'Twas okay. Saw it in 3D and I wasn't expecting more than a visual feast. Some parts were exceptional--for example, there's a sequence where Mowgli is silhouetted against some vines in the night and the 3D literally looked like there were vines hanging in the room.
Saw it last night, I thought it was great! Though, I will say that the sound mix was a little quiet. I couldn't hear some of the dialog and my wife confirmed that she couldn't either (I have bad hearing as it is). Not sure if it was my theater or the actual sound mix.
was hard to hear for me, as well, but we were at the drive-in (hah), so that's always a bit of an issue.
I enjoyed this a lot. The voice cast was amazing, the kid who played Mowgli was great, and of course it looked fantastic. My daughter has really latched on to that Kaa song Scarlett Johansson did, wonder why they didn't use it in the film. I was a bit disappointed at how brief her scene was.
Those are so strong words and assumptions. Why can't we have both without people crying fowl and thinking they hate the animation or thinking it's inferior. Whoever that dude is just sounds like a film snob.
Live-action adaptations don't imply that at all, lol. Some filmmakers who do adaptations or remakes (of any kind) probably have that mindset, while others have the mindset that they'll never match the original, but the only intrinsic implication of revisited material is that it's doing it differently. Saying otherwise is absurd. And, I've never even cared about any of these Disney remakes besides this one, which is the first I've seen (due to director and voice cast) since 101 Dalmatians when I was a kid.
Disney knows they have a built in audience with these live action remakes. None of them have been notably good. The pattern is unfortunate.
I'm not commenting on the quality of these specific films. I already said that I've only cared about Jungle Book so far, and even that was just a fun theater experience. I just think it's stupid to view these remakes as a statement that animation is "inferior," rather than, you know, merely different.
I guess these remakes feel like a Zack Snyder/Christopher Nolan attempt to legitimize children's stories to me, especially given the tones of the product put out so far. I actually love Favreau, but while the Jungle Book was fine, it wasn't especially interesting on a storytelling level outside of the visuals. I don't really get what's gained from these remakes. I could be proven wrong.
I mean, if Favreau wasn't doing it I'd be a little worried and less excited, because Maleficent wasn't very good. Having a great time is what is gained if done right. The Jungle Book made me feel all the emotions, it had good acting form the kid, was funny, dramatic, had awesome action. IMO it's superior to the animated film, and not because it's animated.
I googled him and he's a film critic for some site, so I'd assume he's just another one of the dime a dozen movie blog/reviewers who forget movies are suppose to be fun and remakes don't destroy the originals.
The animated version is very clunky. The live action version is way more palatable and updates in a way that makes sense without sacrificing Kipling's story. I'd say the same for "Pete's Dragon," a movie that was way more in need of an update and was done with care. As far as "The Lion King," I don't think it's needed.
I think we have similar views on that Snyder mindset, but I just don't think these remakes are all in that same boat. I think at least some of these remakes are filmmakers trying to take stories they appreciate and do their own thing with them. (Obviously studios do remakes for money, and obviously filmmakers can be motivated to take on projects with money, but that's not mutually exclusive with a filmmaker wanting to take an IP they love and respect into a different direction.) I don't know how to defend what's "gained" by a remake. Lion King feels like a weird one to do. All I know is that I don't care about most Disney remakes, I never cared about the animated Jungle Book, and I really enjoyed sitting in a theater with this specific Jungle Book movie. Outside of money and specific artistic visions, I think to some extent that should be good enough to validate the film's existence.
I agree that the original holds up fine, but the live action movie will more than likely be longer so without knowing how they are going to flesh it out/what they are going to add to it, I can't really say until I see the movie if it was needed or not.