Log in / Sign up
 
    Share this page

    Jungle Book

    Reviewed by
    adamwatchesmovies@

    WARNING: This review is hidden because it reveals the content of the film.
    Click here to show this review.
    Reading the back of the DVD cover for 1942’s “Jungle Book”, I wasn’t sure what to think. It boasts about how it “gets darker and fiercer than Disney ever dared” and goes on about “a magnificent, crumbling temple of glowing blue stone overrun with vines and vegetation”. If this movie’s so good, how come I’d never heard of it before? Having now watched it, I can attest that it’s quite the spectacle.

    After an attack by the tiger Shere Khan, a young boy is lost in the jungle and raised by wolves. Years later, Mowgli (Sabu Dastagir) has thrived, knows all of the jungle’s secrets and is friends with the animals. When he returns to the human world, he is met with open arms from most, but mistrust from Buldeo (Joseph Calleia), a man tempted by the lost treasures within the jungle’s forgotten temples. Mowgli must confront this threat, as well as his old enemy, Shere Khan.

    This is a very different interpretation of “The Jungle Book” than you’re used to seeing. There are no songs and although some of the animals speak, most do not. The story centers on Mowgli and the human world. Essentially, this film begins where others leave off. How do people react to a boy who growls and is more comfortable climbing through trees than wearing clothing? Who will take pity on him, who will look to take advantage of his naiveté? This story takes the familiar, but gives it a new spin, as Mowgli becomes an ambassador between both worlds.

    The most creative projects often come when there are prohibitive limitations. In this film, you’re not getting a Baloo, an Akhela, a Baghera or even a Shere Khan that can speak. That means the film focuses on different aspects of Kipling’s work and I really like what director Zoltan Korda does here. Nowadays, the wilderness is something to be protected. When the book was written (and to a certain extent when this film was made), it was something to be feared. The picture oozes with mystery and hidden danger, both in the human and animal world. It shows you that the forests of India are crawling with carnivorous animals that to most humans are genuine threats. But man’s world is no paradise either. More terrible than those who follow the laws of the jungle is man, a creature that kills for profit, for pride’s sake or for sport. I know we’ve all heard this before, from great films to mediocre ones (looking at you there, “Fern Gully”), but there’s something about the way it’s shown here. Mowgli’s words when he first happens upon money, it makes you see the film’s principal villain Buldeo differently. When we follow him as he searches through the Indian forest, it plays out is almost like an episode of “Tales from the Crypt”, but without the goofy puns. It’s quite tense, somewhat frightening and very exciting. It made me see a theme that’s been done over and over again in a different light.

    There are small details throughout that make this film something special, the friendship that Mowgli develops with Buldeo’s daughter Mahala (Patricia O’Rourke) for example. But I’m trying to sell you on this movie with the big stuff and there’s no better way to do this than by talking about the special effects. I don’t know how they did it. I guess they just set up some cameras in the jungle, brought in a bunch of trained animals and started shooting, hoping the panthers, tigers, bears and other fauna wouldn’t run rampant. The grandiose shots of the derelict temple, particularly during the climax, I have no idea. How much money was put into making this film, and how much freedom did they have when it came to the sets?

    With this film being made in 1942, there are some puppets and stuffed animals used for certain shots that don’t measure up to modern special effects. Even that’s well done. A big part of this is due to actor Sabu Dastagir being so comfortable with real-life animals and the editing. Don’t dismiss this film because of its age. The stuff in here that’s well done withstands the sands of time. The performances for example are quite strong. And there are certain aspects of it that can’t be matched with even today’s films. For example, I found the action scenes with Shere Khan very frightening due to the fact that they use an actual live tiger! No CGI, trick photography, stop-motion or anything of the sort. This was one of the biggest, most pleasant surprises that I’ve had in a long time. Just make sure you do some research though, you’re going to want to find a good print with sharp sound. If you’re a fan of, or even just intrigued in “The Jungle Book”, I strongly recommend this 1942 version. (On DVD, April 26, 2016)

    8
    HelpfulNot helpful  Reply
    adamwatchesmovies@  28.4.2016 age: 26-35 2,867 reviews

    Show all reviews for this movie
    Note: The movie review posted on this page reflects a personal opinion of one user. We are not responsible for its content.

    Did you see ''Jungle Book''?

    There is a problem with your e-mail address and we are unable to communicate with you. Please go to My Account to update your email.

    How do you rate this movie?

    Select stars from 1 to 10.
    10 - A masterpiece, go, see it now
    9 - Excellent movie, a must see
    8 - Great movie, don't miss it
    7 - Good movie, worth seeing
    6 - Not bad, could be much better
    5 - So so, okay if you don't pay
    4 - Not good, even if you don't pay
    3 - Poor movie, not recommended
    2 - Very bad, forget about it
    1 - Worst ever, avoid at all costs

    Please explain. Write your comment here:

    Please choose a username to sign your comments. Only letters, digits, dash - or period. Minimum 4 characters.

    Your age and sex:

    We publish all comments, except abusive, at our discretion.