BootDigest Such a frustrating disappointment

Pluskylang Great Film overall

filippaberry84 I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

Kinley This movie feels like it was made purely to piss off people who want good shows

utgard14 Colorful live-action version of the Rudyard Kipling classic. The story is about a boy raised by wolves who tries to adapt to life with humans. I grew up with the Disney animated film so I suppose that will always be "my" Jungle Book but I still enjoyed this film very much. Great-looking sets, beautiful technicolor, well-directed action scenes, fine Miklos Rosza score, and a solid cast make this a highly enjoyable movie. Sabu is perfectly cast as Mowgli. Great character actors Joseph Calleia, John Qualen, and Frank Puglia all play parts unlike anything else I've ever seen them in and they do quite well. It's a really fun adventure film with lots of heart.

capone666 The upside to animals raising your child is that they are totally self-sufficient by the time they're two.Unfortunately, feral children only wear loincloths, like the one in this adventure.Buldeo (Joseph Calleia) recants for a friend his time in the jungles of India with a boy named Mowgli (Sabu), who was raised by wolves after the tiger Shere Khan killed his father.When Mowgli and Buldeo's daughter (Patricia O'Rourke) return with a gold coin from a jungle treasure one day, Buldeo insists Mowgli take him to the hidden cache.But when Mowgli refuses, Buldeo ignites the jungle.Now, it's up to Mowgli's menagerie: a python, a black panther, a bear and elephants, to save his adopted village.Loosely based on Rudyard Kipling's omnibus, this skillfully shot Technicolor jungle tale from 1942 features real animals personifying the story's psychological archetypes.However, real jungle booty isn't lost gold; it's widespread deforestation. Green Lightvidiotreviews.blogspot.com

classicsoncall When I was a kid (back in the Fifties), I loved anything to do with wild animals, especially my favorites, the big jungle cats. So a picture like this was right up my alley. Oddly, today was the first time I've ever watched "Jungle Book" uninterrupted from start to finish. What I recall of the picture was from my Saturday mornings watching 'Andy's Gang' where it was serialized, and even today the version I watched had those identifiable breaks in the story where a new chapter would take place.Even so, I recall so many years later the names of the more prominent animal characters - Shere Khan the Tiger, Kaa the Python and Bagheera the Panther. I'm surprised the film credits don't list Mowgli's adoptive parents, the wolves Akela and Raksha, even though the wolves have more screen time than some of the others like Hathi the Elephant and the almost invisible Baloo the Bear. The Disney version would have to rectify that.Others reviewing the film on this board appear to rave about the picture's early use of the color format but watching today I can't really concur. It's not anywhere near as vibrant as the same era's "The Adventures of Robin Hood' (1938) or the following year's "The Wizard of Oz". Granted, not the same budget obviously so I guess you can give it some slack. The technical effects for the time were fairly well done I thought, what with those talking snakes and all.For his part, Sabu was quite the accomplished non-actor after having been discovered by the Korda's in the late 1930's. He quite obviously looks the part of the young but principled savage who grows up simultaneously in dual worlds of Man and the Jungle. His disillusionment with the 'civilized' world along with the trio of greedy Indian merchants was strongly reminiscent of the central characters in 1948's "The Treasure of the Sierra Madre", and if you watch closely, his vine swing with Mahala (Patricia O'Rourke) looked like it was carbon-copied by those two young actors in the very first "Star Wars" film - you know who I mean.

MartinHafer This is a rather amazing production for 1942. The lavish sets, costumes and full-color are quite amazing for the time--especially considering it was made during one of the darkest years of WWII. So, instead of the typical black & white propaganda film, here we have pure escapism.Now if you are looking for the Disney version of the Kipling story, you'll no doubt be disappointed. Aside from names and a few plot elements, the story really bears little in common with the 1967 film. Unlike the cartoon, this film does address how Mowgli becomes stranded in the jungle as an infant plus about 80% of the film consists of Mowgli's life AFTER returning to the village where he was born. And, also unlike the Disney film, humans are pretty greedy and awful in this film. In fact, instead of the tiger, Shere Khan, trying to kill Mowgli, the plot mostly has to do with a jungle treasure and the terrible lengths greed drives men to have it. By the end of the film, Mowgli is sick of the humans and their wicked ways--and leaves to live in his beloved jungle once again--quite the opposite of the Disney story.Aside from very nice production values, there is a lot to admire about the film. The story is rather timeless and has some depth to it due to its examination of human nature. The only serious negative is the same negative you'd have with all adventure films of this era--no one in the film is actually Indian other than Sabu! Remember, this was the time of Charlie Chan (played originally by a Swede) and actors such as Errol Flynn and Katherine Hepburn playing Asians!! Here, such reliable Hollywood actors as John Qualen and Joseph Calleia play Indians! It's all rather laughable, though perhaps it was tough finding Indian actors at the time (especially with India in the thick of things in the war). Still, it's all very forgivable considering that it's otherwise a quality production from start to finish.