2014's "Maleficent" 2015's "Cinderella" kicked off what I'm calling Disney's "Reboot Era". There is a list almost as long as my arm of live-action remakes that the company have pencilled in for a facelift in the next couple of years which includes Beauty and the Beast, Winnie the Pooh, Pete's Dragon and also classic Disney villain Cruella De Vil. This year it was the turn of the Jungle Book.
I'm just going to say this straight off the bat; nine times out of ten I go into reboots with a negative predisposition. From my point of view I'd much rather see an original concept or adaptation brought to life on the big screen for the first time, however nowadays studios want to invest their money in bankable franchises that will make a profit. And therein lies the problem: most reboots are little more than cash-grabs by the bigwigs. On the flip side, even when this isn't the case and a reboot is good, you will still find for the most part that it will be unable to escape the shadow cast over it by its predecessors. In many ways reboots and remakes are fighting a losing battle before they even make it on to our screens because they will always be heavily scrutinised and compared to the original (look no further than the negative reaction thrown at the lacklustre "Ghostbusters" trailer as an example of this in action).
Jon Favreau's Jungle Book is the exception to the rule in that I think it will be remembered as being superior to the original.
Just to make things clear, this doesn't mean that I absolutely love this movie. To be completely honest, the 1967 version is one of my least favourite Disney Animated Classics purely due to its disjointed story, underwhelming animation and the fact it only has 1 or 2 really good songs to its name (The Elephants Marching Song is one of the most boring drones I've ever had the displeasure of listening to in my life). And while I will get into what Favreau does well with his version, it still did contain flaws. One or two of these stemmed from the original, with the plot seeming to veer off into some pretty pointless places at times throughout the film. Also, because it is a remake, the stakes feel lessened as you know how the story is going to end. This of course subconsciously stops us with engaging with the idea that any of these characters are in real danger and subsequently weakens the emotional connection the viewer will have with the final product. However the biggest problem I had with this movie was one specific character and how that character was handled. What in God's name did they do with King Louis? He looked more like bloody Donkey Kong. The only positive thing I can say about the character is that Christopher Walken's voice work is stellar, but everything else is just one big mess. He sings, which is out of place. He is disproportionate to his size in the original, which also feels out of place. He is a gang boss, which is simply ludicrous. If I was to rewatch this movie, I swear to the high heavens I would simply skip the parts that feature this primate. Very seldom does the personification of one character almost ruin a film for me, but it was certainly the case here.
Now that's all out the way, let's get into the positives. First off, the CGI is unbelievably good. It very much reminded me of Life of Pi in that everything looked so hyper-realistic, which is insane considering this was all filmed in Los Angeles with no actual animals involved in the shoot. Everything from the jungle setting to the mist in Kaa's lair to the silky short hairs on Bagheera's shiny pelt are so well-crafted, and the technical prowess that had to go into putting this on the big screen has to be commended. If nothing else, this is a visual masterpiece on par with what we saw in Avatar in my opinion. The film's next great strength was its cast. Youngster Neel Sethi makes an outstanding film debut as the Mowgli. Many seasoned stars are found out when it comes to acting with CGI, but Sethi more than rises to the occasion, at times carrying the film all on his own. Props have to go to director Jon Favreau for managing to get such a dynamic performance out of this inexperienced star. Bill Murray is the standout of the voice cast, bringing his A-game to the iconic role of Baloo. His voice drips with a lazy sarcasm which suits the bear perfectly, and his comedic timing is just as good as it was in the 80s. Idris Elba is also impressive as the villainous Shere Khan. The London native is absolutely terrifying as the big cat, with his strong baritone voice perfectly illustrating both the strength and the savagery of the tiger. All this aside, the last thing that really put this film over its 1967 predecessor for me was the subtle changes it made to the plot (monkeys aside). I won't delve into them too deeply, but the film does manage to shock viewers at times and add extra gravitas with the slight edits it makes to the original story. Going back to what I said earlier, the problem with reboots is that they seldom add something new to a story. This is certainly not the case here, as Favreau's version of this tale might be one of the best yet.
Ultimately this film will be remembered for its stunning visuals. While it is true that I usually prefer practical effects to CGI, the work done on this film shows how good the medium can be when it's done right. It does have its issues but if Disney is to make all of its reboots with the same care and passion that went in to this production, then we could be in for treat.
Score: 8.0/10
No comments:
Post a Comment