict Cumberbatch as Shere Khan, the always-threatening Tiger, Christian Bale (periodically lapsing into Batman voice) as the growling black panther Bagheera, Naomie Harris as Nisha the mother wolf, and a terrific Peter Mullan as lead wolf Akela. The deep cast also includes the voices of Jack Reynor, Eddie Marsan and Tom Hollander, while Matthew Rhys ("The Americans") appears as the hired tiger hunter, and Freida Pinto (SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE) appears as Mowgli's caretaker in the man village.
Many scenes are particularly captivating - some are exciting, while others quite scary. The "no rules" monkeys are comedic relief ... right up until they kick off one of the darkest segments of the film. And there is an ongoing theme of the fine line between being 'special', 'different', or a 'freak', and the lessons learned here would be valuable for kids ... if this were a kids' movie ... which it's NOT! Although it's difficult to discern the intended audience for this film, it's quite a visual spectacle and entertaining from beginning to end.
Could be better
ercfunk-445-9500469 December 2018
It seems to have most of the elements that could make it a good movie but falls just a little short. One of the things that's odd is the CGI. It's not bad quality as the textures and color look good, but the shapes seem off. Shere Kahn's head seemed oddly wide, the wolves looked cat-like, Baloo looked like a post apocalyptic bear or something. The story and acting were decent.
Great potential, poor execution
lewiswalters9514 December 2018
Warning: Spoilers
A few things bothered me about this film. The script seemed slightly lazy, either that or the editing made it feel chopped. The performance for the main character was iffy at best and his character arc in certain parts is quite strange. But the main thing that's stuck with me, BHOOT.
I can't stop thinking about it. Why oh why did they kill off this character? Especially in the way they did it. He's the one character that you want to rise above all of the harsh treatment throughout the whole film, especially after the scene where Mowgli literally breaks his heart into two. The next thing we see of him, he's just dead all of a sudden, like wtf?
If this was the only criticism of the whole film then I could let it slide, but this is the main highlight of the poorly executed script from a film that showed a lot of potential
I can't stop thinking about it. Why oh why did they kill off this character? Especially in the way they did it. He's the one character that you want to rise above all of the harsh treatment throughout the whole film, especially after the scene where Mowgli literally breaks his heart into two. The next thing we see of him, he's just dead all of a sudden, like wtf?
If this was the only criticism of the whole film then I could let it slide, but this is the main highlight of the poorly executed script from a film that showed a lot of potential
Different from the Disney´s Version
claudio_carvalho16 December 2018
"Mowgli" is an 1894 character that became famous through Disney Studios that used the public domain to promote the character. However this film is darker and different from the Disney´s version. The voices of Christian Bale, Cate Blanchett and Benedict Cumberbatch are impressive and give life to Bagheera, Kaa and Shere Khan. My vote is seven.
Title (Brazil): "Mogli: Entre Dois Mundos" ("Mowgli: Between Two Worlds")
Title (Brazil): "Mogli: Entre Dois Mundos" ("Mowgli: Between Two Worlds")
Bhoot
luciabcn8614 December 2018
Warning: Spoilers
I can't even think about the majority of the film because I'm just heartbroken about Bhoot. Poor little Bhoot. I spent the rest of the movie since the scene where Mowgli broke his friend's heart worrying about him and waiting for the make up scene, only to find his head on a stick. I don't understand what kind of sick plot twist this is. Doesn't the director realise there are animal loving happy-ending desiring viewers out there? I mean i might expect it if it was some war movie or such like, but its the jungle book. I kind of thought cute innocent animals would be safe. Not happy. I desire a post-credit confirmation that at least it was not Bhoot in the hunter's collection but some other albino wolf. And poor Bhoot's mum who was trying to protect his feelings. I mean sheeesh. Not cool Jungle Book. Not cool.
Isn't Realised To Its Full Potential
CinemaClown8 December 2018
Packing a far better & more involving story than its Disney counterpart yet failing to make the most of all that was up for grabs, Mowgli (also known as Mowgli: Legend of the Jungle) presents a more feral take on Rudyard Kipling's classic fable but still hesitates to embrace its darker retelling as it holds back when it needs to pounce.
The story of Mowgli follows the upbringing of a human kid who's raised by a pack of wolves as one of their own and learns about the harsh but sacred jungle laws under the tutelage of a bear & a black panther. But when his life is threatened by a Bengal Tiger, he's forced to leave the community and must face the truth about his human origins.
Directed by Andy Serkis, the mature themes at play here coupled with more serious approach than earlier adaptations only means that this tale had far greater potential than anyone realised. And it would've absolutely decimated Jon Favreau's take had Serkis managed to refine the narrative and rid the plot of tonal issues that plague it throughout.
Employing motion-capture to make sure the actors' renditions are reflected in their CGI roles, the facial attributes of few animal characters resemble the actors playing them to such an extent that it's somewhat distracting at times. Visual effects isn't up to the mark either, for the CGI looks cartoonish on few occasions while other times it is seamless.
The film attempts to dig into the struggle of a human boy trying to pass as a wolf but in the end, it turns out to be a quick skim instead of a deeper examination. However, the man-cub acts more primal & animalistic in this version, which actually is a much better & more realistic portrait of a character who grew up in a jungle alongside wild animals.
The acting department includes actors performing in live-action, rendering their act with motion capture & lending their voices to their CGI characters and many do well in their respective roles. Christian Bale is quite assuring as Bagheera. Andy Serkis is having too much fun as Baloo. And though Benedict Cumberbatch is fascinating as Shere Khan, he overdoes it at times.
Rohan Chand plays the eponymous character and he is outstanding in the role, far better than that forgettable kid in Disney's live-action flick. Freida Pinto & Matthew Rhys chip in with fine work in their human roles. The background score also lands on the positive side. But the film isn't savage enough, refusing to dig its teeth & rip off the flesh from the body, and that is disappointing.
On an overall scale, Mowgli tackles an ambitious, audacious & far more appealing side of Rudyard Kipling's magnum opus but its improper execution & uneven tone prevents it from realising its full potential. Failing to strike an emotional chord in a way that resonates strongly with the heart, Mowgli has its shares of ups n downs but its interpretation of the famous mythology is actually more interesting than the last attempt. Worth a shot, despite the shortcomings.
The story of Mowgli follows the upbringing of a human kid who's raised by a pack of wolves as one of their own and learns about the harsh but sacred jungle laws under the tutelage of a bear & a black panther. But when his life is threatened by a Bengal Tiger, he's forced to leave the community and must face the truth about his human origins.
Directed by Andy Serkis, the mature themes at play here coupled with more serious approach than earlier adaptations only means that this tale had far greater potential than anyone realised. And it would've absolutely decimated Jon Favreau's take had Serkis managed to refine the narrative and rid the plot of tonal issues that plague it throughout.
Employing motion-capture to make sure the actors' renditions are reflected in their CGI roles, the facial attributes of few animal characters resemble the actors playing them to such an extent that it's somewhat distracting at times. Visual effects isn't up to the mark either, for the CGI looks cartoonish on few occasions while other times it is seamless.
The film attempts to dig into the struggle of a human boy trying to pass as a wolf but in the end, it turns out to be a quick skim instead of a deeper examination. However, the man-cub acts more primal & animalistic in this version, which actually is a much better & more realistic portrait of a character who grew up in a jungle alongside wild animals.
The acting department includes actors performing in live-action, rendering their act with motion capture & lending their voices to their CGI characters and many do well in their respective roles. Christian Bale is quite assuring as Bagheera. Andy Serkis is having too much fun as Baloo. And though Benedict Cumberbatch is fascinating as Shere Khan, he overdoes it at times.
Rohan Chand plays the eponymous character and he is outstanding in the role, far better than that forgettable kid in Disney's live-action flick. Freida Pinto & Matthew Rhys chip in with fine work in their human roles. The background score also lands on the positive side. But the film isn't savage enough, refusing to dig its teeth & rip off the flesh from the body, and that is disappointing.
On an overall scale, Mowgli tackles an ambitious, audacious & far more appealing side of Rudyard Kipling's magnum opus but its improper execution & uneven tone prevents it from realising its full potential. Failing to strike an emotional chord in a way that resonates strongly with the heart, Mowgli has its shares of ups n downs but its interpretation of the famous mythology is actually more interesting than the last attempt. Worth a shot, despite the shortcomings.
Entertaining, but it's missing something
Dannyboi947 December 2018
Mowgli is definitely not for children, there are scenes where it seems that way, with some cartoon like characters and some of the playful nature of some scenes, but deep down this is dark. You can tell the filmmakers tried to make an even darker film here, but perhaps this suffered along with its troubled production.
Andy Serkis directed this movie, and he does a fine job as his first attempt at a film like this. The motion capture on the animals is fantastic, and each performance is nailed by their actor. With Benedict Cumberbatch being a stand out. You can tell he channelled his inner Smaug for this role. Christian Bale was also fantastic as the panther, Bagheera, as was every other voice actor. But the stand out performance was by the young Rohan Chand. He was brilliant as Mowgli. Not many actors can perform in front of CGI characters and make it work. A lot of people will compare this to the Disney version that came out a few years ago, but that is inevitable, however Rohan gave a far superior performance than the actor who played his counterpart in the Jungle Book.
Most of the other characters were not of much interest, with some of the human characters just standing in the background not doing much. However some scenes with them are haunting, and will leave a mark on you. Dark and twisted scenes play out during these human scenes, with dead animals, showing how cruel humans can be. Not for kids people!
There are some issues with the film, from its off pacing during the first act. A lot of scenes jumped back and forth and it was difficult to tell what was going on at times, but it found its footing half way through. Some of the CGI looked dreadful in scenes, but others - mainly the landscapes, were breathtaking. The human-like CGI animal faces were bizarre at first, but after a time, it kind of worked.
My personal biggest issue with this film is that it lacked any kind of charisma. It felt took dark and bland at times, with little humour. Maybe this is because I couldn't help but compare it to the Jungle Book, like so many others will. It is a shame, because Mowgli is a very entertaining movie, with fantastic performances.
Despite its flaws, Mowgli is a good film, it is a shame it didn't get enough love to be released worldwide, with its full potential, because it could have surpassed the Jungle Book, but it didn't. But nonetheless, Mowgli is entertaining.
7.2/10
Andy Serkis directed this movie, and he does a fine job as his first attempt at a film like this. The motion capture on the animals is fantastic, and each performance is nailed by their actor. With Benedict Cumberbatch being a stand out. You can tell he channelled his inner Smaug for this role. Christian Bale was also fantastic as the panther, Bagheera, as was every other voice actor. But the stand out performance was by the young Rohan Chand. He was brilliant as Mowgli. Not many actors can perform in front of CGI characters and make it work. A lot of people will compare this to the Disney version that came out a few years ago, but that is inevitable, however Rohan gave a far superior performance than the actor who played his counterpart in the Jungle Book.
Most of the other characters were not of much interest, with some of the human characters just standing in the background not doing much. However some scenes with them are haunting, and will leave a mark on you. Dark and twisted scenes play out during these human scenes, with dead animals, showing how cruel humans can be. Not for kids people!
There are some issues with the film, from its off pacing during the first act. A lot of scenes jumped back and forth and it was difficult to tell what was going on at times, but it found its footing half way through. Some of the CGI looked dreadful in scenes, but others - mainly the landscapes, were breathtaking. The human-like CGI animal faces were bizarre at first, but after a time, it kind of worked.
My personal biggest issue with this film is that it lacked any kind of charisma. It felt took dark and bland at times, with little humour. Maybe this is because I couldn't help but compare it to the Jungle Book, like so many others will. It is a shame, because Mowgli is a very entertaining movie, with fantastic performances.
Despite its flaws, Mowgli is a good film, it is a shame it didn't get enough love to be released worldwide, with its full potential, because it could have surpassed the Jungle Book, but it didn't. But nonetheless, Mowgli is entertaining.
7.2/10
This ain't your Disney Jungle Book, and that's wild
francescobrosolo6 December 2018
In performance-capture maestro Andy Serkis' hands, Legends of the Jungle is a darker, more surprising version of The Jungle Book. Get ready to leave behind the jungle of your childhood imagination. You know, the one where you slumber peacefully in a tree bough, waterfalls ain't nothing but slides and you can float downstream resting on the upturned belly of an amiable bear.
It's impossible not to keep comparing Serkis' version of this classic story to Disney's 2016 live-action remake of its own 1967 animated family favorite. In Disney's remake, the animals are remarkably photo-realistic. But Serkis is purposefully trying to achieve something entirely different. The motion capture is used to make the animal characters deeper, richer and almost more recognizably human.
This no doubt presents more of a challenge for the actors than straightforward voice work, and as a result the animals are expressive and affecting. They're more well-rounded and relatable than their Disney counterparts, even if they're not as instantly charming. Christian Bale's nuanced performance as Bagheera the panther and Benedict Cumberbatch's ferocity as tiger Shere Khan are standouts that translate particularly powerfully through the performance capture.
But as you'll have guessed from the film's title, it's not all about the animals. In Disney's version, Mowgli felt more like a narrative device drawing the animals of the jungle together so we could hear their stories. In Serkis' hands, Mowgli is less of an ensemble player. His character development is central to the plot, especially in the second half. The movie feels like a coming-of-age tale as the man-cub seeks to establish his identity as not quite human, not quite wolf -- simultaneously both and neither.
It did come as a surprise when, bang in the middle of the film, the plot veered wildly off course from the familiar narrative the Disney films established atop Kipling's work. Some may hate this startling divergence, but I enjoyed the sudden realization that I didn't know exactly what was going to happen next, especially after being lulled into a false sense of security by familiar opening scenes.
Serkis has made a visually arresting film that Netflix is lucky to have gotten its hands on. It has more than the bear necessities required to put it on your watch list, even if it is lacking the music.
It's impossible not to keep comparing Serkis' version of this classic story to Disney's 2016 live-action remake of its own 1967 animated family favorite. In Disney's remake, the animals are remarkably photo-realistic. But Serkis is purposefully trying to achieve something entirely different. The motion capture is used to make the animal characters deeper, richer and almost more recognizably human.
This no doubt presents more of a challenge for the actors than straightforward voice work, and as a result the animals are expressive and affecting. They're more well-rounded and relatable than their Disney counterparts, even if they're not as instantly charming. Christian Bale's nuanced performance as Bagheera the panther and Benedict Cumberbatch's ferocity as tiger Shere Khan are standouts that translate particularly powerfully through the performance capture.
But as you'll have guessed from the film's title, it's not all about the animals. In Disney's version, Mowgli felt more like a narrative device drawing the animals of the jungle together so we could hear their stories. In Serkis' hands, Mowgli is less of an ensemble player. His character development is central to the plot, especially in the second half. The movie feels like a coming-of-age tale as the man-cub seeks to establish his identity as not quite human, not quite wolf -- simultaneously both and neither.
It did come as a surprise when, bang in the middle of the film, the plot veered wildly off course from the familiar narrative the Disney films established atop Kipling's work. Some may hate this startling divergence, but I enjoyed the sudden realization that I didn't know exactly what was going to happen next, especially after being lulled into a false sense of security by familiar opening scenes.
Serkis has made a visually arresting film that Netflix is lucky to have gotten its hands on. It has more than the bear necessities required to put it on your watch list, even if it is lacking the music.
I really was liking this movie until its dark twist.
jorgeluissal16 December 2018
Warning: Spoilers
I was really enjoying this flick , great plot, it was holding it's own, I wasn't even thinking on the Disney version, till that blasted dark twist
It wasn't necessary to kill Bhoot, he was an adorable character, yes dark and brutal that was the aim but a thing like this can ruin the whole experience, the pup was always cheerful and supportive and then boom here's it's head on a spike, not cool, it should have been a more meaningful death, or no death at all.
It wasn't necessary to kill Bhoot, he was an adorable character, yes dark and brutal that was the aim but a thing like this can ruin the whole experience, the pup was always cheerful and supportive and then boom here's it's head on a spike, not cool, it should have been a more meaningful death, or no death at all.
Close To Beating Faverau's Version
JohnnySlayer1 December 2018
After watching this, I felt really surprised on how good it was. Don't expect it to be too similar to The Jungle Book. Mowgli is a more adult oriented film with some dark tones which I appreciate. I was very more focused on the actors. Everyone stands out. Even some actors that have small, but important roles. The CGI was the only thing that got under my skin. Some scenes had excellent visual effects, then exceptional, and then just plain horrible CGI. It feels like an unfinished film and took me away from the movie for a while. Maybe Warner Bros cut the films cost when they decided to go to Netflix. I feel really sorry for Andy Serkis. If Warner Bros would have let Serkis finish Mowgli. It would have been better than Disney's version and Andy Serkis would get more praise when he clearly earns it.
Darker and grittier Jungle Book tale.
Badsharkmoviefan_1187 December 2018
This is a much darker and grittier "Jungle Book" tale. Very much different from Disney's version. No song and dance musical numbers here. Not suited to children certainly not younger kids anyway.
It's different enough to Disney's version to make it worth watching. You don't feel like you're watching a cheap imitation.
The visuals are great but not quiet Disney great but expected from a lower budget. I don't feel the story was quiet as strong. A solid 7/10 (Jungle Book 9/10).
It's different enough to Disney's version to make it worth watching. You don't feel like you're watching a cheap imitation.
The visuals are great but not quiet Disney great but expected from a lower budget. I don't feel the story was quiet as strong. A solid 7/10 (Jungle Book 9/10).
Should have been great
goldstones-3359210 December 2018
The specials effects are, mostly, amazing, if not incredible,but every now and then they look a little weak. The biggest problem is the plot, it wanders around aimlessly and fails to keep interest alive. It even manages to become stupid and pointless. It is nothing like the original story. I feel sorry for all those involved that they could not see the flaws in the film and the reviewers who have given it a high score are either blind or have chosen to ignore its flaws.
Still pretty good, but the finale is a tad disappointing
alvarax3 April 2023
I watched this in 2018 when it came out but didn't review it; so I rewatched it recently and decided too. Mowgli is enjoyable, the voice acting of the animals is all really good, and Mowgli himself is pretty well casted. The film carries on nicely, it didn't feel too long or too short, Christian Bale as Bagheera was the standout to me, and I didn't really like the voice of Baloo, but he looked pretty good CGI wise. Shere Kahn was all right, Cumberbatch as the voice doesn't really work as well for me, just because I've heard it as Khan and Smaug as well.
Kaa the snake was also really good, probably better than the Disney version. My only disappointment with this film is the climax, I much preferred the 2016 remake finale over this one, as Khan is defeated rather easily in this version. Also, his paw injury is never explained? Unless it's implied that the hunter did it? Still would've liked an explanation. Kahn's hyena friend also seemed to serve no purpose, he doesn't attack Mowgli, and he doesn't seem to plot or scheme to try and harm him in any way.
As with my original viewing of the film, I like it, but I'm unlikely to remember it after a week or so.
Kaa the snake was also really good, probably better than the Disney version. My only disappointment with this film is the climax, I much preferred the 2016 remake finale over this one, as Khan is defeated rather easily in this version. Also, his paw injury is never explained? Unless it's implied that the hunter did it? Still would've liked an explanation. Kahn's hyena friend also seemed to serve no purpose, he doesn't attack Mowgli, and he doesn't seem to plot or scheme to try and harm him in any way.
As with my original viewing of the film, I like it, but I'm unlikely to remember it after a week or so.
A Brutal, Darker, and Flawed Version of The Jungle Book
amirmustafaa8 December 2018
I thought this movie had a few good things going for it. The cinematography was good; there were quite a few good shots here and there. The voice acting was good, and a dark and more brutal version of this story was interesting to watch, but where this movie falls apart is with its plot. The plot is just a little too meandering, and the characters are not fully explored enough to become interesting. Its a good visual experience, but the plot is too weak to be worth revisiting this story after the incredible Jungle Book movie from 2016.
Unique and enjoyable.
Endless_019 July 2019
I am not a very related person to the original works of the Jungle Book, however I believe that this adaptation works as a good form of entertainment expressed in a unique and daring way. It is a film with dark and realistic tones that shows us hard moments to chew and with violent moments and personifications of bloody villains. It is not a gore work, no, but it is a film that manages to manifest itself in a more mature and complete way through a graphic and realistic presentation of wildlife. Obviously, the animals talk and that is not realistic, but it works in the field of the narration of this film, that's what it's all about.
Mowgli is presented with a strong structure and excellent animation works, although somewhat rough at certain moments and slightly inferior to the previous live-action, however, it makes a solid work with special effects and the performance of voices is especially good from all the characters (actors) within the film. The plot is interesting and simple enough to follow with attention and shows us unique and dynamic characters that captivate our eyes and ears. It is an entertaining film, with great potential, perhaps could have been more dramatic or intense, taking a narrative more focused on the evolution of Mowgli as a man, but the film still manages to remain stable with a simple and entertaining premise, as good adaptation, that I do not know, but as a film, it is.
Mowgli is presented with a strong structure and excellent animation works, although somewhat rough at certain moments and slightly inferior to the previous live-action, however, it makes a solid work with special effects and the performance of voices is especially good from all the characters (actors) within the film. The plot is interesting and simple enough to follow with attention and shows us unique and dynamic characters that captivate our eyes and ears. It is an entertaining film, with great potential, perhaps could have been more dramatic or intense, taking a narrative more focused on the evolution of Mowgli as a man, but the film still manages to remain stable with a simple and entertaining premise, as good adaptation, that I do not know, but as a film, it is.
Disapointed
Riamk8 December 2018
Andy Serkis is the most underrated talent in Hollywood!!!
vandrist6 December 2018
Andy Serkis can do it all without drawing much attention or praise to himself. He can act, great voice actor and he's proven that he can direct. Even though they did the remake of The Jungle Book two years ago and I almost always hate remakes so close together. I would gladly say that I am wrong about this one. It was done perfectly and was a completely different spin on it. I would be glad if Andy got another chance at directing another Disney movie, Great job with this one!!!
Probably too violent for your kids
burgosandre-357828 December 2018
Right idea, wrong execution
premkrmufc6 January 2019
The story of this film has a lot of heart and purpose. Andy Serkis really explores the 'human' nature of things. Everything else about the movie seemed rushed, indecisive, and sometimes incoherent. The editing of scenes was particularly below par. The music was forgettable and so were the action sequences. Strangely some CGI is extremely impressive starting with Baloo, on the other hand some characters were like overlays in real environments. The film had a lot of potential with its mature approach to the classic, but in the end was quite a let down.
Disney take note
iammcgale7 December 2018
15 minutes into this movie and Benedict Cumbebatch puts Idris Elba's Shere Khan too shame. This is a very different take on the Kipling and is better of for being different. I do think it's a pity WBs chose not to release this in theatres but being a Netflix release will reach far more people. I highly recommend this movie.
Unnecessary and contrived
Eggoreluckadman16 December 2018
Better watch Wolfgang Reitherman's 1967 animated Jungle Book or wait for Jon Favreau's sequel.
Fella_shibby30 December 2018
Some may complain that it is a very different take from the Disney version. Fine.
Some may complain about the famous song missing. Fine.
Some may complain about the ending being a bit violent. Fine.
Some may complain about the humour missing. Fine.
But at least make it entertaining n not preachy.
The boy who played Mowgli was terrible. His facial expressions n dialogue delivery were horrendous.
Freido Pinto looked too sultry n shapely for a village girl during the colonial period.
The hunter's character was totally unnecessary.
This version looked as if it was made in a hurry.
This version will be forgotten.
Wolfgang Reitherman's 1967 animated Jungle Book will always be a classic. It was full on entertainment and the character development was awesome in that. Jon Favreau's Jungle Book will be remembered for amazing visual effects, solid vocal performances, impeccable direction n nice musical score.
Wolfgang Reitherman's 1967 animated Jungle Book will always be a classic. It was full on entertainment and the character development was awesome in that. Jon Favreau's Jungle Book will be remembered for amazing visual effects, solid vocal performances, impeccable direction n nice musical score.
Disappointing in parts, but awesome in others
serge_elia7 December 2018
Andy Serkis' Mowgli was announced prior to Jon Favreau's The Jungle Book, and it is said to be much darker and much more faithful to the Rudyard Kipling original stories. However, I still stand on this: the Favreau film was also dark (with its terrifying portrayal of Shere Khan, brilliantly voiced by Idris Elba), and was also faithful to the books. Anyway, I waited for the Serkis film with anticipation, and when I watched it today on Netflix, I say this: I loved it, but some parts were disappointing. What is great and what is unsatisfactory?
So, on the whole, Mowgli: Legend of the Jungle is a good film, really fun and entertaining, with amazing moments that capture the essence of the source material, and a talented cast, though not without its flaws.
- What is unsatisfactory: I felt that I was rewatching the Favreau film. I'm not kidding: I felt that this movie was a copy-paste remake of the... remake! With the *exact same* elements: Bagheera finds Mowgli (BTW, it should be "Mowgli" as in "now" and not "no") abandoned in the jungle after Shere Khan kills the boy's mother, and then entrusts our hero to the wolves; at one point, the panther tells Mowgli that he must go to the man-village, since "the jungle is no longer safe for him", all due to Shere Khan's growing threat. Got any Disney flashback, anyone?
- What is great: the action scenes are top-notch and scary, not to mention ungodly realistic (with lots of shots showing blood), the plot is indeed far more faithful to the Kipling books than any of the Disney adaptations, the cast is talented, especially Cate Blanchett as Kaa, the most frightening character of them all. But the ultimate best character is definitely Rohan Chand as Mowgli: his role was much more difficult than Neel Sethi in the Favreau film, and yet he nailed it with his performance; as a result, we get to see a true feral child from the jungle, with the conflict he is going through (wondering where he belongs). Also, the way he discovers and interacts with the humans is hypnotizing.
So, on the whole, Mowgli: Legend of the Jungle is a good film, really fun and entertaining, with amazing moments that capture the essence of the source material, and a talented cast, though not without its flaws.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
