I loved this movie as a little kid. I was about 7 years old when it came out on VHS. I did see some characters were missing in the movie and some stuff didn't make sense. I didn't see Kaa. 1. I was asking why wasn't Kaa in this movie? 2.Since when did Mowgli have a wolf sister (instead of a wolf brother)? 3. How was Mowgli the adopted son of the wolf-leader Akela? 4. How come they only had a 7 year old kid lost in the jungle being taken in by wolves and he is still wearing clothes-the next scene his pants are torn (which look like shorts), he carries some kind of knapsack-the other scene he still wears the same pants he wore when he was in the human camp and vest but doesn't wear the shirt (still wears the satchel). That one scene when Mowgli grows a little older, the part when he swings on a vine and sees a human who is in a military uniform (and he narrates he wondered about his past). Then after running away for blaming himself about his mother's death he gets curious when he sees a human camp with real pack of man. Wouldn't a 7 year old kid if they grow up in nature around 11-12 years know about their human past? :/ 5. When Mowgli is lured by the chimps they call it "monkey-town." Looks more like a zoo place instead of being in a ruined city. What was with that abandoned hut full of old things? Who lived in that place?
15 Reviews
How could something so good be responsible for something so bad
TBJCSKCNRRQTreviews4 March 2024
A retelling of the book from the kid's perspective. Which changes little, unsurprisingly. But it is not exactly the same as what we saw in the 1967 one.
This feels distinctly like it was perceived to be an easy way to make some more money off a property Disney already could use, and that had been profitable for them in the past. It isn't even the first live-action adaptation of the book. After all you just got to get animal wranglers to the location and that's it. It doesn't take CG. The human on-screen cast is minimal, though there are some extras. There's only one song, the very catchy and completely meaningless Monkey Time, which I'm sure drove some parents up a wall when this first came out, because their offspring wouldn't stop singing it. I appreciate that it sets up the danger of Shere Khan, as well as the fear of man's fire, almost immediately. We don't see those for a while in the original animated classic. He works with other species, somewhat like Scar. The film focuses on the threat the tiger poses to the man cub, and him learning how to hunt so that he is safer. Through this, they explore the coming of age themes of finding out where you belong, discovering who to trust and not making rash decisions.
This does manage you to get a lot of mileage out of some of the critters being cute and others being intimidating. Honestly, it would be so much better if not for the 90s children's film aspects. There's a near constant chatter - including the largely unnecessary narration, usually literally just spelling out what's plainly obvious from the visuals. I wouldn't rule out that it was a studio note, rather than always the plan. It never really stands still for very long, not trusting children to have a little more patience the way that the animated classic did, at least by today's standards. The puns are too plentiful, and so often they go for the most obvious one. Some of the voice cast is well chosen, and they do the best they can with what they're given. Considering how much of a boys club a bunch of these are, I do appreciate that Eartha Kitt (Catwoman herself!) lends her silky smooth vocals to Bagheera. I'm not sure I would claim that I thought Brandon Baker did that strong of a job, but considering his age and the script, he could be significantly worse. Certainly there's a sincere conviction to his performance. I mean, he spends a lot of this literally directly talking to creatures as if they understand him, and will answer, which of course they didn't on set. 4/10.
This feels distinctly like it was perceived to be an easy way to make some more money off a property Disney already could use, and that had been profitable for them in the past. It isn't even the first live-action adaptation of the book. After all you just got to get animal wranglers to the location and that's it. It doesn't take CG. The human on-screen cast is minimal, though there are some extras. There's only one song, the very catchy and completely meaningless Monkey Time, which I'm sure drove some parents up a wall when this first came out, because their offspring wouldn't stop singing it. I appreciate that it sets up the danger of Shere Khan, as well as the fear of man's fire, almost immediately. We don't see those for a while in the original animated classic. He works with other species, somewhat like Scar. The film focuses on the threat the tiger poses to the man cub, and him learning how to hunt so that he is safer. Through this, they explore the coming of age themes of finding out where you belong, discovering who to trust and not making rash decisions.
This does manage you to get a lot of mileage out of some of the critters being cute and others being intimidating. Honestly, it would be so much better if not for the 90s children's film aspects. There's a near constant chatter - including the largely unnecessary narration, usually literally just spelling out what's plainly obvious from the visuals. I wouldn't rule out that it was a studio note, rather than always the plan. It never really stands still for very long, not trusting children to have a little more patience the way that the animated classic did, at least by today's standards. The puns are too plentiful, and so often they go for the most obvious one. Some of the voice cast is well chosen, and they do the best they can with what they're given. Considering how much of a boys club a bunch of these are, I do appreciate that Eartha Kitt (Catwoman herself!) lends her silky smooth vocals to Bagheera. I'm not sure I would claim that I thought Brandon Baker did that strong of a job, but considering his age and the script, he could be significantly worse. Certainly there's a sincere conviction to his performance. I mean, he spends a lot of this literally directly talking to creatures as if they understand him, and will answer, which of course they didn't on set. 4/10.
Reviewers Are Correct; This Is Cheap
ccthemovieman-16 February 2008
Colors = pretty; Animals = beautiful; Story = lame with insultingly-stupid-and unrealistic dialog; Acting = bad; Special-effects = the worst, just horrible.
In fact, about the latter: if you've seen the sci-fi movies of the 1950s, particularly Ed Wood's movies, you get an idea how bad this film is in that regard.
If you want details of exactly how hokey some of these scenes were, how cheaply-made this film was, then read several of the others viewers' comments here. I agree with them: this film is so poorly constructed, it was embarrassing to watch. I only viewed it because I was impressed with the 1994 version of "The Jungle Book," with Jason Scott Lee, and I remembered the only animated fondly, as well. I was hoping this would be entertaining, too. Well......wrong!!
In fact, about the latter: if you've seen the sci-fi movies of the 1950s, particularly Ed Wood's movies, you get an idea how bad this film is in that regard.
If you want details of exactly how hokey some of these scenes were, how cheaply-made this film was, then read several of the others viewers' comments here. I agree with them: this film is so poorly constructed, it was embarrassing to watch. I only viewed it because I was impressed with the 1994 version of "The Jungle Book," with Jason Scott Lee, and I remembered the only animated fondly, as well. I was hoping this would be entertaining, too. Well......wrong!!
Please, somebody spare us!!!
alenia29 December 2000
'Twas the eve of before Christmas. I sat down by the open-fire and opened a box of sweets to share with my little sister (5). We turned on the the tv and on came Jungle Book: Mowgli's Story. Aww that Jungle Book - that's gotta be cute, right? Only 5 minutes into this film I was frozen in fear - not because it was scary, but because films could actually made this bad! Ham acting would be a compliment, it's way cheaper than that...maybe Spam acting. I was cringing in embarrassment for the actor who was forced to produce the WORST Irish accent EVER in motion picture history and cringing even more for the director, due to the fact such as film was now on his CV. I could sum this film up in 3 words - Cheap, cheap, cheap - but I won't, I'll use 5 - cheap, cheap, cheap, boring, pathetic. Even my 5 year old sister was begging me to change over to a documentary on grains of sand. 'nuff said!
(PS. I chose to comment on this movie in an effort to spare others from enduring the same punishment I received whilst viewing this "movie")
(PS. I chose to comment on this movie in an effort to spare others from enduring the same punishment I received whilst viewing this "movie")
The Bungle Schnook
cdshark1518 September 2019
"Now your whole family can relive Disney's 'The Jungle Book', from Mowgli's point of view."
Haw! Now THAT is some serious false advertising.
This takes the concept of The Jungle Book and reduces it down to merely "boy is raised by wild animals and shenanigans happen". This film has no real sense of thrill or danger nor any of the mystic charm that was present in all other depictions of The Jungle Book. It takes all that and replaces it with corny gags and bare bones storytelling.
Kids deserve better than this.
Lastly, on a VERY petty, nitpicky note, there is a LOT more misplaced wildlife in this movie than in all, but one other depiction of The Jungle Book (The Jungle Book 2 in case you're wondering). Macaws, chimpanzees, and American black bears are not in India.
Haw! Now THAT is some serious false advertising.
This takes the concept of The Jungle Book and reduces it down to merely "boy is raised by wild animals and shenanigans happen". This film has no real sense of thrill or danger nor any of the mystic charm that was present in all other depictions of The Jungle Book. It takes all that and replaces it with corny gags and bare bones storytelling.
Kids deserve better than this.
Lastly, on a VERY petty, nitpicky note, there is a LOT more misplaced wildlife in this movie than in all, but one other depiction of The Jungle Book (The Jungle Book 2 in case you're wondering). Macaws, chimpanzees, and American black bears are not in India.
a career killer for sure
newboxcrayons1 July 2006
First of all, what I found interesting-the only thing I found interesting-in this film (and my 5 year old fell asleep ten minutes in) was the weird set design in this movie. Basically, the film was shot in the Malibu foothills with a bunch of supermarket plants thrown around an obvious fake lagoon to simulate some kind of jungle environment, which looked more like something you'd see in a dentist's office or indoor mall. The scenes of Mowgli running among the oak trees with animals thrown together from all corners of the world (I kept waiting for a cute penguin to show up)was just so strange I found it entertaining.
I wonder who decided that this was even release-able-and it's obvious to me that everyone associated with the film must have decamped to drug rehab immediately afterwards. A career ender if I've ever seen one.
I wonder who decided that this was even release-able-and it's obvious to me that everyone associated with the film must have decamped to drug rehab immediately afterwards. A career ender if I've ever seen one.
Worst voice direction, ever!
Cosmically-Psychic-Bob30 October 2005
The only thing that would have made this film worse would have been using CGI to make the animals mouths move. Listening to the horrible dialog performances was bad enough, without having to watch them speak as well.
After seeing the previews for most of Disney's live-action films, I'm convinced that we need to add an amendment to the Constitution banning Disney from making any more.
Sober writers might have been a plus, as well.
How can one studio make so many bad films--one after another. I mean, seriously, these things wreak.
After seeing the previews for most of Disney's live-action films, I'm convinced that we need to add an amendment to the Constitution banning Disney from making any more.
Sober writers might have been a plus, as well.
How can one studio make so many bad films--one after another. I mean, seriously, these things wreak.
Sorry my child ever saw this garbage
swamprattt16 December 2004
I was only able to stomach a few minutes of this spew at a time so I can't say I watched the whole thing. I have to wonder who the writing was aimed at however - presumably a lot of the 'jokes' were for grown-ups, but that doesn't mean they ought to include adult humour in something so obviously aimed at small children. References to 'packing heat' and worse of all - unbelievable really - a 'tastes like chicken' joke!!! What were these people thinking? The idea that animals in the jungle think and speak like the typical American teenager in a mall is deeply, almost profoundly sad. I think the powers that put together this soul-destroying waste of time, energy and resources have a lot to answer for. I trust their fancy cars and houses help them sleep at night. Truth told, they are the problem.
Good for kids
Dayle-220 February 1999
Interesting side-note
graywolf193920 April 2009
Warning: Spoilers
Just an interesting note about this movie. At the time it was being made, I lived in Calif and was raising wolf-hybrids. I got a visit from the animal trainers for this film and they asked if they could take pictures of my white male. They shot pictures from all angles including laying on the ground and shooting his belly. When I asked why, they told me they wanted him for a female role and wanted to see if his privates showed. He had long belly hair so nothing showed to much and we made an agreement on the purchase of Sundance. as he was named. He played the role of Raksha, the white female. After the main shooting, which lasted for over 3 months, including training, they returned him to us with the provision that they could use him for re-shoots, which they did for another 6 weeks. Sadly, after they returned him the second time, he was killed by an auto after breaking out of our yard, wolf-hybrids are real escape artists.
Bad acting! Bad jokes! Great music but no soundtrack album... sigh.
dractualfactual18 February 2008
Warning: Spoilers
Back in the beginning of the summer of 2003 was when I first watched this movie. Then, I used to like it and after that movie I couldn't stop thinking about it. I watched it constantly.
Okay here is the good- Raksha and Bagheera's voice acting is pretty much the best out of the other's. Akela's voice can also be considered okay but not great.
The musical score used in this movie fit so perfectly well. Like the scene with Raksha's death. The powerful music and the mourning for her loss was fantastically captured. The music in the very first cave scene where Mowgli meets the wolves for the first time was superb. The celtic-like music in the background while Bagheera talks to Mowgli about hunting techniques and staring her in the yes was totally brilliant. The upbeat, traditional-like pan flute music was awesome.
Now the bad- In 1998 there were capabilities of adding lip movements to the animals. It would've made that very beginning of the movie with all those animals gathering together a lot more sense.
The voice acting in the comical characters were flat and dull. Sher Khan's lines end up a complete mess. Revenge is a dish best served cold? A dish? Well, how does he know what a dish is anyways? And plus with Tabaqui he mentions ice cream and the rather stupid line "packing heat."
There is no soundtrack album of this movie. Why? Why?
Raksha's funeral-like scene sometimes haunts me. It just does and I don't know why.
Bottom line is this movie is downright selfish and downright stupid for not releasing the soundtrack album. But I give credit to it because of that powerful, haunting scene.
Okay here is the good- Raksha and Bagheera's voice acting is pretty much the best out of the other's. Akela's voice can also be considered okay but not great.
The musical score used in this movie fit so perfectly well. Like the scene with Raksha's death. The powerful music and the mourning for her loss was fantastically captured. The music in the very first cave scene where Mowgli meets the wolves for the first time was superb. The celtic-like music in the background while Bagheera talks to Mowgli about hunting techniques and staring her in the yes was totally brilliant. The upbeat, traditional-like pan flute music was awesome.
Now the bad- In 1998 there were capabilities of adding lip movements to the animals. It would've made that very beginning of the movie with all those animals gathering together a lot more sense.
The voice acting in the comical characters were flat and dull. Sher Khan's lines end up a complete mess. Revenge is a dish best served cold? A dish? Well, how does he know what a dish is anyways? And plus with Tabaqui he mentions ice cream and the rather stupid line "packing heat."
There is no soundtrack album of this movie. Why? Why?
Raksha's funeral-like scene sometimes haunts me. It just does and I don't know why.
Bottom line is this movie is downright selfish and downright stupid for not releasing the soundtrack album. But I give credit to it because of that powerful, haunting scene.
Absolutely the worst and sloppiest kids' film ever made!
nivrehs26 December 2007
This movie is a complete and utter embarrassment to the Jungle Book. First off, the actor who plays Mowgli is horrible. Every line he says comes out sarcastically. It sounds as if he is trying to make fun of the script (quite pitiful, would you say?)! For example, when Bagheera asks Mowgli if he's alright, he replies by saying, "scared, but alive!" I mean, how corny can you get? I know this is supposed to be a kid's movie, but hey, there's a limit! Towards the middle of the film, it started to seem as if the writers had lost interest in the movie and decided to wrap it up somehow. Also, the set design was really sad. What kind of a jungle merges with hilltops? The lagoon was really fake as well. It looked like an ordinary pond in your average backyard. And also, how are all the animals friendly with each other? Aren't the wolves supposed to eat them all up? To add on, there are several goofs in this movie - one of them being that when Shere Khan is trapped in the circle of fire, there is a giant gap visible where he can get through. And when he is 'forced' to agree with being exiled from the jungle, Mowgli moves aside and Shere Khan jumps right over the flames. Why couldn't he just do that from the opposite side of the circle? Was Mowgli supposed to be big enough to surround the entire circle of flames? This just adds on to my earlier point of the writers wrapping up the script. Also, Mowgli never wears any sort of make-up in the entire movie. Even when he's been running all throughout the forest, he looks as if he just got out of bed. In all, this film was by far the most pathetic kid's movie I have ever seen. I don't know what the makers were thinking.
Not as Bad as People Make it Out to Be
Hollywood_Yoda17 October 2019
The Jungle Book: Mowgli's Story is not a bad movie. It's Disney, so there is a threshold of what to expect already; but its a story meant for kids. Some call this feature a career killer for it's cast, but almost everyone in the cast is a well known name, like: Richard Kind, Fred Savage, Kathy Najimy, and Eartha Kitt.
No, Mowgli's Story is nothing like the 1994 live action Jungle Book, but that's what made it special. I am not even sure it is connected to the 1994 film, except for maybe by title only.
My only wish is that Disney will release the film on DVD in the United States (they already have in Australia, but in PAL format).
No, Mowgli's Story is nothing like the 1994 live action Jungle Book, but that's what made it special. I am not even sure it is connected to the 1994 film, except for maybe by title only.
My only wish is that Disney will release the film on DVD in the United States (they already have in Australia, but in PAL format).
I thought this movie was a joy , an expansion of the movie lore.
p-w-griffin27 March 2006
In regards to the negative criticism I read earlier, you can't look at this movie as an an adult; then as they've done on vh-1 during their reviews of cartoons in their 80's and 90's flashback shows, cartoons and children's shows can't be critiqued by adults because these shows weren't made for them. While I'm writing this I have a 80's cartoon theme running thru my mind and I say let these movie people drive whatever cars and buy what ever houses they want if it gives them the ideas to make insightful and vivid movies like Mowgli's story. The person before sounds like he/she never had a childhood. maybe in her next life.-----banzai!!!!!!!!!!
Very cute, Mogli in the Mogli version...
RosanaBotafogo10 October 2021
Very cute, Mogli in the Mogli version, I loved the animals, the little boy was very perfect, I can't imagine more perfect Mogli, I loved the relationships between the little animals, very convincing, maybe a little exaggerated, but he kept his fidelity to the work with its necessary adaptations and creations...
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
