Mowgli: Legend of the Jungle

So I kind of feel bad for Andy Serkis. Here's a very talented guy, still very new to the director's role, who just wanted to do his own CGI interpretation of the Jungle Book that I can only guess is closer to the source material. I have no doubt he was passionate about this project and it just sounds like the production and release of this film was a mess, I think in large part due to Disney deciding they were going to do a very similar idea.

It's way too early for me to decide which version of the CGI interpretation of the Jungle Book I like more but I can tell you for sure, it is a night and day difference and I wish this movie had at least been given a shot to be as awesome as I think Serkis wanted it to be.

The movie stars the title character, Mowgli (played by Rohan Chand). Even if you're only exposure to The Jungle Book is the Disney version, you know his origin story. Mowgli's parents were killed by the Bengal Tiger Shere Khan (voiced and motion captured by Benedict Cumberbatch). The Panther Bagheera (voiced and motion captured by Christian Bale) saves Mowgli as a baby and brings him to the wolves so they can raise him. Years go by and this is where the movie diverts from what you might know from the Disney version. Mowgli is training to be one of the pack and is being trained by Bagheera and Baloo the bear (voiced and motion captured by Andy Serkis). While Mowgli is pressured to go to the village, the main conflict of the movie is more Mowgli finding where he belongs and trying to fit in with either the wolf pack or the world of man later on. He almost goes to the village by accident, but I'm getting ahead of myself.

The biggest challenges at the beginning of the movie is Mowgli facing the threat of Shere Khan who wants to come and kill him and challenge the wolves for breaking the rules of the jungle and bringing him in, but he's also training to complete "the running" the rite of passage that would allow him to become one with the pack.

The movie follows a lot of the same notes you would find in the Disney version with a lot of the same characters, but like the change in Baloo, lots of the characters have different motivations and behave differently than what you expect from the Disney version. For example, Bagheera to me felt more like a brother role with Mogwli rather than a reluctant father figure and I thought that really worked.

And I'm bringing up the Disney version so much because I think this movie is a perfect example of how cannonized those movies have become.

I know there's a book and I know its super dark but that's it. My only point of reference for this movie is the two Disney movies. Now I see that as a plus because it allows Serkis to make his own interpretation of the story and create something dark and unique (and this movie is really dark, don't show this to your kids), but the downside is that this movie is probably going to be continuously compared to the Disney version. I'm going to try and stop the comparisons now because it was more for a point of reference of summarizing the plot, but it should be recognized the disadvantage this movie was at in the first place.

So I do want to talk about the motion capture in this movie. On one hand, this movie has a phenomenal cast. Christian Bale, Cate Blanchette, Andy Serkis, Benedict Cumberbatch, Tom Hollander, Naomie Harris, the list goes on and they all do a pretty good job in their performances. Benedict Cumberbatch as Shere Khan is really an inspired choice. His voice acting sounds a lot like Smaug and if he's having a third of the fun playing this role as he did Smaug, I'm sure he had a blast. Christian Bale is really good, I loved Andy Serkis's Baloo. However, the CGI is not really that great. You can see the actor's face in the motion capture which is cool at times, but a little creepy most of the time.

I could maybe see an argument for the CGI in saying the animals aren't supposed to be super realistic and they're trying to meet a certain style, but especially with how stylized these animals are, it's pretty easy not suspend disbelief and say, those animals are not there because they look so animated in a live action film.

Now I don't know if that's because they were working off a Netflix budget or what, but the truth is, this isn't even my biggest complaint of the film. It is however something worth mentioning. I said I wasn't going to compare it with the 2016 version, but it's really hard to compete when Jon Faverau has the unlimited budget Disney probably gave him and is able to render animals AND environments that look like they're real even though they're all on a sound stage.

Something to take note of is the fact that this movie is super dark. There was a point in the movie where I verbally yelled, "what the hell was that movie?" because there is some stuff in this movie that is not for kids.

I'm not saying this as a bad thing, in fact I think I actually prefer this version of the story. Though flawed, I think a lot of risks were taken in this story and while some of them don't work out, it felt more inspired than the 2016 Disney version which was certainly passable but felt very safe. I need to re-watch that version, but there were a lot of things I really liked about this film.

One of them was the kid who played Mowgli. I'm not saying this shit on the other kid from the 2016 film, he did a fine job. But this kid had a lot more to do and was a more complex character.

 This Mowgli goes through a lot, develops a crap ton, and you do feel that pull between the two worlds and why he doesn't feel like he has a place in either the world of the jungle or the world of man. I could be wrong, but I think this is where a lot of the source material comes into play but this is for sure the more dark and gritty version of The Jungle Book.

If you watch Homeland, you'll recognize this kid as Issa, the son of the main terrorist in Season 1. Regardless, he has a lot to do in this movie and I think this kid is gonna have a really bright future. They really went all out making this kid the realistic version of a kid who grew up in the jungle. His hair is all gnarly, he looks like he's just been rolling in dirt, and when he has scars from his escapades, you feel those scars.

A lot of the problems with this movie are problems I think are inherent in the source material. Kaa (voiced and motion captured by Cate Blanchett) still feels like a really worthless and pointless character. It's not a good sign when the biggest contribution she has is ripping off Lord of the Rings by having her monologue about conflict, darkness, and how the fate of the world is on one small individual at the beginning.

There are parts where the movie felt like it dragged a little and I would have liked Mowgli to have a little bit more time in the man village so I could really see him grow to feel at home there and maybe develop the random hunter character they throw into this movie (played by Matthew Rhys). That character has a lot going for him and he could have been either a really evil character or a more complicated character then they made him out to be, but I feel like they ran out of time to really develop him the way they should have.

I had in my notes early on in the film that I kind of wish that Andy Serkis had done the 2016 version, had the backing of Disney, especially their budget, and some good writers to refine the story but maintaining Serkis's alternative perspective but I don't know if I agree with that assessment now. Like I said, this is a flawed movie, but I feel like I'm going to appreciate it more because it took a lot more risks. Yes, I do wish it had had the budget and CGI effects of the 2016 version, but I feel like the dark aspects of the film would have been toned down a lot and it would have taken away from the dark vision Serkis brought. There is a specific scene in mind where Mowgli is checking out the trophies of Matthew Rhys hunting expeditions and I won't give it away but there is no way that would ever fly in a Disney version.

The result is a little bit of a mixed bag. I doubt this is a movie I will watch again but I am glad I watched it. I love the vision Serkis had, flawed as it might be. If you're looking for a dark alternative perspective on The Jungle Book I would recommend this one. I would recommend you try and separate this one from the 2016 version as best as you can. It's going to be difficult but I do think it should be judged on its own merits, not a comparison. And on its own merits, I will say again. It's flawed, but it takes risks.

Those are my thoughts on Mowgli: Legend of the Jungle. What did you think of the film? I know I said don't compare, but which one do you prefer if you've seen both this one and the 2016 version? Comment and Discuss below! You can also send me your thoughts on Twitter @MovieSymposium as well as send me your requests for films I should review in the future. If you follow me on Twitter, you can get updates on future movie news and reviews coming out of this blog.

Thanks for reading.