LouHomey From my favorite movies..

SpunkySelfTwitter It’s an especially fun movie from a director and cast who are clearly having a good time allowing themselves to let loose.

Roman Sampson One of the most extraordinary films you will see this year. Take that as you want.

Allison Davies The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

Smoreni Zmaj I will not participate in the internet debate whether this film is better or worse than the animated "The Jungle Book", because this is not an adaptation of a cartoon from 1967, but a completely different story, based on the same characters. While the cartoon follows the adventures of the boy Mowgli, surrounded by animals who think and speak as human beings, the feature film shows the adult Mowgli, and the animals are real animals, without attributing human traits, and Mowgli communicates with them in their "languages". I'm a bit surprised by the amount and the explicitity of violence, injury and death, since this is a Disney movie, which means it is primarily intended for children. Camera that zooms a man drowning and finally dying in quicksand isn't exactly a sight suitable for children. Jason Scott Lee is visually perfect choice and has played a great role. Of the more famous, there are Cersei Lannister and John Cleese, but the animals carry main role and the charm of this film. About 200 trained wild animals were used. For tiger scenes, only the most indispensable staff remained on the set and the blue screen was used, but many scenes with wildlife are completely authentic, which leaves a stronger impression than the best CGI. Although it tells another story, the film retains Kipling's spirit and respects the "law of the jungle": You can kill only to eat or to avoid being eaten.8/10Mowgli: "Then do you eat him?" Boone: " No, of course not." M: "Does he want to eat you?" B: "Why, no." M: "Then why kill him?" B: "Because he is your enemy." M: "What is enemy?" B: "Someone you hate." M: "What is hate?"

Electrified_Voltage 27 years after the release of the famous animated Disney feature, "The Jungle Book", a live action Disney movie with the same title came into theatres. Both films feature characters from Rudyard Kipling's book of the same name, which I have never read. I think it was on the last week of 1994, in between Christmas and New Year's, when I went to see this live action version in the theatre. I was eight years old, and can't remember exactly what I thought, but certainly don't recall finding it boring. Shortly after that, I remember seeing at least a bit of it again at school, but don't recall seeing any of it after that until last night, when I saw it for the first time in well over a decade. It looked mildly disappointing at first, but didn't stay that way.Set in Victorian-era India, five year old Mowgli goes on a hunting expedition with his father in the jungles of India and quickly befriends Katherine "Kitty" Brydon, the five year old daughter of English colonel Geoffrey Brydon. After a tiger named Shere Khan kills Mowgli's father, the little boy finds himself lost in the jungle, and is raised by animals. He grows up here, living like the jungle animals and learning how to communicate with them. One day, Kitty happens to be in the jungle again, and Mowgli sees her, which lures him back to the village where his childhood friend still lives with her father. Kitty and Dr. Julien Plumford begin to reintroduce him to human life and teach him English, and Mowgli shows Kitty what life is like in the jungle. While these two are nice to him, there are other British colonists who look down on him, including Kitty's arrogant suitor, Captain William Boone. Mowgli is also disgusted when he learns about human laws.Around the beginning, when Mowgli and Kitty are five years old, it gets pretty sappy between the two. The musical score is really overdone in some scenes, such as the one where Mowgli discovers Monkey City, and often gets too sappy in the romantic scenes. There are several groin-kicking scenes, which are unnecessary, especially for a family movie. Despite the severe flaws, however, there's more good than bad. Jason Scott Lee does a very nice job playing the likable lead, and the acting in general is good here, including memorable performances from Lena Headey as Kitty and John Cleese as Dr. Plumford. The humour in this film is never hilarious, but is sometimes at least mildly amusing, such as the part where Dr. Plumford says, "No. That's not a boat. That's Queen Victoria." I think casting a former Monty Python comedian (Cleese) in the movie helped. The adventure often gets exciting, very much so later on, and there are touching moments as well. One particularly heart-wrenching scene is Mowgli finding Baloo severely injured. This is a scene I clearly remember from my first viewing! Even though the 1967 and 1994 films have the same title and several of the same characters, and they are both from Disney, one being animated and the other live action is not the only major difference. The plot is a little different, and this film is significantly darker than the cartoon version. There are live action movies with talking animals (such as the hit 1995 family film, "Babe"), but this is not one of them. I'm not saying this is a good or bad thing, but it is another notable difference between these two Disney flicks. However, despite being very different, both films are good. One of the reasons for the PG rating of this version is the violence, which occasionally includes some fairly gory scenes. I wouldn't recommend this film for kids much younger than I was during its theatrical run, but for older kids and others who like adventure movies, this COULD be entertaining. It's no masterpiece, but it is fairly underrated.

mr_hunchback I bought the movie for Jason Scott Lee and his amazing pecs. I rate it a 10/10 for that erotic aspect alone. Very satisfying. Other than that there are a few cool tributes to the Sabu films along the way. Outside of those special interests, this is extremely flimsy storytelling and a film that simply can't stand on its own.Stephen Sommers - a director often credited for taking worthwhile projects and ruining them completely - is mostly to blame. His approach to acting seems to be "whatever, dude". The lapse of focus is clear on the actor's faces - they actually look confused and have a hard time connecting their dialog to one another. Sommers prefers resting on the "production values" of a jungle that looks like it was made to order from Pier One.If you like Kipling steer clear. If you like the '67 animated version, read the book instead. If you like jungle ambiance you'd be better served with a Ramar Of The Jungle episode or a Bomba programmer. John Cleese is not funny here and adds nothing except embarrassment. The wild animals are real, but one of Disney's Indian producers evidently drugged them because they just sit around for their photo op and are allowed no input on the storyline. Once the script makes that fateful detour into the soggy predictable romance it's game over.This version was a bomb in 1994 and, along with Rapa Nui, affectively ended Jason Scott Lee's career in Hollywood. Sadly he was never seen topless again.

Lee Eisenberg Beyond simply being a "children's movie", this adaptation of "The Jungle Book" actually looks at colonialism in India. You can see how the British treat Mowgli (Jason Scott Lee) once he enters their society, and how Capt. Boone (Cary Elwes) sets up the animal heads like prizes and proudly talks about hunting them. Seeing what the English colonizers do, you actually want the tiger to attack them.The truth is, I can't find any problems with this movie. It's a movie that I recommend to everyone, as a good look at history and with plenty of adventure to keep things going. Also starring Lena Headey, Sam Neill, John Cleese and Jason Flemyng.Oh, and I noticed that they mentioned macaque monkeys. It just reminds me of Sen. George Allen's recent racist comment involving the word "macaca".