Trey Yancy This could have been a fantastic film except for the casting. Bill Murray is barely passable in the spoken parts but his singing is atrocious. It always has been this way, going all the way back to 1976. Everybody knows he can't sing. It totally ruins what was the number one song in the original Disney film. I had to watch the original all over again to wash Murray's off-key, lousily timed groans out of my ears. Scarlett Johansson is great at speaking in a dull monotone voice without any soul or expression. For her to be cast as a seductive enchantress is utterly ridiculous. There are dozens of actresses who could have knocked this out of the park. Terrible casting. Christopher Walken did an okay job with the speaking parts but this man, like Murray, has absolutely no sense of musical time, Again, a major casting mistake. As for Gary Shandling, he is a lousy voice actor. Dozens of actors could have done a far, far better job. If Disney had hired a casting director with any talent whatsoever, this could have been one of the best films of the decade. Again, there are a ton of great casting directors out there. Disney has no excuse. The producers have no excuse. I was very disappointed.

Leofwine_draca THE JUNGLE BOOK is one of a slew of live-action remakes of famous Walt Disney cartoons currently in production. I say live action, but this version has exactly one actor - the Indian-American kid playing Mowgli - and the rest is made up of CGI animals. Sadly, it's a massive misfire of a film, in which almost every element disappoints. Neel Sethi is a first-time performer and it shows, because it has no acting ability whatsoever and a single expression on his face (sullen, mildly puzzled) no matter what situation he finds himself in. The CGI animation for the creatures ranges from the decent (the adult wolves and panther look pretty good) to the poor, but the main problem with this is the incessant CGI action and limited storytelling ability. It reminded me a little of the STAR WARS prequels with the necessity of having CGI in EVERY single shot, but there's no weight behind it and no gravitas to the story. The tale's thrust seems to have been stolen from THE LION KING, of all things. As for the voice talent, it's occasionally decent (Bill Murray works), but Idris Elba is miscast as the bad guy and Scarlet Johansson sticks out like a sore thumb.

aleabodo This is what a good remake should look like. Not just that it has a new look with astonishing realistic CG but it also has an adapted storyline that varies from the original one but still very interesting.Really funny, music always at the right moment and fights very good composed.Definitely on my Top 7 of favorite movies

akhilsudhakaran Every time I got fascinated about this movie like everyone because of two reasons. The first one my jealousy of those people who experienced this film in theaters (especially in iMax) because I'm not able to watch this film on the silver screen. The second reason is the reason of everybody, that's the powerful use of visual treatment. Hollywood movies, as we knew are the great treasures of visual beauty and colorful treatment. But Jungle Book is far apart from those kind colorful productions from the early masterpieces like Matrix, Avatar and many more. It is something a vivid way of representation of the new technique collectively known as vfx or Visual Effects. I'm stunned with the maximum utilization of that technique to the utmost and I just went into the forest along with Mowgli (like another man-cab). It's been something a film not about the new technique which is used (as far as concern it is an old technique according to Hollywood movies) it sustain here, in my mind cause of the apt and correct use of visual effects and make the movie live to the audience. Apart from my applause to the Animation films ( because this is something closely connected to Animation films) it is a great and enormous visual treatment to any kind of film lovers (People who love any kind of films not concerning which genre it is).