Disney's Baloo seems like the type of guy who gives you 2 desserts in one night. Serkis's Baloo looks like he'll eat your head if you don't eat your vegetables.
There's a difference between "CGI animals" and "realistic animals" Mowgli's animals if take a look at real animals that's how they look not Disney's jungle book. Actual "jungle book" is dark Disney made it a kid friendly whereas WB made accurate to the book ( the only flaw in this is expressions )
@@gymbrown911 did you understand my comment? I said Mowgli is accurate to the book and Disney's jungle book is a kid friendly. U definitely didn't understand. Orangout is never 50 foot tall that's never that tall
*Mowgli feels like a adaptation we all needed but never got until then.... The jungle book is good in its own premis but Mowgli looks at the realistic side of the story... That if a kid is living in jungle.. Everything is not sunshine and rainbows*
The fact that Mowgli used wolves based off the Indian wolf (which is geographically accurate) instead of the American wolf (which western audiences would recognize) really shows the attention to detail and the commitment to the story.
Both have an inaccurate side, you don't say one is better just because it has an accurate side you've never seen the other, not only that, the Mowgli kid outrun the limping tiger in small circle an, he also seems to have zero scratches on the tiger which is completely illogical and inaccurate. The child is 5 years old, and when the child is 5 years old, the fastest speed they can reach at 5 years old is only 100M in 25 seconds, *IF* the child is professionally trained for this, on the other hand tigers run up to 49KM and the most adult-dangerous is up to 60+KM(hours). when one leg is limping or hurt, they can still run maybe up to 15-30 KM.
Mas tomo DC isnt dark its edgy like seriously nothing is dark in those movies exept the colour pallet. In the mcu we saw a child clinging on to his father figure while dying. And loki died brutally
I think that both versions were good, but I think the perfect fit would be if we added the beautiful CGI of Disney to the story of Warner Brother’s one. That would be amazing to watch one day.
I see them like this: - Jungle Book is more family friendly, none violent, none realistic in terms of real life survival and its colorfull and polite in its look. - Mowgli is more mature, violent and bloody, dark and scary and maby even creppy for some audience, brutal and realistic. However: I have to agree that CG animals looks better in Jungle Book but Mowgli makes you feel scared and its more emotional.
I think the people keep forgetting about Mowgli and comparing to Disney's Jungle is Andy Serkis was adapting Kipling's writing, not Disney. In fact when Walt Disney was making the Jungle Book all the way back in the 1960s he told his people don't read the book because he thought it was too heavy and dark for a family film. And that's why as much as I love Disney's 1967 and 2016 version I prefer Mowgli because I felt like I was getting something meatier and Andy Serkis trying his hardest to be faithful to Kipling's writing, even if Warner Bros didn't give him the mountain of cash Disney used for the 2016 version
@@kyleroberts8823 I don't think you watched the same film that I did, this is easily the best movie version of Rudyard Kiplings classic tale by a large margin. If you don't think this was all that exciting then you must not have been excited with the Disney version either. This movie has what I would call depth of character, something the fluffy Disney version is majorly lacking in. The child actor from Mowgli is a much more believable wild child, who is put into some tough spots. It is dark and gritty, not meant for younger kids, but it is also deeply moving, there is genuine drama is this movie which takes it over the top of Disney's CGI high budget version. Now I'm not saying I don't like the Disney movie, I have always enjoyed pretty much every version of the Jungle Book, but Mowgli is much more realistic (minus the CGI characters) in a more adult themed and believable way. I was surprised how much I enjoyed this movie because going into it, I was expecting another typical Jungle Book movie, but this was anything but that.
The hyena character was kinda pointless. I know he was a character from the book, but I feel they failed at justifying him being in the movie. The animals know what a fire is, but never taught Mowgli about it? Common.
Jason Allen I really don’t think we watched the same movie. The whole last part was rushed and honestly terrible. I get that they tried to adapt it closer to the book but it really didn’t hit. I’m not saying I loved the Disney film but that doesn’t automatically give Mowgli a win. It was honestly a terrible film. Considering that this movie was in production for 4 years is so brutal. How does a production company get away with this? Also, just the pure fact that they tried to justify Mowgli growing at the same pace as a wolf is so ignorant. CGI wise, Mowgli has nothing. You can try to say the Baloo was better in Mowgli but be honest with yourself. The film was nothing more then a cash grab and it’s honestly horrible. They obviously knew that and that’s why they sent it out for a 3d release just to try and gain some money. They completely threw away Bhoots character just for shock value and never really tied up all the loose ends. It’s honestly a sorry display of a film and makes me wonder how people get paid so much to produce such burning trash.
@@-chanye- seriously, it was rushed? then i should call disney mowgli hyper rushed, i don't remember even encountering him with wolves and akela was wasted, he killed in 1 second.. without leaving any impact
Honestly to me Sheer Khan was my favorite Disney “villain” I never really saw him as evil. He knows what humans are capable of. What we discover we destroy, what we don’t understand we destroy. I can understand why he’d want to kill mowgli.
I don’t really agree mowgli never did anything he’s just a child doesn’t make him justified although I do agree with the bad humans part but only the bad ones and he kills innocent animals
I don't think that's the only thing. In the Jungle Book (2016) Raksa the wolf (wolf mother of Mowgli) mentioned how Sher- Khan kills other animals like innocent ones so you can see how his villain side kicks in. I do agree how some humans destroy everything they touch like the Red Flower. But Mowgli was raised by animals, if anything Sher-Khan and Mowgli (If Sher-Khan wanted to) could've gotten along just like Mowgli and Bagheera did. Sher- Khan wasn't really aware the possibilities Mowgli could do for example: Mowgli brought the whole jungle together, so I believe that Mowgli would turn out to be a great person in the jungle, but Sher-Khan chose to what he experienced and ignored what he could've seen. If he would still be alive, he wouldn't stop there. He would probably keep hunting Mowgli, even if he saved the whole jungle, even if Mowgli wants to be friends with him, Sher-Khan will see him as his greatest enemy.
@@cashwin45 That's the problem with realism you focus so much on it that you lose you're appeal to focus on a good ass story like just make a great movie , everybody wants every damn movie to be realistic it's so damn annoying & plain stupid .
@@stevenjones4059 but with good story + a great cgi is far better than good story but bad cgi, yes story matters but this type of movies are heavily influenced by cgi , its not indie movie where story and acting only matters ,its a movie that are heavily relied on cgi, yes good story is great but good cgi is as important as story in these type of movies, if only it has good cgi ,it would be cherry on top, jungle book has got almost equal praise as mowgli and thats not bcuz it has better story than mowgli but bcuz it has that realistic cgi ,this type of movies relies on cgi so saying realistic cgi doesnt matter is bullshit ,you can say that to indie movies but not to a movie like this. I will guarantee you if this type of movie has great story but has a worst cgi then it will still get critcized bcuz this is not a indie movie or any movie ,this is the movie where almost 99% of it should be cgi, so saying a cgi doesnt matter in a movie where 99% of it is cgi is not a valid in my opinion.
@@sugc3209 their is no such thing as realistic cgi the entire purpose of cgi being created was to show fans & audiences what stuff we will never see in real life look like on the big screen , plus the sole reason why many movies get remade & rebooted are because of cgi not any other reason if cgi existed back in the day like it does today half the movies that have been remade or rebooted wouldn't even have been touched .
@@shizukousapostle1stapostle710 lmao. Not for a full feature length of being adopted and such then having social problems within. Reality would be hes dead. Credits
@@agonleed3841 well sorry.. But there is a thing called Dark fantasy.... Which is fantasy... But is dark.. So not for kids... But you can't get the idea for some reason...
@@shizukousapostle1stapostle710 I guess you missed the point where dark doesn't equal reality And death and darkness doesn't mean kids CANT handle it. And if you're going for superiority of adults vs children, I don't think adults watching a movie about a young boy with animals in an unrealistic way is really the best way to convey that message
I was just mad and shocked that Mowgli didn’t apologize to Bhoot right away. Then later on he’s dead? That’s so wrong. I think Bhoot realized he wasn’t special and stopped hidding and was found by the hunter. Aside that I loved the movie.
Bhoot was pale white, which was part of his problem, that's what made him different. He couldn't hide no matter how hard he tried. That's why he was spotted so easily by the hunter.
I preferred the story and the acting in Mowgli. The CGI was certainly better in the Jungle Book - although I imagine this is largely down to budgetary considerations. What a shame Mowgli did not get a proper release at the cinema.
The cgi had problems in the disney version anyway. The characters facial expressions added almost as much to the characters as the votive action but the Disney version went to realistic, real animals can't fucking emote. The mocap might make the animals less realistic but as humans we are wired to read facial expressions so characters having the same expression throughout the movie gets dull, it more engaging to watch a tiger acting with the talent of Benedict cumberbatch than to watch an actual tiger with like 2 facial expressions.
Barry Miller it was going to come out In the same year but since the jungle book came out, they decided to just put it on Netflix because it would’ve been too close in release
@@jadalove9819 Yeah... Disney beat them to it. I remember Serkis talking about the idea way before there was any notion that Disney was even thinking about re-making Jungle Book (though they might have already been discussing it ofc)... I think it's a good think they waited a few years, but I'd wish I could've seen it in a proper cinema.
To be honest I felt bad for the hunter, I know he would kill the animals but he was nice to Mowgli and didn't deserved that, and besides that he didn't know that the animals are conscious intelligent beings, for him they are just animals, he was not like Shere Khan, that was pretty much a murder.
That is Humanity. A realistic look of what we do. We kill always have and always will. It's precisely because of that Mowgli is better than Jungle Book.
Disney's adaption are good but I feel Netflix's mogli keeps to the book better. (I also enjoyed Disney's 1994 live action adaption. It let mogli grow up and addressed the British occupation of India)
I watched the 1967 Disney animated film and that weird live-action sequel. I remember almost nothing about the live action sequel, and the animated film didn’t really stand out besides a few scenes like Bare Necessities and Kaa. Mind you, I would have been very young when I saw both films, but watching clips of the 1967 animated film now makes it seem mediocre in comparison to later animated Disney films. And I know that the original Disney Jungle Book is an old film, but other old animated films like Snow White, Cinderella and Alice in Wonderland and Pinnochio are far more memorable to me.
I disagree, Mowgli had mostly the same elements from the book as the Disney movie, plus a few additional details like Shere Khan limping and the addition of Tabaqui. Disney's version also had some original elements that Mowgli didn't, like the story about elephants creating the jungle, or the water peace scene. So I'd say neither followed the novel more than the other.
As someone who grew up reading the book rather than seeing the Disney film I personally think Mowgli did it better. I mean when I first watched the classic Disney film I was disappointed as they changed a story that really impacted me. The problem with both jungle books is that it uses shiny CGI to cover something that is simply soulless and without risks. But when I watched mowgli I felt soul and passion but most importantly I felt risk. Not enough movies have that anymore.
I believe the way Kaa is depicted in Mowgli is more in keeping with the way Kaa is described in the original book from Kipling. Also, I find that way Kaa is done makes her more emphatic and in keeping with what the character is suppose to embody. Also, Kaa as a character seems to just to work far better as a female character than a male.
Dude, look up for yourself, Disney's CGI has pretty bad reviews because they used a new kind of technology. So CGI is not really better on Disney's version
@Heath Legend Sometimes people die for no reason. Mt Mom died when i was four... Four days after my birth day. Thata life, so can we just please have an openion on a movie some of us likes?
Andy Serkis has a lot of experience with motion capture, I'm not sure how much he was involved with the actual work on the CGI in his previous films. I would absolutely love to see what Serkis could have done with a Disney budget
Arron Litchfield I know, I was referring to the part at 4:40 in the video where it's made to sound like he did the CGI for gollum etc.. I guess I didn't make that clear enough or you guys missed that while watching the video
GIT GUD I prefer the animation in the jungle book, but the plot in Mowgli. I felt like they had gone a bit too far on the animals in Mowgli, and made them too human like.
@@Anna-pj8te yh I mean the cgi is better since WB decided to cheap out but I prefer mowgli. I wished Warner bros didn't shit their pants I would've went to see it in cinemas
I felt they tried to 'humanise' the animals faces too much in Mowgli - probably a result of the motion capture process - but I don't think they would have opted for a fundamentally different approach with a larger budget and I had a problem with the way the animals looked that went beyond budgetary restrictions... The Jungle Book was just a MUCH better realisation of the imagery for me.
Ok, I am sick of people complaining about the CG in Mowgli. It didn't have the Disney budget, not the movies fault. But the designs for the animals were better in Mowgli, for one simple reason, they allowed for the characters to act. Disneys crap had good CG so it looked like an animal, shame you can't put emotions on an animals face, they lack the muscles for expression. It's why the animated film worked where the live action version failed, the animals could express and emote, the most crucial part of getting a performance across. But everyone just bangs on about how the CG looks cheap and passes on it. Grow some maturity people. That oh so fantastic CG in the Disney version will look dated in a couple of years any way, so what's the point?
I think everyone agrees with this: Story/Voice/Character development/Character’s characteristics - Mowgli Animation- The Jungle Book I think The Jungle Book is fine but, Mowgli is something with the story we haven’t seen on film. Also, Christian Bale has done the best Bagheera I’ve ever seen.
Theangryguy09 Christian Bale’s Bagheera is now my Favourite Bagheera out of all The Jungle Book movies. Yes even Better than my own Childhood Jungle Book Bagheera voiced by Sebastian Cabot.
Sam Mewhinney in my opinion most of them didn’t even look like animals. They went way over the boundaries of animals, and changed the features to much.
In an interview with Andy Serkis about how he wanted the animals in Mowgli to look, he actually wanted the animal faces to look more human. It was intentional. Up to y'all to decide whether you like it
i get it when people are saying the wolves don't look like wolves in Mowgli ... and Animals having human face resemblance. But here is a thing. As per the aesthetic and body structure ... Mowgli Animal CGI did a better job in representing India's version of wild animal which the Jungle Book lacks a lot. Sher Khan might look awkwardly thin and long faced. but a pure Indian royal bengal tiger(excluding the mix breed with siberian or other species) has narrow face and a narrow body with less fur density. Tabaqui the Indian stripped hyena looked amazing and authentic. And same goes with Indian wolves in the wild which are smaller than normal grey wolves, Less furry and almost looks like enlarged feral dogs. They were perfectly represented in Mowgli. Even baloo has less hairs n fur on his head scalp which is similar to Indian sloth/mountain bears instead of Jungle book's one which looked more like western brown bear. Don't get me wrong Jungle book had a great CGI where animals were looking more realistic. But none of those animals looked like they were in Indian jungles infact they looked more like healthier zoo version of animals in the west with nice fur..
I know right! I loved the hyena, he looked so good. He obviously didn't looked that real, but looking at him was so entertaining. I wanted more screentime.
R u kidding me the CGI in Disney's recent version was a 100 times better then warner brothers that was in fact the best CGI since Avatar and it won two best CGI awards
Respectfully I totally have to disagree with Kaa. Blanchet's version was more similar to how Kaa was portrayed in the Jungle Book; a neutral badass who everyone was rightfully afraid of, almost god-like, the oldest living thing in the jungle who can remember hundreds of years ago. Johansen didn't do a bad job, I really liked her portrayal for the version of the Jungle Book she was a part of, but her involvement was minimal. Blanchet's did exactly what Kaa did in the book
Mowgli was way better ! the motion capture performances are brilliant, christian bale did a fantastic job and the dark gritty realistic story was a great take on the tale we haven't seen before
Christian Bale just continues to put his body on the line! There is no other greater method actor, though I still don't understand how he managed to shrink himself to 5 ft and turn his skin brown to pull off the Indian look for this film
@@hjames78 it comes down to what you like most, so make an opinion, but don't throw the realistic one under the bus just because you're not into that. I love both movies and don't know which is better.
@@thehatmaniac6958 it is my opinion and I did like the Netflix WB version, I did! It was in part because of the way the story was told. But theres a reason WB sold it to Netflix instead of putting it in theaters and it sits at 30 something percent on rotten tomatoes while the Disney version sits in the 90s🤔
People complaining that the lion king doesn't have emotion because of the animals realistic look, people also complaining because the animals in Mowgli show to much animated and emotion look. Seriously what do you want?
I went in and watch Lion King despite all the criticism. Was a little skeptical at first, but overall it was an 'okay' movie. Not too bad, it's just that I find the voice acting on a super realistic animal and the musical part just doesn't work well in a live-action movie. It's so out of the place. But Disney being Disney, got to insert that stupid signature musical into their film.
I agree with everything except Kaa, Scarlett Johansson is nowhere near as good as Cate blanchett, in Mowgli Kaa is more like the character in the book.
Scarlett in my opinion did way better since she captured that mysterious, hypnotic tone while also being helpful I’m pretty sure if she was voicing Kaa for this movie it would have been just as good, maybe even better. In my opinion, Scarlett was better at voicing Kaa.
I’d have to say Mowgli was the better adaptation. It just had that dark vibe in there, and that the story was a little different compared to the original.
I felt his review was quite fair, however, I really appreciated Christian Bale's take on the Bageria character. Now don't get me wrong, I love Ben Kinsley, but Bale struck me more emotionally for some reason. Maybe due to his character arch and dealing with death and the difficult choice of trying to persuade Mowgli that he'll be safer with his own people. Overall, I enjoyed the story a lot more than the Disney remake and although the CGI was budgeted more fairly with Disney, the grittier drawn animals were still very fascinating for me throughout the entire film.
@Madalin Grama Actually, King Louie was created for the animated movie, he does not appear on the book, and the existence of him made no sense because the monkeys were a lawless group with no order and King Louie meant there was a hierarchy on the monkeys, completely going against the lore of the book. But I agree with you, I quite like both the animated and the Walken versions of Louie.
Fer sure. Bale's Bagheera in facial expression and word resonates more on an emotional level, and the part where he speaks to caged Mowgli is a terrific example. Tear-jerking, even.
@@johnallen6607 the Mowgli boy did not resonated with me ,and yeah I cannot watch the same story again and again , the story of this movie wasn't that compelling too ,finale was just flat
I actually MUCH preferred the Cate Blanchett version of Kaa over Scarlet's. I don't agree that Kaa had more to do in the Disney version at all. Kaa is in it for all of 3 minutes to provide exposition about how Shere Khan related to Mowgli. That's it. Any character could have done that, it didn't HAVE to be Kaa. Whereas in Mowgli, Kaa does provide exposition, but she does it more than once (narration at the beginning and scene with Mowgli) and there's at least an explanation as to WHY she is able to have this knowledge (she's as old as the jungle). Kaa in Mowgli represents more of a mystical shaman type character or an oracle who knows all, past/present/future, and is able to provide exposition because of this and actually somewhat spurs Mowgli towards his "destiny" especially since he seeks her out rather than just stumbling upon her. And this position is what is able to allow her to save Mowgli in the film which is what gets him to go to her to begin with, to learn WHY she saves him. Her position in relation to Mowgli allows her a much greater presence in the film and actually gives more of a reason for why she does what she does that the Disney version doesn't have. It did feel somewhat unfinished almost BECAUSE she had a larger role, I expected her to do one more thing at the end to help Mowgli and all she does is watch as he fights Shere Khan. But, I suppose, that is what Kaa does. She watches. Mowgli is the protector, Kaa is the watcher. But because she saves him that one time and narrates the film, I think it set itself up to make it feel like Kaa's part in the story was almost unfinished in a way. As for the difference of "hypnotic" voices between Scarlet and Cate, that's ultimately a matter of opinion, but the Kaa in Mowgli doesn't HAVE hypnotic powers. She never hypnotizes Mowgli, she shows him some stuff and has him caught in her coils but he never loses sight of where he is and who he's talking to. So why would her voice NEED to sound more hypnotic? I think Cate's deeper, older voice worked much better for the role that Kaa took up in Mowgli as the prophet/shaman as old as the jungle itself whereas Scarlet's higher, younger voice worked better for the less nuanced role that Kaa had in the Disney version and her acting took on the more hypnotic tone simply because that's what Disney wanted from the character. Neither is better, just different due to the writing of the character.
You're absolutely right. In Mowgli, Kaa feels way more complex and important, and overall more developed, since you always understand that she is not Mowgli's friend, but she is not his enemy either; she's just a very wise creature that always works to her own goal: what's better for the jungle. And as you said, her knowledge and her almost magical presence are kinda justified in Mowgli, while in The Jungle Book she was a just a very convenient character that the protagonist accidentally met. And that my friends, is called lazy writing. Now, about the acting, i do love and respect Scarlett Johansson, she's a great actress that is usually understimated by people that have only seen her average Hollywood performances, and not her truly amazing performances in more artistic films such as Under The Skin or Lost In Translation, but she's is no match to Cate Blanchett as Kaa. Cate's performance was deeper, and more meaningful and complex, with a low and ambiguous voice that fits perfectly to the character, while the only thing Scarlet did in her performance was to talk in a half-spoken, half-whispered way to sound mysterious, although in her defense, we can say that she didn't have to much to work with, since her character was very flat and irrelevant. Now, if we go to design and CGI, Mowgli's version of Kaa can't stand a round to The Jungle Book's. I honestly don't think that the CGI in Mowgli was bad, it was just a matter of how the animals were designed in an unrealistic way, but with Kaa they really crossed the line. She doesn't looks like an indian python...Or like any species of python at all. In fact, the shape of her head is not even close to the one of any type of snake, it's just a very awful and poorly executed design. The Jungle Book's wasn't entirely perfect either, but was waaaay superior to the one in Mowgli. Still though, Mowgli's version is overall better (and that applies to the film itself too).
Quote the book. “By the first egg, I am older than many trees, and I have seen all that the jungle has done.” -Red Dog Kaa was not purely a hypnotic character, HE was the wise and dangerous lone character who needs no one and asks for no one, but may be willing to be gracious and grant you some help, with the wisdom you require because of his age. I hope people read the stories more. I highly recommend them, and there’s more than three. This is important. Mowgli pulled a little bit from Letting in the Jungle, Red Dog, and The Spring Running, which few people would guess perhaps because few people have read. The English is old, but the stories are amazing
i agree. I like that in Mowgli, Kaa is some sort of very ancient and mysterious being that the whole jungle respects, but doesn't really understand. One that is strong and has depth. Not just some sort of random animal that pops up for people to say "hey look, look, it's the hypnotic snake haha" and then leaves. Kaa in Mowgli had a more powerful meaning. Kaa was like the jungle itself speaking and acknowledging Mowgli as part of the jungle.
Mowgli was better, there was much more depth to characters. Andy Serkis's portrayal of Baloo was amazing. The film is completely different to the jungle book in a way so there each good in their own right. But if you could only watch one, I'd recommend Mowgli!
@@Anna-pj8te yeh I know what you mean, but considering the budget was probably alot let than Disney's one you cant complain to much. Although I have to add to my original comment, both films are very good in their own rights and shouldn't really be compared as although the base story is the same the way the films are done is very different and so shouldnt be compared to much
It’s crazy when the animals are talking they roar and make the noises the animals make. It’s so raw, I think people should look more into the directors mind before really saying which movie is better 🤷🏻♂️
Oddly enough, in an era where we're getting dark-and-gritty reboots of everything, we got a darker and gritter Jungle Book with Mowgli and it ended up being much more true to the tone of the original story than anything we've gotten so far.
I just looked it up, Mowgli had a slightly bigger budget at aprox 180 million, and took longer to release because the Serkis wanted to work more on the CGI, and that being said, the animals all looked really unrealistic and weird in Mowgli, while they look like actual animals in The Jungle Book
Thank you, the half-human faces we see in Mowgli just looked disgusting. Shere Khan was the absolute worst. He looked like one of those cheap, furry tiger figures you can see in any China Town. I get that it was intentional, but that doesn’t mean it was a good choice. They weren’t “more expressive and therefore easier to read” (like so many defenders of the designs are saying), they just look like unholy hybrid creatures. I don’t need a snake to have front-facing eyes, or for a panther to have a pointy and elongated head, to know if they’re sad. In fact, those designs were a hindrance for me because I was almost too distracted by their ugliness to care about what they were emoting. It’s ok to try for a less realistic style, but JEEZUS those abominations are not the way to go! Sorry, I just thought the designs in Mowgli were truly awful and nearly ruined the movie for me. Seeing so many people defending them just boggles me. And just so this isn’t all complaining... the one I felt they did right was Baloo. He was stylized to look less like a *real* animal, but not forced to look human. And I actually like that he was mangey and ugly, too. (As in, an ugly bear, not a disturbing bear-turning-into-old-man, if that makes sense.) Really added to the movie’s more realistic themes and tones.
Rajktar I’m pretty sure Mowgli did Not have as High a Budget as The Jungle Book did which cost 175 Million US Dollars to make. I tried looking up the Budget for Mowgli online and there is no where that shows the Financial Information on the film. I think you might be confusing Mowgli’s Said Budget to The Legend of Tarzan’s Budget which did cost 180 Million US Dollars to make.
Mowgli is much better, if the CGI is weaker but in the end the story is what matters. In addition, the performances seem better. I prefer Cate Blanchet, because she gives a mystical tone to her character and the jungle. Benedict and Christian Bale were AMAZING. And the actor who plays Mowgli does a better job than "Jungle Book." It is a hard, real and emotional story.
I'm thankful for this video because I got tired of explaining that Disney adapted the story and made their own version. Mowgli is based more on Rudyard Kipling's book.
I prefer Cate Blanchett as Kaa rather than Scarlett Johansson. Both is different, in Andy's version (which based on the book) Kaa is one of Mowgli's trusted mentors and friend and she is the most ancient creatures in the jungle so that every animals are scared of her while in Disney version what we all know that Kaa is a antagonist who tried to eats Mowgli that's all.
Tho Scarlett's take took a mysterious route. Cate's was a little confusing tbh. First she saved him, next she looked like she was gonna kill him, but then she didn't. Plot wise not so good. But Cate did bring a good performance, and seeing the size of that snake woaah. That was a good scene.
@I. Th. Yeah, but after she saved him, she starts acting like he was gonna eat him. Holding him upside down, saying if she's bored she gets hungry!? But she saved him from the beginning so it's CLEAR she won't eat him. So that scene really was kinda pointless really. But again, it was not bad, I enjoyed Cate's performance. But it doesn't really have a purpose other than spoiling the movie for us I guess?
@I. Th. We could explain this all year, but you must admit that it could have been better. Scarlett's version had a more consitent vibe and was more enjoyable for what it was. Her personality and her goal to eat Mowlgi fitted well in the scene. Cate's purpose and personality kind of got in each others way. In my personal opinion, Scarlett's Kaa is better. But as an overall movie, I prefer Mowgli, cause I felt the other animal's emotions through great acting. And it's darkness is more satiztfying.
This was so much better then Disney’s version.This was more honest, realistic and pure to the book. This needed to be dark because the storyline is dark. The acting in this was also a lot better then the jungle book. The acting also made the CGI appear more realistic.
In my opinion "Mowgli" was such much better. I enjoyed the characters so much more and the darker tone fitted well better with the theme of how cruel the jungle and nature is. Not to mention how well the actor was. Mowgli had a much more "natural" or lets say realistic vibe to it and I personally liked the designs of the animals. It was something unique looking rather then going for an ultra realistic approach. Plus the designs were able to convey emotions a thousand times.
Andy Serkis did an interview thats on RUclips and he explains why the characters look like that. He says that he didn’t want them to look super insanely realistic because they are meant to represent humans, not really animals . He made it so that al the animals had human like features. He didn’t feel that the animals needed to be super realistic for the story.
Honestly I respect that. It's about time someone aims for stylization of their own idea over what most people would be use to. I like when creators test limits like that, and personally, I think the human-like faces really add to the vibe the movie gives. It's surreal, creepy... _human_ , which really adds to the fact Mowgli struggles to decide between his animal family and his own species.
I personally didn’t see what the big deal around “the jungle book” was about. It was good but not anything out of this world other than the visuals. But I liked mogowli more
Balu in The Jungle Book is just as much of a bear as Balu in Mowgli. Watch a documentary or two. Bears are lazy and the majority of their time is spent eating. Plus, they are notoriously opportunistic. All these characteristics were seen in Jungle Book Balu. Just cause Balu in Mowgli was more aggressive doesn’t make him a real bear. It makes him a media depicted bear.
WTH are you talking about? Kate Blanchett’s version of Kaa was so much better then Scarlet’s. For one she had so much more screen time. 2. She did indeed have a much larger role in the story then her 2016 counterpart who literally only shows up to tell us a backstory we already knew while in the 2018 version we know that she’s like a guardian of the jungle who can look into the past and future. Well that’s just my opinion.
I don't think she could actually see into the future, just that she is as old as the jungle and has gained wisdom through it, she knows what will happen because she can make a very well educated guess.
I liked Mowgli better for its darker tone and different take on the story, as Jungle Book besides its amazing CGI was mostly just a rehash of the 1967 animated classic.
I saw Mowgli a couple of days ago and I really got into it at some points. They way they made Mowgli look like a kid who had grown up in the wild was really impressive. The CGI was not great but it didn't really take away that much from the story. The final confrontation was the biggest letdown. The buildup to that point and the resolution could have been better developed.
Some of my thoughts regarding the two recent adaptations - Better Mowgli: the 2018 film certainly. I liked this more feral child take on the character. Better Shere Khan: The Disney versions. Shere Khan didn't really feel like a threat in the latest one. While I like Benedict Cumberbatch and he did fine with the material, I never really felt the Mowgli in the 2018 film was in danger due to how they use Khan. This version of Khan feels more like an annoying nuisance rather than the jungle's apex predator. In both Disney versions, George Sanders and Idris Elba managed to make him feel like a dangerous intelligent beast and we understood why the other jungle creatures feared him. Better pacing: Disney versions. There were parts in the 2018 film that I felt really dragged. That whole Bandar Log sequence felt like a throwaway bit. More darker bits: The 2018 one. That reveal of Bhoot's head was a trip! Overall, I think both versions have their merits and worth watching if you like the JB story.
tincho in the jungle book they were in the boundaries of what animal muscles could though, while in Mowgli they went way overboard with humanizing the animals. They even changed the overall anatomy on some of the animals.
In Kipling's book (there are two) Kaa was Mowgli's friend and teacher, not a foe. The Zoltan Korda version from 1942 is great. Of these two however, Mowgli is clearly better.
Yeah, they kept Kaa closer to the book version (intimidating and dangerous but with a sense of justice) while also making him/her more mysterious and less friendly. I kind of like it, and Kate Winslett is so chilling in the role.
I'm glad someone else here knows the 1942 version; which I still think is the best adaptation (along with the Chuck Jones short films). I think Kaa is the best in that film and the most accurate to the stories. The part where Kaa swims down the river still looks impressive also.
THANKYOU! One of the fairest reviews ive seen. You can enjoy both for different reasons, though for me Mowgli is better than Jungle book. I'll tell you why.... It moved me. Though there are evident flaws, this movie emotionally resonated with me and made me tear up so many occasions, and that for me is if a movie is good or not, is if I'm moved by it. I was emotionally invested the whole way through. Ill be honest I went to see Jungle Book in theatres when it came out and can't remember anything from that movie, only that when I came out I remember disliking the way they treated Bagheera and made Sher Khan a type A generic villain. Surprised you didn't bring up that Kaa is essentially a different character though, shes not a villain in this interpretation, and the hypnotisation came in the form of showing Mowgli his future, (which if you noticed was very clever). I do wonder what it would have been like if it was split into say episodes for example, or even had some extra time. My only complaint would the village sequences just came off a lot weaker then the rest of the movie and a bit rushed tbh. I have been reading reviews after watching it and surprised it's being criticised so much as I really thought it would get good decent reviews but oh well. I was bit shocked at how dark it actually went, but I loved it. Life in the jungle is HARD. There were parts I actually felt scared for mowgli, which is new, i disagree with some of the cgi, Bagheera especially looked amazing to me, (that scene at night with mowgli And his coat is glistening looks great af. ) Bhoot was definately my favourite character and has left a staple on my heart. the cgi really didn't bother me that much, though I wonder if watching it on an old tv (not 1080p) helped that. Sher Khan was terrifying and looked brilliant. And if you've actually read this far, thank you, and I recommend watching mowgli. Definately not for young kids though.
Yeah I thought Bagheera looked so good at that scene. But I guess mainstream is still not used to seeing animal's with their own character. Really, the Jungle Book's animals just feel like a bunch of pets hanging out with Mowgli. But in Serkis's version, I felt like I can stand face to face with Bagheeraand have a respectful conversation. Props to them, never done before.
I agree with you on a lot you said but I definitely have to disagree about Kaa. Cate Blanchett is in a much higher league than Scarlett Johansson in my opinion and it really shows in the character. Plus in the Disney adaptation I didn’t feel like Scarlett’s voice was actually coming out of that character.
To be fair, they are two very different takes on the character. ScarJo's Kaa is literally just there, has no purpose but being a refined version of her animated counterpart and deliver trippy exposition. It's ok, it's just a shame that she got only one scene, given the potential. In Mowgli, Kaa is neither a villain nor a hero, she is the embodiment of the grater good of the jungle. Much closer to the book version, Blanchett's Kaa is a puppeteer: ancient, smart, feared even by the tiger, and, most importantly, with a scheme, which adds complexity to a character that has been portrayed just as a creepy/goofy villain so far. Of course, in matters of taste there can be no disputes, but Mowgli's Kaa is a much closer representation of what Kipling intended when he wrote the book, as pretty much everything in this new reiteration.
Both are good. Jungle book is the classic feel good movie that brought good memories back. Loved it and made me smile and remember my childhood. Mowgli is a drama movie, kept me interested, stressed and emotionally bonded with the characters, I felt the emotions like never before. Loved both movies but if I had to rewatch one of them... that would definitely be mowgli.
That scene with Bhoot messed me up and ive seen some crazy things. Just gos to show you always tell the ones you hold dear u love them and treat them right.
I liked mowgili better and I like the character models better because it helps you emphasis with the characters. I just surprised that circus didn't go with the complete book version of killing Khan. In the book Mowgili is sick of Sher Khan's shit so he gets info from grey brother from the jackel/ hyena that Khan is going to hunt in the gordge. He basically hops on a bull buffalo while Akela and grey brother herd the buffalo to trample Sher Khan to death. Mowgili then skins him and lays his hide on wold pack rock for all to see. This shows how smart and clever Mowgli. The movie did something somewhat similar with the elephants but it wasnt as epic as it could have been. I do like that Mowgli finishes off Khan though.
Hopping on bulls and trampling kahn wouldn't have been as personal though. Like mowgli didn't kill the tiger himself, he just arranged for him to be killed.
As someone who has read the Jungle Books dozens of times (it happens when you run a Cub Scout pack) I feel deeply invested in every version that gets made. I have to give my vote to "Mowgli" over "The Jungle Book" simply because it is, in my opinion, a closer adaptation to the original source material. Yes, both stray in various ways from Kipling's story, but that is to be expected. "Mowgli" gets most of the characterizations right. Baloo sits as teacher of the Law, Bagheera was raised in a cage, Kaa is neither enemy or ally, Shere Khan is lame, and Mowgli spends time in the man village after turning his back on the pack that betrayed him. That was long winded, but all that to say "Mowgli" is the better movie if you are a fan of the books. And if you haven't read all the stories that make up "The Jungle Books" you should. You're missing out. And if someone could get a director/ movie company to make me a movie of the Red Dog story from Kipling's books I'd be grateful. 😅
Mowgli for acting, cinematography, and story. Jungle Book for effects. Both are good, but I just watched Mowgli today and the more I think about it the better I think I like it. Idris is my preferred Shere Khan though. That design is better for sure, and granted Elba could’ve colored his voice a touch more, but I think he sounds so naturally imposing that it worked.
I don't think many are talking comparisons between the Akela characters. Mowgli Akela really gave off a strong presence in the film. Like you legit see him fight his own pack to essentially keep it together, protect mowgli, and try to keep the jungle safe. Like he was a real G in this! Jungle Book Akela was a more calm, stoic type that gave off nobility instead of "alpha". You let an enemy get the ambush on you.. IN YOUR FACE?! Khan snuck em off a cliff and the whole pack just bitched down. Atleast in mowgli half the pack still followed Akela
I would disagree with you on Shere Khan simply because Benedict Cumberbatch didn't get enough lines or enough to do with the character. Idris served the character better overall
@@ironcladnomad5639 cumerbatch's just felt - Smaug. Smaug. and more Smaug. Elba's performance was much stronger I thought, and Shere Khan always came across like a bully to me, as he should - it makes more sense for him to be something of a cruel bully confident in his size and strength, rather than him being some wicked sadist
In my opinion , mowgli was better and more realistic when it came to casting and storyline. The only thing Disney had better was the animation as they had a bigger budget. If Mowgli had a similar budget it would have surpassed the disney version in all aspects.
I loved the "Mowgli" version better! The backstory of Bagheera really made sense in why he had a connection to Mowgli when he first found him. Also I felt the darker approach just fit the storyline. I mean we are talking about being in a setting of a wild jungle so it can't be slap happy songs and dancing all the time. At least they made Kaa have a sort of positive role in the movie instead of always having the snake as evil. As for the CGI it wasn't too bad yes Disney had a more pleasant look but I really enjoyed the Grit to this version. I mean for folks complaining about the dark themes well most Fairy tales are changed and originally are not like the positive happy ending Disney versions. Heck even in the story of the 3 little pigs the first two pigs get eaten by the wolf! Sometimes the dark element is there for a lesson.
I disagree with your assessment on Bagheera. The two versions aren't that alike. The Bale version was portrayed as being in genuine pain at Mowgli's predicament in the man village and, of course, had an actual backstory, as per the book. Not that I have a problem with Kingsley's portrayal. I liked his "colonel Bagheera". Indeed, perhaps Kingsley's Bagghie is best compared with Serkis's Baloo in terms of personality and role.
Honestly i liked the Jungle book more. I liked the dumb lazy Baloo the Bear , and Christopher Walkens take on King Louie. I'm glad they had the iconic songs. and i really like feel good movies, its why i watch them. That being said, Mowgli caught me off guard. I think the animation was amazing, especially for a Netflix movie. The loss of the albino wolf and Mowgli's reaction was tear jerking. But seeing a character that I like and would like to see more of be a stuffed head in the movie is not what i watch movies for. Its a heart breaking tragidy, and why I would never re-watch movies like, bridge to Terabithia, or any other movie that kills off a kind and loving character, and why i don't like this movie more than the jungle book.
This ^ A good character dying for the right reasons a.k.a. it happening at the right time and impacting the protagonist for the better of him/herself or the to better the plot is fine - many of the most impactful deaths in fiction had to happen for the story to be what it was - but I hate when stories kill off likable characters for apparently no good reason or when too much bad happens to a single character. Take The Walking Dead: Maggie was done so wrong in that show. She lost her mother and her extended family, watched her sister and her father die in front of her, and then STILL had to watch her husband die. They should have spared Glen for Maggie's sake, but they didn't and I hated that. I can't sit through Requiem for a Dream again; too sad.
Couldnt agree more. That albino wolf's death bothered me so much literally the only reason I don't think ill ever rewatch that movie ever. It genuinely upset me since it wasn't really necessary.
@@flappingonlinelogic4611 Yes it did, but it was not as well fleshed out as it might have been, and there are other ways they could have shown it without ripping out our hearts. That and there is no acknowledgement of the character after. The last time we see him is when Mowgli yells at him and then tries to apologize.
This taught Mowgli what he learned from Akela, never kill for sport. That crucial lesson is what made Mowgli realize that his role in his tribe was to infiltrate, and that he did. I hated seeing sweet Bhoot like that, but it wasn't in vain.
Nice, I pretty much agree. Benedict Cumberbatch's ´Shere Khan was terrifying. His line delivery + dialogue and his facial expression was pretty haunting, especially with the "hurting" Mowgli scene in the monkey cave, that was almost creepily scary. Even if you're not interested in Mowgli as a whole, Khan himself is worth a watch. The child actor in Mowgli was also 10x better. And it is definitely a more mature and ballsy take on the classic story, which was interesting. The Jungle Book 2016 was just so all out safe and lacked personality. But as you said, stronger animation throughout, more consistent.
Mowgli is awesome and emotional.. I loved the way different look of the story than the one we all know, tho Jungle Book is awesome in its own way, Mowgli found a way to touch the emotions pretty well
Regarding the cgi, I found it funny that the happy adaptation went for more realistic looks while the dark one had more caricaturistic version of the animals. Also in this last version, ir pay attention you can see that the animals have human eyes. This bothers me but at the same time I think it was done on purpose, probably so that you connect more with them or so
Mowgli is a kind of film you can watch again and get amazed again. But jungle book is a one time fun family movie. One is a bed time story & one is story of life in an abstract.
The Jungle books character design with the animals was better then Mowgli. But I would argue the background scenery in Mowgli looked amazing. Overall I like the Mowgli movie better. The story was deeper, nuanced and more complex.
the wolves in the jungle book and the bear and also the tiger are the wrong animal species. Not to talk about the biggest bullshit of all, mr gigantopithecus the orangutan which was perfectly avoidable, now that bullshit idiot haunts my nightmares
@@fanijar TBH the only problem with the Tiger in JB was that Bengal Tigers aren't supposed to have that thick a coat, also, they are not supposed to be that long or have that much thin limbs, other than that JB's Tiger looked hyper realistic.
I liked Mowgli much more, by far. Much more emotional, the performances were better, while the cgi may not have been as good, the designs had character, and somehow believed them more. 6:40 that shot is cinematic terror.
Take a look at my latest VS Video! Shere Khan VS Scar - Who Is The Better Villain?
ruclips.net/video/-NwTNnioGyg/видео.html
Disney's Baloo seems like the type of guy who gives you 2 desserts in one night.
Serkis's Baloo looks like he'll eat your head if you don't eat your vegetables.
i think i'm a meanie Serkis’s Baloo is ugly
There's a difference between "CGI animals" and "realistic animals" Mowgli's animals if take a look at real animals that's how they look not Disney's jungle book. Actual "jungle book" is dark Disney made it a kid friendly whereas WB made accurate to the book ( the only flaw in this is expressions )
@@gymbrown911 did you understand my comment? I said Mowgli is accurate to the book and Disney's jungle book is a kid friendly. U definitely didn't understand. Orangout is never 50 foot tall that's never that tall
@@gymbrown911 lol dummy
King Lou in Thr Jungle Book (2016) is a Gigantophitecus
*Mowgli feels like a adaptation we all needed but never got until then.... The jungle book is good in its own premis but Mowgli looks at the realistic side of the story... That if a kid is living in jungle.. Everything is not sunshine and rainbows*
Bold statement
@@BrainPilot But true
Aka its more accurate to the first chapter of the book
Thank you!
Mei Misaki yeah cause jungle book is more so for little kids
I actually liked Mowgli's Kaa better. Got a little tired of villainous Kaa, considering Kaa was neutral and helped Mowgli in the book.
Wolpard exactly me too! I thought this Kas was brilliant, especially after she saved him in the monkey den.
That’s because this movie is solely based on the boog
Same, it's a welcomed take on the usual done material.
I like Scarlett Johansson’s kaa better
I read book. I discovered Kaa is on Mowgli’s side
The fact that Mowgli used wolves based off the Indian wolf (which is geographically accurate) instead of the American wolf (which western audiences would recognize) really shows the attention to detail and the commitment to the story.
Both have an inaccurate side, you don't say one is better just because it has an accurate side you've never seen the other, not only that, the Mowgli kid outrun the limping tiger in small circle an, he also seems to have zero scratches on the tiger which is completely illogical and inaccurate. The child is 5 years old, and when the child is 5 years old, the fastest speed they can reach at 5 years old is only 100M in 25 seconds, *IF* the child is professionally trained for this, on the other hand tigers run up to 49KM and the most adult-dangerous is up to 60+KM(hours). when one leg is limping or hurt, they can still run maybe up to 15-30 KM.
Lmao what. No offense but did you look at the wolves. They look unrealistic, cartoonish and fall in the uncanny valley.
@@whatever8554 he wasn't talking about the quality of the cgi though...
And yet, Baloo is a grizzly bear and not a sloth bear.
This should be pinned ngl
Jungle book=feel like watching MCU..
mowgli=feel like watching DC so dark..
Mas tomo DC isnt dark its edgy like seriously nothing is dark in those movies exept the colour pallet.
In the mcu we saw a child clinging on to his father figure while dying. And loki died brutally
dario valverde INFINITY WAR
Um, have you seen Shazam! or Aquaman? I wouldn’t call those movies dark
@@reddragon0624 he means the animated movies which are fucked up tbh
Dalton they specifically made those more lighthearted because of the comments towards DC that they were too dark.
I think that both versions were good, but I think the perfect fit would be if we added the beautiful CGI of Disney to the story of Warner Brother’s one. That would be amazing to watch one day.
Are you talking about "Mowgli's Brothers" by Chuck Jones? Yeah, that one was my favorite too.
Mowgli was terrible
@@mjhmab Mowgli's CGI is a lot more realistic
@@EricNoneless no it wasnt the animals looked like humans and it was ugly af
@@mjhmab that was the point, they had emotions, Jungle book's characters didn't..
Mowgli hurt my feelings they killed my albino wolfie 😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢
i cried too there
I was most upset as well. Almost didn't want to continue watching...how they could kill Bhoot :(
Cat Carrion I know I just couldn’t
@@shanarichards8949 yes it a sad moment but that just says that not everyone's ending is a happy one. And that's why I also loved it.
I know right. I cried so much. It hurted me. He was so special and he needed to know that :( 🙏
I see them like this:
- Jungle Book is more family friendly, none violent, none realistic in terms of real life survival and its colorfull and polite in its look.
- Mowgli is more mature, violent and bloody, dark and scary and maby even creppy for some audience, brutal and realistic.
However: I have to agree that CG animals looks better in Jungle Book but Mowgli makes you feel scared and its more emotional.
I think darker movies are always better but jungle book still better
@@shadowspino6413 my thoughts as well like Carrie 2013 it’s dark instead being too much horror
I think the people keep forgetting about Mowgli and comparing to Disney's Jungle is Andy Serkis was adapting Kipling's writing, not Disney. In fact when Walt Disney was making the Jungle Book all the way back in the 1960s he told his people don't read the book because he thought it was too heavy and dark for a family film. And that's why as much as I love Disney's 1967 and 2016 version I prefer Mowgli because I felt like I was getting something meatier and Andy Serkis trying his hardest to be faithful to Kipling's writing, even if Warner Bros didn't give him the mountain of cash Disney used for the 2016 version
Being truer to the book doesnt make it a better film. MOWGLI overall was a very mediocre film. And it wasn't really all that exciting either
@@kyleroberts8823 I don't think you watched the same film that I did, this is easily the best movie version of Rudyard Kiplings classic tale by a large margin. If you don't think this was all that exciting then you must not have been excited with the Disney version either. This movie has what I would call depth of character, something the fluffy Disney version is majorly lacking in. The child actor from Mowgli is a much more believable wild child, who is put into some tough spots. It is dark and gritty, not meant for younger kids, but it is also deeply moving, there is genuine drama is this movie which takes it over the top of Disney's CGI high budget version. Now I'm not saying I don't like the Disney movie, I have always enjoyed pretty much every version of the Jungle Book, but Mowgli is much more realistic (minus the CGI characters) in a more adult themed and believable way. I was surprised how much I enjoyed this movie because going into it, I was expecting another typical Jungle Book movie, but this was anything but that.
The hyena character was kinda pointless. I know he was a character from the book, but I feel they failed at justifying him being in the movie. The animals know what a fire is, but never taught Mowgli about it? Common.
Jason Allen I really don’t think we watched the same movie. The whole last part was rushed and honestly terrible. I get that they tried to adapt it closer to the book but it really didn’t hit. I’m not saying I loved the Disney film but that doesn’t automatically give Mowgli a win. It was honestly a terrible film. Considering that this movie was in production for 4 years is so brutal. How does a production company get away with this? Also, just the pure fact that they tried to justify Mowgli growing at the same pace as a wolf is so ignorant. CGI wise, Mowgli has nothing. You can try to say the Baloo was better in Mowgli but be honest with yourself.
The film was nothing more then a cash grab and it’s honestly horrible. They obviously knew that and that’s why they sent it out for a 3d release just to try and gain some money.
They completely threw away Bhoots character just for shock value and never really tied up all the loose ends. It’s honestly a sorry display of a film and makes me wonder how people get paid so much to produce such burning trash.
@@-chanye- seriously, it was rushed? then i should call disney mowgli hyper rushed, i don't remember even encountering him with wolves and akela was wasted, he killed in 1 second.. without leaving any impact
Honestly to me Sheer Khan was my favorite Disney “villain” I never really saw him as evil. He knows what humans are capable of. What we discover we destroy, what we don’t understand we destroy. I can understand why he’d want to kill mowgli.
I don’t really agree mowgli never did anything he’s just a child doesn’t make him justified although I do agree with the bad humans part but only the bad ones and he kills innocent animals
My redhair cat is named Shere Khan
I don't think that's the only thing. In the Jungle Book (2016) Raksa the wolf (wolf mother of Mowgli) mentioned how Sher- Khan kills other animals like innocent ones so you can see how his villain side kicks in. I do agree how some humans destroy everything they touch like the Red Flower. But Mowgli was raised by animals, if anything Sher-Khan and Mowgli (If Sher-Khan wanted to) could've gotten along just like Mowgli and Bagheera did. Sher- Khan wasn't really aware the possibilities Mowgli could do for example: Mowgli brought the whole jungle together, so I believe that Mowgli would turn out to be a great person in the jungle, but Sher-Khan chose to what he experienced and ignored what he could've seen. If he would still be alive, he wouldn't stop there. He would probably keep hunting Mowgli, even if he saved the whole jungle, even if Mowgli wants to be friends with him, Sher-Khan will see him as his greatest enemy.
@@Shaggy448but his species did and therefore mowlgi has the potential to lead more of them back to the jungle.
When I found out what happened to Bhoot, my hearth broke. I was so depresed after watching Mowgli.
Same😢
😭😭
Idk I giggled
I was just suprised
That took me by surprise as well, but not in a good way 😢
am I the only one that didn't mind the animals' human-like faces in 'Mowgli'?
It's kinda weird that the more realistic movie has less realistic animals but yeah lol.
@@cashwin45 That's the problem with realism you focus so much on it that you lose you're appeal to focus on a good ass story like just make a great movie , everybody wants every damn movie to be realistic it's so damn annoying & plain stupid .
i hated the human like faces thats probably the main thing i hated about the movie
@@stevenjones4059 but with good story + a great cgi is far better than good story but bad cgi, yes story matters but this type of movies are heavily influenced by cgi , its not indie movie where story and acting only matters ,its a movie that are heavily relied on cgi, yes good story is great but good cgi is as important as story in these type of movies, if only it has good cgi ,it would be cherry on top, jungle book has got almost equal praise as mowgli and thats not bcuz it has better story than mowgli but bcuz it has that realistic cgi ,this type of movies relies on cgi so saying realistic cgi doesnt matter is bullshit ,you can say that to indie movies but not to a movie like this. I will guarantee you if this type of movie has great story but has a worst cgi then it will still get critcized bcuz this is not a indie movie or any movie ,this is the movie where almost 99% of it should be cgi, so saying a cgi doesnt matter in a movie where 99% of it is cgi is not a valid in my opinion.
@@sugc3209 their is no such thing as realistic cgi the entire purpose of cgi being created was to show fans & audiences what stuff we will never see in real life look like on the big screen , plus the sole reason why many movies get remade & rebooted are because of cgi not any other reason if cgi existed back in the day like it does today half the movies that have been remade or rebooted wouldn't even have been touched .
Critics be like:
Disney: oh hey it's Disney, boom there you go, 90% RT.
Other: hmm... let's see...nah.
So true man
Mowgli gives us a more realistic look at the story.
More realistic?....are you sure about that?
Are you one of those people that think realistic simply means shit goes badly?
@@agonleed3841 well its a kid in a jungle.. So yes reality mean shit goes badly
@@shizukousapostle1stapostle710 lmao. Not for a full feature length of being adopted and such then having social problems within.
Reality would be hes dead. Credits
@@agonleed3841 well sorry.. But there is a thing called Dark fantasy.... Which is fantasy... But is dark.. So not for kids... But you can't get the idea for some reason...
@@shizukousapostle1stapostle710 I guess you missed the point where dark doesn't equal reality
And death and darkness doesn't mean kids CANT handle it.
And if you're going for superiority of adults vs children, I don't think adults watching a movie about a young boy with animals in an unrealistic way is really the best way to convey that message
I was just mad and shocked that Mowgli didn’t apologize to Bhoot right away. Then later on he’s dead? That’s so wrong. I think Bhoot realized he wasn’t special and stopped hidding and was found by the hunter. Aside that I loved the movie.
He tried to apologize but Bhoot left
You know that's the reality of life
Bhoot was pale white, which was part of his problem, that's what made him different. He couldn't hide no matter how hard he tried. That's why he was spotted so easily by the hunter.
He said I am sorry, immediately after the insult he apologized Bhoot left, but it was the most painful scene for me too.
@@kevispaandlashbar9769 That was not enough for the gravity of what he told him and the way he did, sadly... and it was too late.
Sheer khan in Mowgli is sooooo terrifying, i liked it. Can’t get out of my head. Benedict cumberbatch did a very greaat job
Shaun Lawrence Estillore wait, Benedict Cumberpatch voice Shere Khan? 🤯
Yes. I looked it up
NikNok Gamer quite obvious
The voice is perfect for sheer khan in Mowgli but his face is so unrealstic.
Nah, he look way to unrealistic. Jungle book's Sheer Khan looks way better, I think.
I preferred the story and the acting in Mowgli. The CGI was certainly better in the Jungle Book - although I imagine this is largely down to budgetary considerations. What a shame Mowgli did not get a proper release at the cinema.
The cgi had problems in the disney version anyway. The characters facial expressions added almost as much to the characters as the votive action but the Disney version went to realistic, real animals can't fucking emote. The mocap might make the animals less realistic but as humans we are wired to read facial expressions so characters having the same expression throughout the movie gets dull, it more engaging to watch a tiger acting with the talent of Benedict cumberbatch than to watch an actual tiger with like 2 facial expressions.
@@michaelmegson2778 but mowglis CGI was weird asf but mowgli was ultimately a better movie
I don't think they care. They definitely got more viewers with it being on Netflix than it would have in theaters
Barry Miller it was going to come out In the same year but since the jungle book came out, they decided to just put it on Netflix because it would’ve been too close in release
@@jadalove9819 Yeah... Disney beat them to it. I remember Serkis talking about the idea way before there was any notion that Disney was even thinking about re-making Jungle Book (though they might have already been discussing it ofc)...
I think it's a good think they waited a few years, but I'd wish I could've seen it in a proper cinema.
Who shed a tear when they saw Bhoot. 😢😢😢
I didn't but I was super sad and I still am...
I have a white german shepherd and reminded me of him. I had to go outside and see him before going to bed :(
I shed a thug tear
To be honest I felt bad for the hunter, I know he would kill the animals but he was nice to Mowgli and didn't deserved that, and besides that he didn't know that the animals are conscious intelligent beings, for him they are just animals, he was not like Shere Khan, that was pretty much a murder.
The one thing I really hated about this movie, that at the somewhat muddled story with the hunter. Aside from that, it was excellent!
Spoiler
.
.
.
.
When they showed Mowgli’s best friend the albino wolf thing as a taxidermy it hit me hard. Pretty jacked up
R.i.p. Boot
yup dude.. i was like no... this hunter guy is evil..
That is Humanity. A realistic look of what we do. We kill always have and always will. It's precisely because of that Mowgli is better than Jungle Book.
Far better than the 2016 movie.
Way better than that live action Disney trash
Disney's adaption are good but I feel Netflix's mogli keeps to the book better.
(I also enjoyed Disney's 1994 live action adaption. It let mogli grow up and addressed the British occupation of India)
*Mowgli
I appreciate how the 1994 version had to train all these real animals to use in the film. That's a big effort.
I watched the 1967 Disney animated film and that weird live-action sequel. I remember almost nothing about the live action sequel, and the animated film didn’t really stand out besides a few scenes like Bare Necessities and Kaa. Mind you, I would have been very young when I saw both films, but watching clips of the 1967 animated film now makes it seem mediocre in comparison to later animated Disney films. And I know that the original Disney Jungle Book is an old film, but other old animated films like Snow White, Cinderella and Alice in Wonderland and Pinnochio are far more memorable to me.
I disagree, Mowgli had mostly the same elements from the book as the Disney movie, plus a few additional details like Shere Khan limping and the addition of Tabaqui. Disney's version also had some original elements that Mowgli didn't, like the story about elephants creating the jungle, or the water peace scene. So I'd say neither followed the novel more than the other.
Mowgli...was better ..darker... surprised the hell out of me
jinkel360 it was much closer to the book Rudyard Kipling wrote and not a comedic kids movie like Disney has ruined so many intense stories with
Same
Agreed
Mowgli was crap
I wish it would’ve had better action
Am I the only one who prefers story over CGI?
The Disney's one is better in both aspects
As someone who grew up reading the book rather than seeing the Disney film I personally think Mowgli did it better. I mean when I first watched the classic Disney film I was disappointed as they changed a story that really impacted me. The problem with both jungle books is that it uses shiny CGI to cover something that is simply soulless and without risks. But when I watched mowgli I felt soul and passion but most importantly I felt risk. Not enough movies have that anymore.
Nope.
do you seriously think Mowgli had a better story ? The jungle book is just better in every aspect .
@ViperSA The original book not Mowgli the movie
They’re both great in their own right.
I believe the way Kaa is depicted in Mowgli is more in keeping with the way Kaa is described in the original book from Kipling. Also, I find that way Kaa is done makes her more emphatic and in keeping with what the character is suppose to embody. Also, Kaa as a character seems to just to work far better as a female character than a male.
R.i.p bhoot
Yeah the movie would be better if he survived
@@prayce2795 If Bhoot didn't die, then Mowgli would have stayed and not help the Jungle from Shere Khan and the hunter.
Damn that made me cry
Yeah that made my wife cry and made me say "Damn this movie is dark."
@@diemandtheanimatronicwolf *bhoot
CGI : Jungle book wins
Story : Mowgli wins
Niset Pdach Snae nah
Dude, look up for yourself, Disney's CGI has pretty bad reviews because they used a new kind of technology. So CGI is not really better on Disney's version
@Heath Legend Sometimes people die for no reason. Mt Mom died when i was four... Four days after my birth day. Thata life, so can we just please have an openion on a movie some of us likes?
CGI and Story = Mowgli
Those who are not agreeing probably didn't watch the Jungle book in 3D. That was probably the best 3D work I've ever witnessed.
Andy Serkis has a lot of experience with motion capture, I'm not sure how much he was involved with the actual work on the CGI in his previous films. I would absolutely love to see what Serkis could have done with a Disney budget
Then watch avengers age of ultron and see how well that was done
mark martinez wasn't he more of a consultant for Ruffalo and Spader regarding the motion capture for AOU
Its not Andy serkis who is doing the work! It’s the VFX artists!
Oh hush, Serkis has nothing to do with CG, he is all about the motion capture and he is the best at it. Simple as.
Arron Litchfield I know, I was referring to the part at 4:40 in the video where it's made to sound like he did the CGI for gollum etc.. I guess I didn't make that clear enough or you guys missed that while watching the video
mowgli was more impactful emotionally, more compelling and jungle book however amazing in visual was a bit forgettable.
I want to hear Bhoot's laugh one more time
ren butt i literally screamed when i saw he died
R.i.p Bhoot
😭😭😭😭😭😭😭
@@aphrotwigs Me too. It was more horrible than the ending of Amnesia. Im still not with it.
@@Varjokani I loved that scene it really brought the whole film together i was sad as well!
The jungle book was too clean for me. I mean even the animals looked like they were groomed and it was paradise
I prefer the realism to MOWGLI
GIT GUD I prefer the animation in the jungle book, but the plot in Mowgli. I felt like they had gone a bit too far on the animals in Mowgli, and made them too human like.
@@Anna-pj8te yh I mean the cgi is better since WB decided to cheap out but I prefer mowgli. I wished Warner bros didn't shit their pants I would've went to see it in cinemas
GIT GUD well, I really liked Mowglis plot, but the ending was a bit too sudden if you understand what I mean. And not very realistic.
@@Anna-pj8te I guess it's personal preference but I prefer darker movies in general
GIT GUD same
If Mowgli's CGI and effects department had the same budget as Disney did. To me you would of had the perfect Jungle Book movie.
Most of Mowgli CG still look good. Bagheera looked sooooooo nice, Bale really nailed the panther.
I felt they tried to 'humanise' the animals faces too much in Mowgli - probably a result of the motion capture process - but I don't think they would have opted for a fundamentally different approach with a larger budget and I had a problem with the way the animals looked that went beyond budgetary restrictions... The Jungle Book was just a MUCH better realisation of the imagery for me.
Marvel usually contracts so many CGI and VFX companies for their Outstanding Franchises
Ok, I am sick of people complaining about the CG in Mowgli. It didn't have the Disney budget, not the movies fault. But the designs for the animals were better in Mowgli, for one simple reason, they allowed for the characters to act. Disneys crap had good CG so it looked like an animal, shame you can't put emotions on an animals face, they lack the muscles for expression. It's why the animated film worked where the live action version failed, the animals could express and emote, the most crucial part of getting a performance across. But everyone just bangs on about how the CG looks cheap and passes on it. Grow some maturity people. That oh so fantastic CG in the Disney version will look dated in a couple of years any way, so what's the point?
@@18thskaven That's just like.... your opinion man...
I think everyone agrees with this:
Story/Voice/Character development/Character’s characteristics - Mowgli
Animation- The Jungle Book
I think The Jungle Book is fine but, Mowgli is something with the story we haven’t seen on film. Also, Christian Bale has done the best Bagheera I’ve ever seen.
Theangryguy09 Christian Bale’s Bagheera is now my Favourite Bagheera out of all The Jungle Book movies. Yes even Better than my own Childhood Jungle Book Bagheera voiced by Sebastian Cabot.
Definitely agree!
Hi
I agree, Bale's Bagheera was definitely the best
It hurt when boot was shown dead
*bhoot
Me too bro...
I actually cried when Mowgli yelled at Boot. Damn the things he said was hurtful and touched my heart
*Bhoot
Dude.... thats a spoiler, you know that right.
@@danielsolomon9742 whole video is
In mogli, the animals' faces are disturbing. they look like human.
banana-shaped earth I know. I cringed when watching it.
That's intentional. More human facial features means more expressive performances
I prefer it over animals that just look like animals
Sam Mewhinney in my opinion most of them didn’t even look like animals. They went way over the boundaries of animals, and changed the features to much.
@@Anna-pj8te understandable, I personally like the perfomances in mowgli more for their detailed inflections
In an interview with Andy Serkis about how he wanted the animals in Mowgli to look, he actually wanted the animal faces to look more human. It was intentional. Up to y'all to decide whether you like it
i get it when people are saying the wolves don't look like wolves in Mowgli ... and Animals having human face resemblance.
But here is a thing. As per the aesthetic and body structure ... Mowgli Animal CGI did a better job in representing India's version of wild animal which the Jungle Book lacks a lot.
Sher Khan might look awkwardly thin and long faced. but a pure Indian royal bengal tiger(excluding the mix breed with siberian or other species) has narrow face and a narrow body with less fur density.
Tabaqui the Indian stripped hyena looked amazing and authentic. And same goes with Indian wolves in the wild which are smaller than normal grey wolves, Less furry and almost looks like enlarged feral dogs. They were perfectly represented in Mowgli. Even baloo has less hairs n fur on his head scalp which is similar to Indian sloth/mountain bears instead of Jungle book's one which looked more like western brown bear.
Don't get me wrong Jungle book had a great CGI where animals were looking more realistic. But none of those animals looked like they were in Indian jungles infact they looked more like healthier zoo version of animals in the west with nice fur..
I know right! I loved the hyena, he looked so good. He obviously didn't looked that real, but looking at him was so entertaining. I wanted more screentime.
R u kidding me the CGI in Disney's recent version was a 100 times better then warner brothers that was in fact the best CGI since Avatar and it won two best CGI awards
@@eamonflaherty5325 avatar is not from Disney avatar is from fox star
Finally someone perfectly put this forward 👏🏻👏🏻
Google Indian wolves. They look like that
Respectfully I totally have to disagree with Kaa. Blanchet's version was more similar to how Kaa was portrayed in the Jungle Book; a neutral badass who everyone was rightfully afraid of, almost god-like, the oldest living thing in the jungle who can remember hundreds of years ago. Johansen didn't do a bad job, I really liked her portrayal for the version of the Jungle Book she was a part of, but her involvement was minimal. Blanchet's did exactly what Kaa did in the book
Yeah, he said she didn't do much and was just sort of there when that was the whole point. She's supposed to be mysterious.
Mowgli was way better ! the motion capture performances are brilliant, christian bale did a fantastic job and the dark gritty realistic story was a great take on the tale we haven't seen before
Christian Bale just continues to put his body on the line! There is no other greater method actor, though I still don't understand how he managed to shrink himself to 5 ft and turn his skin brown to pull off the Indian look for this film
Hasan. Ok but CGI comparing to Disney 2016 very bad
@@jimcameron1234 yea this definitely wasnt better than the Disney one lol. Sorry. I mean darker doesnt mean better
@@hjames78 it comes down to what you like most, so make an opinion, but don't throw the realistic one under the bus just because you're not into that. I love both movies and don't know which is better.
@@thehatmaniac6958 it is my opinion and I did like the Netflix WB version, I did! It was in part because of the way the story was told. But theres a reason WB sold it to Netflix instead of putting it in theaters and it sits at 30 something percent on rotten tomatoes while the Disney version sits in the 90s🤔
Mowgli stands in my mind, especially for the story
People complaining that the lion king doesn't have emotion because of the animals realistic look, people also complaining because the animals in Mowgli show to much animated and emotion look.
Seriously what do you want?
Lion king sucked
Mowgli was alright
@Christopher Strimbu lol I enjoyed the lion king more than mowgli or jungle book, it's just peoples opinions bro
What do people want is just great movies again no fucking realism just a great movie that's all nothing more nothing less period .
I went in and watch Lion King despite all the criticism. Was a little skeptical at first, but overall it was an 'okay' movie. Not too bad, it's just that I find the voice acting on a super realistic animal and the musical part just doesn't work well in a live-action movie. It's so out of the place. But Disney being Disney, got to insert that stupid signature musical into their film.
@@CheetoStix14us that doesn't mean it didn't suck, people still enjoy the room
I agree with everything except Kaa, Scarlett Johansson is nowhere near as good as Cate blanchett, in Mowgli Kaa is more like the character in the book.
Scarlett in my opinion did way better since she captured that mysterious, hypnotic tone while also being helpful
I’m pretty sure if she was voicing Kaa for this movie it would have been just as good, maybe even better.
In my opinion, Scarlett was better at voicing Kaa.
I’d have to say Mowgli was the better adaptation. It just had that dark vibe in there, and that the story was a little different compared to the original.
I felt his review was quite fair, however, I really appreciated Christian Bale's take on the Bageria character. Now don't get me wrong, I love Ben Kinsley, but Bale struck me more emotionally for some reason. Maybe due to his character arch and dealing with death and the difficult choice of trying to persuade Mowgli that he'll be safer with his own people. Overall, I enjoyed the story a lot more than the Disney remake and although the CGI was budgeted more fairly with Disney, the grittier drawn animals were still very fascinating for me throughout the entire film.
@Madalin Grama Actually, King Louie was created for the animated movie, he does not appear on the book, and the existence of him made no sense because the monkeys were a lawless group with no order and King Louie meant there was a hierarchy on the monkeys, completely going against the lore of the book.
But I agree with you, I quite like both the animated and the Walken versions of Louie.
Fer sure. Bale's Bagheera in facial expression and word resonates more on an emotional level, and the part where he speaks to caged Mowgli is a terrific example. Tear-jerking, even.
I hated Mowgli ,jungle book was awesome for me
Palash Chandrakar try to explain your point.moron.
@@johnallen6607 the Mowgli boy did not resonated with me ,and yeah I cannot watch the same story again and again , the story of this movie wasn't that compelling too ,finale was just flat
I actually MUCH preferred the Cate Blanchett version of Kaa over Scarlet's. I don't agree that Kaa had more to do in the Disney version at all. Kaa is in it for all of 3 minutes to provide exposition about how Shere Khan related to Mowgli. That's it. Any character could have done that, it didn't HAVE to be Kaa.
Whereas in Mowgli, Kaa does provide exposition, but she does it more than once (narration at the beginning and scene with Mowgli) and there's at least an explanation as to WHY she is able to have this knowledge (she's as old as the jungle). Kaa in Mowgli represents more of a mystical shaman type character or an oracle who knows all, past/present/future, and is able to provide exposition because of this and actually somewhat spurs Mowgli towards his "destiny" especially since he seeks her out rather than just stumbling upon her. And this position is what is able to allow her to save Mowgli in the film which is what gets him to go to her to begin with, to learn WHY she saves him. Her position in relation to Mowgli allows her a much greater presence in the film and actually gives more of a reason for why she does what she does that the Disney version doesn't have. It did feel somewhat unfinished almost BECAUSE she had a larger role, I expected her to do one more thing at the end to help Mowgli and all she does is watch as he fights Shere Khan. But, I suppose, that is what Kaa does. She watches. Mowgli is the protector, Kaa is the watcher. But because she saves him that one time and narrates the film, I think it set itself up to make it feel like Kaa's part in the story was almost unfinished in a way.
As for the difference of "hypnotic" voices between Scarlet and Cate, that's ultimately a matter of opinion, but the Kaa in Mowgli doesn't HAVE hypnotic powers. She never hypnotizes Mowgli, she shows him some stuff and has him caught in her coils but he never loses sight of where he is and who he's talking to. So why would her voice NEED to sound more hypnotic? I think Cate's deeper, older voice worked much better for the role that Kaa took up in Mowgli as the prophet/shaman as old as the jungle itself whereas Scarlet's higher, younger voice worked better for the less nuanced role that Kaa had in the Disney version and her acting took on the more hypnotic tone simply because that's what Disney wanted from the character. Neither is better, just different due to the writing of the character.
Thank you I didn't have the strengh and patience to write this but you did
Me too, Blanchett's Kaa was just perfect, i wouldn't add or remove anything.
You're absolutely right. In Mowgli, Kaa feels way more complex and important, and overall more developed, since you always understand that she is not Mowgli's friend, but she is not his enemy either; she's just a very wise creature that always works to her own goal: what's better for the jungle. And as you said, her knowledge and her almost magical presence are kinda justified in Mowgli, while in The Jungle Book she was a just a very convenient character that the protagonist accidentally met. And that my friends, is called lazy writing. Now, about the acting, i do love and respect Scarlett Johansson, she's a great actress that is usually understimated by people that have only seen her average Hollywood performances, and not her truly amazing performances in more artistic films such as Under The Skin or Lost In Translation, but she's is no match to Cate Blanchett as Kaa. Cate's performance was deeper, and more meaningful and complex, with a low and ambiguous voice that fits perfectly to the character, while the only thing Scarlet did in her performance was to talk in a half-spoken, half-whispered way to sound mysterious, although in her defense, we can say that she didn't have to much to work with, since her character was very flat and irrelevant. Now, if we go to design and CGI, Mowgli's version of Kaa can't stand a round to The Jungle Book's. I honestly don't think that the CGI in Mowgli was bad, it was just a matter of how the animals were designed in an unrealistic way, but with Kaa they really crossed the line. She doesn't looks like an indian python...Or like any species of python at all. In fact, the shape of her head is not even close to the one of any type of snake, it's just a very awful and poorly executed design. The Jungle Book's wasn't entirely perfect either, but was waaaay superior to the one in Mowgli. Still though, Mowgli's version is overall better (and that applies to the film itself too).
Quote the book. “By the first egg, I am older than many trees, and I have seen all that the jungle has done.” -Red Dog
Kaa was not purely a hypnotic character, HE was the wise and dangerous lone character who needs no one and asks for no one, but may be willing to be gracious and grant you some help, with the wisdom you require because of his age. I hope people read the stories more. I highly recommend them, and there’s more than three. This is important. Mowgli pulled a little bit from Letting in the Jungle, Red Dog, and The Spring Running, which few people would guess perhaps because few people have read. The English is old, but the stories are amazing
i agree. I like that in Mowgli, Kaa is some sort of very ancient and mysterious being that the whole jungle respects, but doesn't really understand. One that is strong and has depth.
Not just some sort of random animal that pops up for people to say "hey look, look, it's the hypnotic snake haha" and then leaves. Kaa in Mowgli had a more powerful meaning. Kaa was like the jungle itself speaking and acknowledging Mowgli as part of the jungle.
I liked Mowgli more, It was just a better story. If you just want a visual spectacle, Then watch the Jungle book.
I feel like it gives too much of a "dark scary" vibe for me to enjoy it.
@@cashwin45 That was the original story though it wasn't ha happy thing
@@ColonelBragg Yeah ik, but I always feel uncomfortable watching dark movies, idk why, sorry. I might like it but idk.
@@cashwin45 watch no country for old men
@@ColonelBragg is it good?
mowgli is better ....POOR BHOOT :´(
Do you know BHOOT means GHOST in seonee jungle of India!
Carlos Florido your a pussy
Mowgli rocks. Refreshing. I love this version.
@@Rajeevraj1995 well, that explains it. An Albino wolf called Ghost. Definitely fits.
Yooo that part had me like -> :O -> D:
R.I.P Bhoot
He really was special.
Mowgli was better, there was much more depth to characters. Andy Serkis's portrayal of Baloo was amazing. The film is completely different to the jungle book in a way so there each good in their own right. But if you could only watch one, I'd recommend Mowgli!
Rustom Parekh Mowgli was pretty good, but the animals were way too warped in my opinion (except baloo, he was best in Mowgli)
@@Anna-pj8te yeh I know what you mean, but considering the budget was probably alot let than Disney's one you cant complain to much. Although I have to add to my original comment, both films are very good in their own rights and shouldn't really be compared as although the base story is the same the way the films are done is very different and so shouldnt be compared to much
Rustom Parekh yeah the plot was completely different.
It’s crazy when the animals are talking they roar and make the noises the animals make. It’s so raw, I think people should look more into the directors mind before really saying which movie is better 🤷🏻♂️
99% of comments: Mowgli Is better
38% of comments: Jungle Book is better
2% of comments: hated both movies
Wow you clearly dont know how percentage works.
Gytis Jagminas Wow, You clearly don’t know what jokes are.
@@kairobison3565 How is that a joke?
Jeremy Rodriguez a type of joke that every commenter makes in which people take it too seriously.
@@kairobison3565 I asked How is that a Joke, not What type of Joke.
Oddly enough, in an era where we're getting dark-and-gritty reboots of everything, we got a darker and gritter Jungle Book with Mowgli and it ended up being much more true to the tone of the original story than anything we've gotten so far.
shut the fuck up
@@Salah.network yeah you are a clown.
People forget that in the second book, Mowgli orders the animals to destroy the village as revenge for imprisoning his adoptive parents.
I just looked it up, Mowgli had a slightly bigger budget at aprox 180 million, and took longer to release because the Serkis wanted to work more on the CGI, and that being said, the animals all looked really unrealistic and weird in Mowgli, while they look like actual animals in The Jungle Book
Right! All these people that think mowgli looks better than jungle book are on that good good
Thank you, the half-human faces we see in Mowgli just looked disgusting. Shere Khan was the absolute worst. He looked like one of those cheap, furry tiger figures you can see in any China Town.
I get that it was intentional, but that doesn’t mean it was a good choice. They weren’t “more expressive and therefore easier to read” (like so many defenders of the designs are saying), they just look like unholy hybrid creatures. I don’t need a snake to have front-facing eyes, or for a panther to have a pointy and elongated head, to know if they’re sad. In fact, those designs were a hindrance for me because I was almost too distracted by their ugliness to care about what they were emoting. It’s ok to try for a less realistic style, but JEEZUS those abominations are not the way to go!
Sorry, I just thought the designs in Mowgli were truly awful and nearly ruined the movie for me. Seeing so many people defending them just boggles me.
And just so this isn’t all complaining... the one I felt they did right was Baloo. He was stylized to look less like a *real* animal, but not forced to look human. And I actually like that he was mangey and ugly, too. (As in, an ugly bear, not a disturbing bear-turning-into-old-man, if that makes sense.) Really added to the movie’s more realistic themes and tones.
Rajktar I’m pretty sure Mowgli did Not have as High a Budget as The Jungle Book did which cost 175 Million US Dollars to make. I tried looking up the Budget for Mowgli online and there is no where that shows the Financial Information on the film. I think you might be confusing Mowgli’s Said Budget to The Legend of Tarzan’s Budget which did cost 180 Million US Dollars to make.
That’s sad actually
They intentionally made them look human, it’s a stylistic choice.
Mowgli is much better, if the CGI is weaker but in the end the story is what matters. In addition, the performances seem better. I prefer Cate Blanchet, because she gives a mystical tone to her character and the jungle. Benedict and Christian Bale were AMAZING. And the actor who plays Mowgli does a better job than "Jungle Book."
It is a hard, real and emotional story.
Jungle book 2016 - kids
Mowgli 2018 - Mature
I'm thankful for this video because I got tired of explaining that Disney adapted the story and made their own version. Mowgli is based more on Rudyard Kipling's book.
Exactly!
Wolves in mowgli are made to look just like the Indian wolves. LOOK IT UP.
I loved MOWGLI and cried for Bhoot
king kong I didn’t know India had wolves, nor bears
Same I wanted to jump through the screen and kill the hunter lol
AJRGamer weird flex but ok
@@rcraw6447 lol ikr
I prefer Cate Blanchett as Kaa rather than Scarlett Johansson. Both is different, in Andy's version (which based on the book) Kaa is one of Mowgli's trusted mentors and friend and she is the most ancient creatures in the jungle so that every animals are scared of her while in Disney version what we all know that Kaa is a antagonist who tried to eats Mowgli that's all.
Tho Scarlett's take took a mysterious route. Cate's was a little confusing tbh. First she saved him, next she looked like she was gonna kill him, but then she didn't. Plot wise not so good. But Cate did bring a good performance, and seeing the size of that snake woaah. That was a good scene.
@I. Th. Yeah, but after she saved him, she starts acting like he was gonna eat him. Holding him upside down, saying if she's bored she gets hungry!? But she saved him from the beginning so it's CLEAR she won't eat him. So that scene really was kinda pointless really. But again, it was not bad, I enjoyed Cate's performance. But it doesn't really have a purpose other than spoiling the movie for us I guess?
@I. Th. We could explain this all year, but you must admit that it could have been better. Scarlett's version had a more consitent vibe and was more enjoyable for what it was. Her personality and her goal to eat Mowlgi fitted well in the scene. Cate's purpose and personality kind of got in each others way. In my personal opinion, Scarlett's Kaa is better. But as an overall movie, I prefer Mowgli, cause I felt the other animal's emotions through great acting. And it's darkness is more satiztfying.
I need scarlett's voice in the mowgli's version lol
This was so much better then Disney’s version.This was more honest, realistic and pure to the book. This needed to be dark because the storyline is dark. The acting in this was also a lot better then the jungle book. The acting also made the CGI appear more realistic.
I enjoyed the recent Disney version but Mowgli blew it out of the water for me. Superior film.
In my opinion "Mowgli" was such much better. I enjoyed the characters so much more and the darker tone fitted well better with the theme of how cruel the jungle and nature is. Not to mention how well the actor was. Mowgli had a much more "natural" or lets say realistic vibe to it and I personally liked the designs of the animals. It was something unique looking rather then going for an ultra realistic approach. Plus the designs were able to convey emotions a thousand times.
Andy Serkis did an interview thats on RUclips and he explains why the characters look like that. He says that he didn’t want them to look super insanely realistic because they are meant to represent humans, not really animals . He made it so that al the animals had human like features. He didn’t feel that the animals needed to be super realistic for the story.
Yeah... big mistake
Honestly I respect that. It's about time someone aims for stylization of their own idea over what most people would be use to.
I like when creators test limits like that, and personally, I think the human-like faces really add to the vibe the movie gives. It's surreal, creepy... _human_ , which really adds to the fact Mowgli struggles to decide between his animal family and his own species.
That fuckin tiger in mowgli was the best villain I've seen in a while being portrayed in a movie
The Shere Khan from 2016 was way more Badass and more Menacing. The 2018 one seemed like some Weak ass Coward.
@@jeremyrodriguez5900 Thank you!
@@jeremyrodriguez5900 I totally agree with you!!!!!!!!!!!
I guess you haven't seen Thanos yet lol
@@redciroc1211 yea u right about that
I personally didn’t see what the big deal around “the jungle book” was about. It was good but not anything out of this world other than the visuals. But I liked mogowli more
Same
It was more of a childeren's movie and in that they actually did a pretty good job. Whereas as this one was an adult's movie .
Me too ,I think the visuals is what had critics loving it and not the story as it was the same story from the animated version .
We saw a bear be a bear! lol
Finally!
Yh because bears train wolves
Balu in The Jungle Book is just as much of a bear as Balu in Mowgli. Watch a documentary or two. Bears are lazy and the majority of their time is spent eating. Plus, they are notoriously opportunistic. All these characteristics were seen in Jungle Book Balu. Just cause Balu in Mowgli was more aggressive doesn’t make him a real bear. It makes him a media depicted bear.
Drake Naas thank you
@@drakenaas3218 Honestly, the Baloo in the Disney version looked more like a grizzly bear than a sloth bear.
WTH are you talking about? Kate Blanchett’s version of Kaa was so much better then Scarlet’s.
For one she had so much more screen time.
2. She did indeed have a much larger role in the story then her 2016 counterpart who literally only shows up to tell us a backstory we already knew while in the 2018 version we know that she’s like a guardian of the jungle who can look into the past and future.
Well that’s just my opinion.
I KNOW RIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I was just thinking the same thing in fact.
Nah
I don't think she could actually see into the future, just that she is as old as the jungle and has gained wisdom through it, she knows what will happen because she can make a very well educated guess.
Arron Litchfield Ah, ok that makes sense.
Kaa in Mowgli looked awful which threw me off. Scarlett was perfect and the look was fantastic. She deserved more screen time.
I liked Mowgli better for its darker tone and different take on the story, as Jungle Book besides its amazing CGI was mostly just a rehash of the 1967 animated classic.
Some people want a remake faithful to the original. Though in this case, IDK why.
I saw Mowgli a couple of days ago and I really got into it at some points. They way they made Mowgli look like a kid who had grown up in the wild was really impressive. The CGI was not great but it didn't really take away that much from the story. The final confrontation was the biggest letdown. The buildup to that point and the resolution could have been better developed.
Some of my thoughts regarding the two recent adaptations -
Better Mowgli: the 2018 film certainly. I liked this more feral child take on the character.
Better Shere Khan: The Disney versions. Shere Khan didn't really feel like a threat in the latest one. While I like Benedict Cumberbatch and he did fine with the material, I never really felt the Mowgli in the 2018 film was in danger due to how they use Khan. This version of Khan feels more like an annoying nuisance rather than the jungle's apex predator. In both Disney versions, George Sanders and Idris Elba managed to make him feel like a dangerous intelligent beast and we understood why the other jungle creatures feared him.
Better pacing: Disney versions. There were parts in the 2018 film that I felt really dragged. That whole Bandar Log sequence felt like a throwaway bit.
More darker bits: The 2018 one. That reveal of Bhoot's head was a trip!
Overall, I think both versions have their merits and worth watching if you like the JB story.
As story Mowgli. As realistic graphics Jungle Book
absolutely my opinion
Shut up.
Agreed
tincho they looked warped in my opinion. In the jungle book they held to the limits of animals, while in Mowgli unnatural and weird.
tincho in the jungle book they were in the boundaries of what animal muscles could though, while in Mowgli they went way overboard with humanizing the animals. They even changed the overall anatomy on some of the animals.
In Kipling's book (there are two) Kaa was Mowgli's friend and teacher, not a foe. The Zoltan Korda version from 1942 is great. Of these two however, Mowgli is clearly better.
Yeah, they kept Kaa closer to the book version (intimidating and dangerous but with a sense of justice) while also making him/her more mysterious and less friendly. I kind of like it, and Kate Winslett is so chilling in the role.
Sindre Vangen Robberstad It’s Cate Blanchett who plays Kaa in Mowgli. Not Kate Winslet. And yeah Cate Blanchett plays Kaa Amazingly in Mowgli.
I'm glad someone else here knows the 1942 version; which I still think is the best adaptation (along with the Chuck Jones short films).
I think Kaa is the best in that film and the most accurate to the stories. The part where Kaa swims down the river still looks impressive also.
THANKYOU! One of the fairest reviews ive seen. You can enjoy both for different reasons, though for me Mowgli is better than Jungle book. I'll tell you why....
It moved me. Though there are evident flaws, this movie emotionally resonated with me and made me tear up so many occasions, and that for me is if a movie is good or not, is if I'm moved by it. I was emotionally invested the whole way through. Ill be honest I went to see Jungle Book in theatres when it came out and can't remember anything from that movie, only that when I came out I remember disliking the way they treated Bagheera and made Sher Khan a type A generic villain. Surprised you didn't bring up that Kaa is essentially a different character though, shes not a villain in this interpretation, and the hypnotisation came in the form of showing Mowgli his future, (which if you noticed was very clever). I do wonder what it would have been like if it was split into say episodes for example, or even had some extra time.
My only complaint would the village sequences just came off a lot weaker then the rest of the movie and a bit rushed tbh.
I have been reading reviews after watching it and surprised it's being criticised so much as I really thought it would get good decent reviews but oh well. I was bit shocked at how dark it actually went, but I loved it. Life in the jungle is HARD. There were parts I actually felt scared for mowgli, which is new, i disagree with some of the cgi, Bagheera especially looked amazing to me, (that scene at night with mowgli And his coat is glistening looks great af. ) Bhoot was definately my favourite character and has left a staple on my heart. the cgi really didn't bother me that much, though I wonder if watching it on an old tv (not 1080p) helped that. Sher Khan was terrifying and looked brilliant. And if you've actually read this far, thank you, and I recommend watching mowgli. Definately not for young kids though.
Yeah I thought Bagheera looked so good at that scene. But I guess mainstream is still not used to seeing animal's with their own character. Really, the Jungle Book's animals just feel like a bunch of pets hanging out with Mowgli. But in Serkis's version, I felt like I can stand face to face with Bagheeraand have a respectful conversation. Props to them, never done before.
Thank you!
I agree with you on a lot you said but I definitely have to disagree about Kaa. Cate Blanchett is in a much higher league than Scarlett Johansson in my opinion and it really shows in the character. Plus in the Disney adaptation I didn’t feel like Scarlett’s voice was actually coming out of that character.
That's fair enough! Great portrayal, I just feel Scarlett's portrayal of the character had me!
To be fair, they are two very different takes on the character. ScarJo's Kaa is literally just there, has no purpose but being a refined version of her animated counterpart and deliver trippy exposition. It's ok, it's just a shame that she got only one scene, given the potential.
In Mowgli, Kaa is neither a villain nor a hero, she is the embodiment of the grater good of the jungle. Much closer to the book version, Blanchett's Kaa is a puppeteer: ancient, smart, feared even by the tiger, and, most importantly, with a scheme, which adds complexity to a character that has been portrayed just as a creepy/goofy villain so far.
Of course, in matters of taste there can be no disputes, but Mowgli's Kaa is a much closer representation of what Kipling intended when he wrote the book, as pretty much everything in this new reiteration.
Have to agree, I like Scarlett but her voice felt out of place, whereas Blanchett sounds older and wiser and more suited to the character.
I think the same
scarlett won,hands down
Both are good. Jungle book is the classic feel good movie that brought good memories back. Loved it and made me smile and remember my childhood. Mowgli is a drama movie, kept me interested, stressed and emotionally bonded with the characters, I felt the emotions like never before. Loved both movies but if I had to rewatch one of them... that would definitely be mowgli.
It can really happen.
That scene with Bhoot messed me up and ive seen some crazy things. Just gos to show you always tell the ones you hold dear u love them and treat them right.
watched both I like Mowgli way more! Praise Andy Serkis.
Both are good movies.
BOTH ❤️❤️💕💕❤️❤️❤️💗💗💗
I liked mowgili better and I like the character models better because it helps you emphasis with the characters. I just surprised that circus didn't go with the complete book version of killing Khan. In the book Mowgili is sick of Sher Khan's shit so he gets info from grey brother from the jackel/ hyena that Khan is going to hunt in the gordge. He basically hops on a bull buffalo while Akela and grey brother herd the buffalo to trample Sher Khan to death. Mowgili then skins him and lays his hide on wold pack rock for all to see. This shows how smart and clever Mowgli. The movie did something somewhat similar with the elephants but it wasnt as epic as it could have been. I do like that Mowgli finishes off Khan though.
Hopping on bulls and trampling kahn wouldn't have been as personal though. Like mowgli didn't kill the tiger himself, he just arranged for him to be killed.
@Illyria86 Scarjo isn't that good an actress imo
BOTH LOVE ❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️
As someone who has read the Jungle Books dozens of times (it happens when you run a Cub Scout pack) I feel deeply invested in every version that gets made. I have to give my vote to "Mowgli" over "The Jungle Book" simply because it is, in my opinion, a closer adaptation to the original source material. Yes, both stray in various ways from Kipling's story, but that is to be expected. "Mowgli" gets most of the characterizations right. Baloo sits as teacher of the Law, Bagheera was raised in a cage, Kaa is neither enemy or ally, Shere Khan is lame, and Mowgli spends time in the man village after turning his back on the pack that betrayed him.
That was long winded, but all that to say "Mowgli" is the better movie if you are a fan of the books. And if you haven't read all the stories that make up "The Jungle Books" you should. You're missing out. And if someone could get a director/ movie company to make me a movie of the Red Dog story from Kipling's books I'd be grateful. 😅
Mowgli for acting, cinematography, and story. Jungle Book for effects. Both are good, but I just watched Mowgli today and the more I think about it the better I think I like it.
Idris is my preferred Shere Khan though. That design is better for sure, and granted Elba could’ve colored his voice a touch more, but I think he sounds so naturally imposing that it worked.
I don't think many are talking comparisons between the Akela characters. Mowgli Akela really gave off a strong presence in the film. Like you legit see him fight his own pack to essentially keep it together, protect mowgli, and try to keep the jungle safe. Like he was a real G in this! Jungle Book Akela was a more calm, stoic type that gave off nobility instead of "alpha". You let an enemy get the ambush on you.. IN YOUR FACE?! Khan snuck em off a cliff and the whole pack just bitched down. Atleast in mowgli half the pack still followed Akela
Say what u will about Mowgli, I loved Serkis, Bale & Cumberbatch's performances as Baloo, Bagheera & Shere Khan. Pretty good movie
Agree with you on that!
dude benedict cumberbath is sheer khan.
Wait.. Gareth Bale is in the movie!?
christian bale my friend.
I would disagree with you on Shere Khan simply because Benedict Cumberbatch didn't get enough lines or enough to do with the character. Idris served the character better overall
mhm, they started the production in 2012
Elba's Khan came across like a bully. Cumberbatch's Khan felt genuinely wicked.
@@ironcladnomad5639 cumerbatch's just felt - Smaug. Smaug. and more Smaug. Elba's performance was much stronger I thought, and Shere Khan always came across like a bully to me, as he should - it makes more sense for him to be something of a cruel bully confident in his size and strength, rather than him being some wicked sadist
In my opinion , mowgli was better and more realistic when it came to casting and storyline. The only thing Disney had better was the animation as they had a bigger budget. If Mowgli had a similar budget it would have surpassed the disney version in all aspects.
Actually Mowgli had a higher budget than Disney's remake
@@MathieuLeblanc1991 No it didn't, there's hardly any information regarding Mowgli's budget
Mathieu Leblanc No It didn’t! The Jungle Book 2016 Definitely had a Bigger Budget! Get your Facts right.
Po Omega It’s an opinion
I liked Mowgli better.....and then i saw what happened to Bhoot and feels were hurt.
I loved the "Mowgli" version better! The backstory of Bagheera really made sense in why he had a connection to Mowgli when he first found him. Also I felt the darker approach just fit the storyline. I mean we are talking about being in a setting of a wild jungle so it can't be slap happy songs and dancing all the time. At least they made Kaa have a sort of positive role in the movie instead of always having the snake as evil. As for the CGI it wasn't too bad yes Disney had a more pleasant look but I really enjoyed the Grit to this version. I mean for folks complaining about the dark themes well most Fairy tales are changed and originally are not like the positive happy ending Disney versions. Heck even in the story of the 3 little pigs the first two pigs get eaten by the wolf! Sometimes the dark element is there for a lesson.
Baloo in Mowgli looked like that one creepypasta pic of Chucky Cheese
Thank you for this review. My son just watched Mowgli after reading the novel and he prefers this to the Disney version
Jungle book : wow ready to fall in love with our characters
Mowgli : wanna see them die
In shot
The jungle book - Marvel
Mowgli - DC
Mowgli: better directed DC
The Jungle Book was better!
@@taketemamula nop
I disagree with your assessment on Bagheera. The two versions aren't that alike. The Bale version was portrayed as being in genuine pain at Mowgli's predicament in the man village and, of course, had an actual backstory, as per the book. Not that I have a problem with Kingsley's portrayal. I liked his "colonel Bagheera". Indeed, perhaps Kingsley's Bagghie is best compared with Serkis's Baloo in terms of personality and role.
Agreed, I also prefer Mowgli.
I just want a New Tarzan movie. Do Tarzan Justice !
@Megami Dreemur But that wasn't Disney, it's only a matter of time before Disney comes out with their own..
Now imagine Tarzan from Serkis :P ;)
and Tarzan from Disney
both live action.
@Fatelyne
Greystoke is a good Tarzan movie.
"We saw a bear be a bear".. like.. how many drill sergeant bears do you know again? 🤔
Honestly i liked the Jungle book more. I liked the dumb lazy Baloo the Bear , and Christopher Walkens take on King Louie. I'm glad they had the iconic songs. and i really like feel good movies, its why i watch them. That being said, Mowgli caught me off guard. I think the animation was amazing, especially for a Netflix movie. The loss of the albino wolf and Mowgli's reaction was tear jerking. But seeing a character that I like and would like to see more of be a stuffed head in the movie is not what i watch movies for. Its a heart breaking tragidy, and why I would never re-watch movies like, bridge to Terabithia, or any other movie that kills off a kind and loving character, and why i don't like this movie more than the jungle book.
This ^ A good character dying for the right reasons a.k.a. it happening at the right time and impacting the protagonist for the better of him/herself or the to better the plot is fine - many of the most impactful deaths in fiction had to happen for the story to be what it was - but I hate when stories kill off likable characters for apparently no good reason or when too much bad happens to a single character. Take The Walking Dead: Maggie was done so wrong in that show. She lost her mother and her extended family, watched her sister and her father die in front of her, and then STILL had to watch her husband die. They should have spared Glen for Maggie's sake, but they didn't and I hated that.
I can't sit through Requiem for a Dream again; too sad.
Couldnt agree more. That albino wolf's death bothered me so much literally the only reason I don't think ill ever rewatch that movie ever. It genuinely upset me since it wasn't really necessary.
The head of bhoot showed the hunter is a murder and by using a friend who never fitted in it brings both more emotion and a reason for his actions.
@@flappingonlinelogic4611 Yes it did, but it was not as well fleshed out as it might have been, and there are other ways they could have shown it without ripping out our hearts. That and there is no acknowledgement of the character after. The last time we see him is when Mowgli yells at him and then tries to apologize.
This taught Mowgli what he learned from Akela, never kill for sport. That crucial lesson is what made Mowgli realize that his role in his tribe was to infiltrate, and that he did. I hated seeing sweet Bhoot like that, but it wasn't in vain.
Nice, I pretty much agree. Benedict Cumberbatch's ´Shere Khan was terrifying. His line delivery + dialogue and his facial expression was pretty haunting, especially with the "hurting" Mowgli scene in the monkey cave, that was almost creepily scary. Even if you're not interested in Mowgli as a whole, Khan himself is worth a watch.
The child actor in Mowgli was also 10x better. And it is definitely a more mature and ballsy take on the classic story, which was interesting. The Jungle Book 2016 was just so all out safe and lacked personality. But as you said, stronger animation throughout, more consistent.
Shere Khan's portrayal in this movie was absolutely second to none. The best version of the character by far!
@@BrainPilot couldn't agree more
I feel like he should've been cast as scar for the lion king remake.
I absolutely hated the child actor but an opinion is an opinion
Khan appearing for the fight made me jump
mowgli is better cause there's no singing
tannermilo
Well.... it is a Disney movie...
I hate disney’s cult of positivity themes
Thanos Car no it’s not
The Filmer Dude but....2:02
Mowgli is awesome and emotional.. I loved the way different look of the story than the one we all know, tho Jungle Book is awesome in its own way, Mowgli found a way to touch the emotions pretty well
Regarding the cgi, I found it funny that the happy adaptation went for more realistic looks while the dark one had more caricaturistic version of the animals. Also in this last version, ir pay attention you can see that the animals have human eyes. This bothers me but at the same time I think it was done on purpose, probably so that you connect more with them or so
Yeah, Serkis wanted the animals to have some of actors features remaining.
Mowgli is a kind of film you can watch again and get amazed again. But jungle book is a one time fun family movie.
One is a bed time story & one is story of life in an abstract.
That’s a good point you make there.
The Jungle books character design with the animals was better then Mowgli. But I would argue the background scenery in Mowgli looked amazing. Overall I like the Mowgli movie better. The story was deeper, nuanced and more complex.
the wolves in the jungle book and the bear and also the tiger are the wrong animal species. Not to talk about the biggest bullshit of all, mr gigantopithecus the orangutan which was perfectly avoidable, now that bullshit idiot haunts my nightmares
simple, in jungle book nobody actually red the book, in mowgli, they did.
@@fanijar TBH the only problem with the Tiger in JB was that Bengal Tigers aren't supposed to have that thick a coat, also, they are not supposed to be that long or have that much thin limbs, other than that JB's Tiger looked hyper realistic.
No Mowgli had better character design, but lacked the technology to bring it to life as well
I think I watch it again someday. ;)
I liked Mowgli much more, by far. Much more emotional, the performances were better, while the cgi may not have been as good, the designs had character, and somehow believed them more.
6:40 that shot is cinematic terror.
Yes... These scene alone make mowgli one of my "must watch" list...