Why so much hype?

Load of rubbish!!

Just so...so bad

The film may be flawed, but its message is not.

This is an interesting movie but I was rather misled when I came to hire it. I assumed that the original Jungle Book by Rudyard Kipling had a lot of Christian anecdotes in it, though I have never read it. Upon seeing this movie I thought that it would be based closed to the book and with the suggestion of a couple of others, decided to show this film to a group of kids at an Easter Mission at Normanville. They said the movie was okay but as I watched it I was regretting that I actually chose this movie. I thought that it would have Christian anecdotes but it did not. I had a gut feeling that it did not follow the book and after reading Ebert's review I discovered that I was right. Basically, I should have shown three Vegetale videos instead.This movie seems to follow more of an Indiana Jones style movie than anything else. It contains lost treasure filled cities brimming with traps and an evil imperial empire seeking to find it and steal it for themselves. The place is the far reaches of India during the time of the British occupation and they are seeking to tame the wild land with their civilisation. This is the one theme of the movie that stands out and it is the taming of the wild. The jungle is wild and the British seek to tame it. The only problem is is that they cannot. The Black Jungle is the place which nobody enters because it is untameable.The story focuses on a boy named Mogli who is lost as a child during a tiger attack on a camp. He grows up in the jungle with a wolf, a bear, and a panther. These animals are his close friends but they seem to fall into the background when Mogli returns to civilisation. This is when the British decide to attempt to civilise him. At first they don't want to, they would rather beat him up until he shows them to the treasure, but later, when it is discovered that he was the child of somebody who saved the major's life, he is then released and they attempt to civilise him.I think it is bad to deceive an audience by the title of a movie, and I don't know how the ratings people hand out ratings, but I thought that this was not really a children's movie with the amount of blood, people sinking into quicksand and being buried alive in temple traps.

Not a bad adaption, I would rate it a 7.0. Nevertheless, I still consider that "The Jungle Book" 1942 version in gorgeous Technicolor is rather better. On my seventh birthday I was given a Pan Book paperback entitled Mowgli Stories. The only illustration was on the cover: against a vivid dark blue and black background a naked adolescent Mowgli is depicted wielding a flaming red and orange branch in resistance to the villainous tiger Shere Khan, who has come to claim him from the wolf pack. I no longer have that book but my research indicates it was published by Pan Book's in 1948. The paperback contained all eight of the Mowgli stories in roughly serial order taken from a miscellaneous collection of stories found in The Jungle Book and The Second Jungle Book. Although the movie's longer title is "Rudyard Kipling's Jungle Book", it does not deserve to have Kipling's name attached to it. The Mowgli tales as Kipling wrote them are far superior to the weak screenplay of the film which diverges widely from the original and develops an entirely new set of characters. Would a late Victorian army colonel really contemplate his only daughter marrying even a refined native boy in those days? I think not. One may forgive easily forgive the numerous careless goofs. After all it is Walt Disney stuff not a documentary about British India in late Victorian times or whether the fuel containers on the horse cart should have the word "paraffin" or "kerosene" stencilled on them etc. However, I have seen far worse gaffs in some otherwise praiseworthy Oscar-winning movies, such as"Lawrence of Arabia". I wonder if one day somebody will make a new non-cartoon film entitled "The Mowgli Stories" which is much more faithful to them than what has been produced so far. It probably could not be contained in a time span of less than three hours and who would want to sit in a cinema theatre that long anyway? Perhaps the best way of presenting the Mowgli stories on screen as Rudyard Kipling envisioned them would be to produce an eight-episode made for TV series. Okay, I have grouched enough. In fairness, I enjoyed the film as it stands. After all my objections why do I give it a 7/10? First the cinematography and staged scenery were good quality, second animal handling was well done and third the cast was excellent. The lead star, Jason Lee Jones was first rate, just right for the part. Several Indian commentators on this site have disliked the fact that Jason is not an Indian and they also claim he does not even look like one. This is rather a pointless objection in my view. India (without Pakistan and Bangladesh) has about 1.2 billion human inhabitants and a long history of invasion and conquests with much interbreeding. Thus there are numerous tribes, ethnics and races in India. Indians themselves display a range of complexions from the ebony black of a Tamil to the light olive skins of a Mediterranean person further north. Jason reminds me of many Bengalis I have known where slightly Mongoloid features are common. To ignore the physical diversity of its inhabitants would be to deny India's cultural, ethnic and racial diversity which makes that country so interesting. Instead, I would have thought that Indians would more likely to have objected to the way they are depicted in the movie, either as rather silly or villainous. In fairness several of the British officers are depicted as silly and/or villainous as well.Downgrading natives was definitely not Kipling's style. In the Jungle Books and his novel "Kim" Rudyard Kipling reveals a true love of greater India and its people and culture. He was one of the few intelligent imperialists (called "Empire Builders" until well into the 1950s) who sought to understand the local cultures in whatever corner of the Empire they found themselves assigned for years. The could either isolate themselves in compounds or mingle. Kipling mingled and studied the cultures and manners of Her Majesty's exotic subjects though as a man of his day he did not commit the "sin" of "going native". As the film is deliberately light-hearted Disney stuff bordering on comedy one could even accept John Cleese portraying - as he did in the Monty Python films and as Basil in the "Fawlty Towers" TV show- a very silly, uncouth, and highly satirical Englishman. One final point I need to make is that in my view the movie should have been rated PG-13 rather than PG. There are some particularly ugly scenes including man eaten by a tiger, by implication only, in one instance or another explicitly mauled to death by Shere Khan. That is scary stuff for a small child. Worse are scenes of a soldier slowing sinking to his death in a quagmire, an Indian bad guy being squashed by man-trapping devices and another man drowned in slow motion. Also young children tend to become very upset if animals are hurt or killed. There is a scene where an animal is shot and depicted to be in great pain. Anyone who cares to read the Mowgli stories (best after and not before you see this movie) will find them published in full at:http://thenostalgialeague.com/olmag/kipling-jungle-book.html A site dedicated to Kipling's work that is well worth visiting.

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.

I loved this movie as a kid and recently revisted it. Now a serious film buff, I wasn't sure if it would live up to my current standards. However, I found it was still a great movie. Although very few people know about, I feel that it deserves much more attention. It's a wonderful reimagining of the classic story. It gives the viewer a great feel for Indian culture as well as the British colonial dynamic that influenced Kipling so much. The score is wonderful. Great action and script as well. Plus, the scenery is fantstic. It definitely deserves a much higher rating, but I find that the less well known a movie is, the lower the rating, even if it is really good. I highley recommend this movie to everyone. It's still one of my favorites.