|
OK so now I'm going to write a bunch about The Jungle Book. I went with my sister, my niece (Baby K, age 4) and my nephew (age 11) to see this in IMAX 3D on Sunday morning. $10 a ticket, pretty sweet! The theater I saw it in was about 2/3 full on a Sunday morning which is PACKED by my weekend-morning standards. There were a lot of kids there. I was a little worried about Baby K because I'd heard the movie could be intense for young kids but she's tough and it's a rough old world out there. A lot of the kids in the audience looked to be about her age or a little older, 4 to maybe 7 or so. There were a bunch of little kids right behind me, which I expected to be utter hell, but they were almost completely quiet throughout the entire movie like almost every other kid in the theater. My 11 year-old nephew has the attention span of a gnat and basically doesn't concentrate on anything he doesn't find completely enthralling and he said exactly three words to me during the entire movie. "It's the snake." If your movie can keep an audience of single-digit kids and a hyperactive 11 year-old quiet and attentive for its entire run-time, you have succeeded in just about every way a movie can. High five, Jon Favreau. You done it. This is a really good film and you should go see it. It reminded me a lot of the Lord of the Rings movies in that you could tell the people who were making this movie really cared about it. And by that I don't mean the studio or the director but the actual people who did the actual work of making the movie really cared about it and wanted it to be good. It really, really showed IMO and this is a day-1 Blu-ray buy for me and I don't buy many movies. Spoilers in case you don't know the story of the loving Jungle Book. Seriously? Ha ha just kidding I'm not spoilering poo poo. Mowgli dies and Shere Khan rapes the corpse. Read on and find out what's in the Magna Carta also for gently caress's sake. This is a really great adaptation of a really great story done with really great technology by people who really gave a poo poo. The movie is visually almost flawless and beautiful. I thought the 3D was well-done and was glad I saw it that way; it's used to give lots of depth to a lot of scenes rather than really having things come at you. I was reminded in several places of the way Pandora looked as a backdrop while looking at the jungle here. The animals are loving ridiculous Space Age-CGI that impressed even a jaded 11 year-old. My favorite thing about the entire movie is the sequence where Mowgli encounters Kaa in the depths of the jungle. If some sort of mind flayer had read my thoughts walking into the theater and translated it to film it wouldn't really have been any different. I like this scene so much I kind of worry it's making me look at the entire rest of the film with rose-colored glasses because it's just so God-damned great, but this is the life we live. The end of this scene was one of "a couple" of times the 4 year-old was semi-scared by the film, but more on that later. In the entire movie there were only two times that I made a  face. One was the weird, out-of-place, wtf song from King Louie. My nephew liked it because he said it was "creepy" but by the time we talked about it a half-hour later my niece had completely forgotten it. It was the one part of the movie that felt like "welp poo poo we gotta do this here I guess" instead of "HOORAY WE ARE REMAKING THE loving JUNGLE BOOK!" if that makes any sense. "Bare Necessities" happened at a point in the movie that really supported the fact that hey here's a loving song out of nowhere, while King Louie's song just feels like "he's gotta sing here, he sang in the last one, I guess, whatever." BTW it may have been through cultural osmosis but both kids DID remember "Bare Necessities" a couple hours later.The other was the one instance of really "whoa poo poo" CGI in the film. Understand, I'm looking for flaws here. Like, this is the nitpickiest poo poo, a nit that is itself on a nit, BUT when the monkeys haul Mowgli up the cliff face in the wide shot that shows a bunch of them, the one carrying Mowgli looks pretty good but man some of the others look alarming. But again realize, this is in the entire film. By someone looking for it. I've seen the Planet of the Apes movies, people. I've seen some poo poo. And that one scene that's like 3.5 seconds long is the one place it doesn't look like the kid is just singing with a loving talking bear while floating down a river in the middle of a jungle. Story was great, everything flowed very well into a coherent whole with (IMO) a much better ending than the animated film. I really liked (and the 11 year-old noted unprompted) the way the wolves at the end were trying to be like Mowgli and he was acting as their teacher. I liked this so much better than "SO LONG ANIMAL FRIENDS!" The kid was great! There were one or two times that he did something that made me think "kid acting class" but again it's really a nit's nit, he did a great job and both kids really, really liked him. I liked baby Mowgli's Goku pants. I wonder wtf it's like as that kid to see the finished product. OK so should you take your kid to see The Jungle Book? I had no real qualms about taking my nephew because his immediate family doesn't monitor his Internet usage and so he's seen the loving Devil's Rejects  I wondered about my 4 year-old niece, though. She's a pretty tough cookie from a family that hunts and fishes so take that into consideration. She said that she was scared "a couple" of times, and "mainly when the tiger was being scary." Shere Khan is a bad motherfucker in this movie make no mistake. There are some pretty intense sequences when various animals are fighting because yeah it straight-up looks like a GIANT panther and a GIANT tiger are knocking the gently caress out of each other. There's no real gore of any kind (I actually don't really remember any blood at all), it's just fast and loud and I can see how to a little kid that might be an "oh gently caress this can't be the right movie im scared" moment, like when an 8 year-old JS's eyes bugged out at ET going batshit in the cornfield. I actually talked to my sister about this while writing this post and she said her kid did not seem traumatized and was actually running around playing as Mowgli while we were talking leading her "pack" of 2 Jack Russell wolves, and that her teacher said pretty much all she talked about today was the movie. So yeah take your kid, who gives a poo poo, by the time they're 9 they'll have had access to at least one unfiltered Internet connection and will thus be ruined for life. I honestly probably wouldn't take a little kid if I knew they were "scary" and got wigged out easily or had nightmares, but poo poo, you gotta have nightmares about something. So yeah, take em. And take anybody else you can, because this is a good show and it deserves to make a pile of money. Bonus adorable story: At one point Baby K tugged on my sleeve. I looked at her and she said in a completely calm and reasonable voice, "I'm scared." She did not seemed panicked or like she was freaked out. It was like she just had to let someone know, "Hey, I am unnerved at this moment." I said, "That's okay. I'm right here. Just watch the movie." She looked at me for about a second, got a very determined look on her face, gave me a very determined nod, and went eyes forward again.
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 00:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 12:37 |
|
|
Gah. The one time I decided to go 2D by choice and it was the wrong decision.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 01:19
|
|
|
I really liked this. Was the cowbell scene in the book or was that a nod to walken?
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 02:42
|
|
|
Abu Dave posted:I really liked this. Was the cowbell scene in the book or was that a nod to walken? Haha I never connected that, has to be a nod. Bear Necessities and Be Like You elevate the movie, and Bill Murray is amazing as Baloo.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 05:35
|
|
|
The cowbell was a fantastic nod. I also spotted the Genie's lamp from Aladdin when Mowgli was in the village looking for fire.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 06:48
|
|
|
Saw this in 3d, loved it, the ending with the wolves jolted me a bit from the tonal shift but otherwise I really have no complaints. I thought Wanna Be Like You fit in great and the monkey stuff was amazing. On the whole I wasn't floored by the CGI like I was back when Avatar came out but the temple bit and so on was incredibly impressive. e: oh yeah the storybook credits stuff was really nice too I was a little worried when I saw the trailer that the animals emoting would be weird but I think the sound was maybe just a touch desynced or something because I didn't have a problem with that in the actual movie for even a moment. The animals talking was probably the most impressive CGI in it in retrospect, and the fact it felt totally natural and didn't catch my attention at all is all the more impressive. As an aside, I'm really happy to see lots of people saw it in 3d here. People disparage 3d pretty unfairly I think, studios grew out of the gimmicky "let's fly poo poo out of the screen" phase years ago, these days it's (nearly always) used in moderation and adds a lot of depth. I pretty much exclusively watch animated movies in 3d when I can. Koramei fucked around with this message at 01:51 on Apr 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 01:49
|
|
|
Just watched it on a 75' screen on $5 night. Sadly, they alternate showings between 2d and 3d on that screen and I landed on the 2d. I'll definitely go back around and catch a 3D showing, probably this weekend. I liked the "Wanna be Like You" rendition they did for this one, because Walken channeling Marlon Brando Ape Godfather should be creepy and menacing and it's pulled off pretty well. Sadly I didn't stick around for "Trust in Me", but fortunately I did stick around long enough to catch that Louie Lives!
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 05:46
|
|
|
Honestly the movie's good but it only starts when Baloo shows up.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 07:10
|
|
|
Very enjoyable film. I liked King Louie's little Salacious Crumb monkeys popping out of his fur. A very nice little visual touch.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 17:46
|
|
|
I saw this movie today completely unaware that it was even in production I literally first heard of it yesterday after I'd just watched Eddie the Eagle and saw my buddy coming into the cinema, he told me he was watching The Jungle Book. He had kids so I presumed they were showing the animated movie, I checked the app later to see if there was anything worth seeing on and saw it was a new movie! So I booked a ticket I found this odd as its rare for a film to go under my radar. Needless to say I was pleasantly surprised it was a fantastic film and the FX work is nothing short of mesmerising, I didn't look at the cast list so had fun guessing the voices (the only one I recognised immediately was Walken) both King Louie and Kaa were goddamn enormous in this movie but realised incredibly well.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 21:45
|
|
|
This film is just delightful. I was entertained throughout. Shere Khan was a great villain. Every single voice actor did an amazing job, Elba I thought was a standout. More of this from Disney and we'll keep seeing them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 06:54
|
|
|
Didn't follow this movie at all during production and saw it last night. It was loving great. I actually wished they had done 1 or 2 more songs. The cast is also loving stacked for this movie, it was kinda crazy. Go watch this.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2016 14:35
|
|
|
Lol the NYT review consists entirely of grousing about CGI
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2016 17:28
|
|
|
The only thing I sort of agree with is that calling it live action is a bit of a stretch when only the kid is real and every single other character is CGI as well as the environments. Does the presence of a single human in an otherwise animated movie make it live action? Maybe its something that needs a new name. Virtual live action? Blended reality? I suppose as were already at the point where people can only see the bad CGI and the good stuff appears totally real that its hard to know what to call stuff.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2016 17:45
|
|
|
Saw this last night, and was incredibly impressed with it. Although I agree with whoever before me said that the movie doesn't really start until you get to Baloo. He's awesome. I also loved all the voice acting. My two favorite things of all: Kaa isn't an obnoxious bumblefuck of a character like in the original animated movie. Also, the three little animal friends Baloo have that come up and have the really repetitive discussion about Mowgli's climbing. I found that a lot funnier than I should have. Either way, would definitely watch it again. I wish I would have seen it in 3D though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2016 22:23
|
|
|
hottubrhymemachine posted:The only thing I sort of agree with is that calling it live action is a bit of a stretch when only the kid is real and every single other character is CGI as well as the environments. Does the presence of a single human in an otherwise animated movie make it live action? Maybe its something that needs a new name. Virtual live action? Blended reality?
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2016 02:52
|
|
|
Timeless Appeal posted:I feel like presentation matters more than technique. Jungle Book feels like a live action movie. The same way Waking Life is actually made mostly as a live action movie, but the rotoscoping creates a final product that ultimately feels like an animated film. I like that but does it mean we can have an all CGI movie with only voice actors that would be classed as live action? Saying something is a live action CGI film sounds strange. Not that this tangent is important, more of an idle curiosity. I dont want to derail the thread.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2016 16:24
|
|
|
hottubrhymemachine posted:I like that but does it mean we can have an all CGI movie with only voice actors that would be classed as live action? Saying something is a live action CGI film sounds strange. How much of a difference is there between this and the upcoming Warcraft movie, in this regard?
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2016 16:42
|
|
|
Saw this today, and I gotta say, it was a lot of fun. The flick is absolutely gorgeous, the voice acting is spot-on, and the kid who plays Mowgli is legit charming. Definitely a lot better than the other live-action Disney adaptions that have been rolling out over the past couple of years. Unexpected bonus: Sam Raimi plays a squirrel.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2016 22:34
|
|
|
I generally liked it, thought it was a very fun and charming flick. However, I guess I shouldn't have watched some of the b-roll, as I was able to see the division between Mowgli and the CGI backgrounds semi-regularly, it just didn't mesh entirely well. In IMAX 3D it felt more like a theme park ride than a movie chock-full of substance, but every bit of it put a smile on my face, so I won't complain. The drunk dudes behind me were pretty bad, though, shouting out their guesses for character voices (somehow they got John Cusack out of Baloo's first appearance). I was pretty bad, too. I wasn't totally sober and the sheer speed and brutality of Khan grabbing Akeela and tossing him off the cliff set me off, I fought to stifle my laughter for what felt like hours. It was just how fast it happened. "We have no quarrel." "OK, well, I'll *chomp, throw* All of the animals looked awesome, but Bagheera's my boy. 10/10, would pet.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2016 18:18
|
|
|
this was the jungle book? I thought I was watching planet earth
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2016 21:14
|
|
|
Turning Mowgli into jungle MacGyver was kind of neat. Makes me wonder what they've got in mind for this sequel they've allegedly greenlit.error1 posted:The new ending is much better than the old animated one, in the animated version he gets seduced by a girl and leaves his friends behind like they didn't matter to him at all and he's only thinking with his dick. I hated that ending. Yeah, I was just thinking that someone at Disney must have thought that maybe that wasn't such a great message to be sending. And if you think about it, their most-likely-intended message of "you belong with others like you, no matter what" isn't a whole lot better.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2016 23:22
|
|
|
There are some interesting parallels that can be drawn between the ending to the animated Jungle Book and the Epic of Gilgamesh, in which the character Enkidu is "civilised" by sleeping with a prostitute. Through the sexual encounter, he gains a greater understanding of the world and a desire for lasting friendship, but he also loses his innocence and the special bond he shared with animals. Mowgli's choice to leave for the village strikes me as similarly ambivalent. He may very well lead a wonderful life among other humans, but he is also forever cut off from the carefree days of his youth. Like the Epic of Gilgamesh, the animated Jungle Book seems to imply that civilisation and nature are fundamentally incompatible and that you cannot truly belong to one without giving up the other. Conversely, Favreau's version starts from a similar vantage point (I think it's interesting that both Shere Khan and Bagheera argue that man does not belong in the jungle, they just have different conceptions of what that actually means), but reaches the opposite conclusion. Mowgli is allowed to stay in the jungle while simultaneously learning to embrace his human side. Not only can civilisation and nature coexist, but their symbiosis creates something even greater, as evidenced by Mowgli using his tools to help Baloo and the elephants. It's a decidedly more optimistic take on the relationship between man and environment than we saw in the animated version.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2016 04:51
|
|
|
Since this is another adaptation of a classic, I'll keep my notes short. - The visuals blow the original Disney animated cartoon out of the water, 3D looked great, I'm sure 2D would be fine. - The voice acting is better across the board than the original - It is a fair bit darker than before, and frankly I found the endlessly repeated mantra of the wolf pack to be a bit annoying - The songs,which are less of a focus, are not quite as good, Walken does a nice job but he's no Louis Prima. It can definitely stand toe to toe with the original, younger kids might prefer the brighter and happier cartoon version, I would think 8-12 year old's would like this version better, but it does a great job of being enjoyable for any age group.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2016 07:19
|
|
|
The scene between Khan and Raksha where he's telling the wolf cubs about the Cuckoo is so drat good. I was enjoying the film a lot already, but it was at that point that I started loving it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2016 21:28
|
|
|
TFRazorsaw posted:... Walken has done theater for years. He can sing just fine. Yeah, King Louie is loving TERRIFYING in this adaptation and his song isn't fun, it's menacing. I thought it was a brilliant subversion. I thought JB was going to be mediocre but I ended up really charmed by it. Great CGI, great lead, and I was really impressed with the way they let this ten(?) year old get Revenant-style hosed up all throughout the film. Everything had weight and texture and you could practically smell the jungle. I was really impressed.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 13:56
|
|
|
Samuel Clemens posted:There are some interesting parallels that can be drawn between the ending to the animated Jungle Book and the Epic of Gilgamesh, in which the character Enkidu is "civilised" by sleeping with a prostitute. Through the sexual encounter, he gains a greater understanding of the world and a desire for lasting friendship, but he also loses his innocence and the special bond he shared with animals. Mowgli's choice to leave for the village strikes me as similarly ambivalent. He may very well lead a wonderful life among other humans, but he is also forever cut off from the carefree days of his youth. Like the Epic of Gilgamesh, the animated Jungle Book seems to imply that civilisation and nature are fundamentally incompatible and that you cannot truly belong to one without giving up the other. Didn't Kipling's original story have Mowgli attempt to move into the man-village, only to be kicked out (having been accused of witchcraft or something) and end up back in the jungle? Though I suppose that would simply be a different take on the whole "nature and civilization are 100% incompatible" idea. Anal Surgery posted:Yeah, King Louie is loving TERRIFYING in this adaptation and his song isn't fun, it's menacing. I thought it was a brilliant subversion. It does seem pretty fitting when you think about what King Louie most likely wanted fire for.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2016 02:06
|
|
|
Cockmaster posted:Didn't Kipling's original story have Mowgli attempt to move into the man-village, only to be kicked out (having been accused of witchcraft or something) and end up back in the jungle? Though I suppose that would simply be a different take on the whole "nature and civilization are 100% incompatible" idea. Yeah, in the original Mowgli ended up destroying the man-village because he was sick of their bullshit (the villagers were going to kill the couple who had taken him in for harboring a witch/demon/forest-spirit) and then he went back to the jungle. The Jungle Books 1 & 2 ruled and I read them all the time as a kid, and the cartoon was weird to me when I had first seen it since Kaa was a good friend of Mowgli's in the book.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2016 02:17
|
|
|
Thanks to this movie I learned that Disney has a long standing ban on filming captive exotic animals for movies. Like the animators weren't even allowed to go to a zoo for photo references. They had to rely on Planet Earth footage and Internet resources when designing the models. That's seriously progressive for a company of Disney's size, especially since it dates back to the 50s-60s.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2016 20:51
|
|
|
Macdeo Lurjtux posted:Thanks to this movie I learned that Disney has a long standing ban on filming captive exotic animals for movies. Like the animators weren't even allowed to go to a zoo for photo references. They had to rely on Planet Earth footage and Internet resources when designing the models. That's seriously progressive for a company of Disney's size, especially since it dates back to the 50s-60s. I know they're not "exotic", but wasn't the crew behind Bambi meticulously studying animals, so that they would look like the real thing?
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2016 21:05
|
|
|
Probably, but I don't think the ban covers non-exotic animals and Bambi was made in 42 before the ban was even put in place.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2016 21:14
|
|
|
Macdeo Lurjtux posted:Probably, but I don't think the ban covers non-exotic animals and Bambi was made in 42 before the ban was even put in place. I completely missed the last sentence in your previous post, my bad.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2016 21:27
|
|
|
Walt Disney was also honorary chairman of the National Wildlife Week from 1956 onwards and recorded multiple PSAs for them. Conservationism seemed to be one of his pet issues.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2016 22:02
|
|
|
Samuel Clemens posted:Walt Disney was also honorary chairman of the National Wildlife Week from 1956 onwards and recorded multiple PSAs for them. Conservationism seemed to be one of his pet issues. When did they force a bunch of lemmings off a cliff?
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2016 22:14
|
|
|
They actually killed a really rare Lion because they were idiots and put a Lion and a Panther in a traveling circus cage and the Lion put it's claw under the divider and the panther bit it off, true story.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2016 00:25
|
|
|
Macdeo Lurjtux posted:Thanks to this movie I learned that Disney has a long standing ban on filming captive exotic animals for movies. Like the animators weren't even allowed to go to a zoo for photo references. They had to rely on Planet Earth footage and Internet resources when designing the models. That's seriously progressive for a company of Disney's size, especially since it dates back to the 50s-60s. I don't know about Jungle Book but for Zootopia they took a field trip to study at animals at Disney World's Animal Kingdom park.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2016 21:03
|
|
|
Could have sworn there are pictures or a video of animators on Lion King playing with a young cub in the studio. It might have been on a preview attached to a VHS from the 90s? I'm willing to admit I might misremember, but it's a pretty defined image in my mind. But yeah it kicks rear end that Disney went that far. Can't imagine other studios doing that. Wonder how Fox had them draw up Richard Parker in Life of Pi?
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2016 21:27
|
|
|
  They definitely had lions in studio for The Lion King, and I remember seeing these pictures in that Disney Adventures magazine I loved around that time.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2016 17:34
|
|
|
Apparently, the sequel had been greenlit before this movie had been released: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tSJBUDkfofE And they say the plan is to incorporate some of Kipling's stories (presumably, ones not involved in any existing adaptation), which would be interesting. I have been curious as to if and how the sequel will address the prospect of Mowgli moving into the man-village. After all, the ending seemed to imply that everyone had accepted that with Shere Khan out of the picture, there was no compelling need for Mowgli to leave his family and friends behind just for the sake of being with his own species. You don't suppose Disney would have the balls to keep that part true to the source material, would they? Thanks to all this, I've also just discovered Honest Trailers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MURigSnzUBk
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 01:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 12:37 |
|
|
The entire Christopher-Walken-as-King-Louie-as-Colonel-Kurtz sequence was the best bit of this already otherwise fantastic film, song and all. Haters go home  + I thought it was pretty neat that they changed him from an orangutan to a gigantopithecus because there aren't any orangutans in India.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 03:17
|
|
