The Jungle Book

Sometimes it’s hard to tell why animated films get live-action remakes. Off the top of my head I can't think of one that I like. I guess with the Jungle Book, the reason was simple; it hasn’t been done and it has a broad appeal based on the fandom of the original, besides being a four quadrant movie. The 2016 live action Jungle Book currently has a 94% and Rotten Tomatoes, and 8.1 on IMDB, whereas the original Disney animation has 86% and 7.6 respectively. This is an overrating, and I think an example of the taking for granted of how good Disney’s animated (especially 2D) work is. This is due to Disney being pretty much the only western studio to produce animated features for 60 years or so, with no competition or point of comparison. People are used to having seen Disney films when they were too young to appreciate how well-crafted they are, and not having the inclination to reassess them, continue to see them as cartoons or kids films without much more thought. Studio Gibli on the other hand is more often praised for its animation quality because people generaly come to these films as adults, with the ability to really see and differentiate quality. Most people have never tried to be animators, and so don't appreciate how hard it is, which is why snooker is so boring if you've never played it; animators and snooker players are arguably among the most talented people in the world (making snooker players the most boring people in the world, not having time for a personality. I don't know about animators but they seem a bit goofier, I think the the acting component that comes into animation - bringing emotion to characters that don't exist - may actually give them a heightened personality). So most people just don’t understand how hard it is, including critics. You could argue CGI is more objectively impressive than 2D animation; rendering a photo-realistic tiger from nothing is basically a magic trick, drawing a tiger is easy, right? Literally anyone can draw a tiger. It might be a 3 year old's scribble but if they say it's a tiger it's a tiger. Only a handful of people have the access to and the ability to use 3D modelling software. But is this

really more beautiful and impressive than this?

Or is it more technology, manpower and money? To be fair, it's certainly scarier, which is one thing The Jungle Book 2016 does really well. Shere Khan is really scary in every scene and totally not in it enough, Idris Elba really nails it. The action scenes are really good too, they read well and don't get confusing and incoherent the way many CGI action scenes do, they're the best bits in the film. As well as Idris Elba, Bill Murray is fantastic, not being restricted by his old man's face reverting to classic Murray, confident and lazy and funny. There are a few missteps though. In following the episodic nature of the original, there were a few scenes which felt out of place; the scene with Kaa (the snake) was quite cool but was unnecessary, and the King Louie scene felt weird. In the original they worked because it was a musical which is episodic by nature, here it just felt unnatural and sectioned. There are two songs, which felt shoehorned in. Keeping with some sort of realism you don't have the dancing, so the animals kinda just stand there and sing at Mowgli, which looks awkward. They do help to lighten the tone though, which may be too dark without them. 

Mowgli was a problem for me; he was whiny and without agency. He just let others tell him what to do which makes him less sympathetic. The child actor Neel Sethi actually did well with what he had to work with and did a convincing job of talking to a tennis ball on the end of a stick in a green room, which must be hard for even adult actors. I get the feeling he'd be really charming in other films. I'm picking holes with the film not because I think it's a bad movie - it's pretty good, Bill Murray and Idris Elba are great and the animals are perfectly rendered and the action scenes are scary and exciting, and most importantly it's not too long - but I think it is overrated, and critics are praising the spectacle as if photo-realism is the high point of art, not a technological inevitability, and it still doesn't look as good as Jurassic Park which is now TWENTY THREE years old (use real trees for fuck sake it's not hard. Go to a jungle or something they have loads). It's a good film but photo-realistic tigers don't make it a great one.