WasAnnon Slow pace in the most part of the movie.

Lightdeossk Captivating movie !

Plustown A lot of perfectly good film show their cards early, establish a unique premise and let the audience explore a topic at a leisurely pace, without much in terms of surprise. this film is not one of those films.

Joanna Mccarty Amazing worth wacthing. So good. Biased but well made with many good points.

invisibleunicornninja Animation - For some reason this cartoon manages to make every location seem like a small artificial set. Though the animation is decent, it doesn't look like a lot of effort was put in to make this movie look very three-dimensional. Or maybe it was and this is just down to this movie being old. If so, then it doesn't stand the test of time in this area. Plot - This movie, though entertaining has a lot of filler and plot holes. Still good though. Songs - This movie is a musical, and most of the songs are pretty good. Characters - The characters in this movie aren't very developed but at the same time they're kinda interesting.

breakdownthatfilm-blogspot-com Disney in general has made numerous films that are deeply layered with themes that first time viewers may not recognize. It's one of the reasons why Disney is so successful at making films. They also have their fair share of poor writing too but the entirety of them is not as voluminous as the ones many people remember and enjoy. Even with this though, Disney has also made films that weren't as richly textured and scaled up to a more complex level of understanding. That is not to say that the movies that are simpler are lower on an intellectual basis, no. Instead, they are just as influential if not more because of just how simple they are compared to Disney's other laminous movies. It would seem most of these particular types of films would go back to Disney's classical period of all their hand drawn animated features that everyone considers classics today. Of this group of films, the film that best represents the one note feature is this movie. It doesn't explore much other than one plot and that's fine.The movie is based off of the "Mowgli Stories" written by Rudyard Kipling. Audiences are introduced to Mowgli, an orphaned boy in the middle of the jungle who is found and observed by Bagheera the panther as he's raised by a wolf pack. After 10 years word gets out that Shere Khan the tiger is returning to kill Mowgli, so Bagheera decides to try and bring Mowgli back to the man village. The problem is, Mowgli won't go because he loves the jungle and all of his friends are there. Helping solidify his belief that the jungle is where he belongs is Baloo the bear. A lackadaisical beanbag that loves to just enjoy his surroundings. Adapted by the writers of Bambi (1942), Peter Pan (1953), Robin Hood (1973) and 101 Dalmatians (1960), it's obvious to why mostly everything about what goes on in this feature film is so amiable. The characters and the voice actors that play the characters are exceptionally fun and likable to watch on screen.Of the cast, the only one who is still living is Bruce Reitherman who voiced Mowlgi. At the time he was only 12 and his voice matches the look of Mowlgi well. Today Reitherman has filled other filmmaking positions but mostly has appeared as himself for various documentaries. Voicing Bagheera was Sebastian Cabot, who speaks from time to time but also narrates. Some might recognize him as the narrator to all the classic Whinnie the Pooh tales as well. Phil Harris as the lazy bear Baloo doesn't stray far from his natural voice but nonetheless has made Baloo one the more memorable characters from this period in the mouse house's filmography. Shere Khan the tiger played by George Sanders was amazing. Naturally the voice matches the presence of Khan and although he's the antagonist, there's a lot to like about him too. There's also appearances from Sterling Holloway as Kaa the snake, Louis Prima as King Louie of the Apes and J. Pat O'Malley as Colonel Hathi the Elephant.There's really only one thing that should be addressed and that's the fact of how sexism plays a small role. It's difficult to say without giving it away but there's a moment where it plays a turning point for a character. Fine, it's understandable but at the same time more than just one character could've played a part to help serve their purpose for the turning point. This was a different time when the movie was made but it seems a bit one sided. This is it though, the animation still has the Disney classic look to it and it's important to know that animating is a very time consuming task so kudos to those who worked on that part of the film. There are a number of other discrepancies that don't make sense like why is called the jungle book when it really doesn't have to do with a book except the intro. Or how is that Kaa can hypnotize his victims with his eyes so easily. At this point, these are questions that are just asking for too much, so it's not needed.The songs are also very catchy. With lyrics written by Richard M. Sherman and Robert M. Sherman, the same song writers from The Parent Trap (1961), The Sword in the Stone (1963) and Mary Poppins (1964), how could one not see why the songs in this film are so timeless. It's hard to find anybody who doesn't enjoy or at least tap a toe for "Bare Necessities", "I Wanna Be Like You" or "We're Your Friends". For the film score, George Bruns composed the music. Bruns also composed the film scores to 101 Dalmatians (1961), The Sword in the Stone (1963), The Love Bug (1968), Herbie Rides Again (1974) and Robin Hood (1973). For this feature, the music again calls back to the classic Disney sound of orchestras from that time. There are a lot of strings, trumpets and drums. Plus considering the setting is in the jungle, it suitably fits. If still works, then there's obviously no reason to knock it then.The writing is very simplistic and that is all the story needed. It does suffer from one apparent sin at a certain point in a story arc but the voice acting, animation and music make it difficult to really fault it at all.

lisafordeay The original Jungle Book is about a young boy named Mowgli who is reared by wolves and befriends a tiger called Baghara who protects him from Shere Khan who is out to get him. He later meets a bear named Baloo, a jazz loving bear who becomes friends with Mowgii and together they help each other out. So will Shere Khan get Mowgli?Overall this is pretty similar to the 2016 version which was spectacular the only difference is Baloo disguises himself as a monkey whereas in the new one he doesn't. The animated one is shorter than the live action one and Kaa is voiced by the same voice actor that gave us Winnie The Pooh,whereas in the new one its Scarlett Johanson. If you loved the new one then you will love this one.8/10

goolizap The Jungle Book is one of those movies that we seem to remember in glimpses. We know the musical numbers and all the characters, but unless we've seen it as an adult, we can't quite remember exactly what happens. But we know it's iconic. We know it's a Disney classic. However, this film may have benefited from being a tad bit longer. There are too many characters we'd love to see more of and so many chances to build up the depths of our leads.Although I do like this movie a great deal for nostalgia's sake, I wouldn't constitute it as one of Disney's best. The songs are top notch, and the characters are memorable, but it's missing a lot of heart compared to the studio's gems of the same era. When Mowgli leaves his wolf family at the beginning of the film, there is no heartfelt goodbye. These are the creatures who raised him, and he barely bats an eye as Bagheera leads him on his way to the "man village" to escape the tiger, Shere Khan, who's trying to kill him. And without giving anything away, there are also a couple of key scenes towards the end that should have given us a little more sentiment.Which leads me to the voice of Mowgli. The kid playing him has no feel or emotion. It sounds as though he's simply reading the lines (or having them read to him) straight off the paper. It's our main character, and his voice lacks any true conviction.Granted, this was released in 1967, a year that marks, for many, the beginning of Disney's "dark period". It's still a beloved movie, and rightfully so. It's filled with some iconic scenes. The one with King Louie, for example. It's so good, you wish you had been treated with just a few more glimpses of the antihero.It's the darker, more twisted, tone that drives this film the most between the catchy musical sequences. It encompasses the jungle-feel very precisely, and transcends through from Rudyard Kipling's original source material, despite Walt trying to prevent it. Everywhere Mowgli turns, there's someone out to kill him. I know it sounds like I'm berating this film a lot, but I actually love The Jungle Book. It's one that I watched often as a kid and one that still makes me smile as I watch it as an adult. Luckily, this film won't face many new critics as mostly everyone has seen it by the time they are old enough to care. That's one of the beautiful things about these old epitomes of animation.Twizard Rating: 90