By Rick Bentley / Tribune News Service
Director Andy Serkis (“Star Wars: The Last Jedi”) has gone down a familiar path with his take on Rudyard Kipling’s “The Jungle Book” tales with “Mowgli: Legend of the Jungle.” Numerous productions have dealt with the child who grows up in the jungle, but the biggest problem for “Mowgli” is its trek comes so close to the massive wake created by the 2016 release of “The Jungle Book.”
It all starts with the classic story of a young boy raised by wolves. Mowgli (Rohan Chand) has spent his life training to be as good as his brother wolves under the guidance of Baloo (voiced by Serkis) and Bagheera (Christian Bale). The child only knows the world of the jungle, but that changes when a hunter (Matthew Rhys) arrives to kill the tiger Shere Khan (Benedict Cumberbatch), who has been killing cattle. The deaths in the herd not only raise the wrath of the local farmers, but worries the animals because they know the slaughter of a cow will bring danger to all.
The film is shot with such beauty you can almost feel the heat of the jungle. Serkis does an amazing job of giving the animals just enough human touches. Both are good qualities but are not enough to distract from the major questions looming over the production.
Why? Was the world clamoring for another take on Kipling’s stories? Has there been a movement to get more animals into films? Hasn’t anyone got any original ideas using children, the jungle and a bunch of wild animals?
It has only been two years since Jon Favreau directed “The Jungle Book,” a film as rich in story as it was in look. He took familiar elements from the Disney 1967 animated “Jungle Book” and used a technical style to create a movie so brilliant it borders on sorcery. It would have been different if “The Jungle Book” had not made almost $1 billion around the world. When you sell that many tickets, there’s a massive amount of people who have seen a film based on Kipling characters, and it hasn’t been that long since they saw it.
Now, “Mowgli” comes along, with natural comparisons. And while Serkis is to be praised for his effort, “Mowgli’s” cinematography pales against “The Jungle Book.” The computer creation of the animals is just enough pixels off from what Favreau masterfully did to be noticeable, and the story is interesting but not compelling. Despite a valiant effort, “Mowgli” comes up short.
Even casting some of the biggest names in Hollywood to be the voice talents doesn’t help. Just as in “The Grinch,” Cumberbatch does a marvelous job giving voice to Shere Khan. He’s so good at becoming animated and computer-generated characters that unless you read the credits, there’s no immediate association with the actor and this movie. There are a few moments when Bale’s vocal patterns come through Bagheera, but generally he is not immediately recognizable. It would have been a lot cheaper to hire those who make a living as voice talents and save some big bucks while getting equally good vocal performances.
“Mowgli” inherits all the problems that come with sequels, works based on other offerings or productions that tread on well-traveled ground. It’s rare when those that come after a major success find their own fortunes. All they can hope for is to be a close second best.
There’s one other problem with “Mowgli: Legend of the Jungle.” The film has had trouble getting released, as it was originally scheduled to be in theaters as a Warner Bros. offering. That it didn’t happen is not a good sign. Now it will be available on Netflix on Dec. 7.
“Mowgli: Legend of the Jungle” (2 stars)
Despite director Andy Serkis’ skills and an excellent voice cast including the likes of Christian Bale, there’s really no reason for this “Jungle Book” sequel to have been made.
Rating: PG-13 action, violence.
Opening: Dec. 7 on Netflix
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
