Mowgli: Legend of the Jungle

Andy Serkis had a fantastic dark take on the legend of Moglwi. Finally Netflix produced a good movie that strongly differs from Disney's version of Jungle Book.

In performance-capture maestro Andy Serkis' hands, Legends of the Jungle is a darker, more surprising version of The Jungle Book. Get ready to leave behind the jungle of your childhood imagination. You know, the one where you slumber peacefully in a tree bough, waterfalls ain't nothing but slides and you can float downstream resting on the upturned belly of an amiable bear.

It's impossible not to keep comparing Serkis' version of this classic story to Disney's 2016 live-action remake of its own 1967 animated family favorite. In Disney's remake, the animals are remarkably photo-realistic. But Serkis is purposefully trying to achieve something entirely different. The motion capture is used to make the animal characters deeper, richer and almost more recognizably human.

This no doubt presents more of a challenge for the actors than straightforward voice work, and as a result the animals are expressive and affecting. They're more well-rounded and relatable than their Disney counterparts, even if they're not as instantly charming. Christian Bale's nuanced performance as Bagheera the panther and Benedict Cumberbatch's ferocity as tiger Shere Khan are standouts that translate particularly powerfully through the performance capture.

But as you'll have guessed from the film's title, it's not all about the animals. In Disney's version, Mowgli felt more like a narrative device drawing the animals of the jungle together so we could hear their stories. In Serkis' hands, Mowgli is less of an ensemble player. His character development is central to the plot, especially in the second half. The movie feels like a coming-of-age tale as the man-cub seeks to establish his identity as not quite human, not quite wolf -- simultaneously both and neither.

It did come as a surprise when, bang in the middle of the film, the plot veered wildly off course from the familiar narrative the Disney films established atop Kipling's work. Some may hate this startling divergence, but I enjoyed the sudden realization that I didn't know exactly what was going to happen next, especially after being lulled into a false sense of security by familiar opening scenes.

Serkis has made a visually arresting film that Netflix is lucky to have gotten its hands on. It has more than the bear necessities required to put it on your watch list, even if it is lacking the music.

Packing a far better & more involving story than its Disney counterpart yet failing to make the most of all that was up for grabs, Mowgli (also known as Mowgli: Legend of the Jungle) presents a more feral take on Rudyard Kipling's classic fable but still hesitates to embrace its darker retelling as it holds back when it needs to pounce.

The story of Mowgli follows the upbringing of a human kid who's raised by a pack of wolves as one of their own and learns about the harsh but sacred jungle laws under the tutelage of a bear & a black panther. But when his life is threatened by a Bengal Tiger, he's forced to leave the community and must face the truth about his human origins.

Directed by Andy Serkis, the mature themes at play here coupled with more serious approach than earlier adaptations only means that this tale had far greater potential than anyone realised. And it would've absolutely decimated Jon Favreau's take had Serkis managed to refine the narrative and rid the plot of tonal issues that plague it throughout.

Employing motion-capture to make sure the actors' renditions are reflected in their CGI roles, the facial attributes of few animal characters resemble the actors playing them to such an extent that it's somewhat distracting at times. Visual effects isn't up to the mark either, for the CGI looks cartoonish on few occasions while other times it is seamless.

The film attempts to dig into the struggle of a human boy trying to pass as a wolf but in the end, it turns out to be a quick skim instead of a deeper examination. However, the man-cub acts more primal & animalistic in this version, which actually is a much better & more realistic portrait of a character who grew up in a jungle alongside wild animals.

The acting department includes actors performing in live-action, rendering their act with motion capture & lending their voices to their CGI characters and many do well in their respective roles. Christian Bale is quite assuring as Bagheera. Andy Serkis is having too much fun as Baloo. And though Benedict Cumberbatch is fascinating as Shere Khan, he overdoes it at times.

Rohan Chand plays the eponymous character and he is outstanding in the role, far better than that forgettable kid in Disney's live-action flick. Freida Pinto & Matthew Rhys chip in with fine work in their human roles. The background score also lands on the positive side. But the film isn't savage enough, refusing to dig its teeth & rip off the flesh from the body, and that is disappointing.

On an overall scale, Mowgli tackles an ambitious, audacious & far more appealing side of Rudyard Kipling's magnum opus but its improper execution & uneven tone prevents it from realising its full potential. Failing to strike an emotional chord in a way that resonates strongly with the heart, Mowgli has its shares of ups n downs but its interpretation of the famous mythology is actually more interesting than the last attempt. Worth a shot, despite the shortcomings.

As usual the critics have no taste, and their opinions don't match up with the general populace (aside from a few weird individuals who gave this movie a "1"...Yes, very much worth taking seriously...lol). This movie is better than the Disney version, not the other way around. Credit where credit is due, the Disney version has more realistic CGI (though the characters look more menacing in this version than in the Disney one, so that's a plus), possibly as a result of a better budget, though maybe not. Everything else though, is better in this version. It's much more faithful to the books. It is much darker and more mature than Disney's version, which to some I suppose might be a minus, while for the rest of us it's a huge plus. Depends on what you're looking for in the movie. Most importantly, the voice acting in this version is waaaayyyy better than in Disney's version (I'm really shocked and in disbelief to see that one reviewer thinks the voice acting in Disney's version was better, like, what?). Benedict Cumberbatch is absolutely perfect as Shere Khan, and blows Idris Elba's performance, which was already very good, out of the water. Cate Blanchett as Kaa (who thankfully has much more screentime and relevance to the story in this version) is soooo much better than Scarlett Johansson that it's not even funny. She has a much more powerful presence.

Don't get me wrong, I like Disney's live action remake of their movie. It was good, and I enjoyed it. But this one is definitely the superior of the two. If you want to watch a darker and more mature version of the story without all the jolly Disney songs, give this one a watch. Personally I absolutely loved it.

"Mowgli" is an 1894 character that became famous through Disney Studios that used the public domain to promote the character. However this film is darker and different from the Disney´s version. The voices of Christian Bale, Cate Blanchett and Benedict Cumberbatch are impressive and give life to Bagheera, Kaa and Shere Khan. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "Mogli: Entre Dois Mundos" ("Mowgli: Between Two Worlds")