They were announced at the same time and tried to outdo each other in casting, but Jon Favreau’s Jungle Book beat Andy Serkis’ Mowgli by two years. But I always thought they were in competition with each other. And I’d never seen Jungle Book. So when Mowgli came out I thought it was time to give them both a chance and see who won.
Two kids, definitely not
There are a lot of actors, aren’t there? It’s an impressive list of names, but other than two children, I wouldn’t hesitate to say that all of these people are talented. They’re all great. But that’s okay. Actors do exactly what we expect them to do. Some, like Murray, Serkis, and Walken, are terrific, others just do their thing 7movierulz. The real problem is that some of the actors are bad because they’re crazy. The characters are sloppy because the writing is sloppy, BUT – I give Mowgli a point because the writing is so clean and simple.
The Wolves shouldn’t have given up on Mowgli so easily
The downside of the Jungle Book is that it was a remake with a lot of old controls and a lot of new ones. As a result, King Louie. The character named after Louis Prima in the Disney cartoon King of the Swing no longer sings and dances with fury. Even though he is supposed to be monstrous and terrifying. His role is playing by Christopher Walken. Or that Mowgli and Bagheera need to be separated and that Mowgli has to find Baloo. But Bagheera doesn’t want to stay. So he gets injured in a fight with Shere Khan. Or because Shere Khan is a criminal, he should be involved from the start to eliminate the risk of him killing Mowgli. And there should be a story to explain why he is trying to kill Mowgli. The wolf cannot give in to Mowgli so easily.
The angry white hunter visits the village and plays around
There should also be a mini-game that slows down playtime. Because there are no musical numbers, horses, or elephants for the army. Elephants should be taken seriously. We must also remember that Mowgli must reach the human village. Who would want that? The plot is that Mowgli tries to become a wolf, but is threatened by Shere Khan and leaves the village to live in a human village. Where he rescues both Shere Khan and the evil white hunters who visit. The village pretends to be good people but breaks the elephant’s tusks and kills the young wolves. Wow, that’s a bit creepy. But overall, I think the message is much softer and a little brighter.
“Jungle Book” is a slow learner
But none of them conveyed the simple, straightforward plot and plot of the 67th animated film, where Mowgli is looking for a home, wants to be in the jungle, and eventually discovers he’s in a village. Of course, he isn’t. A story of bullets. It’s the greatest animated movierulz series of all time and nobody knows what to make of it. In “Jungle Book” there is a dragon who has to learn to take care of Mowgli, but at first, he only uses her to give her honey. For most of the film, he is carefree and mischievous. I have never seen Bill Murray so sad and funny. I don’t think it’s his fault, but it made me sad to watch. In the Serkis version, Baloo works as a wolf trainer, so he’s longer but even more useless and creepy. I don’t understand why they thought making Baloo ugly was a good idea. But at least Serkis gave him a look.
Animal symbols have additional symbols
I wonder if they use some kind of motion tracking to do this? (The “Jungle Book” is two years old and the animation is a bit dated, but it’s still objectively better than “Mowgli,” I’d say. But what “Mowgli” lacks in budget and quality, it makes up for in style. The animal characters are particularly individual, a mix of caricature and realism. As a result, the animals are naturally more expressive and recognizable, but at the cost of looking out of place when someone other than Mowgli is in the same scene.
Old animation without live action
Mowgli spends so much time alone in the human village that it feels like a completely separate movie – which is distracting when the animals reappear. Still, I prefer it to the faceless drawing in The Jungle Book. What else. All of my favorite things from the old anime are gone from the feature film. It’s probably pretty silly, but this little film lives on through its jazz music and 60s pop culture. I suppose if they remade it, they’d have a specific reason, but it’s just the original – without making it original, funny, or meaningful. Bagheera was always my favorite and I miss him as a lovable jerk. But none of the movies attribute terrible things to him, so I guess that’s normal.
He was easy to work with and immediately erased my old memories
In the remake I liked the way Mowgli snored, he wasn’t sick like the kids, and the final scene was a creative change. And what I like about Serkis’ version is that he brings some of his own styles to it. Favreau is capable of style, but I doubt he’ll be able to pull it off. If the animation of the original 67 wasn’t a factor, it would be harder to pick a better film – but it was, and I can’t judge it. I rewatch it after two films to clear my head, and was immediately overcome with nostalgia, appreciated its quirks, and noticed something new I miss last time (it’s been a long time). So I asked myself, why the remake?
The memorable details are real
Nostalgia is stronger when you go back to the original hand-drawn cartoons, they live longer than computer animation, which ages as the art progresses, and all the memorable details remain in the originals because remakes aren’t afraid to push boundaries, but stick to a more serious and realistic tone. In that respect, Mowgli: Legend of the Jungle automatically wins. It’s a contentious battle in terms of quality, but Mowgli has a different storyline, and new characters and familiar ones are used differently. It may not be great, but it deserves to exist because it is something unique. “The Jungle Book” (2016) is not unique and is not the best version of its story. It has a bigger budget, but to me, there is no value without a soul, and it gets lost along the way.
In fact, 1967’s “Jungle Book” is the best
I got bore with Mowgli after a while, but he seee to have a soul, even if it was that of a loser. That’s why “The Jungle Book” is worse. But the best isn’t Mowgli – the best is the original 1967 Jungle Book movie. I don’t care that it shouldn’t be in the competition. Since it’s the only version of the story I’ve seen and even considered recommending, it’s the clear winner. Despite my issues with the other two films, I’m glad I did because it inspired me to revisit this fascinating classic that is still relevant today.
