Skip to main content

The Barest of Necessities


          Any classic Disney fan would be a little apprehensive about this year’s live-action version of The Jungle Book. None of the other Disney remakes have been good and these properties were very important parts of our childhood. But Rudyard Kipling’s book has so much to it that’s never been seen on film before, so there’s ample opportunity to make a great movie out of it -oh right, they’re just doing the Disney movie again.
          The story is about a boy or “man-cub” called Mowgli who is raised by wolves in the Indian Jungle. When the man-hating tiger Shere Khan shows up, it’s decided Mowgli must be returned to the humans by his guardian Bagheera the panther. But along the way he encounters many other jungle creatures intent on keeping him there for their own gain, with the exception of a laid-back sloth bear called Baloo who teaches him the bare necessities of living in the jungle.
          The biggest problem with this movie is that it takes itself very seriously. Which would be fine considering how serious and dark the original novel is, but this is trying to be a remake of the Disney movie. And that Disney movie didn’t take itself seriously being largely a comedy, which didn’t make it much of a good adaptation, but did make it unique. This version tries to keep a darker tone with some grim and tense moments, but they’re hard to take seriously when the film still keeps aspects like Baloo’s goofiness and the songs. Also like Cinderella, some of the additions feel like they’re trying to update the source material and make it more mature, but aren’t necessary. While I don’t mind giving Mowgli a character arc, Shere Khan’s given a back-story that’s pretty clichéd. And then there are additions that again are trying to cement a grittier tone, but make no sense. For example at one point the wolf pack just lets Shere Khan take over, despite it going against the very nature of a wolf pack. These attempts at a serious more dramatic tone for its own sake don’t coalesce naturally with the source of the original Disney movie. If they wanted to tell the Jungle Book story seriously they should have stuck to the book. But sadly, the book’s not as marketable.
          It’s a shame too because director Jon Favreau assembled a very exemplary cast. Bill Murray seems ideal for Baloo and he gives it his best, but he’s just trying to be Phil Harris. Harris’ ad-libbing and attitude created a pretty unique character in 1967, so entertaining that Disney just replicated him with the same actor for their next two films, The Aristocats and Robin Hood. And that’s sort of what Murray’s doing, just playing an established character rather than put any new spin on him. Shere Khan appears a lot more in this film but I appreciated the mystique more his mere reputation had in the earlier version. Idris Elba is pretty good as the voice, but has nowhere near the gravitas of George Sanders. Luckily the gravitas is fulfilled by Ben Kingsley as Bagheera who is perfect both as a vocal match for Sebastian Cabot and for just fitting into the world of The Jungle Book. Scarlett Johnasson, Lupita Nyong’o, and Giancarlo Esposito are fine but their parts could have been anyone. Even Christopher Walken’s a little underwhelming as King Louis, again the film’s serious tone not letting him be as absurd with the role as he could have been. The kid playing Mowgli is pretty good. He gets the physicality down but his dialogue is at times awkward.
          The visuals though are very good. I wish they’d have actually shot in the jungle but the CG cinematography and even many of the animals look great (though both Louis and Kaa are unnecessarily enormous). And the variations on the classic music works well too. Those who have nostalgia for The Jungle Book will be sucked in by the opening score. “The Bare Necessities” though contrary to the tone, is nice to hear; and perhaps the best part of the movie is Walken’s rendition of “I Wan’na Be Like You” which is just as hilarious as you’d imagine. Some changes I do like, like how Baloo and Mowgli’s relationship is made a little more believable, and the climax though dull is different and far less of a cop out than the original movie. And it’s nice if you’re paying attention, to hear the late Garry Shandling in a cameo appearance. But overall this Jungle Book is trapped as a Disney remake and in using that as its source, loses most of the spirit of Kipling’s book and feels in no way as unique as the earlier film.
          Though despite everything, I’d be totally up for a spin-off remake of TaleSpin.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Strange History of the American Spoof Movie

Parody movies have been around for a lot longer than we tend to think of them. Even from the earliest days of Hollywood there were movies meant to satirize a particular subject or genre. In the silent era, Buster Keaton was responsible for a few. And in the early sound era, almost as soon as the monster pictures took off did you see comic versions of them -Abbott and Costello hosting a few. But parody movies tended to be subtle for most of cinema history, or parody came in conjunction with another goal of the comedy. It really wasn’t until the 1980s and 90s that it took off and became popularly understood. And there is perhaps a line to be drawn to the counterculture comedy explosion that began in the 1970s through avenues like  Saturday Night Live , which frequently parodied from even its earliest years popular movies and cultural properties of the time. But that is still a way’s back. To my generation though, ‘parody movie’ is perhaps a less known term than the more blunt ‘s...
Post a Comment
Read more

Notes on the Title Cards of The Lord of the Rings

It might be sacrilege for one who both considers The Lord of the Rings  trilogy to be one of the greatest triumphs of cinema and has been an avid lover of the films since adolescence, to declare that the original theatrical cuts of the films are better than the much beloved extended editions. Easily it’s my most controversial opinion regarding these movies. Don’t get me wrong, I do like the extended editions quite a lot, especially as someone who just enjoys spending time in that universe. They flesh it out more, add extra flavour, and in increasing the length by about an hour really emphasize the epic quality of these films. But I find that the original cuts are generally more cleanly paced, more seamlessly edited, and much more accessible to audiences. All the stuff there is to love about The Lord of the Rings  is there in the original versions, the plethora of new and extended scenes merely add to that for fans. And of those, they fall into three camps for me: 1....
1 comment
Read more

Back to the Feature: New York, New York (1977)

New York, New York  is a two hour forty minute musical movie largely about a toxic relationship and I understand why it was Martin Scorsese’s first big flop. Some have blamed its poor reception on the kind of movie it was, of a style and tone Scorsese wasn’t known for, but I find that hard to believe. Even after only five films, he’d proven himself an extremely versatile director, and Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore  found an audience. Sure this jazz musical love letter to New York City was following up Taxi Driver and its’ far more cynical take on the city, but then it’s also ‘from the director of Taxi Driver ’ which itself was a big hit. Was it a matter of public appetite for musicals, or mere word of mouth and early critical reception that dissuaded viewers? Irrespective of that, I was stunned to discover this movie was the origin of the titular song, which I’d assumed was much older (it’s definitely got the sound of something that might have come out of the Jazz sce...
Post a Comment
Read more