The Jungle Book Review

With the craze of adapting fairy tales as realistic movies it is no surprise that Disney followed suit with that trend. Their idea is to remake their animated films and update them for the 21^st century. Disney’s live action remakes are often hit and miss, financially successful but mixed with their audiences. Some changes work but for the most part failed to capture what made their animated counterparts iconic. Tim Burton’s Alice in Wonderland (2010) felt more like Alice in Narnia, Maleficent (2014) tried to convince the audience that the original Sleeping Beauty (1959) was a lie the whole time, and Cinderella (2015) was polarizing where most of the updates work but the remake turned the main character into a more sexist caricature in a film that is SUPPOSED to be a modern update. Because of those problems I groan every time Disney announces a new remake based off of one of their own animated features, and with The Jungle Book (2016) given the same treatment I was skeptical. However, upon watching the film my worries were put to rest.

The film works the same as the original 1967 film, Mowgli, played by Neel Sethi, is raised by wolves but word gets out that the tiger Shere Khan, played by Idris Elba, is after Mowgli because of his hate for humans. So the panther Bagherra, played by Ben Kingsley offers to take Mowgli back to the man village but Mowgli doesn’t want to go as he feels the jungle is his home. Along the way they come across Baloo the bear, played by Bill Murray, who promises to let Mowgli stay in the jungle until he learns about Shere Khan so he tries to take Mowgli back as well. Along the way they encounter Kaa the snake, played by Scarlett Johansson, King Louie of the monkeys played by Christopher Walken, and eventually have the battle against Shere Khan in the end that would determine Mowgli's fate.

The remake’s narrative is almost exactly the same as the animated film. The basic plot points are there but the movie extends them while keeping true to the original and makes references to the Rudyard Kipling story. Improving some moments that does not insult the animated film like Maleficent did. The characters feel the same but some changes fit the darker tone and even get some expansion. Mowgli for example doesn’t come off as impulsive and hot headed as the original, he’s still determined to stay in the jungle but you feel his pain that he does not want to leave his only family that he’s ever known. In addition, the film has Mowgli invent gadgets and tricks to help him gather food, showing how Mowgli is learning to fend for himself when we didn’t see much from him in the animated film. For Neel Sethi’s first major lead, his portrayal as Mowgli its commendable. In addition, the wolves actually get more screentime considering that they play a big part in the actual story, Mowgli’s Brothers from the original Jungle Book.

The other characters stay the same but the changes to the villains are very noticeable. Kaa is actually more intimidating compared to the original who was more comedic. King Louie is still comedic but is much more villainous compared to the animated Louie. More threatening but is still entertaining thanks to Christopher Walken’s performance. On a side note, when Walken started to sing “I Wanna Be Like You” I literally had to hold my hold my breath to avoid laughing out loud in the theater, it was THAT hilarious! Its not bad by any means but Walken is known for coming off so awkward in his performances that it makes it entertaining whether he intended it or not. Either way it was the funniest moment of the entire movie to me. Finally the big character difference is with main villain himself, Shere Khan. The original was very calm and dignified but can be intimidating since almost all of the animals fear the strength he possesses. While the remake’s Shere Khan is not as charming but he makes up for it with how frightening he can be. After Mowgli’s departure to the village, Shere Khan kills the leader of the wolf pack and holds them hostage unless they bring Mowgli to him. So while many may miss the charming tiger of the animated film, those looking for a more aggressive and frightening villain will certainly get what they want here.

With all that it sounds like the film is a superior remake right? Well…yes and no. Compared to the other live action remakes, The Jungle Book is a much better film but there are some changes that may not make everyone happy. To have more character interactions than before, others were either cut back or removed. While the elephants are in the remake they don’t have any lines at all but they are much more respected by the other animals compared to the original. In addition the vultures were cut entirely so anyone who loved the Beatles inspired buzzards from the original will be disappointed. Another flaw I found was with its ending, which doesn’t ruin the film but for those wanting the exact same ending may be in for a surprise. Honestly I thought it was a cop out at first, but after learning that its already getting a sequel with the same director on board, I hope that they can expand on Mowgli’s story similar to how his continued in the original book. So this nitpick is very minor.

The other flaw is something that will be unavoidable when talking about the remake is that how Disney once again failed to make a true adaptation of Kipling’s story. Though I wouldn’t call it flaw exactly since the animated film intentionally didn’t follow the original story, as its focus was to make the movie entertaining for western audiences. Its just there are two groups of people when it comes to adaptations of famous stories: those who love different interpretations and those who wants a 100% retelling. People who love the original story may be disappointed with this movie but for those that love the original film or accept that this is not a 100% adaptation will still be entertained. If anyone wants an adaptation that stays true to the original story, the 1976 Chuck Jones animated short is so far the most faithful adaptation of The Jungle Book in regards to Mowgli’s story.

After the disappointment of the last remakes, I can safely say that Disney’s The Jungle Book is a must see for those who love the original or are seeing this story for the first time. It is very rare that a remake not only updates the last film properly but also compliments the original without insulting it. A modern remake like this doesn’t come around everyday that respect its audience, see it while you can!

Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice Review

Warner Bros. and DC Comics just took their first step into creating the DC Cinematic Universe with their two iconic superheroes battling it out. With Zack Snyder returning to direct, will this superhero fight be enough to live up to the hype of this legendary encounter?

18 months after the events of Man of Steel (2013), Superman, played by Henry Cavill, becomes a controversial figure. Some believe him to be a hero while others see him as a threat, and among those that believe the latter is Bruce Wayne, played by Ben Affleck. In return when Clark learns about Batman’s actions he sees the dark knight as a threat too.

Meanwhile Lex Luthor, played by Jesse Eisenberg, tries to convince Senator Finch to grant him permission to weaponize the recently discovered kryptonite to use against Superman. Only to have his request denied.

While decrypting a date file Bruce received from Diana Prince, played by Gal Gadot, he receives a vision of a post-apocalyptic future with a warning that Lois Lane plays a crucial role in the distant future in regards to Superman’s actions. Batman becomes even more convinced that Superman is a threat. During their conflict they are unaware that they are both being manipulated the whole time by Lex Luthor for a much grander scheme. As the race is on for not only to stop the two powerhouses from fighting but to also stop the mad plan that Luthor has in store.

With that has been built up to since 2013, does Dawn of Justice live up to the hype? Without giving too much away…no. No it does not. The sad thing too is that I REALLY wanted to like this movie as I enjoyed Man of Steel with all its flaws, and that was one of the most polarizing movies of 2013. But Dawn of Justice feels like they're trying to fix their mistakes from the last film, they only made more problems in return. I can describe the two major problems with this film right here; convoluted story that goes all over the place and being senselessly dark that feels too forced.

If you read how I described the summary of the film’s plot, you should get an idea that the story goes all over the place. The reason is because DC Comics is desperate to try and catch up to Marvel with their success of the Marvel cinematic universe. The difference is that while Marvel built up major events by giving the heroes their own film that help develop their characters. DC tried to cram a lot into one film. It is like they took one step forward then dashed all the way through just to get to their major crossover event without careful planning. DC’s attempt is to have all their heroes introduced at once and then give them their own movies. The idea isn’t bad as they have done it before with their critically acclaimed animated series Justice League (2001-2004), but the problem is that with lack of care and respect for their material this film comes off as desperate. This is not what I want to see for their first attempt with the DC Cinematic universe.

Having a jumbled story is one thing, what bothered me the most is how senselessly dark this film is. Ever since the success of the Nolan Batman films, DC Comics has been on this trend to make their stories as dark, gritty and realistic as possible. Something that has been a major criticism that not just applies to their films but also their comics since the New 52 reboot. That is not to say DC heroes can’t be dark. It has been done before and quite well when the team knows what they are doing. That has been shown in their animated shows as well as their straight to video films like Superman vs. The Elite (2012) and Wonder Woman (2009). But instead of hiring people who know how to write these iconic heroes, they hire people that try to make the film as dark as possible that can be described as a child trying to be adult with no knowledge how to be one. It just reeks of immaturity, and in a time where comic book movies have been getting better in quality and presentation, Warner Bros. and DC seems resistant when it comes to their live action movies.

Another element to add to this problem is the story that initially was inspired to make Batman v Superman, Frank Miller’s The Dark Knight Returns (1986). This else-world story was famous for two reasons; bringing Batman back to his darker days and was the first to ever have Batman and Superman fight each other. But the reason why the two heroes fought each other was very different compared to the movie. After Batman came out of retirement, he reclaimed his city from the rising number of criminals that actually made Gotham the safest in America. But the humiliated Ronald Reagan didn’t like being outshined by Batman so he sent Superman, who became a tool of the U.S. government, to take down Batman as a result. In the midst of the conflict the two friends did not want to fight each other as they have their own ways of dealing with criminals. But as long as Superman is under the control of the government, he had to fight Batman.

Despite their reason for the fight, the book showed that they still respected each other as heroes. Whereas Dawn of Justice forces the two to fight each other that results in making Batman a paranoid idiot and presents only to provide fan service to those who read the inspired story. Even then using those elements doesn’t help this movie but hinders it. What’s ironic is that there is an animated adaptation of The Dark Knight Returns that is much better than Batman v Superman. The animated movie kept its dark tone but respected its heroes and audience unlike the Zack Snyder film that was advertised everywhere but didn’t respect their intelligence. 

With all that said, Batman v Superman utterly fails to live up to everyone’s expectations as a massive comic book movie. If DC wanted to catch up to Marvel they should do what made Marvel successful to begin with. By treating their IP’s with respect. Providing well-paced action, easy to follow storylines, likeable characters and most important of all, present why we love these heroes to begin with. Even if they continue on the dark path, as long as those elements are there with a crew that knows the material inside and out, DC will produce live action movies on par with their animated hits. But as long as DC Comics keep up with their futile attempt to be “edgy”, our patience with them will only grow thinner.