The Jungle Book (2016)

With Disney now fully engaged in adapting many of its animated classics into live action versions, it probably was only a matter of time until "The Jungle Book" got this treatment. Since 1967 and the huge success of that animated film, Disney has created an extensive franchise. It includes among other things a storybook sequel released on vinyl in 1968, the Saturday morning cartoons "TaleSpin" and "Jungle Cubs", a live action film in 1994 and an animated sequel released theatrically in 2003. The 1994 movie by the way incorporated a very different story and the live action animals did not speak. It is the most realistic version that Disney ever produced. Director Jon Favreau in the creation of his 2016 film wanted to use the latest technology to blend Rudyard Kipling's works with the beloved animated movie from the 60's. He also wanted more realism and danger. This proved a challenge and in my opinion, the movie was well made but fell short of achieving a perfect balance. The visual effects are very noteworthy and the actors' performances are equally impressive but the elements from the 1967 version that made us laugh and dance and sing along felt out of place when incorporated in Favreau's movie.

The classic movie is one of the few immortal animated masterpieces where the characters are the central feature of the film. Usually, it is the story that is the best characteristic of a cartoon work of art. I grew up watching this classic movie featuring a carefree hip bear, an scoundrel of an ape that is all about the musical party, a supercilious tiger and a sly menacing python. I knew that in Favreau's take on "The Jungle Book" some characters would remain the same while most of them would be adapted to the vision he had. Sometimes it worked but not so with most of the characters. The voice actors did a great job but the characters were not as endearing as I was hoping for. Let's start with Bill Murray as Baloo. This was what I was most concerned about going in. Murray's interpretation on Garfield wasn't perfect a decade earlier but he has a lot more in common personality-wise with Garfield than Disney's Baloo. While Murray is a great comedian, his style is far different from Phil Harris'. Then again, Murray did have his work on "St. Vincent" to draw from. After seeing the film, I didn't see anything wrong in what Bill Murray did. I saw more problems with how the other filmmakers interpreted Baloo for this version. The character has his humorous moments but what he lacks is coolness. The best animated characters are created when you are able to forget about the actor behind the performance. I couldn't get Bill Murray out of my head during Baloo's scenes. This isn't Murray's fault but rather the mistake of those who cast him. The character wasn't bad; it just didn't work all that well unlike Ben Kingsley's Bagheera. His performance in "The Jungle Book" was enough that I accepted this new incarnation of the panther. In the animated film from almost 50 years earlier, Baloo and Bagheera both embodied the unique spirit of the movie. Bagheera was the torchbearer for Kipling and Baloo symbolized the wholesome spirit of 60's. They couldn't be more different and this created an entertaining relationship between the two characters. In the 2016 show, that sense of humorous clash was lacking. The older I got, the more entertaining George Sanders' Shere Khan became. That arrogant character could easily have been rendered in this live action movie but alas, Shere Khan comes across as evil but nothing more. I was hoping for a more dynamic villain. I am now quite excited for the Warner Brothers version in a few years because Benedict Cumberbatch will play the tiger. From the trailers, I thought I knew what to expect from Christopher Walken as King Louie. I knew that going back to Las Vegas to recruit a contemporary singer wasn't going to work for the kind of remake that Disney was creating. At first, King Louie felt like a combination of Marlon Brando & Jabba the Hutt and that was neat. The sense of danger I felt was genuine but then came the reference to the "King of the Swingers" and it didn't work. The song felt out of place, almost forced into the scene. Of all the characters, I had the least problems with Kaa. The change from male to female worked and the character's comedic nature back in '67 was not essential to the story, albeit entertaining. You can't do everything verbatim and this was one area of the remake where the changes were more possible and welcome.

The story in this version wasn't bad but it wasn't perfect either, despite the assistance from Pixar. While the characters in the 1967 film outshined the story, the plotline of that movie was still well crafted. Mowgli is introduced as an infant and we sympathize with him as a result. The inciting incident is Shere Khan's return and subsequently, Mowgli must be taken to the man village. His encounter with Kaa shows his vulnerability but his time with the elephants reinforces his desire to stay in the jungle. Once Baloo enters the film, the unique sense of fun that the movie is known for is introduced. The bond between Baloo and Mowgli is forged as Baloo teaches Mowgli how to fight and as Mowgli tickles Baloo. After an Oscar-nominated song, their friendship is as real and sincere as any strong friendship in real life. In this live action adaptation, we only see Mowgli's origin through flashback and therefore we aren't as emotionally invested. We also can't really tell what path Mowgli is on. Is he actually on his way back to the man village or he is trying to find his identity/purpose in the jungle? By the end of the movie, the answer is the latter but this uncertainty concerning the film's theme affects our enjoyment. The relationship between Mowgli and Baloo in the Favreau film is also not as strong as it should have been. This stems from Baloo tricking Mowgli to do all the work so he can be lazy. I also did not like Baloo lying to Mowgli in order to motivate him to go to the man village. What's so hard about telling the truth? Even Phil Harris' incarnation was able to eventually spell out the horrible truth despite how hard it was for the character. I think that what should have happened in the live action story is that Mowgli gets offended when Baloo comes clean and tells Mowgli he was using him.

Here are some final miscellaneous notes, both positive and negative. The music was obviously an element the filmmakers took seriously. I loved the use of George Bruns' musical cues at the start of the film and during Kaa's scene. The style of the film justified the short use of "The Bear Necessities" but as mentioned, Christopher Walken's "I Wan'na Be Like You" didn't work. As I said, the biggest reason for the fail is that it contrasted this new persona for King Louie but another reason is the style of the song. "The Bear Necessities" remains in the style of Dixieland Jazz as originally conceived but in 1967, "I Wan'na Be Like You" was in the style of a Vegas swing band (even though Louis Prima is from New Orleans). To have Christopher Walken singing a clear New Orleans version of "I Wan'na Be Like You" was intriguing but nevertheless backwards from how the character was set up moments earlier. Richard M. Sherman did write the additional lyrics for "I Wan'na Be Like You" for this film and that is cool. The end credits also contrasted much of the serious nature of the story thanks to Walken's singing. It is interesting how the movie ends in a storybook whereas the original film started out that way. Dr. John's work on "The Princess and the Frog" was great but his rendition of "The Bear Necessities" at the very end of "The Jungle Book" wasn't to my liking. Just as the 1967 film showcased some groundbreaking animation, the computer generated characters almost 50 years later looked and behaved very realistically. This film took the special effects of "Life of Pi" and utilized them quite well to modernize this classic story. Many times, the CG characters also exuded the traits of their real life counterparts. That is why King Louie was a pretty good character for the first few minutes because I could see Christopher Walken's eyes. As the end of the year approached, "The Jungle Book" became the clear choice as the winner for Best Visual Effects at the Oscars. I still can't believe the entire movie was filmed in a studio. The best way I can illustrate why I think Favreau's "The Jungle Book" fell a little short is to compare it with Kenneth Branagh's "Cinderella" from the year earlier. In "Cinderella", there were a few hints at the 1950 version but anything that would be a distraction was not included. For example, the subplot between the mice and the cat is a major source of entertainment in the Walt Disney version but it wouldn't have worked in the studio version released in 2015. There was one short reference and that was enough. The hints and references to its predecessor in "The Jungle Book" tended to distract. Furthermore, the songs in the end credits of "Cinderella" were for the most part in the original style.

Jon Favreau may have successfully kicked off the Marvel Cinematic Universe with "Iron Man" but he also made "Cowboys & Aliens", which was a let down. I therefore wasn't too sure how "The Jungle Book" was going to turn out. The critics loved it and I personally thought it was well crafted but being such a big Disney fan, I had my issues after seeing the show. The technology was amazing and the film will entertain a lot of people but I felt the various references to the animated film didn't work entirely well. I would say that for the animated film, 35% of the movie came from Kipling and 65% was original inspiration. For this live action version, you have three sources: the books, the animated 1967 movie and original inspiration. The ratio this time feels like 40% Kipling, 35% animated classic and 25% was original. I think the filmmakers should have made a better effort to be more original as opposed to taking too much inspiration from a timeless cartoon masterpiece. If I had my wish, I would have had Brad Bird as director because not only he is a bigger fan of the animated movie but also he could have achieved the balance I craved. For all my criticisms, my admiration for the animated source material causes me to be quite vocal and also picky. There is nothing completely offensive in "The Jungle Book" because simply, it is a realistic and more serious version with some fun references to Walt Disney's final animated film. I hear a sequel is being developed by the way.

3.5 Stars