With Disney+ approaching us in the coming days, it's time for me to bring up a forgotten gem that even the streaming service forgot to include. While many might be aware of the 2016 Jungle Book remake from Jon Favreau, many would forget that the very first live-action remake from Disney was back in 1994, and it also turned out to be the Jungle Book. When a young boy named Mowgli ends up in the jungle, he grows up adapting to the landscape, befriending animals as well as learning to speak the various languages. As an adult, he encounters a grown-up Katherine Brydon, his long-lost friend from his childhood. Her fiancee, Captain Boone, is willing to put Mowgli behind bars, but is convinced by his peers to let him be educated by Katherine, as he might reveal the long lost treasure of Monkey City, which Mowgli has seen firsthand. As you can clearly tell, this is nothing like the source material whatsoever. In fact, it sounds more like a Tarzan story rather than a Jungle Book movie. However, I feel that's part of the film's charm. Besides, the 2016 remake makes some highly questionable story changes, especially in the ending. The film is more of a romantic adventure, that gives off vibes of Indiana Jones, which explains the hard PG rating. Although it is fun and families can watch it, the film has some dark moments with villains getting killed, blood, and how the film for the most part takes itself very seriously. However, that's what makes this film stands out. It's not afraid to divert from kid-friendly romantic-comedy to adult action-adventure.
Jason Scott Lee is really good as Mowgli. Sure, he doesn't look Indian at all, but his charisma and range of acting carries the role. Hell, even the child actor who plays Mowgli is really good. Lena Hedley plays Katherine, which I always find funny in retrospect. Her performance as a bubbly, kind yet intelligent women is opposite to her cruel and complex role as Cersei in "Game of Thrones", but all actors have to start somewhere. Also, there is a scene where he stares out of a window, which I find hilarious as that's probably why she was chosen to play Cersei in the first place. Cary Elwes also plays an against-type role. Instead of playing the witty hero, he plays the despicable Captain Boone, who still has his charisma intact to stand out from being a generic villain. As for the side characters, all of the actors perfectly fit their characters. Sam Neill plays Katherine's concerned father, John Cleese plays the comedic family doctor, and the side villains all have distinct personalities and looks thanks to the diverse performances of the various actors. As for the cast of animals, well they don't speak whatsoever. Despite the lack of dialogue, the well-trained animals manage to behave like the beloved characters. Baloo is goofy and friendly, Bagheera is the careful eye that observes Mowgli, King Louie is over the top and the most expressive actor in the film, and Shere Khan is the cunning predator that hunts those that break the jungle law. The only character that isn't well-executed is Kaa, who is not only made from CGI and puppetry, but also the servant to King Louie rather than Shere Khan, albeit it is a smart change. Outside of that complaint, the entire cast is perfectly cast and acted, both human and animal.
The director of this film is Stephan Sommers, who is best known for his work on the 1999 film "The Mummy", which is a film that has its fans and haters. Due to this, many will think this film is on the same level as that film, which is overly campy and made for big set pieces. Surprisingly, that's not the case with this film. Sure, the film has an adventure feel and there are scenes of actions spread throughout the film, but the film is rather slower-paced than one may think. When the characters need to breath or interact, it takes a natural pace. The 2nd act of the film has little action at all, instead focusing on the chemistry between the three central characters. And although the film has the big chase sequence at the end of the first act, the action is on a much smaller scale. In fact, the set design takes a much grander scale, even compared to his work on "The Mummy". The sets of the jungle, palace, and Monkey City are grand with lots of detail and attention to the sets. The music by Basil Poledouris is perhaps his second best score in his career. While "Conan The Barbarian" will always be his best work and one of the best film scores of all time, his work here is on a smaller scale, but one that works really well. It's more softer, but still has its intensity during the action. I find the main theme very well done with an emphasis on romantic and the jungle-like adventure beats. The cinematography is also well-done with the pacing fitting towards the context of the scene, as well as some nice shots in the film such as Mowgli looking out at the sunset or him leaving the ballroom. As for the visual effects, this is the weaker area of the film. Of course, Kaa is fake CGI, but there are scenes of green-screen whenever a character is looking face to face with an animal like Shere Khan or Bagheera. This is due to the unpredictability of the creatures and it's safe for the actors to use effects to do a stare-down and not attempt it in real life. Though with that said, the stunt-work involved with the animals is fantastic. A kid is actually holding the tail of a panther, goons get attacked by animals, and using a tiger to chase after a human or attacking a defensive human is something that will most likely never be attempted again in cinema. The filmmaking aspect of this film is just so refreshing from today that uses CGI animals or fake environments, which is thanks to Sommers directing.
The question at the end of the day is whether this is a good, let alone, the best live-action Disney remake to date. Many will refuse this film due to it barely reflecting the source material or the 1967 film, being more Tarzan rather than the Jungle Book, dated effects, or having a "unbalanced" tone. However, comparing the remakes today, this is more of a film and one with such a breath of refreshing air to it compared to the CGI-filled, poorly acted, lazily written, messes that Disney has made lately. With a very different, but engaging story, perfectly casted and acted characters, fun adventure vibe with fun action, nice blend of family-geared and adult-nature, great score by Poledouris, great directing by Sommers, and the fact that the filmmakers put in so much effort and heart to the film by bringing out some well-trained animals and stunts. A film with the modest budget of $30 million put out more effort from the cast and crew than the current remakes that have up to $200 million in its budget. The fact that Disney+ ignores this film in its library is insulting as it shows how Disney tries to hide how good the first yet very different live-action remake is compared to majority of their corporate products of crap.
Verdict: 8/10. It's not perfect, but I will defend my opinion that this is the best live-action remake Disney has put out by far.
I feel that the live action remakes can be done well. There's this, the 2016 Jungle Book and the 2016 Pete's Dragon.
ReplyDeleteThe new Mulan seems to have fallen into the same category and thank god for that cause you can do an interesting remake of that - it appears that's what they did.
Overall I did like the 90s Jungle Book quite a bit but one thing you forget to mention is it's one of the better live action Disney films of that era. Remember Jungle 2 Jungle, remember Mr Magoo.