User reviews

Having missed this when first released, it was a pleasure to discover that this version of Kipling's THE JUNGLE BOOK has been photographed with stunning results in WideScreen color. It features an excellent cast headed by Jason Scott Lee, Lena Headey, Sam Neill and John Cleese, all giving admirable performances.

Detailed scenic wonders of the jungle with dense foliage, rippling waterfalls, exotic plants and animals--and best of all, the majestic looking sets for the hidden city holding all the treasures, are what make the film worth watching.

The famous story has its share of jungle thrills and these have been broadened to include even more conflict in the jealousy that evolves between Mowgli and a British officer who wants to marry the girl. His only interest in Mowgli is to have him lead him to the hidden city.

As the boy who finds out that Civilization can be more dangerous than any jungle, Jason Scott Lee is the perfect embodiment of Mowgli, capturing the character's innocence and naive nature in a way that is always credible. Lena Headey makes a lovely heroine as the girl he knew as a youngster who befriends him again, against the opposition of her arrogant British officer fiancé Cary Elwes whose untimely end makes for one of the story's most exciting and satisfying scenes.

Background music by Basil Pouledoris is highly effective and Stephen Sommers directs the whole piece in workmanlike fashion with only a few scenes a bit too intense for young children.

Summing up: An adventurous tale well told in a gorgeously mounted production.

What a rollicking adventure story this film is - straight from the pages of Rudyard Kipling's Jungle Books and as uncomplicated as any schoolboy adventure yarn. It's really about the laws of man and the laws of the jungle and the divergence of opinions which continue even today. Most of the humans in this film are depicted as tiresome bores, courageous only when their finger is on the trigger of a rifle. The animals of the jungle seem to be the most maligned, but somehow get the upper hand. After all, the jungle is their territory. The film gives some hope for the future when Mowgli (reared by wild animals) and Kitty, a sweet English girl fall in love. The athletic Mowgli with the agility of a leopard in his jungle home is forced to lead a party of soldiers to the monkey palace where untold treasure has been accumulated. It's a difficult trek, but greed drives them on to the secret place. Action hots up as the animals fight back to preserve their territory. Kitty's life is threatened many times, but handsome Mowgli with his animal instincts is able to save her. A touching scene in the film (and one of the quieter moments) is Mowgli's discovery of a room in which the heads of hunted animals are stuffed and mounted as trophies on the walls. Without being too cynical, I must say that Mowgli is surprisingly adaptable as Kitty makes attempts to "civilize" him and teach him to dance. He is certainly a quick learner. But the English aristocracy do not accept him. If one can believe all that Kipling portrays, one feels his heart lies in the jungle which he trekked through himself during his travels in Africa. Maybe his attitude to the jungle is over-romanticized, but the resulting film adds up to great family entertainment. With regard to the monkey palace, it is truly a wonder to behold. The technological experts have done a great job in managing the special effects. They defy analysis. Better to just sit back and enjoy each exciting moment.

Despite diverging in many ways from Kipling's classic novel, I love this film, and feel that it holds up well since when I was a child. It's been almost ten years since I last saw it and my affection for it hasn't declined. I cannot fathom why Disney hasn't attempted to revive it for a new release. It truly deserves more love.

One night in the jungles of India, Shere Khan the tiger attacks a convoy of soldiers of the British Empire whom Mowgli and his father were guiding. As a boy, Mowgli is smitten by the Colonel's young daughter, Kitty. In the chaos, Mowgli and his wolf cub Grey Brother are separated from the convoy and his father killed by the tiger and lost in the jungle. Bagheera the panther discovers the pair and leads them to the wolf pack where they are adopted as members of the pack. Mowgli also adopts a young Baloo as his brother. Mowgli grows up in the jungle and discovers his childhood sweetheart Kitty wandering through the jungle accompanied by her suitor, Captain William Boone. Mowgli follows her back to the British fort and his captured by Boone, but is freed on Kitty's request and is taught by her and Dr Plumford the power of speech and the ways of civilization, and Mowgli begins to fall in love with her over time. Captain Boone learns from Mowgli of the location of the lost Monkey City and its treasure within. Unable to adjust to life amidst the British aristocracy and saddened by Boone's proposal to Kitty, Mowgli returns to the jungle. However, Boone hatches a plan to lure Mowgli back to lead them to the lost city.

Famous Kipling elements such as the Law of the Jungle, the red flower as a symbol for fire and an affinity for nature are carried over which I believe makes it more genuine. Jason Scott Lee is emotive, innocent and sincere as Mowgli, and while I'm aware he's not Indian, I feel his performance solidifies his place in the role he truly feels closer in spirit to Kipling than the animated Mowgli (though I do very much like the animated film). Lena Headey is very likable as Kitty and has great chemistry with Jason, Cary Elwes is sinister and callous as the traitorous Boone, and Sam Neill and John Cleese both add humour and quintessential British charm to the film, especially Cleese in his interactions with Mowgli.

As any good film should I was swept up in the action, emotions and characters and being an animal lover I always rooted for Mowgli and his friends. While I was scared as a child at first, I still revisited for it's adventurous spirit and rewarding ending. I'd even go so far to say as this is Stephen Sommers' best film, balancing the more sentimental scenes with serious action and tension very nicely. The animal training is flawless; Shere Khan is an appropriately menacing force of nature, Grey Brother, Baloo and Bagheera are warm, benevolent brothers to Mowgli, and King Louie steals the show whenever he's on screen. The jungle and fort locations have a rich atmosphere and provide some beautiful visual elements, benefitting from actual location scouting in India. Basil Poledouris provides a romantic and exciting score that honestly deserves more attention, underlining the action scenes and moments of affection between Mowgli and Kitty. At 1 hour 50 minutes, it feels very nicely paced and manages to keep investment going.

My real problem with the movie is that, truth be told, this isn't really Rudyard Kipling's Jungle Book as the title would suggest. It can be too violent for a younger audience at times with the villains, Shere Khan, Kaa and the traps within the temple, and there are some instances of mild profanity but nothing I was especially disturbed by. And I suppose some people may be put off due to the fact that Sommers borrowed more from Tarzan (with Kitty as Jane) and Indiana Jones (with the human villains, temple and treasure) as opposed to Kipling that the movie's core concept does feel less original and the performances are just generally good enough to carry the story. Arguably its the best live action Tarzan film to date, only with an Indian setting, but it still pulls it off very effectively. Because of that same adventurous style, engaging visuals, romantic score and likable animal and human characters I still rate 1994's 'The Jungle Book' very highly and intend to watch it again soon.

A very enjoyably movie, it's kind of Aladdin meets Indiana Jones. It's a little intense for very young children. But overall a nice family action film.

27 years after the release of the famous animated Disney feature, "The Jungle Book", a live action Disney movie with the same title came into theatres. Both films feature characters from Rudyard Kipling's book of the same name, which I have never read. I think it was on the last week of 1994, in between Christmas and New Year's, when I went to see this live action version in the theatre. I was eight years old, and can't remember exactly what I thought, but certainly don't recall finding it boring. Shortly after that, I remember seeing at least a bit of it again at school, but don't recall seeing any of it after that until last night, when I saw it for the first time in well over a decade. It looked mildly disappointing at first, but didn't stay that way.

Set in Victorian-era India, five year old Mowgli goes on a hunting expedition with his father in the jungles of India and quickly befriends Katherine "Kitty" Brydon, the five year old daughter of English colonel Geoffrey Brydon. After a tiger named Shere Khan kills Mowgli's father, the little boy finds himself lost in the jungle, and is raised by animals. He grows up here, living like the jungle animals and learning how to communicate with them. One day, Kitty happens to be in the jungle again, and Mowgli sees her, which lures him back to the village where his childhood friend still lives with her father. Kitty and Dr. Julien Plumford begin to reintroduce him to human life and teach him English, and Mowgli shows Kitty what life is like in the jungle. While these two are nice to him, there are other British colonists who look down on him, including Kitty's arrogant suitor, Captain William Boone. Mowgli is also disgusted when he learns about human laws.

Around the beginning, when Mowgli and Kitty are five years old, it gets pretty sappy between the two. The musical score is really overdone in some scenes, such as the one where Mowgli discovers Monkey City, and often gets too sappy in the romantic scenes. There are several groin-kicking scenes, which are unnecessary, especially for a family movie. Despite the severe flaws, however, there's more good than bad. Jason Scott Lee does a very nice job playing the likable lead, and the acting in general is good here, including memorable performances from Lena Headey as Kitty and John Cleese as Dr. Plumford. The humour in this film is never hilarious, but is sometimes at least mildly amusing, such as the part where Dr. Plumford says, "No. That's not a boat. That's Queen Victoria." I think casting a former Monty Python comedian (Cleese) in the movie helped. The adventure often gets exciting, very much so later on, and there are touching moments as well. One particularly heart-wrenching scene is Mowgli finding Baloo severely injured. This is a scene I clearly remember from my first viewing!

Even though the 1967 and 1994 films have the same title and several of the same characters, and they are both from Disney, one being animated and the other live action is not the only major difference. The plot is a little different, and this film is significantly darker than the cartoon version. There are live action movies with talking animals (such as the hit 1995 family film, "Babe"), but this is not one of them. I'm not saying this is a good or bad thing, but it is another notable difference between these two Disney flicks. However, despite being very different, both films are good. One of the reasons for the PG rating of this version is the violence, which occasionally includes some fairly gory scenes. I wouldn't recommend this film for kids much younger than I was during its theatrical run, but for older kids and others who like adventure movies, this COULD be entertaining. It's no masterpiece, but it is fairly underrated.

From 1887 to the turn of the century a boy is raised by wolves in the jungles of India where Shere Khan the tiger dwells and threatens. With assistance from Baloo the bear and Bagheera the black panther, Mowgli (Jason Scott Lee) learns the "Law of the Jungle" before going back to civilization and learning the strange ways and corruptions of humanity, as well as love. Sam Neill, Lena Headey, Cary Elwes and John Cleese are on hand.

"The Jungle Book" (1994) mixes the sweet innocence of Rudyard Kipling's fables with "Greystoke: The Legend of Tarzan" (1984) and Indiana Jones. Don't expect talking animals as this is a relatively realistic adventure with some cute animal reactions, but not overdone. While I prefer "Greystoke" and "Raiders of the Lost Ark," it's at least on par with "Temple of Doom" and "The Last Crusade." It needed more human interest to keep the attention of adults, but has enough I reckon.

Some people have complained that Jason Scott Lee was miscast, but it's assumed Mowgli's mother (whom we never see and died when he was born) was of Asian descent. Keep in mind that, geographically, Southeast Asia is right around the corner from the Indian subcontinent, not to mention Nepal/China to the north, and so mixed marriages weren't exactly unheard of. Meanwhile Lee himself is a mix of Polynesian & Chinese blood. For the movie, making Mowgli part-Asian made him an outsider to both the British and the Indians, which works for me.

The beautiful Lena Headey does well in her role while Elwes is effective as the odious Brit snob. Lee, of course, kicks total axx while the live-action animals and spectacular locations are worth the price of admission.

The film runs 1 hour, 51 minutes, and was shot in Jodhpur in northwestern India (scenes featuring monkeys and elephants), as well as Bombay (Mowgli's urban interaction scenes), Tennessee (Fall Creek Falls & Ozone Falls) and South Carolina (Fripp Island & nearby Beaufort).

GRADE: B/B-

The hype surrounding Disney's latest animated take on Rudyard Kipling's Story moved me to dig out the 1994 live-action VHS version of the tale. The Goofy movie preview probably tells us more about the take we are about to see than the studio would prefer. To put too fine a point on matters one wonders where in the jungle Mowgli found a bodybuilding gym or a martial arts Sensei.

The grown Mowgli performs like a trained parrot with a fondness for kicking a certain sergeant in 'the sweets'--this is a children's show, and a smart aleck mentality. Cary Elwes plays his villain's role with malicious delight.

I have decided it's about time I read the original.

The plot of this film owes more to the plot of The King's Ankus (one of the short stories in Kipling's second jungle book) than it does to the jungle book itself.

Typical tale of treasure greed and death

These are the Four that are never content, that have never been filled since the Dews began — Jacala's mouth, and the glut of the Kite, and the hands of the Ape, and the Eyes of Man.

The human actors are mediocre with the exception of Mowgli himself but the animal actors are absolutely fantastic kudos must go to the trainers of these. It looks to me like most of this was shot live action with editing to superimpose humans into scenes with animals that could be dangerous and to add animals that would otherwise eat each other.

Overall well told but hardly true to the title (at least its the same author)

One of my favourite films as a child was the Disney cartoon of "The Jungle Book", largely because I was so amused by the antics of the singing, dancing animals- I probably knew off by heart all the lyrics to "The Bear Necessities" and "I Wanna Be Like You"- so I decided to watch this live-action version when it was recently shown on television. Although it is described as a remake of the 1967 film, the plot has been considerably altered.

This film is officially known as "Rudyard Kipling's The Jungle Book", in line with the common nineties practice of prefixing the author's name to the titles of films based on works of literature, a practice which appears to have been adopted for technical copyright reasons but which was often interpreted as a promise that the film would be more faithful to the original text than earlier adaptations had been. Sometimes, as in "Mary Shelley's Frankenstein", this promise was kept, but in other cases it certainly was not. The so-called "William Shakespeare's Romeo + Juliet", for example, is much more Baz Luhrmann's "Romeo and Juliet" than it is Shakespeare's.

Similarly, "Rudyard Kipling's The Jungle Book" is only loosely based on Kipling's stories. In the original book, and in the cartoon, the hero, Mowgli, was a young boy. Here he is an adult, a sort of Indian Tarzan who has been raised by animals in the jungle after being accidentally lost there as a boy. The villain of the piece, both in Kipling's version and in Disney's, was the savage, man-eating tiger Shere Khan. Here Shere Khan is presented more as a sort of elemental force of nature, the enforcer of the Law of the Jungle, and the real villain is Captain William Boone, a renegade British army officer obsessed with finding a lost city in the jungle where, rumour has it, a vast treasure is waiting to be discovered. As Mowgli is here a Tarzan-figure he has to have his Jane, and one is provided for him in the shape of Kitty Brydon, his childhood sweetheart and the daughter of Boone's commanding officer.

Most of the animals familiar from the cartoon and the original stories are here- not only Shere Khan but also Akela the wolf, Bagheera the black panther and Baloo the bear. Baloo is generally assumed to be a sloth bear, the only species of bear found in the area of central India in which Kipling set his stories, but here he is a brown bear, and Kipling certainly describes him as brown. In the Disney version he was a generic cartoon bear, of no recognisable species. This film also perpetuates a goof which originated in the cartoon by introducing a character not found in Kipling, King Louie, the orang-utan king of the monkeys. (Orang-utans are not found anywhere in India). In this version the animals are seen interacting with the human characters, but they do not speak, and certainly do not sing and dance.

There are certain costume dramas films which reveal more about the period in which they were made than they do about the period in which they are ostensibly made, and this is one of them. The action takes place in the late Victorian or Edwardian era, but the film reflects two of the preoccupations of the late twentieth century, environmentalism and anti-colonialism. Kipling, for whom the "Law of the Jungle" meant preserving the balance of nature (not the dog-eat-dog tyranny of the strong over the weak, which is what the phrase has come to mean today), might have approved of the first concept, but I doubt if he would have had much time for a film set in colonial India in which all the British characters, with the exception of Kitty and the kindly Dr Plumford, are all shown either as villains or as silly asses.

Lack of fidelity to a literary source is not always a bad thing; there have been plenty of films which have played fast-and-loose with their source material and which have nevertheless ended up as good as, or even better than, the original book. The "Jungle Book" cartoon, for example, was hardly faithful to Kipling, but was still one of the best Disney cartons of its era. This live action version is not in the same class. The storyline is a derivative hybrid of Tarzan and Indiana Jones, and the acting was disappointing, with only John Cleese's Plumford standing out. Lena Headey as Kitty lacked the charisma she showed in "Waterland" a couple of years earlier, and Jason Scott Lee as Mowgli looks wrong for the part. If Mowgli is supposed to be Indian, why was a Chinese-Hawaiian cast in the role? If they couldn't find an Indian actor in Hollywood, they should have tried Bollywood.

Although the film was aimed at a family audience it does not really seem suitable for young children, both in terms of levels of violence and in terms of sexual references. (There is a running joke about a soldier who is continually getting kicked in the testicles to a cry of "Ooh, me sweets!"). "Rudyard Kipling's The Jungle Book" is the sort of film that does not really succeed on either level, either as a faithful record of the book or as an adventure film in its own right. More bungle book than jungle book. 5/10

I bought the movie for Jason Scott Lee and his amazing pecs. I rate it a 10/10 for that erotic aspect alone. Very satisfying. Other than that there are a few cool tributes to the Sabu films along the way. Outside of those special interests, this is extremely flimsy storytelling and a film that simply can't stand on its own.

Stephen Sommers - a director often credited for taking worthwhile projects and ruining them completely - is mostly to blame. His approach to acting seems to be "whatever, dude". The lapse of focus is clear on the actor's faces - they actually look confused and have a hard time connecting their dialog to one another. Sommers prefers resting on the "production values" of a jungle that looks like it was made to order from Pier One.

If you like Kipling steer clear. If you like the '67 animated version, read the book instead. If you like jungle ambiance you'd be better served with a Ramar Of The Jungle episode or a Bomba programmer. John Cleese is not funny here and adds nothing except embarrassment. The wild animals are real, but one of Disney's Indian producers evidently drugged them because they just sit around for their photo op and are allowed no input on the storyline. Once the script makes that fateful detour into the soggy predictable romance it's game over.

This version was a bomb in 1994 and, along with Rapa Nui, affectively ended Jason Scott Lee's career in Hollywood. Sadly he was never seen topless again.

I used to watch this movie a lot as a kid. Now as an adult, it still seems ok. Now I notice that it is pretty much almost the same story as Tarzan with of course some differences. Wild man learns English from English people. He starts to fall for English woman. Some English soldiers want to find something valuable that only the wild man knows the location of. Main bad guy dies from something related to the jungle. Pretty much same story but the differences that occur still makes it enjoyable. Some parts are genuinely funny. I just noticed now that the movie has 2 Game of Thrones actors. Lena Heady who plays Cersei Lannister and the actor who plays the fat old super long side burns in a braid from Winterfell guy who got his head chopped off. At least some parts of the movie surprised me since I basically already saw this story from Tarzan.

There's a little problem with "truth in advertising" here. The only thing this film has in common with Rudyard Kipling's book is the title and the name of the principle character (Mowgli). After that, there is no similarity.

It's a decent adventure story, but if you're wanting to watch "The Jungle Book", you're going to be disappointed. For that, I might suggest the 1942 version with Sabu or the 1967 animated version.

Jason Scott Lee acts the part very well, but I simply couldn't believe him as Mowgli. He just didn't fit that part. Most of the other characters were fine ... but, of course, they weren't characters from the book. I gave it a 4.

Engaging, old-fashioned adaptation that captures the rousing spirit of adventure of Rudyard Kipling's classic tale. In the era of the British Raj, a young boy abandoned in the jungles of India is thought to be dead but survives after being raised by a family of wolves. Years later, as an adult, he attempts to rejoin civilization with the help of his only childhood friend: the genteel daughter of a British officer. Soon, circumstances put him into conflict with a scheming young officer out to plunder the jungle's enchanting lost city. Elaborate production and effects, an ideal cast, and a wonderfully adventurous feel throughout make this a thrilling ride from beginning to end. Too intense for the youngest children, but lots of fun. ***

...big, comical, high-emotions, exciting action, impressive effects. Here, he also manages to make a re-quel that doesn't obnoxiously pander to nostalgia, something Disney's more recent remakes struggle with. Lee is great, bouncing between very funny & deeply sad, as his general physicality remains undeniably impressive. If it wasn't so corny (animal attributes speech) & didn't peddle in the cheapness of quicksand, it might have a better reputation.

Youngster in India is separated from his family during a battle in his village, soon taking refuge with the animals in the wild. A rather shameless return to proved territory by the Disney company, giving Rudyard Kipling's characters another go around. It's a handsomely-produced yet simple-minded and dull adventure, complete with ludicrous attempts at modern humor and a miscast Jason Scott Lee as the grown-up Mowgli (very grown as it turns out; Lee--his physique pumped to Rambo-like proportions--looks ready to play Tarzan, not this child of the jungle!). The 1942 version of Kipling's story (starring Sabu) wasn't exactly a barn-burner, but it captured the mysteries of nature and its creatures more perceptively than this version. Only assets are the animals (beautiful to look at), the elaborate art direction, and Basil Poledouris' sweeping background score. *1/2 from ****

The first clue you get is the credit "based on the characters of...". This is not the jungle book. It is a bad copy of it with all the charm of the original sadly missing.

It's hard to pinpoint exactly what's wrong. From the stereo-typed characters, to a plot that's so predictable it becomes less predictable the 2nd time you watch it, to some patchy acting and some glaring timing errors...

This was pretty solid adventure story with colorful backgrounds of a the country of India and jungle scenery.

Jason Scott Lee as "Mowgli" is interesting to watch in the lead. Lee is an intriguing actor. He has an Asian background, but has played an Eskimo, here in Indian and other nationalities in other films. He is one of the more diverse actors I've ever seen, yet he isn't well-known.

Cary Elwes is usually effective as a villain. He has the acting talent that makes him easy to despise! The animals are fun, too, from Mowgli's friends in the jungle to the monkeys and giant snake guarding the lost caves with the treasure. Nicely filmed and a good adventure story for everyone.

Made for kids, but this movie is shot lavishly so adults could enjoy too.

Mowgli gets separated from his surrogate family. He finds himself reared by animals of the forest until one day he is reunited with his surrogate family and restarts his life in civilization. He's the founder of the lost city. Now the greedy people wants Mowgli to show them the way to the city.

The production of this movie is done very well, and all the details comes out right. Jason Scott Lee portrays Mowgli who's a Tarzan like character, only it happens in India. He befriends many animals who helps him in need.

It's a good remake of a classic, and a good alternative to the one starring Zabu.

It's a good take on Kipling's masterpiece, and I liked it more (!) than the cartoon version. David Sommers did a great job on it; I always wanted to see Mowgli grown up.

Mind you, he's a fast learner. First he sees Kitty, then he starts a riot, goes to prison, gets discovered, and learns how to talk. It happens to fast. But that's the movies for you, and you can't really fault that.

There are a lot of cool moments in the movie, like in the beginning, when Kitty gives Mowgli her bracelet; in his...re-entry into the "human race", when he sees all the animal heads in a room, and you can feel this weird...presence. It's kind of beautiful, kind of sad, and very, very, Kipling.

He would have liked it, I think.

Honestly so bold of them to call this ""Rudyard Kipling's Jungle Book".

So many liberties.

Interested in seeing an action packed movie? If so, watch The Jungle Book live version. I really enjoyed it. This movie has so much action and suspense and follows the same storyline as the cartoon version but with so much more detail. The movie is about a boy named Mowgli who is taken away from his village after a tiger attack. He gets stuck on a runaway wagon that is on fire. After he manages to get off of the wagon he is too far away from his village and no one can find him. Mowgli is raised by a pack of wolves and grows up with a panther and a bear named Baloo. Eventually, he is found by civilization and his childhood love named Kitty. He then has to learn how to fit in with everyone. My favorite character in the movie is Mowgli because he tries really hard to fit in with everyone once he is found. He also tries really hard to always protect Kitty. He is a really good fighter and climber. My favorite part in this movie is when Mowgli finds a secret hideout where a lot of monkeys live. It is packed with mountains of treasures. He finds a dagger but then a snake pops out and tries to kill Mowgli. So Mowgli fights with the snake and eventually uses the dagger to kill the snake. It is really suspenseful. I recommend this movie for ages 6 and up. Younger kids might get scared watching this movie because there is a lot of fighting and suspense. Credit: Anthony Aranda, age 9, KIDS FIRST! Film Critic.