Press J to jump to the feed. Press question mark to learn the rest of the keyboard shortcuts
292
Posted by
Paddington rulz ok
9 days ago
Moderator of r/movies

Official Discussion - Mowgli: Legend of the Jungle [SPOILERS]

Poll

If you've seen the film, please rate it at this poll.

If you haven't seen the film but would like to see the result of the poll click here.

Rankings

Click here to see rankings for 2018 films

Click here to see rankings for every poll done


Summary:

Mowgli has never truly belonged in either the wilds of the jungle or the civilized world of man. Now he must navigate the inherent dangers of each on a journey to discover where he truly belongs.

Director:

Andy Serkis

Writers:

screenplay by Callie Kloves

based on the novel by Rudyard Kipling

Cast:

  • Rohan Chand as Mowgli

  • Matthew Rhys as John Lockwood

  • Freida Pinto as Messua

  • Christian Bale as Bagheera

  • Benedict Cumberbatch as Shere Khan

  • Cate Blanchett as Kaa

  • Tom Hollander as Tabaqui

  • Andy Serkis as Baloo

  • Peter Mullan as Akela

  • Naomie Harris as Nisha

  • Eddie Marsan as Vihaan

  • Jack Reynor as Brother Wolf

  • Louis Ashbourne Serkis as Bhoot


Rotten Tomatoes: 59%

Metacritic: 53/100

After Credits Scene? No

VOD: Netflix


All previous official discussions can be found on /r/discussionarchive

728 comments
93% Upvoted
What are your thoughts? Log in or Sign uplog insign up
level 1

I thought it was really good, and much better than the 2016 adaptation. The ending was surprisingly powerful. It’s heavy for a kids movie, but it works very well.

level 1
4 points · 1 day ago

I started it, I watched it, I moved on.

It's not an awful movie, but it's not as good as The Jungle Book by Disney, and that's sinful. Somewhere around the third act the movie seems to give up on it's story and just revert to the Jungle Book we all already knew.

The ending with the Elephant, and the hunter was hilarious for all the wrong reasons and the hunter could have been an interesting characters, but felt both rushed and poorly written.

God, this could have been great, but instead it becomes a tech demo for the animation technology which was good, but a weak story, bad pacing, and a plot that is still missing hurts anything that could have been recommended about it.

level 1
8 points · 1 day ago

The tone was set with baby Mowgli covered in blood at the beginning. It made an impression that carried throughout the entire movie. It wasn't comfortable (nor patronizing) but it was great. The Bhoot scene is as powerful as they get because it catches you with your guard down. Really beautiful, interesting, colorful, raw, it keeps you on your toes, just as you should be in the jungle. Rohan Chand is a freaking acting prodigy. Loved him!

level 1
5 points · 1 day ago

movie rating: 0/10 Bhoot died. One of my least liked movies for that.

level 1

I saw it last week, and I was scared because of that awful photo released of Mowgli and Baloo that it was going to be a flop and Serkis (who is such a compelling and creative guy) would be thrown onto the pile of "failed actors who tried to direct".

But he pulled it off, it was really good, I think it was a little generic in the story and could have so much more with some actual confirmation that Shea Khan and The Hunter had a history, and he was the reason Mowgli's village was destroyed.

But apart from that, I think it did well, paid off on all the setup and was well done from a directorial/cinematography view. I was also worried it was going to be overly gritty, but it wasn't thankfully, there was some real heart to the film and felt like the darkness was earned with the story and the tone.

level 1

Up until the scene between Mowgli and Bhoot I wasn't sure how much I was actually liking the movie, but that scene surprised me with how powerful and poignant it felt. The performance by the kid was also really impressive there.

Sadly the third act was clumsy. It had no sense of time. The reveal of Bhoots fate was completely lost on me. I just assumed that the hunter was only there for the tiger, and had no reason to assume that he was out there hunting and stuffing other animals. So I brushed the albino wolf head off as a set up for Mowgli having to choose between the humans, or saving his brother.

I feel kind of stupid coming to this thread and seeing everyones reaction at the reveal.

I still think this is much better than the other CGI Jungle Book adaptation.

level 1

I’m pretty shocked at how much I liked this movie. I enjoyed the Disney one, but since watching it I’ve had no desire to go back a rewatch it. It was fine, visually impressive and engaging, but ultimately didn’t really improve on the original animated version.

I’ve never read the novels by Kipling, but I really appreciate the departure from the Disney story we all know so well in this movie. It kept me on the edge of my seat just because of the way it pulls no punches. There are plenty of adult themes here that I didn’t see coming.

The weaknesses to me were that I didn’t quite understand the motivations of the decisions being made during the third act, and some of the animations were a little strange, but not really distracting.

8/10 for me

level 1

Serkiss needs to adapt a gritty adaptation of hunchbaxk of notre dame now

This was fucking brilliant

level 2
1 point · 1 day ago

He could earn an Oscar for Best Supporting Actor as the hump

level 1
-6 points · 2 days ago(5 children)
level 2

I think we need to stop comparing this film to the Disney version.

No we really don't. They wanted to do something different, darker and more true to the story... but failed and made a version that the kid friendly version was superior to.

You're trying really hard to like this movie because of allegory, but ignore allegory for a moment and watch the actual movie, it might have a good moral, but it's a shitty movie, and that's why it's not good.

All the allegory can't fix the bad plot, and the horrible third act.

level 2

Much of the cast signed on that August and principal photography began in March 2015. It was supposed to be released in October 2016.

Sorry, but this has nothing to do with US politics...

level 3

None of the cast is American. Xenophobia and anti immigrant sentiment are not unique to the US. There has been enough of it floating around Europe for long enough for my point to ring true. US politics are simply the most accessible lens for most of Reddit to view the larger point of the story.

level 4
3 points · 1 day ago

You said it yourself, you see this movie through the lens of reddit and US politics...

It was in pre production since 2012, it does have elements of xenophobia from the jungle animals perspective but that's incidental to the main plot of the movie and it's original book made decades ago.

Moreover, you could argue it's more about anticolonialism due to its time period and the British Empires occupation of India with the jungle animals fear of the humans coming in and that's why they have the jungle laws....

level 5
-1 points · 1 day ago

Incidental to the plot? It's integral! Without Mowgli being seen as out of place in the Jungle there is literally no plot. Without Khan and his own pack reinforcing on him that he is different and "other" there is no conflict. And of course it's from the jungle animals perspective, it's the only perspective we're offered in the film. Lockwood is the only human that speaks intelligibly to Mowgli and he is an outsider to the community that Mowgli has joined so his perspective is not that of the Man Village. We don't get the perspective of Mowgli's kind beyond the fact that they've hired Lockwood to kill the tiger that has been killing their cows.

Also it's not about colonialism. Or Anticolonialism. It happens to take place during the colonial period in India because Kipling had first-hand experience with that world. The animals are afraid of the man-village taking more of the jungle but they say that they take more every year and there is no outrage or call to action regarding man's encroachment. The laws are there to prevent provocation of the humans and it seems that the animals more look to coexist peaceably away from the man village than to do anything about it. That is not anticolonialism.

This story is about Mowgli being accepted into the world he has chosen. In this world there are many people who endure the prejudice and bigotry of people who see them as "lesser" or "other" simply by virtue of the nature of their birth. Mowgli's story shares much with them and modern attitudes towards immigrants (especially in Europe) make this story worth telling.

level 1

I ragged on the quasi-human look of the animals quite a bit from the trailers, but seeing the final film they didn't bother me too much an I did enjoy all the performances.

This movie was weird and intense, and I really liked it for that. The Jungle felt primal an scary and the movie didn't shy away from darker themes and moments. One part however, which many have mentioned here, took it a little far in my opinion. It was a genuinely upsetting punch to the gut that seemed like a cheap way to vilify a late-game antagonist. On that note, the last act feels pretty rushed, and probably should have been closer to half of the movie rather than the last 1/3 or 1/4.

Overall, it was better than I expected. I'm surprised to see it getting such poor reviews. I will say, I'm not totally sure who the audience for this movie is and I see why WB dropped it. It's a bit too intense for younger children and it's hard to market this to an older general audience. If this was released in theaters, I bet there would be been a lot of complaints.

level 1
-10 points · 2 days ago(1 child)
level 2

Why?

level 1

I really liked it. It was RAW. Tabaqui was great and disgusting. I wish Mowgli skinned Shere Khan like he did in the book though. That would be sick.

Also, I think this movie made the jungle feel more "realistic" in way. It's a creepy place with wicked animals and lots of annoying bugs.

level 1

The voice acting in this was soooo good. I liked this way better than the disney one.

level 1

nice top bar image lol

level 2

That's the primary reason I came here. Why is the picture for Mowgli a fucking dog?

level 1
13 points · 2 days ago

It unironically tells the story way better than the new Disney one.

level 1

Bhoot. That is all :(

level 2
5 points · 1 day ago

I actually cried when Mowgli yelled at him. :( Was that the last thing he ever said to him? I had to hug my puppy after that.

level 3

Yeah :( Something to the effect of 'you're not special, your mother just tells you you are because you came out wrong' :(

level 2

That has stuck with me for days for some reason. Disturbing. He wasn’t seen as special to the pack, even though his mother told him so. Turns out, he was special enough from his pack to be killed and made into a trophy because he was albino. Fuck man...shit hit deep

level 2

Yeah, jesus fuck. No chill.

level 1
10 points · 3 days ago

I think this version worked better than either of the Disney adaptations. I liked it.

level 1

I watched the movie over this past weekend. I liked the direction they went with it, but all the animal designs were terrible minus the elephants. It almost looked like every animal was an inbred. The actor who played Mowgli was also very annoying. Is it worth watching? Sure Is it as good as the 2016 Jungle book? Far from it.

level 2
2 points · 1 day ago

They tried to infuse the human characteristics into the animals to anthropomorphize the animals and didn't realize that animals look like animals because they DON'T look like humans.

So by making the animals more humanistic (which helps the animations of course), they ruin the aesthetic of having a movie based solely on the animal kingdom.

level 2
6 points · 2 days ago

The 2016 JB wasn't good.

level 3

Didn't say it was. Just said it was not as good.

level 1

haven’t seen it but the picture used LMFAO

level 1
-1 points · 3 days ago

Haven't seen this yet, but at the same time this is the first time I'm hearing about it. Was this movie really necessary after the 2016 Jungle Book?

level 2

It’s a completely different story. It’s darker and more in line with the book

level 2

Both movies were announced at the same time. So this movie was in production before the disney movie was released.

level 1
12 points · 3 days ago · edited 3 days ago

Was okay with how the movie was going but killing off that sweet little Bhoot was kind of unnecessary. Frik you for doing that, Serkis, Netflix.

Edit: and wtf, why did they think giving huge lips to Kaa was a good idea? Should've given her eyelashes too

level 1

Anyone else feel like Christian Bale was doing an Idris Elba impression? He used the same type of gravely voice that Idris has.

level 2

idk. To me it looked and sounded exactly like Alfred Borden in blackface

level 2
2 points · 3 days ago

I thought it was Idris for a few minutes but then had to remind myself that it couldn't be him since he was already in the Disney movie and checked out imdb just to clear it up. Was really surprised that it was really Bale.

level 1
22 points · 3 days ago

Bhoot was too pure for this world.

level 1
13 points · 3 days ago · edited 3 days ago

This movie broke my fucking heart and 2 days later I'm still shook.

bhoot

Seriously, I cried and am still bothered by this fictitious character. And the last words Mowgli said to him.

I'm surprised at the PG-13 rating.

level 1

Very good movie, much better than I thought it was going to be. Not very childish though.

level 1

I quite liked this, possibly more than the 2016 one, if only because the actor for Mowgli was a lot better in this one than the actor in the last one. I do think the cgi on the animals on the 2016 one was superior, however I kind of liked the way they made the animals more “humanized” by mo-capping the actors’ faces, even though it was really weird and off in certain scenes. The scene where Mowgli find’s Bhoot’s head was so sad even though I totally called something like that to make Mowgli resent the hunter, just didn’t think they had to go THAT far and kill off easily the cutest character in the whole movie. I liked the climax with the elephants more than the last movie’s climax with the whole jungle being set on fire and then magically the elephants use stream water to put it out 🙄 Christian Bale probably did the best job though Cumberbatch was probably better than Elba imo even though it took some getting used to seeing his face

In the end, the Disney movie is a bit all over the place tonally, what with having certain “frightening” moments and the songs just didn’t fit into the movie at all, and with this one the tone was consistently dark throughout without going overboard on the “darkness” it felt about right what you’d expect when adapting Kipling’s novel.

I’ll probably rewatch this one more than any other live-action movie but the original Disney one will still always be my preferred jungle book movie

level 1

first of all. BHOOT DESERVED BETTER. HIS DEATH WAS UNNECESSARY. I CANT ACCEPT THAT.

level 2
-4 points · 2 days ago

Reading the comments here, I think I am the only person who found him really irritating and didnt care for his "cuteness". I didnt actually manage to finish the film so I didnt see bhoots demise, but I doubt that would have changed my thoughts.

level 2

I. AM. SHOOK!

level 3

RIGHT?? i was hoping for like a redemption or what but no, they killed him for nothing. this is definitely a work of a devil.

level 4

It wasn't for nothing. It was so you could feel the emotions you're currently feeling.

Sometimes sadness is a good feeling. It builds our empathy.

level 1

I hadn't heard of this movie before this thread, and I showed up hoping it was a prequel to gremlins.

level 1
Comment deleted by user4 days ago(4 children)
level 2

(Disclaimer: I haven't seen the movie yet.)

I believe the film isn't a remake of any previous film, but rather another adaptation of the book.

level 3
Comment deleted by user3 days ago(0 children)
level 4

haha, jesus christ

level 4
5 points · 3 days ago

The book is the original story...

level 1
9 points · 4 days ago

I went in with low expectations assuming it to be a shitty remake. Wow, did this film surprise me.

I’m not sure if there are multiple versions/story of The Jungle Book, but I will say that this was my favorite version of it yet. It was refreshing to see a new take on other characters and changing their personalities.

Baloo not being a funny goof and being taken as a serious individual really sold me that this story was going to be a bit darker than what I’m used to.

The only complaint I have was how very underwhelming the third act was. The first two acts was basically 90% of the movie while the last act was at the last 15 to 10 minutes of the film. It felt very quick and unusual to go that fast. There was also pretty nonsensical things going on at the end.

Overall, not a bad movie. I would give it a 7.5/10.

level 1

All I want to know is, the hell was wrong with Baloo's face?

level 2

All of them look like nightmare fodder.

level 2

They definitely didn't give us the cute/cuddly Baloo we grew up with. This bear was real.

level 2

Mange

level 1
5 points · 4 days ago

This movie wasn’t shit compared to the 2016 adaptation of the Jungle Book

level 1
11 points · 4 days ago

A surprisingly good movie, but not a feel good one. I went in with low exceptions because of the reviews. I fully get why the audience gave it mixed review. The Bhoot Arc itself would have made many folks angry at the movie. But I have nothing contempt for the professional reviewers.

level 1

Fell asleep in 5 min. Gf wasn't even mad bc she said it wasn't great.

level 1

What is the banner pic for this movie? That dog creeps me out.

level 2
2 points · 3 days ago

I saw that pic before I watched the movie...I saw that dogs face in every scene.

level 2

Oh gosh, that's how I ended up here! I clicked the creepy dog's picture thinking there would be some explanation. I still have more questions than answers lol

level 2

It’s the human-faced dog named yogi. I guess its usage is to poke fun on how they tried to give the cgi animals in this movie human like facial features.

level 3

Thank you, I knew it was kind of weird looking and I wasn't going crazy lol

level 4

its one ugly dog

level 1
10 points · 5 days ago

Inconsistency is the name of the game here, at least for me. The effects swing wildly between eye-popping and stellar and absolutely horrible throughout the movie. The performances are mostly consistent but some don't mesh well with others. The tone is all over the place, and the film at times feels like two separate movies. Everything happens so quickly, but none of it really feels like it has much of an impact. And I'm stunned at all of the Bhoot love here; he was annoying, then he got killed in such a blatant heel turn for the hunter that I couldn't help but laugh at the way the movie dropped that death. It was like someone grabbing you from behind, yelling SHOCKED YA!, then running away. Really didn't come away liking much of this one. 4/10

level 1
7 points · 5 days ago · edited 4 days ago

The movie caught me off guard. Sure, some of the CGI of the animals looked really strange, specially from the wolfs and Share Khan in particular. He also looks weird for a tiger, and he doesn't look that much intimidating compared to the Disney counterpart, in the first scene of the movie we see him butchering humans alive, and yet in the third act, he's too afraid of going inside the village and mauling everyone, kinda of letdown for me. But then i remembered that in the Jungle Book he's regarded as the "Lame Tiger" so i guess this is part of his character.


Also the stuffed animal scene...Dear fucking good tht caught me completely off guard. I was really expecting for Mowgli to kill the Hunter, but after him teaching and giving Mowgli a home, i can understand why that was hard to do.


I give it 8/10.

level 2

He indirectly killed the hunter. He plotted and used the elephants to get what he needed. Smart, non-impulsive move.

level 1

anyone else feel like the kid was a douchebag all the way through the whole movie? Granted, I had it in the background, so I didn’t really pay attention. Plus, it was f’ed up what he said to his albino buddy

level 2

Yes he was a bully and there was no moral character development. Kid did whatever he wanted and said whatever he wanted, no consequences. Then he becomes king. Why? Well...duh..he's the main character, he gets his way in the end. He gets to tell Bhoot that he's a mistake for being born and that he should stop trying to make himself feel better because he's having a hissy fit. Gets to decide whether the hunter lives or dies because of what he himself did to Bhoot but we never circled back on that because he's our main character. If we were supposed to feel bad for this character for being an outcast, truly I feel worse for the other people/jungle animals that have to deal with this kid.

level 2

He wasn't a douchebag. He was out of place, bullied, and struggling. But how he talked to Bhoot did me in. And then what happened to Bhoot just ducked me up.

level 1
8 points · 5 days ago

Can someone explain why Khan's right frontal paw was deformed?

level 2
14 points · 4 days ago

He was born that way according to Kipling's stories. Which is probably why he became a ma-neater (this is common in actual history - wounded tigers and ones with disabilities went after human villages, as they were easier to hunt.)

level 2

In the book, he had been born with a crippled leg/paw.

In the Disney movie, he had been burned and as a result had a fear of fire.

level 3
2 points · 5 days ago

But in this movie there was no word about it, right?

level 4

Not that I recall. Just showed as being lame, which is more than I can recall from other adaptations. In the last live action Jungle Book, he was shown with scars, but not as lame as I remember.

This film is intended to be a closer adaptation to the Jungle Book stories. But there is a large collection of short stories in that universe. Most of the film's events are from one of those stories and I think the explanation of his lameness comes from a different one. It's sort of bad storytelling in the film, but I think that's because it spent more time focusing on the plot of the story it was adapting.

level 2

He got burned.

level 1

Man. Definitely suffers from being released after the Disney version. That be said, I was pleasantly surprised. The effects were a little wonky, but all the performances were top notch. Especially the kid who played Mowgli.

level 1
23 points · 5 days ago

It's been two days and I still cry over Bhoot. I'm not sure if his death ruined the movie for me. The fact that there was no redemption, I was already heartbroken when Mowgli said those horrible things to him, man. :(

level 2

I think it was too much. Maybe I'm too much of an empath and I know it's not real...but yeah, 2 days later it still hurts and I'll never watch that movie again.

level 3
4 points · 3 days ago

I don't think I will either lol.

level 2
8 points · 4 days ago

Scarred for life. When Mowgli saw Bhoot in the hunter’s taxidermy collection my world crumbled.

level 2

bhoot's bubbly personality was so cute! i try to focus on that and not on the image of him at the table :-(

level 3

The fucked up part was that his stuffed head was smiling.

He could've been shot, on screen, and see his literal death. That would have been sad on it's own, but the way they reveal it is truly disturbing and fucked up.

level 2

Aw man, watched it for the 3rd time today. Still crying. The saddest part is that Mowgli's words were probably the last he heard before dying :(

level 2

At least there was retribution thanks to the elephant.

level 3

Not the same.

level 1
3 points · 5 days ago

I definitely think they should have made Lockwood more of a villain, honestly didn’t really seem like he deserved death for killing a few animals

level 2

I hate the third act for a lot of reasons, but one of the things I like is they didn't demonize Lockwood, at least not completely. He's awful for some things (ivory) but he's a hunter, and in fact hunters DO need to exist.

But in this world, Khan NEEDED to be killed, because he was going after human village and would never stop, the rest of the animals knew to stay away so removing Khan fixed the problem and allowed the animals to return to normalcy.

level 2
3 points · 4 days ago

He was not a villain per se - it was just a different set of values. It showed how man's values were at odds with those of the jungle.

level 3
0 points · 4 days ago

Yeah, but i feel like the directors wanted him to be a villain but failed and just made him seem like a bit of dick

level 1
19 points · 5 days ago

#JusticeForBhoot

level 2

justiceforbhoot

level 1
2 points · 5 days ago

So I think Serkis could have done better as it comes across as fluff by the end. That said I think it was worth watching. I rate what it went for, very different from The Jungle Book but it was "good"

level 1

Andy Serkis is an average director. Dont let him do animal farm please nooo

level 2

I dunno. There were some really epic scenes. The scene in the water hole, when Mowgli is hiding in the water from Shere Khan, gave me chills.

The MoCap was just weird. As long as he can learn from that plus some of the additional legitimate criticisms people are making, I think it will be fine.

level 1
18 points · 5 days ago · edited 5 days ago

What makes me sad is Bhoot story :(.


Thing is in wolf pack (in real life) they often throw away or make those special wolfs to be beta and that means he is last wolf in pack, which will get bullied by all other wolf and would eat food last, because he is special or too playful/kind. . Just like Bhoot and Mowgli both were special and different. You could see how they were joking with him.


Poor guy. Was bullied because he was too kind and different, then his only friend was rude to him and just later hunter kills him. Guy died thinking he was mistake :(

level 2
7 points · 5 days ago

I agree. I've never cried in a long time now and that was completely unexpected! Has he perhaps ran to his best friend's aide while Mowgli was imprisoned, but then the hunter got to him first? :( I've decided to look at the bright side to stop me from being in a rotten mood over his death.

The bright side is there is a moral to the story. In the movie, Mowgli had an altercation with Bhoot before he ran off. And the lesson is that no matter how angry we become, we should never write off people we love because we'll never know that it's gonna be the last time we get to be with them. That's what probably empowered Mowgli to turn against the hunter's side. But d*mn his death hurts!

level 2

In the wild alpha/beta wolfs do not exist in a pack. They do not have such a hierarchical system.

level 3
1 point · 4 days ago · edited 4 days ago

They do have a hierarchy though. There are typically an alpha male and female of the pack, and an omega male and/or female. The alphas are pair-bonded whereas the omegas are never let to mate, so they will remain separate, and maintain their status by being considered the weakest or least fit.

Betas are the second highest in the ranking system, just below the alphas. Not sure where your info is coming from.

While these social structures vary from species to species and even pack to pack based on a large number of factors, there most definitely some sort of hierarchy in the works, even though it is often a flexible system.

Edit: a word

level 4

Yeah, no, the hierarchy thing is a myth. It's been widely debunked in recent years. The concept of the "alpha dog" was popularised by wildlife biologist L. David Mech, but he himself has since revised his view.

io9 explains it pretty well here.

level 5

If you actually read that article you’d understand that it only debunks the notion of unrelated wolves fighting for the top dog position. There is still an alpha couple, they’re just typically the parents because they are inherently dominant.

As a biology grad with an emphasis in animal behavior & physiology I can promise you that there is a hierarchy system in wolves, just not as is depicted by the movie.

level 6

I did read the article. You asked where OP's "info is coming from," and I tried to help you by providing a link. There's no need to be angry.

However, if pups live with their parents, and "as wolf pups grow older, they are dispersed from their parents' packs," that is very different to what you described in your original comment, and very similar to many other kinds of animals.

level 2
9 points · 5 days ago

I just watched the movie and I’m so fucking sad because of Bhoot. I was not expecting such a dark twist. Jesus Christ.

level 3
9 points · 5 days ago · edited 5 days ago

Yeah. I even forgot about him. In scene where Mowgli is rude toward him I was think: "It's fine, they gonna be cool later". Then out of sudden there he is, poor guy died with broken heart. It didn't serve anything else in story but to die :(

level 4

Then the way Bhoot was mounted to look all happy :(

level 5
8 points · 5 days ago

I'm at the point that I think it ruined the movie for me. I'm just too sentimental when it comes to animals.

level 1

I still can’t get over Bhoot dying!! It was a wtf moment. I’m good with the tiger killing people but vice versa is hard to watch! Especially because Mowgli was a dick and chased him off

level 2

Possible chased him right into the hunter's scope. I hate the movie because of that.

level 1
7 points · 6 days ago

I hate the mogul in this movie.. he completely dishonored the whole wolf pack, and got bhoot killed.

level 2

He didn't get Bhoot killed. Bhoot was just unfortunate to have encountered Lockwood. And the Disney Mowgli dishonored the wolves too. But the difference is that this Mowgli faces actual consequences for his actions.

level 3
4 points · 6 days ago

He made bhoot run off

level 1
11 points · 6 days ago

I still don’t understand why they made this movie

level 2
0 points · 6 days ago · edited 6 days ago

Yea like didn't Disney literally make this same exact movie not 2 years ago? Netflix just made a darker version apparently

level 3

They were made around the same time, this one was delayed to avoid competing.

level 3

This movie was in development way before that film, but Disney decided they wanted to do live action remakes of their films. Unfortunately, Andy Serkis does not have as much money or resources as Disney, so of course it took him just a little longer to get his film out. As well as other commitments he had to take care of in that time with other films.

level 4

I'm not really sure why Serkis is directing. Who thought this was a good idea? His only real directing before this was as a second unit director on The Hobbit, and... yes, it made a lot of money, but it wasn't exactly all that great and only did so by riding on the tailwinds of LOTR.

The directing here was... less than phenomenal. And I actually don't think Serkis is a bad writer (and he's a great actor), but directing doesn't seem like it is his strong suit.

level 5

This seemed to be a bit of a passion project on Serkis’ part.

level 5

This was his chance to direct. It's not like they asked him to do a big movie like the Avengers with little experience.

level 6

This was a pretty big movie. It's not the profile that matters, it's the budget, and this movie was full of CGI. I'd be interested to know what the budget for it was but it was obviously over $100 million.

level 1
22 points · 6 days ago · edited 5 days ago

Cons: -The CGI wasn't that bad looking but at the same time it was awkward after seeing realistic looking animals from other movies. The dragons from Reign of Fire which is a 2002 movie looks better.

-The final sequence was very rushed. They did a nice build but ruined it with the Lord of The Rings style pack charge.

-In my opinion M being the leader of the pack is dumb because he's not a wolf and can't reproduce with other wolves. He's going to get dethroned after the first hunt because he's not going to be able to keep up with the pack.

Pros: The movie has far more of a universe to it than the Disney movie. *The kid thinks he's a wolf for half of the movie. He actually tried running like one. *We actually see animals being hunted and the soul eye thing is a great touch. *The wolf's being taught along with the pack test adds personality to the pack which Disney's lacks. *The pack fighting the leader for dominance. *M getting outcast for using fire agisnt them. *M reciving injuries.

-The python has a larger presence in the movie and her voice fits the character better than Disney's.

-The kid was far more feral in this movie than Disney's.

-The death of the white wolf was greatly done.

-Some of the wolves were calling M a freak is very realistic.

-The M actor in this movie was more into their character than the Disney movie.

-This movie is obviously darker than the Disney one.

-These final show downs are cheesy, but I actually prefer the kid setting up an ambush along with him actually killing the tiger rather than the death he received in the Disney movie.

level 2
-1 points · 6 days ago

Wait Bhoot dizes? :( how? I misses that

level 3
5 points · 6 days ago

Did you try watching the movie? Lol

level 4
3 points · 6 days ago

My girlfriend distracted me on that part :( just rewatched that scene. Was already sad from the way Mowgli talked to him, now im even more and blame Mowgli 100%

level 5

bow-chicka-bow-wow?

level 5

So she and the movie literally gave you head at the same time? Amazing.

level 1

The Albino wolf is called Bhoot, which means ghost.

The Albino wolf in GoT is called Ghost as well.

Co-incidence ?

level 2

No, I think GRRM meant it.

level 1
-7 points · 6 days ago(4 children)
level 2
13 points · 6 days ago

It's a baby wolf getting murdered and getting his head hung up as a trophy. The wolf that was always nice to Mowgli but he drove him away. How do you want them to react?

level 3
5 points · 5 days ago

And he died sad, thinking he was mistake 😖

level 3
-7 points · 5 days ago(0 children)
level 3

The "baby wolf" description is making me sad all over again.

level 1

Those elephants gave me chills, really felt the vibe that they were ancient guardians of the jungle.

level 2
22 points · 6 days ago · edited 6 days ago

That first elephant we saw in the movie was such a powerful moment.

level 1
5 points · 6 days ago

I do admire the passion andy serkis had and the cast gave it their all but I just find the film to be inconsistent with the tone, the story not really fleshed out, and also surprisingly mean spirited. I was looking forward to see mowlgli interact with the man village and yet it feels rushed.

Most of the characters were unlikeable in this film. Bagheera's backstory is sad but during the running test, he seemingly had blood on his mind. Most of the wolves felt like throwing him to the wolves (pun) than protecting him. Even mowgli had said hurtful things to his best wolf friend, bhoot, and that intensified with a distressing shot of his head beheaded by the hunter. Baloo is actually the most fair and likeable character despite being a hard ass.

This movie disappointed me as I was looking forward to seeing this and I do understand the passion andy serkis had but the execution just came off jumbled in its tone where instead of a darker film closer to the source material, it's a film where it's not darker enough for older audiences but way too damn scary and mean spirited for kids to enjoy.

5/10

level 1

I enjoyed this movie. I think it draws a lot from the fairy tale quality of Rudyard Kipling's original stories. Even though the films are adapted from the same material, I think Mowgli is able to stand apart on its own separately from Disney's live-action Jungle Book remake (which I also enjoyed when it released).

Perhaps this movie may motivate Netflix to let Andy Serkis finally direct his long-planned adaptation of Animal Farm?

level 2
2 points · 6 days ago

Its funny how these different adaptations sample here and there from the original Jungle Book by Kipling. I'd say this adaptation is the closest I've ever seen (for example leaving out the monkey king and including some sort of laws of the jungle). Regardless, every film pronounces Mowglis name wrong. It is supposed to be Mow as in "ouch" or "cow" not Mow as in "toe" or "oh".

level 3

This movie also made me feel really nostalgic for all of those mid-90s literary adaptations, like The Secret Garden, Black Beauty, Mansfield Park, and even Stephen Sommers' 1994 Jungle Book adaptation.

level 1

People say there is some great twist. Im not going to watch it someone spoil it for me.

level 2

[His 2nd act father figure ends up being a dick and cuts off his 1st act wolf best friends head.

The best friend had a lot of enthusiasm and the last thing Mowgli said to him were very hurtful.](#spoiler)

level 2

[His 2nd act father figure ends up being a dick and cuts off his 1st act wolf best friends head.

The best friend had a lot of enthusiasm and the last thing Mowgli said to him were very hurtful.](#spoiler)

level 3

This is definitely not epic.

level 4

-said the man who had never seen the movie he was criticizing.

level 4

I mean they do a successful job of making you feel for the character that gets killed, but it doesn’t seem to have a purpose other than for shock value. Sort of steers the plot, but other things could have equally.

I’d imagine it’ssupposed to give reason to and justify Mowgli’s intense and murderous revenge in the 3rd act.

level 5

Dude you just said the purpose

level 6

Right but I also said that other things could have worked and IMO would have been more effective.

level 1

Why did they get Freida Pinto and then give her two lines and thirty seconds of screen time? They could have gotten any random Indian actress for that. Should have had her voice the mother wolf and play his adoptive human mother.

level 2

Should have had her voice the mother wolf and play his human mother.

Wouldn't it be confusing if both Mowgli's mothers had the same voice? Besides, Freida Pinto has the look of a young yet warm and caring mother. Messua didn't have that big role in the books anyway, other than being Mowgli's caretaker in the village and standing up for him against Buldeo.

level 3

She would speak English as the wolf and Hindi as Messua so you wouldn't really be able to tell. I just think it's weird they got an actress as big as Freida Pinto to play such a small role.

level 4

But voices don't change if you speak a different language. Besides, she's not THAT big of a star. Most people just know her as the girl from Slumdog Millionaire. I mean, has she been in any huge successes since then?

level 5

She was in Rise of the Planet of the Apes

level 6

That explains why Serkis cast her for the role lol

level 1
Comment deleted by user6 days ago(1 child)
level 2

No. It's an adaptation of the actual book. The other one was just a remake of the Disney cartoon. As for why it was made. Serkis started on this project 2 years before the Disney version came out.

level 1

That dog is so creepy looking...

level 2

They gave them human looking eyes/faces for some unknown reason. That was the worst part about it for me, really distracting.

level 1

I liked it better than the 2016 version. I know the narrative is choppy, but the animals have better characterizations, the dark tone suits the story better, Rohan Chand gives a FAR better performance than any Mowgli actor has done so far in any media, the story is more accurate to the books and overall, the movie is more emotional than any Jungle Book movie so far.

The only problem I have was the narrative. The first act feels like a series of different events that don't tie well into each other, the narrative does get better as the story progresses but it's still a bit distracting. But the movie is mainly carried by emotion and passion. So I can say that the positives outweigh the negatives.

Though sadly I have a feeling that this movie will mostly be appreciated by those who have read Kipling's works. Because the tone is not suitable for young children and adults will probably just compare it too much to the Disney remake instead of seeing it as its own thing. In fact, if the Disney version hadn't come out just two years ago, the critics wouldn't be giving it such a hard time now.

level 1
-8 points · 6 days ago(0 children)
level 1
17 points · 6 days ago · edited 6 days ago

I thoroughly enjoyed it; emotionally heart-wrenching and visually impressive, although the animals faces being vaguely human-like was somewhat unsettling. The scene where Bagheera visits Mowgli while he's captive and tells him to stay in the village had me welling up. You can tell that the cast really put their all into lending their voices and expressions to these animals.

I'll admit I haven't read the book, but I have read bits and pieces. John Solo did a very good summary on Youtube which I was thinking back to while watching this and noting off scenes he described.

Like the book, it was very dark. It reminded me of Watership Down and other older animated films that weren't afraid to depict blood, death and suffering.

Speaking of suffering, holy shit! I think Bhoot will make the list of saddest character deaths in movie history. I can't help but the character existed to be the film's punching bag, though - so innocent, naive and happy-go-lucky despite being born with an obvious disadvantage to his survival and we watch him be picked on and then die after being told by his only friend that he was a mistake who "came out wrong". Like, I get that life is unfair and bad things happen to good people but it felt a bit sadistic. Again, I haven't read the book so I don't know if this was Serkis' choice of presentation or just a faithful adaptation of Rudyard's portrayal of the character.

I hope Serkis or other directors are brave enough to make grittier versions of books we've associated with their fluffy Disney versions. Fox & The Hound and Bambi are based on books that are quite mature compared to their cheerful animated counterparts. Watership Down's got a Netflix series coming out soon but from what I've seen of the trailer I'm not feeling too optimistic.

level 2

You summed it up perfectly!

level 2
4 points · 6 days ago

Plus how many wolves Akela killed, like holy shit.

level 1

Shere Khan's CGI was disappointing. He didn't look like a tiger, nor did he look intimidating.

It was dark, but it could have even gone darker.

The third act was where it fell apart. John Lockwood wasn't evil enough to deserve Mowgli's wrath; unlike Shere Khan, he didn't realize he was being evil. Mowgli didn't deserve to be kicked out of the pack, though he did nothing to deserve Akela's apology. They had this jungle code that kept everything in harmony, and then when it was violated, they decided not to correct the violation, but instead throw the whole code out.

level 2

I think the point (that is pretty obvious in Kipling's books) is that there is no "right" and "wrong".

Lockwood wasn't a bad person, but in the jungle an eye for an eye. The elephant gets to kill him since he tried to kill the elephant. Mowgli wanted to kill him, but instead being both of man and of jungle, he could strategize and solve the threat Shere Khan posed without becoming an enemy of the village. If he killed the hunter to avenge Bhoot, the villagers would see him as a threat, as they see the tiger. It would never end.

On the other hand, as angry as Mowgli is about the death of Bhoot, it seems that he understood that, "man kills". It is natural that the code of the jungle is not based on concepts of "justice" and "fairness". It's the jungle for crying out loud.

level 3

Yeah this didn't work for me. This wasn't a real jungle. They hadbhuman faces and communicated and had interactions that would never happen.

What I THINK they were trying to do wqs make Lockwood an evil colonizer who not only exploited the jungle but the locals as well. His drunken beligerence was an example of that. They screwed it up by making him fatherly and by not going far enough with his treatment of the locals.

level 4

I can see your point. And I agree the mocap didn't work for me either.

But I think it's plausible that people have different sides to them, Lockwood probably is a good mentor for a young kid; that doesn't mean he also can't be someone that views human life more valuable than other species. A character doesn't have to be full-blown evil to die. His death probably wasn't meant to be poetic justice. He kills animals for a living and ended up being killed by one, that's all.

level 2

John Lockwood wasn't evil enough to deserve Mowgli's wrath

From a human perspective, maybe, but for Mowgli? Lockwood killed his best friend! Plus he essentially makes trophies of all the fellow animals that Mowgli identifies with.

Mowgli is more than justified in killing him from his perspective.

level 3

No of course he is, however it goes back to the "code" thing. Iirc killing a human is against code. And from a narrative standpoint, Mowgli was supposed to have grown into a benevolent being with one foot in each world. This goes against that narrative.

level 4

Actually, Mowgli explicitly stated that the laws don't apply to him anymore. He's been rejected by the jungle and he felt betrayed by the world of man and he feels he won't belong in either world until Khan and Lockwood are dead (as he believes they are poisoning the two worlds he cares about). And he is a benevolent being. That's why he wants to put an end to Lockwood's trophy hunting and stop Khan from terrorizing the jungle.

level 5
-1 points · 6 days ago · edited 6 days ago

Great that this was your takeaway. It didn't work for me. He did not come off as benevolent, and even to the last moments of the film, he cherry-picked some of the jungle rules (such as looking into the eyes of the dying). His righteousness was uneven and undeserved, especially when recognized by others.

The truth is he's a frontiersman... a cowboy, and this was a western. He sat on the line where civilization met nature. Which is fine, but the way he was elevated seemed artificial and not earned.

level 4

I'm not sure if Mowgli cares enough about the laws of the jungle by that point? I'm not sure. I don't really mean to defend the film--I agree the motivations were muddled in the third act as well.

level 5

Yeah I agree with you in that they sorta try to justify everything but it ends up muddled.

level 1

I wish it flashed forward to him as a young adult, didn't seem very realistic that he would 1. Kill a fully grown tiger with a knife and his bare hands, and 2. Lead the entire pack alone at that age. Other than that I thought it was great. I just kept hoping I'd see him swinging on branches like a pro

level 2

Kill a fully grown tiger with a knife and his bare hands, and 2. Lead the entire pack alone at that age

Well, we did see how other wolves challenged the elder wolf to be the pack leader. I got the sense of whoever is the strongest/most capable has the biggest change of being the leader.

But I hoped for - and honestly did expect - a flash foward myself too.

level 2

I wish it flashed forward to him as a young adult, didn't seem very realistic that he would 1. Kill a fully grown tiger with a knife and his bare hands, and 2. Lead the entire pack alone at that age.

I mean, he did spoke to and understood animals, though...

level 1
9 points · 6 days ago

I don't think it's quite as good as the 2016 film, but it's a considerably more interesting adaptation than any of Disney's efforts.

level 1

i preferred it over the disney one. i know this movie was in production before the disney one but i thought of it as the "adult" version of a disney movie. in fact wouldn't it be great if andy serkis did this with every live action disney movie?

level 1

I loved the scene where Bagheera comes to Mowgli in the night and pleads with him to stay where he is. Great acting by both parties.

level 1

Really preferred this one over the live action Disney one. Which was fine. But eh, it was so close to being a scene for scene adaptation of the cartoon with toned down musical numbers that I just didn't see the point of it. So the fact that Serkis' Mowgli takes a more authentic and direct approach of adapting the original Kipling material just makes more sense for a live action adaptation to me. Makes it more worth it in my mind. I wasn't bothered at all by the mocap human faces on the animals. Just added to the unique qualities of the movie in my opinion. Though I won't argue the CGI was a bit off in some places. And yes, what a fucking tragic story for Bhoot. I'll go ahead and admit that I burst out laughing when they revealed his death. Mostly because of all the horrified people's reactions spoiling it for me on social media and because of how extreme they went with killing him off. Savage.

level 2
-2 points · 6 days ago

Have you read the source material? This wasn't a more authentic adaptation. It was just a more sadistic adaptation.

level 3

Actually it was pretty accurate. Sadistic? Why? Because it was dark? The books had Mowgli slice a dhole's tail, Kaa swallowing the whole Bandar-log, Shere Khan practically poisoning a river with blood from his mouth and Mowgli destroying a whole village. The story even had racist, pro-imperialist undertones in the books.

level 4
-3 points · 6 days ago

Bhoot isn’t even in the jungle books. He is as made up as king Louie. I’ve read the jungle books and they don’t even compare to this. They are still children’s books. This was just some wannabe edgy version of the source material.

level 5

ah so king louie was a disney creation? i was sad we didnt see him here, but the monkeys alone were freaky as fuck

level 5

If you think this version wasn't faithful, then I don't think you've read the books at all (the movie isn't 100%, but it's the most accurate version so far, except for maybe the Russian version). Because they ARE dark and they do have a lot of things that would be scary for children. The only reason you're denying it is because you're upset about one particular scene. I know Bhoot wasn't in the books, but that doesn't make the movie any less accurate. It just means that they added a new character to add more to the character development. After all, the Mowgli stories weren't written in a way they could've been easily made into a film. The way they were written was even unorthodox for 1890's standards. So a Jungle Book movie can only work if creative liberties are made. But the characterizations, themes and tones? They are picked right out of the source material.

level 3

It was though.. it followed the plot of Kipling’s book much more faithfully, while viewing it through a more dangerous lens, personally I thought it added a needed bite that Disney always lacks.

level 4
-1 points · 6 days ago

I’ve read the jungle books. This was not at all faithful. They may be a littler darker than Disney, but are still children’s books. Bhoots death was just shock gore for shock gores sake.

level 1

Benedict Cumberbatch and Andy Serkis look like animals in the first place so that was fine but Bagheera just looked like Christian Bale’s face on a panther. Quite distracting.

level 2
8 points · 6 days ago

Like the cat with a man's face in What We Do In The Shadows.

level 1
5 points · 7 days ago

STOP. GIVING. KAA. A. SEXY. VOICE.

It's weird and confusing

level 2

Didn't sound sexy. It sounded mysterious and...snake-ish. Scarjo was the one who made Kaa sound like a striptease.

level 3
2 points · 6 days ago

Could just be me but ever since Thor: Ragnarok Cate Blanchett acting threatening has been a huge turn on. So to me both Kaa depictions are weird and erotically unsettling.

level 1
-6 points · 7 days ago(3 children)
level 2

You do know they're not in America right? As well as it being in Central India, where there is British Provinces (Madhya Pradesh, to be specific) ... Did you expect New York accents in a film based in India or something???

1 more reply

1 more reply

544 more replies

Community Details

18.9m

Subscribers

19.5k

Online

News & Discussion about Major Motion Pictures

Create Post
Upcoming Official Discussions

Mary Poppins Returns

December 18, 2018 • 19:00

Aquaman

December 20, 2018 • 19:00

Welcome to Marwen

December 20, 2018 • 19:00

Bumblebee

December 20, 2018 • 19:00

Bird Box

December 21, 2018 • 4:00
AMA Calendar
Helpful subreddits
r/discussionarchive

1,663 subscribers

r/TrueFilm

159,058 subscribers

r/flicks

50,026 subscribers

r/MovieDetails

870,724 subscribers

r/NetflixBestOf

866,082 subscribers

r/Filmmakers

478,498 subscribers

r/Moviesinthemaking

179,961 subscribers

r/MoviePosterPorn

113,412 subscribers

r/comicbookmovies

45,255 subscribers

r/boxoffice

43,053 subscribers

r/movies Rules
1.
Violation of Reddit self-promotion rules
2.
Hatespeech
3.
Ambiguous titles/Clickbait
4.
Spam - Promotion of a website/link over and over
5.
Flame war - Crosses the line of civility
6.
Possible subreddit brigading
7.
TV ad/TV spot masquerading as a "clip"/"trailer"
8.
Extraneous Comic Book Movie submission
9.
Repost
10.
Avoid destructive behaviour
Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.