The Jungle Book Movie
Storyline
TAGLINES
Born of man, raised by animals, destined for adventure.
A faithful adaptation of Rudyard Kipling's classic tale of Mowgoli the jungle boy who is raised by wolves after being lost when a tiger attacked an encampment and killed his father. Years later he finds himself re-united with his childhood love Kitty and back in the "civilization" of Colonial India which he finds far less civilized then his jungle haunts. The search for a lost treasure shows who the truly civilized members of society are.
| Jason Scott Lee | Mowgli |
| Cary Elwes | Captain William Boone |
| Lena Headey | Katherine 'Kitty' Brydon |
| Sam Neill | Colonel Geofferey Brydon |
| John Cleese | Dr. Julien Plumford |
| Jason Flemyng | Lt. John Wilkins |
| Stefan Kalipha | Buldeo |
| Ron Donachie | Sgt. Harley |
| Anirudh Agarwal | Tabaqui |
| Faran Tahir | Nathoo |
| Sean Naegeli | Mowgli, age 5 |
| Joanna Wolff | Kitty Brydon, age 5 |
| Liza Walker | Alice |
| Rachel Robertson | Rose |
| Natalie Morse | Margaret |
| Stephen Sommers |
5.80 out of 10 (3242 votes)
Visitor Reviews
Uh-oh: they said "macaque"!
posted on 11 Apr 2009Beyond 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".
several good versions out there... skip this one
posted on 30 Mar 2009I 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.
The Jungle Book
posted on 18 Jul 2008If you have seen the original Walt Disney Pictures animated film, this is nothing like it. The animals don't talk, I didn't notice Shere Khan the tiger, and their's no Mowgli father (Sam Neill), Cary Elwes or John Cleese. Young Mowgli is left behind after a trip through the jungle, now after many years Mowgli (Jason Scott Lee) has been found by Dr. Plumford (Cleese) and a bunch of explorers living in the jungle. They try to help him become a proper human being. The animals are cute, fury or necessary, but I would prefer it if Baloo, Baghera and Louie would talk. They are just there as far as I saw to laugh at humans making fools of themselves. Don't bother seeing this unless your an animal lover, or a fans of the actors. Adequate!
Fine performances and direction in the spirit of Kipling.
posted on 09 Jun 2008The switch here, and Jason Scott Lee does it with skill and heart of genius, is that Mowgli talks to the animals in their languages. We do not hear the animal speaking English. But from the moment Bagheera offers his tail to the tiny Mowgli and Mowgli grasps that tail, we are in intimate communication with the animals. Mowgli, his pet wolfcub and the rescued bearcub Balu follow the panther through the jungle and I went with them. Every actor modulates his or her performance to make the story happen, to balance the telling. Kitty, Mowgli's childhood friend, does not let one drop of saccharine spoil her natural young woman. Cary Elwes as a villain is frighteningly archetypal (just as he is a beautiful hero in other films). . . But the animal actors are what compel me to fork over dollars for my own copy of the video. Since they are surrounded by masterful cinema storytelling and heartfelt human performances, their work carries the main theme of this film. We know now how fragile the jungle and its inhabitants are as man approaches with guns and bulldozers. The delicate balance of man and animal, the diplomacy of Mowgli at times, the essence of courage and loyalty -- all this is portrayed. If you know the original Jungle Book and the moral spirit of its author, you recognize that the character of the jungle inhabitants is respected. In this film, while we are given an adventure extrapolated from the original literary situation, the Law of the Jungle is kept. For sophisticated Kipling see the Michael Caine/Sean Connery film "The Man Who Would Be King".
Kipling would have liked it
posted on 08 Nov 2006It's a good take on Kipling's masterpiece, and I liked it more (!) than the cartoon version. David Sommers did a great job on it; I always wanted to see Mowgli grown up. Mind you, he's a fast learner. First he sees Kitty, then he starts a riot, goes to prison, gets discovered, and learns how to talk. It happens to fast. But that's the movies for you, and you can't really fault that.There are a lot of cool moments in the movie, like in the beginning, when Kitty gives Mowgli her bracelet; in his...re-entry into the "human race", when he sees all the animal heads in a room, and you can feel this weird...presence. It's kind of beautiful, kind of sad, and very, very, Kipling. He would have liked it, I think.
The Jungle Book, minus anything worthwhile
posted on 18 Apr 2006I'm glad that I only watched this movie via a video tape at a relatives house. I'd have been VERY upset if I'd paid any kind of money to watch it.
This is basically a live-action remake of the Jungle Book. More like a live-action Jungle Book which just has some of the characters and nothing to do with the original. I guess in THEORY it could work, but this film bungles THAT in every respect. And what a waste of good talent, too. Cary Elwes and John Cleese are great actors, what in their right minds drove them to do this? The movie's biggest problem is the lack of charm or wit that the animated Jungle Book or the original book had. Also, while the ads marketed it as a cute family film, this is actually very dark and oftentimes very gruesome. What age group were they trying to appeal to? I like a certain amount of dark moments in movies, especially in kids films, but because the movie was so poorly represented, I felt lied to. The story is just about Mowgli and this new girl Kitty as they go hunt down a treasure.
Kitty is in the film because now that it's the 90's, there must always be a strong female character in EVERY kids film, no matter how pointless to the film she may be. I'm not trying to be sexist, I AM female, but Kitty is so cliched she doesn't add much. The animals, which were so lively in the old version and the book don't talk or really do much of ANYTHING that makes them worthy of being here. What was the point of including them at all?
Oh, that's right, they realized they were making a kid's film. Basically, this movie definitely needed a few more rewrites and a much more clear idea of who it was aimed for. What a waste of a good idea...
A Solid Version Of The Classic Story
posted on 30 Dec 2003This was pretty solid adventure story with colorful backgrounds of a the country of India and jungle scenery. Jason Scott Lee as "Mowgli" is interesting to watch in the lead. Lee is an intriguing actor. He has an Asian background, but has played an Eskimo, here in Indian and other nationalities in other films. He is one of the more diverse actors I've ever seen, yet he isn't well-known.Cary Elwes is usually effective as a villain. He has the acting talent that makes him easy to despise! The animals are fun, too, from Mowgli's friends in the jungle to the monkeys and giant snake guarding the lost caves with the treasure. Nicely filmed and a good adventure story for everyone.
Boys young & old like adventure yarns and this is a good one!
posted on 27 Jun 2003What a rollicking adventure story this film is - straight from the pages of Rudyard Kipling's Jungle Books and as uncomplicated as any schoolboy adventure yarn. It's really about the laws of man and the laws of the jungle and the divergence of opinions which continue even today. Most of the humans in this film are depicted as tiresome bores, courageous only when their finger is on the trigger of a rifle. The animals of the jungle seem to be the most maligned, but somehow get the upper hand. After all, the jungle is their territory. The film gives some hope for the future when Mowgli (reared by wild animals) and Kitty, a sweet English girl fall in love. The athletic Mowgli with the agility of a leopard in his jungle home is forced to lead a party of soldiers to the monkey palace where untold treasure has been accumulated. It's a difficult trek, but greed drives them on to the secret place. Action hots up as the animals fight back to preserve their territory. Kitty's life is threatened many times, but handsome Mowgli with his animal instincts is able to save her. A touching scene in the film (and one of the quieter moments) is Mowgli's discovery of a room in which the heads of hunted animals are stuffed and mounted as trophies on the walls. Without being too cynical, I must say that Mowgli is surprisingly adaptable as Kitty makes attempts to "civilize" him and teach him to dance. He is certainly a quick learner. But the English aristocracy do not accept him.
If one can believe all that Kipling portrays, one feels his heart lies in the jungle which he trekked through himself during his travels in Africa. Maybe his attitude to the jungle is over-romanticized, but the resulting film adds up to great family entertainment. With regard to the monkey palace, it is truly a wonder to behold. The technological experts have done a great job in managing the special effects. They defy analysis. Better to just sit back and enjoy each exciting moment.
Watchable, but there are better versions
posted on 23 Dec 2002There's a little problem with "truth in advertising" here. The only thing this film has in common with Rudyard Kipling's book is the title and the name of the principle character (Mowgli). After that, there is no similarity.It's a decent adventure story, but if you're wanting to watch "The Jungle Book", you're going to be disappointed. For that, I might suggest the 1942 version with Sabu or the 1967 animated version.Jason Scott Lee acts the part very well, but I simply couldn't believe him as Mowgli. He just didn't fit that part. Most of the other characters were fine ... but, of course, they weren't characters from the book. I gave it a 4.
The gorgeous animals provide some compensation...
posted on 17 Jul 2002Youngster in India is separated from his family during a battle in his village, soon taking refuge with the animals in the wild. A rather shameless return to proved territory by the Disney company, giving Rudyard Kipling's characters another go around. It's a handsomely-produced yet simple-minded and dull adventure, complete with ludicrous attempts at modern humor and a miscast Jason Scott Lee as the grown-up Mowgli (very grown as it turns out; Lee--his physique pumped to Rambo-like proportions--looks ready to play Tarzan, not this child of the jungle!). The 1942 version of Kipling's story (starring Sabu) wasn't exactly a barn-burner, but it captured the mysteries of nature and its creatures more perceptively than this version. Only assets are the animals (beautiful to look at), the elaborate art direction, and Basil Poledouris' sweeping background score. *1/2 from ****
Great movie! It deserves a much higher rating.
posted on 08 Feb 2002I 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.
Such a great movie, very under rated
posted on 04 Nov 2001One of my favorite childhood memories of all time, the live action Jungle Book, in 1967 we had a classic animated movie of the same title, it's a great movie, has fun music and terrific characters. When my family bought the movie The Jungle Book, I don't think they realized the surprise that we got when we just enjoyed watching this film. It's strange because this is made a little more for the grown up crowd vs. the children, but still I absolutely loved The Jungle Book and every time I see it, I admire it a little more for different reasons. The story, the setting, the actors, I don't know what it was about this film that I just love so much, but it holds a special place in my heart.In the Victorian period, Mowgli is the five-year-old son of a wilderness guide who accompanies his father on a hunting trip in the jungles of their native India. Mowgli becomes close friends with a British girl named Kitty Brydon, whose father, Colonel Geoffrey Brydon, commissioned the hunt. When Shere Khan attacks the camp and kills Mowgli's father, the boy and the wolf are lost in the confusion and are left to fend for themselves. Bagheera finds them and leads Mowgli to the wolf pack. Mowgli is befriended by the animals of the jungle including Baloo the bear cub, and they develop an unspoken bond as the growing boy learns to survive. While in the wild, the Bander-Log steal the bracelet Kitty gave him. Years later, after growing to adulthood, Mowgli once again encounters Kitty, who still lives in India with her father and her arrogant and deceitful suitor, Captain William Boone. Kitty and Mowgli recognize each other, and while his powers of speech are rusty, Kitty reintroduces Mowgli to civilization with the help of Dr. Julius Plumford and Mowgli introduces Kitty to his friends in the jungle. However, after spending most of his life in the jungle, Mowgli does not feel at home among the rude and snobbish aristocrats who are friends with Kitty's family. He falls in love with Kitty, but wants to go back to the jungle and to be with his real family.The Jungle Book is an incredibly good movie that I highly recommend. It has great laughs, like watching Mowgli learning how to becoming "civilized" in society with the help of Dr. Plumford and seeing how Plumford is also trying to learn from Mowgli how to be in touch with nature. I loved to love story between Mowgli and Kitty, it was so lovely and their kiss was one of those sappy moments that got a big "Awww!!!" from me. Then there's one of the saddest movie moments ever, when Baloo gets shot and Mowgli finds him and just lies with him crying, then Dr. Plumford reveals Baloo at the end of the movie and I cry in joy, they had me on so many rollar coaster rides of emotions. But seriously if you haven't seen this movie, I would recommend it very much, it's a very special film and deserves more recognition.10/10
Bad Interpretation, Good Movie
posted on 05 Oct 2001I liked the novel, "The Jungle Book," I liked Disney's animated feature, "The Jungle Book," and I am man enough to say that the two bear little more than a superficial similarity.Having said that, the live-action remake of the animated retelling of the novel "The Jungle Book," bears about as little resemblance to the original as Mowgli bears to his "brothers" in the wolf-pack. Despite that, though, this is a really fun movie. It isn't so much an adaptation of the Jungle Book, as it is a retelling of the original Edgar Rice Burroughs Tarzan story (where Tarzan actually speaks English, wears clothes, and is quite intelligent), using wolves, instead of apes. I don't think its a stretch to imagine that the script was originally sold as a Tarzan re-make, and Disney picked it up, made a few superficial modifications to it and sold it as the Jungle Book. I'm sure there are a few Rudyard Kipling enthusiasts out there who are absolutely aghast that anyone would link his name with this movie. I don't know that I would entirely blame them, either. As someone who, unlike much of Hollywood, *is* literate, its rather disturbing to see an author's name linked to something that bears little (if any) similarity to his original work. Once you get over that fact, though, it is a gem of an adventure movie. The rather predictable plot has plenty of holes in it, but its such an unfailingly amiable movie, you tend to ignore them.If you like jungle adventures like "Tarzan" or "King Solomon's Mines" you will like this movie. If you are a fan of the book or the cartoon, then you will probably be disappointed.
Pretty good movie, I enjoyed it.
posted on 17 Apr 2001***These are the spoilers***What an interesting piece of film here. Alright, well, I'll give my two cents here. It starts out with Mowgli, a young Indian boy, bonding with a young British girl named Catherine, who, like he, lost her mother when she was a baby. Things go wrong and Mowgli's father is mauled by a tiger, Mowgli himself being cast into and lost in the jungle. He bonds with the animals and loses himself to it, effectively becoming a savage, and donning a loincloth to boot.Years later, he finds a hidden city in the jungle and a massive treasure. But when he tries to get back Catherine's bracelet, he is attacked by a huge snake. After a desperate and losing struggle, he barely escapes the vicious reptile with his life and the bracelet. The next day, we see Catherine, who has developed into a beautiful and intelligent young woman, opposite Mowgli's cumbersome and illiterate character. They meet and Catherine flees into the arms of her fiancé, Captain William Boone, who, along with his friends, proceeds to fight Mowgli, which results in Mowgli being shot in the arm.Mowgli tries to meet Catherine in the British fort, but he is beaten down and captured. Over the rest of the course of the film, Catherine, her doctor, and her father attempt to teach Mowgli to read and speak proper English, which they succeed in to some degree. But ultimately, the jungle boy answers the 'call of the wild' and returns, but Boone wants the treasure he found. Along with his buddies, William tracks down Mowgli and forces him to lead him to the treasure. Once there, he attempts to kill Mowgli, and nearly kills the savage, but is killed by the same snake that attacked Mowgli earlier. Mowgli and Catherine fall in love, the end.***Spoilers end here***Very interesting. There were some things about it that are obviously intended for older audiences. Throughout most of the movie, Mowgli wears nothing more than a loincloth, rendering him effectively naked for the majority of the movie, while his enemies wear full clothing. Obviously not intended for kids. In one sequence, he is seen fighting a large (and fully clothed) man atop a cliff, nearly being beaten off the edge. I even wonder if there wasn't some grounds for a racist argument in there. In the final sequence, Mowgli (a naked Indian man) was attacked by William (a fully-clothed British man), and stumbled clumsily around to avoid William's deadly swordplay. I won't point fingers, but it's there.Anyway, good movie, if you like watching naked people get shot at and beaten around by not-naked people. Nah, it's a good film, and you should watch it if you're over 9, I would say. 8 out of 10.
The plot summary is just as IMDb says.
posted on 28 Feb 2001What it doesn't say is how uplifting it proves to be mentally, morally,emotionally, physically,spiritually, and any other way i failed to mention. A truly captivating work of art, this can be enjoyed by children and adults alike. The characters take you into a world of magic and mystery where anything is possible. It is not something that is described easily though, rather, it must be seen to be FELT. It has evolved from its simple beginnings as a cartoon which few people watch anymore. Yet, my family watches this version often. Although it's to the point that we know the dialogue by heart, it never fails to bring tears, or to inspire. I highly recommend this movie for all.
I can't believe this movie rated so low!
posted on 05 Jan 2001I love this movie,I rated it a 10.I can't believe this movie rated so low!This movie is full of action and adventure.The monkeys in it are a hoot.I loved the Indiana Jones style ending.The casting is perfect.My teenage daughter adores this movie.A must see that is perfect for the whole family.
an enjoyable adventure
posted on 05 Aug 2000Engaging, old-fashioned adaptation that captures the rousing since of adventure of Rudyard Kipling's classic tale. Abandoned in the jungles of India and thought to be dead, a young boy survives after he's raised by a family of wolves. Years later, as an adult, he attempts to rejoin civilization with the help of his only childhood friend: the genteel daughter of a British officer. Soon, circumstances put him into conflict with a scheming young officer out to plunder the jungle's enchanting lost city. Elaborate production and effects, an ideal cast, and a wonderfully adventurous feel throughout make this a thrilling ride from beginning to end. Too intense for the youngest children, but lots of fun. ***
Very Good Adaptation
posted on 09 Jul 2000This again was done by Disney, just like the animated musical. This is closer to the original Rudyard Kipling story, as the animated classic focuses more on what it was inspired about. It's more in depth with excellent filming and good training on the animals.Of course, the animals didn't talk in this either, but they were well trained and expressed themselves, as well as the addition of other characters there were not in the 1967 version. The film is long but I thought it was a masterpiece all in all.Recommended to the fans of the book, or big fans of Disney and/or their 1967 animated version. Overall, I thought the 1967 version was better, but this was a spectacular film. A 9.4 out of 10.
- 1
- 2
Underrated
posted on 04 Jul 2009I never had the chance to watch Zoltan Korda's The Jungle Book, which, they say, was quite good, so this has to be my favorite live action Jungle Book (not strange; most real live adaptations of this superb story by Rudyard Kipling are very bad). This is somewhat of a mixture between Tarzan and the original Jungle Book, and even, the Disney jungle book. It was a little weird to see Jason Scott Lee playing Mowgli (he is OBVIOUSLY not Indian), but who cares about that with so many magnificent animals in the movie. The tiger, Shere Khan, was reimagined from the lame, lowly man eater from the original novel, to the powerful guardian of the jungle law, who kills men because they break the Law (killing with no need). In this story, also, Shere Khan lives, and even makes peace with Mowgli when he realizes that he, despite being a man, is also a jungle creature. A very good adventure movie; no one should miss it.