Top
Shazam! Pet cemetery Потерянное звено Hellboy Brownie After Billion Curse of the Weeping Barabbas Synonyms Avengers: Final

Review of the film "The Jungle Book"

Graphically impressive, but scriptually rough game remake of the same Disney cartoon 1967 year.

7
evaluation

Panther Bagheera finds in the jungles of a human baby, calls him Mowgli and sends it to the wolves for education. Years later, a tiger named Sherhan, who killed the baby's father, learns about the existence of the child. The mighty predator declares publicly that he will deal with Mowgli (Neil Networks), whoever tries to protect it. While the wolves are arguing whether the boy deserves protection, Mowgli decides to save the "tribesmen" from the war. He escapes from the pack and tries to return to the village of the people where he was born.

Shot from the movie "The Jungle Book"

Shot from the movie "The Jungle Book"

Rudyard Kipling's "jungle book" has repeatedly been shown on the screen, but of all its film and television versions, only two deserve close attention: the same-named Disney Cartoon 1967 year and began to go out in the same year, the Soviet mini-series "Mowgli", In 1973-m collected in a full-length animated film. While the Disney version is stronger graphically and technically, Soviet film adaptation more precisely follows the Kipling text and much better conveys the heroic pathos of the original. Therefore it would be great if someone bothered to combine the best of what was in these tapes, and to show the world an impeccable "Mowgli".

Shot from the movie "The Jungle Book"

Shot from the movie "The Jungle Book"

Unfortunately, this someone can not be a director on a contract with the studio Walt Disney. Disneyevtsy zealously regard their heritage, and it is difficult to imagine that they, after watching the Soviet "Mowgli", said: "Oh! The Russian filmmakers have much to learn! "The Disney's" The Jungle Book "has earned money for half a century, and it would be absurd to reinvent the wheel, stressing that all this time Americans enjoyed the" wrong "interpretation of the classic fairy tale. In addition, the "Book of the Jungle" was the last cartoon film to which Walt Disney had personally put his hand, and this in itself is a serious reason not to cross out the 1967 vision with a fundamentally new interpretation. Disney died, but Mowgli lives it!

Shot from the movie "The Jungle Book"

Shot from the movie "The Jungle Book"

Therefore, there is nothing strange in that the new Disney "Jungle Book" generally follows the version of 1967 year, and does not draw inspiration from the Soviet film adaptation or Kipling's text. Once the studio masters decided that Mowgli should be a small boy throughout the whole length of the film and that Balu should be portrayed as a good-natured slobbering person, and not as a harsh teacher of children, so that's the way it should be. And, of course, no one even thought about making Bagheera a female, although he behaves more like a woman than a man in the film. It is said in Kipling and in the cartoon 1967 of the year "he" - will be "he".

Shot from the movie "The Jungle Book"

Shot from the movie "The Jungle Book"

This is Bill Murray's second joint film (Balo's voice) and Scarlett Johansson (Kaa's voice) after "The difficulties of translation"

True, the director John Favreau ("Iron Man") Turned into a female python Kaa. But this is more a slap in the face of feminists than a benevolent gesture toward them, since the heroine Scarlett Johansson in the film there is only one scene, and villainous. Kaa was a villain and in the interpretation of Disney, but there he had two scenes. Was it worth hiring a star "The Avengers"For the sake of one monologue and the opportunity to proudly say in an interview that almost exclusively a man's fairy tale has become more feminine?

Shot from the movie "The Jungle Book"

Shot from the movie "The Jungle Book"

In order to make it easier for the little Neel Seti to play, the animals' roles were played on the set by puppets made in full size. During post-production they were replaced by computer beasts

Formally, the new "Jungle Book" refers to the new Disney program "Game remakes of our classic cartoons" (remember last year's "Cinderella"), But it's hard to call a" game "tape, where only small debutant Neal Seti (and Mowgli's father in flashback) are from the living creatures on the screen. All the other four-legged characters and a significant part of the landscape are photorealistic painted on computers. It looks, however, much steeper and more spectacular than the "flat" graphics of the 1967 cartoon. Unless, of course, you are annoyed that realistic beasts open their mouths in a human way when they talk to Mowgli. There is nothing criminal about this, but some viewers have been complaining about it since the times of "Baba: A four-legged baby».

Shot from the movie "The Jungle Book"

Shot from the movie "The Jungle Book"

In addition to greater graphic realism, the new "Jungle Book" is noticeably more dramatic than a cartoon half a century old. In the course of action, several characters die, and the film has "heroic" scenes (in particular, the final battle with Sherkhan), which can frighten the smallest spectators. This is in no way a reproach, and praise - Favreau took the picture in the right direction, and you can only regret that the tape was not made even tougher and even closer to Kipling's tonality. Although for this, probably, would have to make Mowgli older, as in the final chapters of the Soviet animated series.

Shot from the movie "The Jungle Book"

Shot from the movie "The Jungle Book"

If Favreau and his team are to blame for something, it's for strange plot and artistic decisions. So, in the final, Mowgli first casts out a scary torch and says with fervor that he is ready to fight like a wolf, and not as a human being, and then a couple of minutes later still uses fire against Sherkhan. Somehow it's not heroic ... And here's a chiffchaff - because in India orangutans are not found, Favreau turned the orangutan of Louis (a character invented for the 1967 cartoon of the year) into a fossil four-meter gigantopithecus. Yes, these big guys in India were, but they died out 100 thousand years ago. And in the "Book of the Jungle" gigantopithec looks much more absurd than the orang-utan, "straining" only Indians and zoologists. And by the way, why do half of the animals in the film speak Mogli's understandable language, and the other half communicate with animal sounds? What unites "dumb" monkeys, elephants, squirrels? Absolutely arbitrary, ungrounded decision ... And finally - if the heroes of the whole movie repeat the Law of the jungle, which can be referred to as "One for a flock, a flock for one", then why in the final Mowgli actually beats with Sherkhan alone? Why a "frog" flock, if he is cool without it?

So, although in general the new "Jungle Book" is not bad and it even contains songs from the 1967 cartoon, its graphic and dramatic upgrade is leveled by these and other blunders that Favreau brought (or saved). Therefore, to say that it is better than an 1967 cartoon, the language does not turn. But the worst canvas is not called, but for a remake is already a big plus. As for our "Mowgli", his pedestal is still unshakable. And it's nice - even though we disregard Disney people in some way ...

Since 7 April at the cinema.

Stay tuned and get fresh reviews, compilations and news about the movies first!

Yandex ZenYandex Zen | InstagramInstagram | TelegramTelegram | TwitterTwitter


186



Do you like the material?

Maybe you will be interested?


Subscribe to us and be always up to date!

I do not want to see this anymore
G|translate Your license is inactive or expired, please subscribe again!