Read Mixed User Reviews for The Jungle Book (2016)

6

sanyrubOct 10, 2016

Decent live action film with amazing visuals that cannot get past of a generic plot with not much thought. A good version? Yes. Oscars and awards talk? How? When? Hmm no. It isn´t anywhere as good as to deserve such thing. Watch for theDecent live action film with amazing visuals that cannot get past of a generic plot with not much thought. A good version? Yes. Oscars and awards talk? How? When? Hmm no. It isn´t anywhere as good as to deserve such thing. Watch for the visuals and the kids will love it. But there´s no more to it. Nothing deeper or with special artistic value.… Expand

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

All this user's reviews

5

StevieGJDMay 23, 2016

This is a good movie for kids, but I was underwhelmed. The digital rendering of the animals is excellent, really great. This is a visually stunning film. Some of the references to the 1967 animated movie are cute and endearing. But theThis is a good movie for kids, but I was underwhelmed. The digital rendering of the animals is excellent, really great. This is a visually stunning film. Some of the references to the 1967 animated movie are cute and endearing. But the script is the problem here. The story is corny and feels phony. Some of the short appearances of characters just seem pointless. While I absolutely love Scarlett Johnansson, her character's brief appearance in the film adds absolutely nothing. Much of the movie felt like this pointless scene. So, while they clearly have the technology to put Kipling's book on the screen, they needed to focus more on the plot and writing. I expected it to be great. Unless you are a child, it is not.… Expand

5 of 6 users found this helpful51

All this user's reviews

6

AxeTJun 3, 2016

The animals are magnificent. The kid… not so much. While talking animals including a ferocious tiger, pack of wolves, black panther, big grizzly bear, huge gorilla, giant snake and more are all stunning in detail; the kid's mouth shouldThe animals are magnificent. The kid… not so much. While talking animals including a ferocious tiger, pack of wolves, black panther, big grizzly bear, huge gorilla, giant snake and more are all stunning in detail; the kid's mouth should have been closed a lot more in this. Actually, what would have made this very interesting and a daring more artful movie would have been no dialogue at all as in a silent animated extravaganza (well not silent but full of great sound design and music score). That of course would be too risky for a major Disney family release, but certainly more original than this highly formulaic remake that's moderately amusing some of the time. The story makes sense, but sure isn't fresh.
A note on stars doing voices in animated movies: it's better not to know who they are, at least until after it's over. Otherwise it blows the suspension of disbelief. I don't think anyone ever goes to one of these movies to hear any star's voice, ever! They are going for the story and animation and music solely. So why advertise it only to break the illusion once in?… Expand

5 of 6 users found this helpful51

All this user's reviews

5

fungusgnatMay 26, 2016

This sumptuous 3D production is beautiful at every turn, and, even these days, when every year seems to bring some new mind-blowing advancement of the state of the special-effects art, "The Jungle Book" is startling (and funny and affecting)This sumptuous 3D production is beautiful at every turn, and, even these days, when every year seems to bring some new mind-blowing advancement of the state of the special-effects art, "The Jungle Book" is startling (and funny and affecting) in its own way. Moreover, if there is a rule to obey for success in the May-to-September box office season, it’s “Begin well,” and "The Jungle Book" begins well, with a mad race through the trees. Given all that, it’s too bad that Hollywood’s resourcefulness is so limited that it must accompany visual feast with narrative famine. This film’s story is likely to seem hackneyed and uninteresting to anyone older than 10. For adults, this is an eyes-only film.… Expand

4 of 5 users found this helpful41

All this user's reviews

6

chad326Apr 24, 2016

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. As someone who loved the original jungle book as a kid, this was definitely a dissapointment for me, and not just because they took a very different tone than the original. While they made a valiant attempt, and there was clearly a good chunk of effort put into the movie, it definitely fell flat for me.
First off the format that they chose is extremely hard, because literally the whole movie is 1 kid on a green screen for the whole movie. think about that for a moment, the entire movie rests on the shoulders of Neel Sethi's acting, who while i think he did a very good job, he's still just a kid and that really really limits the quality of the movie, because no matter how good of an actor, no matter how much practice Neel has had, he's still just a 12 year old kid, he's not a professional actor. Now this worked just fine in the original jungle book because it was a kids movie, and everyone knew it was a kids movie. The new jungle book really tried to be a serious movie that adults would enjoy as well, and that's where i think its biggest flaw is.
This brings me to my next point which is the "realism" that they chose to implore. Now having life like animals that talk has always been a very rocky slope, there a lots of examples where it can go horribly wrong and not very many where it goes right. From the very opening scene that shows mowglie running through the forest, until the end of the movie you could pretty easily tell that even a lot of his movements
were cgi, which also took away from the experience for me, but my biggest qualm with the realism is that they tried so hard to make the movie realistic and then continued to allow very large plot holes. Mowglie is a human whos lived with animals all his life, and so because he's a human with no education of any kind he's a boy genius? without even pausing to think, he comes up with very intricate ways to engineer situations to his advantage, within the movie they just call it "his tricks" but i mean seriously, he suspends himself from a cliff with a vine as a rope, anchored by animals with a system of how the animals should move in order to put him in the right position to use a saw that he made to cut down chunks of honey, all without getting stung, but when he does he just completely brushes it off like it never happened, all of which he thought about for literally 30 seconds, less even, it took him 30 seconds to engineer and begin making this very intricate plan to get honey for baloo, and this is just the tip of the ice berg. throughout the movie the fact that he was such a boy genius and able to completely ignore pain (he was stung by at least 20 bees but still managed to get the honey, and then miraculously healed in 1 minute, and towards the end he gets a huge gash across his chest from shere khan (the antagonist/ tiger) says ow and then continues on as if nothing happened.
this was probably the biggest turn off for me, they seemed to try so hard to make the movie believable, but its a story about talking animals and a boy who's apparently the next genius of an era, and has the pain tolerance of 2 grown men combined. the original movie was just a fun kids movie that didn't try to be real, and i think thats the biggest distinction between the two.
I did think that the casting was exceptional, but i am a little biased against christopher walken, i think that the character of king louie could have been portrayed differently, and played a little better.… Expand

4 of 5 users found this helpful41

All this user's reviews

5

ElectroNickApr 26, 2016

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. After hearing all of the critical praise of the remake to Disney's animated Classic I decided to check it out for myself. My personal conclusion is that it is a mixed bag. This film will keep your children entertained and it will keep you interested in a visual sense. However if you are looking for a film that has a solid script and a film with a clear focus on what it wants to be you will be disappointed. As I said before the visuals are really stunning with an excellent use of CGI for the animals. The film looks gorgeous as the jungle really feels alive and the animals look as realistic as they have ever been. The wolves and Bagheera in particular look realistic and it feels that you can reach out and touch him. The color palate also pops up with bright and beautiful colors. The score is also grand with reworking of classic songs. The part of the soundtrack which really stood out was the instrumental rendition of "Trust In Me" when Mogli was discovering his past through Kaa's hypnosis. The actors give a valiant attempt to bring life to the characters with great performances from Christopher Walken, Ben Kinglsey, Bill Murray, and Idris Elba. The film is unfortunate held back by a script which lacks any focus. It is unsure if it wants to be an adaption of the original book or a remake of the animated film. It tries to combine elements from both works but it creates a jumbled script. For example when Mogli meets Kaa she helps Mogli get her memories back and gives him sage advise like her book counter book. However in the next scene though she tries to eat him like in the animated film. Another example was that Shere Khan kills the eldest wolf and holds them hostage like a thug but than tries to act suave like in the original cartoon making it seem like they are two completely different characters enrolled into one. Another main problem is the lack of connection to the characters because the script moves from set piece to set piece without any time to let the characters develop their relationships. As a final note this film will keep children entertained and will fulfill your needs if your looking to purely be immersed in the jungle and will keep your kids entertained but it is unfocused. The original animated film may not have been a faithful adaptation but it had a clear focus on what it wanted to be. Aside from its score and impressive visuals it is really nothing more than an average family movie. It is fine from any other company but from Disney I expected better.… Expand

4 of 5 users found this helpful41

All this user's reviews

6

notTheRadBradMay 22, 2016

an average to good movie for kids , the animation is the best, but the acting is not too good just normal , but still likeable for kids. The jungle book was a phenomenal cartoon series which quenched my adventure thirst in my childhood,an average to good movie for kids , the animation is the best, but the acting is not too good just normal , but still likeable for kids. The jungle book was a phenomenal cartoon series which quenched my adventure thirst in my childhood, can't say the same about this movie though.
But
Everyone has their own opinions , some might like it some might not and I stated mine and i think the plot isn't the best of all but still it's a solid plot that the cartoon series was based on (somewhat).Anyways , i wouldn't recommend this movie to adults who care about acting in a movie and suspense and stuff . This is just a kids movie. :)… Expand

4 of 5 users found this helpful41

All this user's reviews

6

InglouriousAndyMay 17, 2016

"The Jungle Book" is painfully boring. Even with the stunning visual effects, this movie has nos soul or heart. It's an empty shell, but a good-looking one. And my goodness, Neel Sethi cannot act one bit. Worse than Jake Lloyd, no kidding.

3 of 4 users found this helpful31

All this user's reviews

5

beezballApr 24, 2016

It took itself too seriously in the beginning and end, the middle was wonderful. Also, the changed ending, I very much disliked it. I thought it was unnecessary and probably politically motivated, as were the humans suck (typical) themes.

4 of 6 users found this helpful42

All this user's reviews

4

VipraApr 18, 2016

If you have read the original book and/or seen any earlier animations, you may safely stay away. You won't miss anything. You're better off doing anything else - may be just sleeping!
Unlike the irrelevant superhero animes, The Jungle BookIf you have read the original book and/or seen any earlier animations, you may safely stay away. You won't miss anything. You're better off doing anything else - may be just sleeping!
Unlike the irrelevant superhero animes, The Jungle Book could have a lot of educational value wrapped in excellent entertainment. But no, the makers of this movie decided to make a run-on-the-mill grand animation movie with some cliched humor and some unnecessary violence sprinkled at random.
The movie fails at many levels - from the glaring ones, like the incoherence of narration; to the counter-educative disproportionate animals, a Grizzly in an Avatar-esque rainforest hit by a drought, and an inexplicable temple structure. The "humane" innovations by Mowgli take the cake here, though!

I probably would not be so disappointed had they just created another stereotype animation, instead of creating a garbage out of a good kids' story.… Expand

4 of 6 users found this helpful42

All this user's reviews

6

dpaudiophileApr 15, 2016

amazed at how overrated this movie is... I mean its okay, but to give it 10/10 or 4 stars or anything close to that type of praise is insane.

This is a decent family movie, that should hold kids attentions and leave parents and youngeramazed at how overrated this movie is... I mean its okay, but to give it 10/10 or 4 stars or anything close to that type of praise is insane.

This is a decent family movie, that should hold kids attentions and leave parents and younger adults saying, "meh, that wasn't the worst thing in the world..."

For anyone who wants a good jungle book experience, go read the original book from the late 19th century. The 60s animated film is better than this 2016 version, and yet I would still say that the 60s film (barring the music) wasn't a masterpiece.… Expand

6 of 11 users found this helpful65

All this user's reviews

6

EpicLadySpongeApr 15, 2016

Did you guys hear the news? Disney's remaking their very own Jungle Book and changing things just for the best of their own decisions. Changing Kaa's gender surprises me because that's normally one of the things that's going to cause my scoreDid you guys hear the news? Disney's remaking their very own Jungle Book and changing things just for the best of their own decisions. Changing Kaa's gender surprises me because that's normally one of the things that's going to cause my score to go down. What's normally great about this is that it's better than the Rudyard Kipling version which, also, is a critical success. Not enjoyable for me but for you moviegoers and Jungle Book fans will enjoy this without any doubt. A friendly adventure seems stale enough and that's not even possible with Disney's family-friendly adventures.… Expand

5 of 11 users found this helpful56

All this user's reviews

5

AdamGregory03Apr 4, 2017

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I'm just gonna start by saying I grew up with the original animated feature, which did have it's flaws and definitely wasn't faithful to Rudyard Kipling's original story, but I still liked it a lot. As for this movie though, I'll start with the positives. The film does look amazing and surprisingly realistic! Even though it is obviously CGI and at moments can look kind of fake, but on the whole you could swear the movie was shot in a real jungle. And I also like most of the actors they got to portray the cast, most notably John Goodman as Baloo, Ben Kingsley as Bagheera, and especially Christopher Walken as King Louie. The only one I didn't really feel was Scarlet Johansson as Kaa, but aside from her I feel like they all bring their own unique charm to these classic characters. With that said, the movie as a whole I thought was just okay as there are some problems that hold me back from considering it great. For one, there are just some things that don't make sense, like how come the elephants can't speak when every other animal can? Mowgli brings up briefly how every animal has a "language", but then apparently that means wolves, panthers, AND bears can all speak the same language? And also I thought the ending was kind of a cop-out. The original movie ended with Mowgli and the animals going their separate ways, as that was what was best. Here, Mowgli just ends up staying in the jungle and all the animals are cool with it now. Plus, the scene where Baloo is intentionally mean to Mowgli to convince him to leave felt kind of forced. On the whole though, it's not the worst movie ever or anything like that, and I won't hold it against anyone if they think it's a masterpiece. For me personally, I simply thought it was okay, and I definitely prefer the original movie that was fully animated... But maybe that's just my nostalgia talking.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

4

JacobDec 21, 2016

The Jungle Book is as thick and tangled as the jungle itself. While on the outside it looks impressive with lush dense environments and believable animals it is rooted inconsistency. One minute it is happy loving tribute to the 1967 classicThe Jungle Book is as thick and tangled as the jungle itself. While on the outside it looks impressive with lush dense environments and believable animals it is rooted inconsistency. One minute it is happy loving tribute to the 1967 classic and then next it is a dark and realistic story based on Kipling’s film. The two elements never mesh well and cause inconsistencies as characters act one way one minute and another the next without it every feeling seemless. Over the two sides the playful homage is preferred with familiar songs, a familiar soundtrack, and voices that capture the spirit of the original characters. Unfortunately, all that is lost as likeable characters are made unlikeable, the threatening made unthreating, and a cobbled messed. With the new film having little to offer outside of visual spectacle, you are better off just sticking to the 1967 bear neccessities.… Expand