Post by sgev1977 on Dec 8, 2018 17:04:36 GMT
I can’t believe I agreed with Medelson!
www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2018/12/07/mowgli-best-netflix-blockbuster-andy-serkis-jungle-book/#5f21a74d38a4
I hate to sounds as one of those DC superfans but I think this movie is clearly much better appreciated by non-Disney “faithful dogs” out there! (As Patrick Melrose would say!)
This morning sees the Netflix debut of Andy Serkis’ Mowgli: Legend of the Jungle. Originally intended as a global Warner Bros. release (the film still bears the WB logo at its start), it was sold off to Netflix last summer when they saw the writing on the wall. Walt Disney got there first, and with audiences less inclined to see big-budget fantasies of this nature without the Disney brand (and, like Nutcracker and the Four Realms, sometimes WITH the Disney brand), it was a financial time bomb waiting to go off. Having seen the film just this morning (on my HDTV, natch), it is a curious concoction.
Yes, as promised by the director, this is technically a darker, grimmer and more “grounded” take on the core material, even as that tone harkens back to the original Rudyard Kipling novel. Even while earning its PG-13 rating, it is still mostly kid-appropriate, provided your child is old enough to watch a Star Wars or MCU movie and is aware that this won’t be like the 1967 animated feature. Amusingly enough, the first act is actually lighter and more kid-friendly (more dialogue, more incident) than the Jon Favreau adaptation, which felt like an arthouse movie/Terrence Malick tone poem for much of its first third.
Yes, as promised by the director, this is technically a darker, grimmer and more “grounded” take on the core material, even as that tone harkens back to the original Rudyard Kipling novel. Even while earning its PG-13 rating, it is still mostly kid-appropriate, provided your child is old enough to watch a Star Wars or MCU movie and is aware that this won’t be like the 1967 animated feature. Amusingly enough, the first act is actually lighter and more kid-friendly (more dialogue, more incident) than the Jon Favreau adaptation, which felt like an arthouse movie/Terrence Malick tone poem for much of its first third.
All of this is a roundabout way of saying that Mowgli: Legend of the Jungle is a solid and enjoyable adventure movie that is a little darker and more overtly violent than the previous one without necessarily going into true-blue Peter Jackson territory. If anything, I would argue that this PG-13 rated flick is less violent than the PG-rated Jungle Book that Stephen Sommers directed back in 1994. It’s gorgeous to look at and has a few haunting images, even if it’s mostly the same story we’ve seen before. And that’s its core obstacle.
Mowgli: Legend of the Jungle boasts an excellent cast (Cate Blanchett, Christian Bale, Benedict Cumberbatch, Naomi Harris, etc.) and looks like every penny ended up on the screen. In a just world, it would merit a wide/global theatrical release merely because it is a good movie that would surely look spectacular on a screen larger than my 75-inch DLP. Alas, I’m under no illusions that the film had a shot in hell in making its money back the old-fashioned way. As of today, it is a curiosity as a Netflix original. For what it’s worth, it is (by default) Netflix’s best “blockbuster” movie (Mowgli >>> Bright, Death Note, War Machine and Cloverfield Paradox).
www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2018/12/07/mowgli-best-netflix-blockbuster-andy-serkis-jungle-book/#5f21a74d38a4
I hate to sounds as one of those DC superfans but I think this movie is clearly much better appreciated by non-Disney “faithful dogs” out there! (As Patrick Melrose would say!)