serge_elia

I've just recently discovered this made-for-TV movie that is based on the true case of Michele MacNeill, who was murdered by her own husband, a fraud and a psychotic womanizer, in 2007.

There's no denying it's not the best crime thriller I've ever seen, but it compensates with being just as tense and gripping as any other crime film, what with its bone-chilling moments that keep you at the edge of your seat, amazing performances (whether it's the desperate daughter or the psychotic father), emotional moments and the like.

In short: not the best, but I loved it nonetheless. A must-watch, IMHO.

I've never watched the original series, but after seeing this picture, I'm very much encouraged to go see it.

I mean, this movie is really gripping and highly entertaining, with a great storyline despite some plotholes, some very tense and often scary moments, and especially amazing performances that give way to some likeable characters - particularly Idris Elba as the brilliant and troubled title character - and others not so much, such as Andy Serkis in what I find one of his scariest performances to date.

It does have plotholes from time to time, but still it's a must-watch crime thriller film.

The story is predictable and not engaging; the numerous plot twists found throughout this film are just lame, incoherent and incomprehensible; and Jennifer Lopez showed us yet another of those damsels in distress who scream too much before ending up becoming badass.

But luckily, it compensates with being very funny, mocking some of the usual rom-com/action clichés and having some good (if not great) performances, especially that of Jennifer Coolidge as the groom's mother, who was just hilarious.

So overall, it's a decent movie, not horrible nor good. I had fun watching it, but not to rewatch it.

Andy Serkis' Mowgli was announced prior to Jon Favreau's The Jungle Book, and it is said to be much darker and much more faithful to the Rudyard Kipling original stories. However, I still stand on this: the Favreau film was also dark (with its terrifying portrayal of Shere Khan, brilliantly voiced by Idris Elba), and was also faithful to the books. Anyway, I waited for the Serkis film with anticipation, and when I watched it today on Netflix, I say this: I loved it, but some parts were disappointing. What is great and what is unsatisfactory?

• What is unsatisfactory: I felt that I was rewatching the Favreau film. I'm not kidding: I felt that this movie was a copy-paste remake of the... remake! With the *exact same* elements: Bagheera finds Mowgli (BTW, it should be "Mowgli" as in "now" and not "no") abandoned in the jungle after Shere Khan kills the boy's mother, and then entrusts our hero to the wolves; at one point, the panther tells Mowgli that he must go to the man-village, since "the jungle is no longer safe for him", all due to Shere Khan's growing threat. Got any Disney flashback, anyone?

Also, while Benedict Cumberbatch as Shere Khan is definitely scary, he still doesn't match Idris Elba's portrayal of the character - Serkis did describe the character as "a damaged individual", but Elba's portrayal is in my opinion MENTALLY DERANGED. I did not like Serkis as Baloo nor Tom Hollander as Tabaqui the hyena (interesting, since I thought the character was a jackal in the Kipling stories), the both being just over-the-top. Additionally, the scenes with Freida Pinto as Mowgli's adoptive human mother are great; however, the character was mostly silent throughout the movie, and there wasn't a lot of relationship between her and Mowgli. Instead, the film focused on the greedy British hunter, played by Matthew Rhys, who was way stereotyped and clichéd in my opinion. Last but not least, the biggest flaw was probably the visual effects. While still impressive visually, the movie did not show entirely realistic animals, unlike the Favreau film, which nailed it with its far more astonishing CGI.

• What is great: the action scenes are top-notch and scary, not to mention ungodly realistic (with lots of shots showing blood), the plot is indeed far more faithful to the Kipling books than any of the Disney adaptations, the cast is talented, especially Cate Blanchett as Kaa, the most frightening character of them all. But the ultimate best character is definitely Rohan Chand as Mowgli: his role was much more difficult than Neel Sethi in the Favreau film, and yet he nailed it with his performance; as a result, we get to see a true feral child from the jungle, with the conflict he is going through (wondering where he belongs). Also, the way he discovers and interacts with the humans is hypnotizing.

So, on the whole, Mowgli: Legend of the Jungle is a good film, really fun and entertaining, with amazing moments that capture the essence of the source material, and a talented cast, though not without its flaws.

This movie is indeed an improvement, way better than the original. Very creepy and dark, scary not only for children but also adults like myself, a legit Disney horror movie. However, this whole picture, except for the main character, is CGI – all of the animals, with no exceptions, right to the jungle itself. They were not real, but they look so realistic that you can't help but live the illusion. It was animated in a way it would put AVATAR to shame, it's beautiful, never lacking of wonder and a sense of dangerous adventure. Moreover, it received acclaim for its story and characters. Let's talk about those characters:

– The hero, Mowgli, the young human boy raised by wolves – or rather the "man-cub" as he's called –, is portrayed by newcomer Neel Sethi. For me, Mowgli is the best character in this movie, because Sethi's acting was superb, he knew how to act with things that were not there, and was not at a loss like most child actors are; on the contrary, he was acting confidently. Basically, he's a little boy playing a little boy trying to find his place. And that is the main focus of this movie: a story of self-discovery, in which a feral child searches for his identity, and tries to survive in a hostile environment. He is confident and curious, exploring his surroundings with confidence and unease alike; he can be stubborn, but never so as to be whiny, unlike his animated counterpart who was so annoying with his stubbornness that I never cared for him. Sethi as Mowgli wants to live in the jungle, his true home, but still he knows the dangers of the green hell, especially Shere Khan. Hence, in every minute, I cared for Mowgli and felt empathy for him; and needless to say, I was always at his side whenever he was in danger.

– The antagonist, Shere Khan, is voiced by Idris Elba. While he is not the best character in the movie (that distinction goes to Mowgli), he is still the best animal character. Elba voiced the embodiment of pure evil, a big cat with a deep, bone-chilling voice to match his disturbing looks. He voiced him with a thick Cockney accent that can scare the living sh** out of you, with a deep voice that constantly goes from low, gentle whispers to loud, blood-curling screams, mixed up with real tiger growls. It was the first time I saw an actual scary Disney villain, by far scarier than most of the animated villains – believe it or not, I dare even say he is one of the scariest villains of all time, both Disney and non-Disney! This ferocious feline is an improvement upon the original because we saw a lot of him in the movie – and in that way, I understood why he's considered to be the biggest threat to Mowgli's life. Plus, I remember being furious at him for being so mentally deranged, showing his inflammable hate for Man that he clearly shows no tolerance to Mowgli and no will to let him live, and hence I never wanted him to win. But I was still terrified of him for allowing his desire of killing the boy to turn into an obsession. To make the story short, Idris Elba as Shere Khan is ungodly creepy and scary, frightening and terrifying no matter what he does.

– As for the side characters: Bill Murray as Baloo is hilarious, lovable and caring for Mowgli, much like the original, but sadly I hated him for being most of the time self-interested, something his animated counterpart was not. Scarlett Johansson as Kaa was more frightening and manipulative than her animated counterpart (the fact of changing the character's gender is innovative, mostly because the animated film lacked female characters, and also because the giant constrictors we fear are actually females), but she sadly had only one scene. And I have mixed feelings about Christopher Walken as King Louie – from the trailer, I never appreciated him, though he can be creepy. On the other hand, Bagheera is brilliantly portrayed by Ben Kingsley, since he's shown to be more tolerant and open-minded, and less whiny than the original. The same thing is said about Giancarlo Esposito as Akela. But the best of the side characters is definitely Lupita Nyong'o as Raksha, the caring and loyal mother to her cubs.

Like all great films, the 2016 JUNGLE BOOK certainly has its good sides as well as its flaws. Here's the thing: all those who loved it (me included) couldn't help but point out its flaws, and all those who hated it had enjoyed some of its moments! But nevertheless, the Favreau film is an improvement, especially in its story. Of course, it is a remake of the 1967 movie, but not a copy-paste remake like the recent BEAUTY AND THE BEAST. On the contrary, it was faithful to both the animated film and the Rudyard Kipling books, while at the same time, it was telling its own story, mostly focusing on the conflict the main character is going through as well as the menacing villain. And because of that, it can be considered as a true JUNGLE BOOK adaptation – I daresay, it's the best JUNGLE BOOK film to date! Of course, it isn't perfect in comparison with the book, but it still has its elements. For example: the animals call themselves "People", recite the Law of the Jungle and come together in a Water Truce proclaimed by the Peace Rock; they have their own language, for they call fire "the Red Flower", and see elephants as the creators of the jungle, very much like the books. But again, it isn't the perfect adaptation – the upcoming Andy Serkis version appears to have that distinction. Still, the Favreau movie wins.