Mowgli: Legend of the Jungle - Review: It was better the first time
Release date (US): December 7th, 2018
Directed By: Andy Serkis
Rating: N/A (Netflix)
Starring: Andy Serkis, Christian Bale, Cate Blanchett, Benedict Cumberbatch, Naomie Harris, Peter Mullen, Jack Reynor
**DISCLAIMER**: This is a subjective, opinionated article that does not have, nor should have any affect on your opinion. As such, my opinion is entitled to change over time and whatever is written here at this point in time may not and should not be held to me in the future. You are not meant to agree with me 100 percent of the time, because the nature of subjectivity is we see everything differently. If there is something you disagree with, I absolutely respect your point of view if you will respect mine. Please keep this in mind.
Release date (US): December 7th, 2018
Directed By: Andy Serkis
Rating: N/A (Netflix)
Starring: Andy Serkis, Christian Bale, Cate Blanchett, Benedict Cumberbatch, Naomie Harris, Peter Mullen, Jack Reynor
**DISCLAIMER**: This is a subjective, opinionated article that does not have, nor should have any affect on your opinion. As such, my opinion is entitled to change over time and whatever is written here at this point in time may not and should not be held to me in the future. You are not meant to agree with me 100 percent of the time, because the nature of subjectivity is we see everything differently. If there is something you disagree with, I absolutely respect your point of view if you will respect mine. Please keep this in mind.
The Review
Maybe it isn't fair. Frankly, it really isn't. The fact that Disney went out and made The Jungle Book (2016) directed by Jon Favreau. The fact that film used visual effects brilliantly, shooting the entire film on a blue screen sound stage with one real actor. And the fact that the story, tone, and characters were so real and appealing. Now, it wasn't fair to Warner Brothers and Andy Serkis when they announced they too would be making their own adaptation of The Jungle Book, also in live-action, coming out just over a year after the Disney iteration.
So is it fair to make comparisons between the two? Unfortunately, there is no way for me to unsee the Favreau take on the famed Rudyard Kipling film. So, yes, I will do my best to be as objective as possible and fair to this film's merits. That being said; unapologetically, I can say this is nowhere close to the quality of the 2016 version.
Andy Serkis set out to make a "darker" version of the Jungle Book. He specifically was asked what the difference between his version and the Disney version, and his response was that it would be darker and would explore darker themes. But to be completely honest though, when I was watching the film, I couldn't really tell. The film has conflicting tones; there are moments where you can feel a warmth coming from Andy Serkis' Baloo, but there are other moments where he's cold, distant. You don't know exactly what to feel about any of the characters. Christian Bale's Bagheera is very one-note, as is Cate Blanchett's Kaa. They don't have any personality to them. Compared, however unfairly as this may be, to the Disney version, where you felt Bill Murray's personality shine through, I had no idea what these characters were actually like.
But a darker tone was not the only thing Serkis was going for. While Jon Favreau utilized on CGI to create his animals, Serkis and his fellow co-stars used motion-capture, as he famously does for a lot of his roles including Caesar the Ape and Gollum. But while those characters seem so real, so tangible, full of emotion, he completely missed the mark on this film, which is very disappointing because we've seen him play animals that look like actual animals, but still have a semblance of human emotion. Caesar and the rest of the apes look like actual apes; but Serkis is able to portray the entire range of emotions through his performance. But here? These animals look downright creepy. Somewhere in the rendering process, these animals are caught somewhere between animation and live-action. It's all in their eyes, really. The movement of the characters are fine - they're fluid enough to where you can pass it off as an actual animal. But the second you look at one of their eyes (see image above), it takes you out of the movie. And spending as much time with them as you do is just unsettling.
So already, the film is put at a disadvantage because it is simply hard to look at. The CGI is wonderful in terms of the backgrounds and the other visual effects, but the animals come off as cartoonish. Which, perhaps wouldn't be such a big problem IF it had not been for the fact there were other humans in this movie.
Jon Favreau, very wisely in hindsight, decided the only human in his movie would be Mowgli. Because of this, he was able to make an authentic version of the story. I respect Andy Serkis for going in a new direction, truly I do. I think that his decision to actually spend time in the village had huge potential to be a differentiating factor between the two versions. But the problem, visually, at the very least, is that the humans are the most generic and boring thing about the entire film. You don't care about any of the humans at all; the film tries to get you to see that maybe they really aren't so bad after all, but then vilifies them. So then you're left to wonder; who really is the good guy in this film?
Because it should be Mowgli; but it's so hard to root for him. The young actor who plays him (Rohan Chand) does everything he can to make him relatable. It feels very reminiscent of Neel Sethi's portrayal, which is absolutely fine. Mowgli is not meant to be a dark, brooding kind of character, no matter what kind of film he's in. Perhaps that's the problem, the fact that Serkis wanted a darker tone but stuck with lighter characters. It's more the fact that he's boring; we don't care much at all about him or what he does, and it makes the film very, very hard to watch.
But perhaps I've been too harsh. There are upsides with the movie. I think the individual voice performances from the A-list caliber actors are wonderful. Each one differentiates themselves from their 2016 counterparts. Serkis is a more gruff, rough-and-tumble version of Baloo that took me a little bit to get used to, but I came to enjoy him, especially his interactions with Mowgli. Their chemistry worked very well, just not int eh traditional, playful sense that we've seen from the animated film and the 2016 film.
Bale as Bagheera, albeit a little stale as aforementioned, was still a good "mentor" kind of figure. There is a fight between him and Baloo at a certain point that was engaging, not because of the way it was shot, but because I found that I was invested in those characters. Kaa, yet again, is relegated to very little, but I think Cate Blanchett was a perfect choice. She has a darker, more grounded voice than most female actresses that brings a very unsettling gravitas to her performance. As for Cumberbatch, you can put him in any villainous role and he will knock it out of the park. That man was born to play these sorts of roles, and it's very clear that he relishes in them (side note: anyone else notice how Cumberbatch has played both Khan and Shere Kahn?).
And for what it's worth, the first hour or so of the film was compelling. Where this film really shines is when it takes time to develop its characters. Being completely honest, the story and the visuals of the film are rather weak. But it's when these characters are walking through the jungle and talking, developing meaningful relationships that you really see the heart of the movie. It's not the action scenes where Mowgli fights off Shere Khan, but rather the moments where Baloo is training Mowgli to be a wolf that I found myself invested in the film.
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/62423522/M_FP_00002.0.jpg)
In Conclusion: Mowgli: Legend of the Jungle already had a lot to live up. The bar had been set, and now the ball was in Serkis' court. Unfortunately, aside form not living up to the '16 live-action remake, it fails to live up to most of the standards of a good film. Bottom line: you're better watching Jon Favreau do it better. Don't waste your time with this movie.
Maybe it isn't fair. Frankly, it really isn't. The fact that Disney went out and made The Jungle Book (2016) directed by Jon Favreau. The fact that film used visual effects brilliantly, shooting the entire film on a blue screen sound stage with one real actor. And the fact that the story, tone, and characters were so real and appealing. Now, it wasn't fair to Warner Brothers and Andy Serkis when they announced they too would be making their own adaptation of The Jungle Book, also in live-action, coming out just over a year after the Disney iteration.
So is it fair to make comparisons between the two? Unfortunately, there is no way for me to unsee the Favreau take on the famed Rudyard Kipling film. So, yes, I will do my best to be as objective as possible and fair to this film's merits. That being said; unapologetically, I can say this is nowhere close to the quality of the 2016 version.
Andy Serkis set out to make a "darker" version of the Jungle Book. He specifically was asked what the difference between his version and the Disney version, and his response was that it would be darker and would explore darker themes. But to be completely honest though, when I was watching the film, I couldn't really tell. The film has conflicting tones; there are moments where you can feel a warmth coming from Andy Serkis' Baloo, but there are other moments where he's cold, distant. You don't know exactly what to feel about any of the characters. Christian Bale's Bagheera is very one-note, as is Cate Blanchett's Kaa. They don't have any personality to them. Compared, however unfairly as this may be, to the Disney version, where you felt Bill Murray's personality shine through, I had no idea what these characters were actually like.
But a darker tone was not the only thing Serkis was going for. While Jon Favreau utilized on CGI to create his animals, Serkis and his fellow co-stars used motion-capture, as he famously does for a lot of his roles including Caesar the Ape and Gollum. But while those characters seem so real, so tangible, full of emotion, he completely missed the mark on this film, which is very disappointing because we've seen him play animals that look like actual animals, but still have a semblance of human emotion. Caesar and the rest of the apes look like actual apes; but Serkis is able to portray the entire range of emotions through his performance. But here? These animals look downright creepy. Somewhere in the rendering process, these animals are caught somewhere between animation and live-action. It's all in their eyes, really. The movement of the characters are fine - they're fluid enough to where you can pass it off as an actual animal. But the second you look at one of their eyes (see image above), it takes you out of the movie. And spending as much time with them as you do is just unsettling.
So already, the film is put at a disadvantage because it is simply hard to look at. The CGI is wonderful in terms of the backgrounds and the other visual effects, but the animals come off as cartoonish. Which, perhaps wouldn't be such a big problem IF it had not been for the fact there were other humans in this movie.
Jon Favreau, very wisely in hindsight, decided the only human in his movie would be Mowgli. Because of this, he was able to make an authentic version of the story. I respect Andy Serkis for going in a new direction, truly I do. I think that his decision to actually spend time in the village had huge potential to be a differentiating factor between the two versions. But the problem, visually, at the very least, is that the humans are the most generic and boring thing about the entire film. You don't care about any of the humans at all; the film tries to get you to see that maybe they really aren't so bad after all, but then vilifies them. So then you're left to wonder; who really is the good guy in this film?
Because it should be Mowgli; but it's so hard to root for him. The young actor who plays him (Rohan Chand) does everything he can to make him relatable. It feels very reminiscent of Neel Sethi's portrayal, which is absolutely fine. Mowgli is not meant to be a dark, brooding kind of character, no matter what kind of film he's in. Perhaps that's the problem, the fact that Serkis wanted a darker tone but stuck with lighter characters. It's more the fact that he's boring; we don't care much at all about him or what he does, and it makes the film very, very hard to watch.
But perhaps I've been too harsh. There are upsides with the movie. I think the individual voice performances from the A-list caliber actors are wonderful. Each one differentiates themselves from their 2016 counterparts. Serkis is a more gruff, rough-and-tumble version of Baloo that took me a little bit to get used to, but I came to enjoy him, especially his interactions with Mowgli. Their chemistry worked very well, just not int eh traditional, playful sense that we've seen from the animated film and the 2016 film.
Bale as Bagheera, albeit a little stale as aforementioned, was still a good "mentor" kind of figure. There is a fight between him and Baloo at a certain point that was engaging, not because of the way it was shot, but because I found that I was invested in those characters. Kaa, yet again, is relegated to very little, but I think Cate Blanchett was a perfect choice. She has a darker, more grounded voice than most female actresses that brings a very unsettling gravitas to her performance. As for Cumberbatch, you can put him in any villainous role and he will knock it out of the park. That man was born to play these sorts of roles, and it's very clear that he relishes in them (side note: anyone else notice how Cumberbatch has played both Khan and Shere Kahn?).
And for what it's worth, the first hour or so of the film was compelling. Where this film really shines is when it takes time to develop its characters. Being completely honest, the story and the visuals of the film are rather weak. But it's when these characters are walking through the jungle and talking, developing meaningful relationships that you really see the heart of the movie. It's not the action scenes where Mowgli fights off Shere Khan, but rather the moments where Baloo is training Mowgli to be a wolf that I found myself invested in the film.
In Conclusion: Mowgli: Legend of the Jungle already had a lot to live up. The bar had been set, and now the ball was in Serkis' court. Unfortunately, aside form not living up to the '16 live-action remake, it fails to live up to most of the standards of a good film. Bottom line: you're better watching Jon Favreau do it better. Don't waste your time with this movie.
No comments:
Post a Comment