Jungle Book

[mph]

I've been looking forward to seeing this with my kids for several months. Domestic box office projections are in the $200 million range, but I'll take the over based on the previews (awesome visuals), the very positive early reviews (78 MC, 100% RT), and the built-in audience of people who loved the original. My family won't be able to see it until early next week. In the meanitime, I'd love to read any reviews from the DBR faithful.

[JasonEvans]

I've been looking forward to seeing this with my kids for several months. Domestic box office projections are in the $200 million range, but I'll take the over based on the previews (awesome visuals), the very positive early reviews (78 MC, 100% RT), and the built-in audience of people who loved the original. My family won't be able to see it until early next week. In the meanitime, I'd love to read any reviews from the DBR faithful.

I saw a screening a couple days ago. It is a visual treat, the animals are utterly real. The story drags a bit at times, but is largely good and ends fairly well. There are some liberties taken with the original story, which I liked as is kept this film from seeming too predictable. I'd say it is decidedly aimed at a younger audience, as there wasn't as much humor or more sophisticated adult themes that one might find in, for example, a Pixar film, but it really succeeds as a kids film that adults will not mind watching. Bill Murray's voice work is a real standout, he's the highlight of the film, for sure!

I'd give it a 7.5 or maybe even an 8. Again, it is a visual marvel.

-Jason "I will admit that I have no idea how Favreau did some of these scenes... really impressive directing" Evans

[DUKIECB]

Jason, my 6 year old is creeped out a little from the full trailer we saw when seeing Zootopia and is saying he doesn't want to go because it looks scary. I think he thought it was a little intense (he specifically mentioned the snake). Am I safe in assuring him it won't be scary? I would hate to make him go and then he still find it scary/intense and be upset by it. Thoughts?

[JasonEvans]

Jason, my 6 year old is creeped out a little from the full trailer we saw when seeing Zootopia and is saying he doesn't want to go because it looks scary. I think he thought it was a little intense (he specifically mentioned the snake). Am I safe in assuring him it won't be scary? I would hate to make him go and then he still find it scary/intense and be upset by it. Thoughts?

Oh, I was genuinely surprised at how scary it was considering it is aimed at a youngster audience. I mean, it was not stuff adults would be afraid of, but Kaa (the snake), King Louie (the giant Orangutan), and Shere Khan (the tiger) are each presented in a way that makes them genuinely scary and a serious threat to Mowgli. As I said, there are changes from the books and the original animated movie, and I think most of the changes have made it a bit more intense and scary. If your child is hesitant, I suspect they will be frightened by parts of it.

-Jason "the tone here is significantly darker and more menacing than the cartoon. I enjoyed that, but if you think this is for really young kids, you are mistaken. I think it hits the 8-12 year old market more than 5-7 year olds" Evans

[devildeac]

Quite the cover song:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qI93SMwwnE

[Doria]

Thanks for sharing your thoughts on the screening, Jason. I was a little diffident, but I will plan to see it now for sure. Sounds like an awesome, fun big-budget movie.

[JasonEvans]

Thanks for sharing your thoughts on the screening, Jason. I was a little diffident, but I will plan to see it now for sure. Sounds like an awesome, fun big-budget movie.

I think the rest of the critic community like it even more than I did. It is at 96% on Rotten Tomatoes, which is Oscar contender kind of territory. It also gets a 78 on Metacritic, which is an extremely high score on that site.

The truly remarkable thing to note as you watch it is that the whole thing was shot on green screens (technically, blue screens, but you know what I mean). They did not go to the jungle at all. I find that almost impossible to believe given how real everything looked. This film is a true triumph of technology. Incredible.

This video, starting at the 5:00 mark, has stuff that shows how the film was shot.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTebgHNSe_4

-Jason "folks should almost go see this just to appreciate the technical wizardry at work" Evans

[-jk]

Quite the cover song:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qI93SMwwnE

They'd have been awesome as a throwback!

-jk

[Olympic Fan]

Jason mentioned in The Jungle Book thread that it is basically a "green-screen" movie -- a film with live actors working in front of a screen (actually blue these days) in which backgrounds have been projected or are added in post-production. Actually, I think the popular term for these films now is "digital backlot"

I've been interested in thus kind of film since I saw Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow in 2004, which I thought was the first real "digital backlot" movie. Actually, looking on Wiki, I see that there were a couple for foreign films using this technology first and one American film -- Able Edwards -- which I never heard of, much less saw.

Of course, green screen technology has been around for years, but it was usually used for brief sequences in traditional movies.

Since Sky Captain, we've had the two Snyder 300 movies (300 and 300 -- The Rise of Empire) and the two Miler/Rodriguez Sin City movies (Sun City, Sin City-- A Dame to Kill For), the Tim Burton Alice in Wonderland and, of course, James Cameron's Avatar (plus a dozen or so less successful attempts).

I'm just curious. Can you watch this kind of movie -- knowing how artificial it is -- and suspend disbelief enough to immerse yourself in the story? I read an interesting essay a few years ago about the transition from back-and-white to color -- how it was originally easy for audiences to accept the artificiality of black-and-white film when that was basically all there was, but how the conversion to color had changed things ... the author (I wish I could find the essay) was arguing that young audiences -- who grew up on color films -- had a hard time dealing with black-and-white because the artificiality was not something they could accept (which led to Turner's disastrous colorization experiment).

I have a hard time dealing with the artificiality of the green-screen movies. That doesn't mean I can enjoy them, but I can never really invest any emotion -- which to me is why a high camp green-screen move such as Sky Captain or Sun City works, while (to me at least) Avatar doesn't. Obviously, I'm in the minority there. But I'm curious to know how others feel about this kind of film.

PS I should note that watching the Jungle Book trailers, I didn't realize it was a green-screen movie ... maybe the technology is improving?

(Note to mods -- I didn't want to hijack The Jungle Book thread, but if you think it belongs there, please move this).

[Doria]

I think, for me, it depends on the movie's quality. If it's entertaining enough and the effects are sufficiently competent, I'm not particularly bothered by this. However, I should note that a) I do like B&W movies and have never felt really distracted from the story by the lack of color, and b) I have a much easier time accepting these movies when they're in genres where a degree of artificiality is taken for granted.

With respect to the last point, I actually didn't realize from the trailers that Jungle Book made use of green-screen this extensively. Clearly, they weren't using any huge, talking animals, but it didn't occur to me that the general sets were CGI/superimposed. So I'd also have to think that the degree to which one is bothered by this might, on a subconscious level, have to do with whether one knows about it to begin with. But speaking about other movies on that list, Sin City didn't bother me (except for the sequel being really awful), since it was such a heavily stylized comic book, anyway, and the movie was true to the book's feel and vision. Casshern is also a terrible movie, but the effects are the least of its problems.

I think to put it to a fair test, I'd really have to see this technique used in more realistic dramas (maybe a period piece or one that's set somewhere that's difficult to film in), where my suspension-of-disbelief bar is not set so high.

But I'll be interested to see how my feelings hold up over the entire course of this movie.

[elvis14]

I saw a screening a couple days ago. It is a visual treat, the animals are utterly real. The story drags a bit at times, but is largely good and ends fairly well. There are some liberties taken with the original story, which I liked as is kept this film from seeming too predictable. I'd say it is decidedly aimed at a younger audience, as there wasn't as much humor or more sophisticated adult themes that one might find in, for example, a Pixar film, but it really succeeds as a kids film that adults will not mind watching. Bill Murray's voice work is a real standout, he's the highlight of the film, for sure!

I'd give it a 7.5 or maybe even an 8. Again, it is a visual marvel.

-Jason "I will admit that I have no idea how Favreau did some of these scenes... really impressive directing" Evans

Thanks Jason for sharing your thoughts about Jungle Book. I have 12 and 14 year old daughters and I don't know if they are interested in seeing it....I hope they are because I want to see it :)

[JasonEvans]

Thanks Jason for sharing your thoughts about Jungle Book. I have 12 and 14 year old daughters and I don't know if they are interested in seeing it...I hope they are because I want to see it :)

Take them and just ask them to admire the visual craft and marvel at how an entire world -- an utterly realistic one -- has been created from just blue shapes on a soundstage. It is mind boggling.

Better still, don't tell them it was all filmed on blue screen and then, when the movie is over, ask them what percentage of the film was shot outside, in an actual jungle. I bet even the most savvy people would say 60% or more.

-Jason "I want to see it again just so I can marvel at the digital wizardry one more time" Evans

[elvis14]

Take them and just ask them to admire the visual craft and marvel at how an entire world -- an utterly realistic one -- has been created from just blue shapes on a soundstage. It is mind boggling.

Better still, don't tell them it was all filmed on blue screen and then, when the movie is over, ask them what percentage of the film was shot outside, in an actual jungle. I bet even the most savvy people would say 60% or more.

-Jason "I want to see it again just so I can marvel at the digital wizardry one more time" Evans

Now I really want to see it. Love the idea of asking the girls about where it was shot.

[Edouble]

Jason mentioned in The Jungle Book thread that it is basically a "green-screen" movie -- a film with live actors working in front of a screen (actually blue these days) in which backgrounds have been projected or are added in post-production. Actually, I think the popular term for these films now is "digital backlot"

I've been interested in thus kind of film since I saw Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow in 2004, which I thought was the first real "digital backlot" movie. Actually, looking on Wiki, I see that there were a couple for foreign films using this technology first and one American film -- Able Edwards -- which I never heard of, much less saw.

Of course, green screen technology has been around for years, but it was usually used for brief sequences in traditional movies.

I thought that the Star Wars prequels were. Episode I predates Sky Captain, as it was released in 1999.

[cato]

Jason mentioned in The Jungle Book thread that it is basically a "green-screen" movie -- a film with live actors working in front of a screen (actually blue these days) in which backgrounds have been projected or are added in post-production. Actually, I think the popular term for these films now is "digital backlot"

I've been interested in thus kind of film since I saw Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow in 2004, which I thought was the first real "digital backlot" movie. Actually, looking on Wiki, I see that there were a couple for foreign films using this technology first and one American film -- Able Edwards -- which I never heard of, much less saw.

Of course, green screen technology has been around for years, but it was usually used for brief sequences in traditional movies.

Since Sky Captain, we've had the two Snyder 300 movies (300 and 300 -- The Rise of Empire) and the two Miler/Rodriguez Sin City movies (Sun City, Sin City-- A Dame to Kill For), the Tim Burton Alice in Wonderland and, of course, James Cameron's Avatar (plus a dozen or so less successful attempts).

I'm just curious. Can you watch this kind of movie -- knowing how artificial it is -- and suspend disbelief enough to immerse yourself in the story? I read an interesting essay a few years ago about the transition from back-and-white to color -- how it was originally easy for audiences to accept the artificiality of black-and-white film when that was basically all there was, but how the conversion to color had changed things ... the author (I wish I could find the essay) was arguing that young audiences -- who grew up on color films -- had a hard time dealing with black-and-white because the artificiality was not something they could accept (which led to Turner's disastrous colorization experiment).

I have a hard time dealing with the artificiality of the green-screen movies. That doesn't mean I can enjoy them, but I can never really invest any emotion -- which to me is why a high camp green-screen move such as Sky Captain or Sun City works, while (to me at least) Avatar doesn't. Obviously, I'm in the minority there. But I'm curious to know how others feel about this kind of film.

PS I should note that watching the Jungle Book trailers, I didn't realize it was a green-screen movie ... maybe the technology is improving?

(Note to mods -- I didn't want to hijack The Jungle Book thread, but if you think it belongs there, please move this).

I had no problem getting completely absorbed in Avartar. Then again, I love animation, and recall going to see Mulan in the theater, long before I had kids, just to see the animation in that movie on the big screen.

I think that movies like Frozen are actually a step back in "artificiality," but by the end of Frozen, I was completely absorbed by Elsa's saga. My daughter was not the only one shedding a tear or two when Anna turned to ice and Elsa broke down sobbing.

So, like Doria, for me it depends on the quality of the movie -- specifically, the story telling, and whether it sucks my in, so that I don't really remember I'm watching a movie, but am just swept along for the ride.

[Devilwin]

My nephew took his six year old son to see it, they liked it, but the six year old told me, it was weird, because there was no way a black leopard or any leopard would attack a Bengal tiger and live to tell about it..lol Kid knows his animals...lol

[Olympic Fan]

Early box office results are in and The Jungle Book is having one of the great opening April weekends in history -- headed for something like $95 million (which would be the fourth best April opening ever).

Even better are the audience reactions -- its getting at least an A CinemaScore rating from every demographic - and an A-plus from the under 18 and over 40 audience members (an odd coupling?)

http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2016/04/16/friday-box-office-jungle-book-earns-huge-32-4m-for-85m-90m-weekend/#6f0b06e6540e

Good thing we didn't start the contest in time to include it -- I would have missed it.

PS I also saw that Superman vs. Batman is winding down with just over $300 million. That's not a bad take, but does anybody else think it's a little low for all the hype and the fast start? I'd be willing to bet hat Captian America vs. Ironman will blow that figure out of the water.

[bjornolf]

Just saw it on Netflix. We really liked it. Does anyone know what the weird little mouse things were?

[devildeac]

I'm sorry, but all I can think of now with Jungle Book is this:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qI93SMwwnE

:o