Film Review: Mowgli: Legend Of The Jungle

I really want to like Andy Serkis as a filmmaker. I try really hard. His debut film, Breathe, was a middling period drama that occasionally came to life when it leaned on old fashioned romance, but unfortunately gave way to disability narrative clichés. And here he is with his first big budget effort, Mowgli: Legend of the Jungle, which was originally intended to be distributed by Warner Brothers in late 2016 before being delayed, and later sold to Netflix. Serkis is clearly a gifted and passionate artist, which makes you feel bad when things don’t turn out quite right, and Mowgli is not an exception.

This particularly take on the Rudyard Kipling material is written by Callie Kloves, who sets things up in mostly familiar ways. Mowgli (Rohan Chand) is a “man-cub” raised by wolves, and is friends with the panther, Bagheera (Christian Bale), and the bear, Baloo (Andy Serkis). However, their lives are threatened by the tiger, Shere Khan (Benedict Cumberbatch), who wants to kill Mowgli and rule the jungle. You know the deal. At least, that’s what the filmmakers want you to think.

The film takes a very different direction to the material compared to the animated film and its 2016 remake. The tone is far harsher, the animals are dirtier and aggressive, there’s much more bloody violence, and the film simultaneously attempts to lean on the feel of the book while also confronting its colonialist subtext in some of the more thoughtful and compelling sequences in the movie.

The keyword in all this is “attempts.” The earnestness of the film in its ambitions is palpable, and there are several moments that are deeply effective and evocative. But like with Breathe, it just doesn’t all come together in a totally cohesive way. And that’s something you have to deal with only after you get past the strange choices in having the otherwise photorealistic having human hybrid faces that kinda-sorta match the actors playing them. I was able to get used to it after a point, but there’s always something in the back of my head telling me that something is off, and it’s always because of the effects. It’s also inconsistent. Sometimes, the film looks wonderful, other times, it looks like it needs a couple more passes.

If you can past the occasionally dodgy effects, the performance are solid enough, and at points, genuinely affecting. It’d take a lot of work to make accomplished actors like Christian Bale, Benedict Cumberbatch, Cate Blanchett, Naomie Harris, Jack Reynor, and Tom Hollander come across poorly, and the film largely avoids that. Even if they are often settled with doing broad performances that would’ve felt more in line with the Disney film than the more mature interpretation they’re going for. The relationship between Mowgli and Bagheera is the best aspect of the film, and the two characters play off each other really well. In other instances, Chand is stuck in moments where it’s obvious he’s acting against nothing, but he mostly carries himself well.

Adding to that “off” feeling is the way the film flows from scene to scene. There’s numerous odd and jarring edits, and I wouldn’t be surprised if that was something that came to be during that period between being delayed by WB and being sold to Netflix. There’s  number of underdeveloped plot threads, certain arcs feel only half-realized, especially one involving a white hunter staying at a local village, John Lockwood (Matthew Rhys). Ultimately, it’s hard to tell whether it’s studio interference or Serkis not being able to hold the weight of his ambitions, but there’s too much sloppiness to ignore.

Having said that, it’s not a dull movie. Serkis being mostly committed for this dark vision of the material leads to some strange choices. The violence is shocking, and appropriately animalistic. Serkis can create one hell of a creepy mood when he wants to, I’m still thinking about this bizarre moment where Mowgli is dragged by monkeys to their hideout, and it’s all in slow-mo, giving off glimpses of monkey debauchery in the peripherals. I think you even see two monkeys going at it? I honestly don’t remember if that’s precisely what I saw, but it definitely wouldn’t feel out of place. There’s even a moment in the final act that’s perhaps the most disturbing thing I’ve seen in a film aimed at a wide/mostly family audience.

This will sound like a terrible comparison, but the experience of watching Mowgli was somewhat like my experience with the recent Robin Hood (Mowgli is better, by the way). It’s got cool ideas, and a solid commitment to them, but for one reason or another, things never click. Mowgli has its moments, and while I find this far more interesting and engaging than the 2016 film, I recognize that this will ultimately be a hard sell for most. It’s a shame given how much work is put here by the filmmakers, but maybe it’s time we put this story to rest for a while.