For those of you who haven't seen Walt Disney's animated version of The Jungle Book--or haven't seen it in awhile, anyway--I'm sure you still know the famous songs, and perhaps even some classic scenes. But what you may not realize is that the version we're most familiar with does have some issues of its own.
Not to say that Disney's 1967 adaptation is anything to scoff at. It will definitely slap a smile on your face. But with a runtime that could have used a few more minutes, there's always been some things missing.
Definitely an improvement on the original, 2016's The Jungle Book fills out the classic story in a much more complete way.
With this one, we get answers to a lot of characters' motives, as well as more realistic responses to drastic life changes.
There's backstory provided for why Shere Khan wants to kill Mowgli, along with a more heartfelt goodbye as Mowgli leaves his wolf pack at the beginning of the film.
Neel Sethi, who plays Mowgli, passes the cute test. Almost so cute and precocious that he fails to give us the realistic performance we desire. Instead, it's more of what you would see in a Disney Channel show. He's oozing with "my parents made me audition for this." Granted, he does alright considering he's essentially acting with no other humans. And while director Jon Favreau gets the best performance out of him, he's just a little too much Disney and not enough realistic. Which isn't far off from original voice actor in 1967, who lacks the same kind of conviction. Compared to him, Sethi is an improvement.
But the narrative is really what drives this movie the hardest. It's captivating even before the comic relief of Baloo (Bill Murray) shows up. And it has the added benefit of not being too long.
The jungle world created by the filmmakers paints a dark and sinister universe, just as mysterious as the jungle itself. There's nothing peaceful here as long as Shere Khan is around.
King Louie, voiced by Christopher Walken, is just as wicked. He hearkens back to a Marlon Brando Godfather, living in the shadows and attempting to exploit the quid pro quo. This is also where "man's red flower" becomes more of a prominent feature in this version.
The visual effects are an accomplishment alone. Every hair, every movement, without using any live animals. I've never seen anything like it. Truly amazing.
If you romanticize the 1967 original, then you may have a problem accepting this one for all its greatness. But this one is the actuality of what we've been romanticizing. And besides the acting, it's near perfect. It's darker and even more twisted, transcending Rudyard Kipling's original source material to the maximum. It replicates the tone--but better. It's everything good from the original--but better. And even brings back the beloved songs for good measure.
Twizard Rating: 99
Before about 15 years ago, it was hard to accept any sequel as serious--give or take a select few. And I'm sure there were many who didn't take the Ghostbusters sequel too seriously either. But who could blame them back in 1989.
Sure it has its issues. The villain's modus operandi has devastating effects, but his method of using a baby's body as a vessel to come back from the dead is played off as silly. Although it doesn't intend to be, it can't help it. The levity of the film is that strong.
In this one, all the guys are back and they have to stop the evil Vigo the Carpathian--who is trapped in a painting--from coming back from the dead and ruling the earth. Weird things start happening all over town, as the ghostbusters discover that all of New York City's negative energy has been compiled into slime in the sewer system and is acting as a portal to bring back evil spirits.
It isn't easy for them, as they are faced with adversity that doesn't make much sense. They go from being the popular saviors of the city, to all of a sudden no one believing in ghosts anymore.
Ultimately, the film lacks any real depth. Character issues are heavily introduced but never resolved in the end. It gets a little lost in that department, sure.
But there is a charm that carries over from the original. In fact, I find this one just as funny. The talents are far better utilized here, other than Bill Murray, who is just as good as he is in the last. Peter MacNicol is an especially great addition as the oft-confused foreigner, Dr. Janosz Poha, who curates the art museum where the evil painting is being kept.
The first Ghostbusters movie is fantastic. It's legendary. But it shows its age quite a bit. Ghostbusters II may not be as iconic, but it holds up a little better. And although we don't feel as threatened by our villain, the threat is still very much there.
Twizard Rating: 87
We all know the theme song. Society has long been ingraining it into our heads since forever. And no matter where you stand on the Ray Parker Jr./Huey Lewis debate, we can all say that, when it comes to Ghostbusters, the good looks don't outweigh what's on the inside. The film, even today, is as fun a movie as ever. It's a microcosm of the era--perhaps not as much as Back to the Future was a year later, but in 1984, the decade was just about forming into itself.
The film follows a group of perverse scientists who have long been trying to uncover the world of the supernatural. After ominous events start happening and their radical ideas get them fired from the University which they work at, they form their own business as ghostbusters.
Even though it works, Dan Aykroyd is slightly underutilized here. He and Harold Ramis serve very little purpose as either straight man or top banana. But Bill Murray and Rick Moranis prove to play the funny guys well enough.
Murray was the king back then. He could say or do whatever he wanted without outshining any of his costars or commandeering a film. What he does so well is give the audience both broad and subtle humor, letting them chose for themselves. And he's at his best here. Moranis is phenomenal as well--although he doesn't get nearly enough screen time. He and Murray stay comedically brilliant without ever having to step on each other's toes.
It doesn't hold up quite as well as some of its contemporaries, but it gets better with every watch.
It can be slow intermittently, but that's just a sign of the times. Slightly dated, sure, but Ghostbusters still gets the job done.
Twizard Rating: 93
St. Vincent is a very enjoyable movie. It has its faults, but it's easy to like. It has a likable cast all around, and only seems flawed when you overanalyze it.
There is some wavering in the depth of Vincent, with his innate traits shifting ever so slightly throughout the movie. Not developing, but wavering. Where the director wants him to be a unpleasant, he's unpleasant. Where the director wants him to be desperate and lost, he's desperate and lost, but when he wants Vincent to be confident and responsible, he's confident and responsible. Maybe it says something about the depth of the character, but I personally think that it's a small flaw in the script. It's not enough to dock it a lot of points, but it offsets the overall tone of the film slightly.
But in the end you realize that this movie says more about the Oliver's empathy and ability to see beauty in the beast. He sees this and wants to share to everyone who Vincent is so that they see him like Oliver sees him. It's touching and sentimental, but a little manipulative on the director's part. But I suppose that any sort of complaining regarding this would be too nitpicky--even for me. All this stuff doesn't make the movie less-than-good, it just makes it not perfect.
The finale is when this film really draws you in and you have no choice to surrender your emotions towards this man who is being honored. Although he hasn't changed, you've changed and you learn to ultimately love him.
Overall, it satisfies our needs and succeeds at its goal of making us give those who are ugly on the outside the benefit of the doubt. It's a good movie.
Twizard Rating: 88
