Now your whole family can relive Disney's 'The Jungle Book', from Mowgli's point of view.Now your whole family can relive Disney's 'The Jungle Book', from Mowgli's point of view.Now your whole family can relive Disney's 'The Jungle Book', from Mowgli's point of view.
- Director
- Writers
- Stars
Sherman Howard
- Shere Khan
- (voice)
Clancy Brown
- Akela
- (voice)
Peri Gilpin
- Raksha
- (voice)
Wallace Shawn
- Tarzan Chimp
- (voice)
Stephen Tobolowsky
- Tabaqui
- (voice)
Eartha Kitt
- Bagheera
- (voice)
Kathy Najimy
- Chil
- (voice)
Brian Doyle-Murray
- Baloo
- (voice)
Marty Ingels
- Hathi
- (voice)
Fred Savage
- Narrator
- (voice)
Richard Kind
- Chimp 1
- (voice)
Catherine Lloyd Burns
- Chimp 2
- (voice)
Ken Hudson Campbell
- Wolf 1
- (voice)
- (as Ken Campbell)
Scott Menville
- Wolf 2
- (voice)
Quinton Flynn
- Wolf 3
- (voice)
- …
Kay E. Kuter
- Biranyi
- (voice)
- (as Kay Kuter)
- Director
- Writers
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Featured reviews
The Jungle Book: Mowgli's Story (1998) is a kind of sequel to the 1994 remake and it was garbage.
Positives for The Jungle Book: Mowgli's Story (1998): The movie is only 77 minutes long, so your pain and suffering will be short lived.
Negatives for The Jungle Book: Mowgli's Story (1998): The storytelling is very clunky. I was struggling to figure out what was the point of this movie. The animals talk, but they mouths don't move. I didn't understand anything what the characters were saying. And finally, the movie is really boring.
Overall, The Jungle Book: Mowgli's Story (1998) is a garbage ass movie to a great remake and I won't rewatch it anytime soon.
Positives for The Jungle Book: Mowgli's Story (1998): The movie is only 77 minutes long, so your pain and suffering will be short lived.
Negatives for The Jungle Book: Mowgli's Story (1998): The storytelling is very clunky. I was struggling to figure out what was the point of this movie. The animals talk, but they mouths don't move. I didn't understand anything what the characters were saying. And finally, the movie is really boring.
Overall, The Jungle Book: Mowgli's Story (1998) is a garbage ass movie to a great remake and I won't rewatch it anytime soon.
Colors = pretty; Animals = beautiful; Story = lame with insultingly-stupid-and unrealistic dialog; Acting = bad; Special-effects = the worst, just horrible.
In fact, about the latter: if you've seen the sci-fi movies of the 1950s, particularly Ed Wood's movies, you get an idea how bad this film is in that regard.
If you want details of exactly how hokey some of these scenes were, how cheaply-made this film was, then read several of the others viewers' comments here. I agree with them: this film is so poorly constructed, it was embarrassing to watch. I only viewed it because I was impressed with the 1994 version of "The Jungle Book," with Jason Scott Lee, and I remembered the only animated fondly, as well. I was hoping this would be entertaining, too. Well......wrong!!
In fact, about the latter: if you've seen the sci-fi movies of the 1950s, particularly Ed Wood's movies, you get an idea how bad this film is in that regard.
If you want details of exactly how hokey some of these scenes were, how cheaply-made this film was, then read several of the others viewers' comments here. I agree with them: this film is so poorly constructed, it was embarrassing to watch. I only viewed it because I was impressed with the 1994 version of "The Jungle Book," with Jason Scott Lee, and I remembered the only animated fondly, as well. I was hoping this would be entertaining, too. Well......wrong!!
I loved this movie as a little kid. I was about 7 years old when it came out on VHS. I did see some characters were missing in the movie and some stuff didn't make sense. I didn't see Kaa. 1. I was asking why wasn't Kaa in this movie? 2.Since when did Mowgli have a wolf sister (instead of a wolf brother)? 3. How was Mowgli the adopted son of the wolf-leader Akela? 4. How come they only had a 7 year old kid lost in the jungle being taken in by wolves and he is still wearing clothes-the next scene his pants are torn (which look like shorts), he carries some kind of knapsack-the other scene he still wears the same pants he wore when he was in the human camp and vest but doesn't wear the shirt (still wears the satchel). That one scene when Mowgli grows a little older, the part when he swings on a vine and sees a human who is in a military uniform (and he narrates he wondered about his past). Then after running away for blaming himself about his mother's death he gets curious when he sees a human camp with real pack of man. Wouldn't a 7 year old kid if they grow up in nature around 11-12 years know about their human past? :/ 5. When Mowgli is lured by the chimps they call it "monkey-town." Looks more like a zoo place instead of being in a ruined city. What was with that abandoned hut full of old things? Who lived in that place?
A retelling of the book from the kid's perspective. Which changes little, unsurprisingly. But it is not exactly the same as what we saw in the 1967 one.
This feels distinctly like it was perceived to be an easy way to make some more money off a property Disney already could use, and that had been profitable for them in the past. It isn't even the first live-action adaptation of the book. After all you just got to get animal wranglers to the location and that's it. It doesn't take CG. The human on-screen cast is minimal, though there are some extras. There's only one song, the very catchy and completely meaningless Monkey Time, which I'm sure drove some parents up a wall when this first came out, because their offspring wouldn't stop singing it. I appreciate that it sets up the danger of Shere Khan, as well as the fear of man's fire, almost immediately. We don't see those for a while in the original animated classic. He works with other species, somewhat like Scar. The film focuses on the threat the tiger poses to the man cub, and him learning how to hunt so that he is safer. Through this, they explore the coming of age themes of finding out where you belong, discovering who to trust and not making rash decisions.
This does manage you to get a lot of mileage out of some of the critters being cute and others being intimidating. Honestly, it would be so much better if not for the 90s children's film aspects. There's a near constant chatter - including the largely unnecessary narration, usually literally just spelling out what's plainly obvious from the visuals. I wouldn't rule out that it was a studio note, rather than always the plan. It never really stands still for very long, not trusting children to have a little more patience the way that the animated classic did, at least by today's standards. The puns are too plentiful, and so often they go for the most obvious one. Some of the voice cast is well chosen, and they do the best they can with what they're given. Considering how much of a boys club a bunch of these are, I do appreciate that Eartha Kitt (Catwoman herself!) lends her silky smooth vocals to Bagheera. I'm not sure I would claim that I thought Brandon Baker did that strong of a job, but considering his age and the script, he could be significantly worse. Certainly there's a sincere conviction to his performance. I mean, he spends a lot of this literally directly talking to creatures as if they understand him, and will answer, which of course they didn't on set. 4/10.
This feels distinctly like it was perceived to be an easy way to make some more money off a property Disney already could use, and that had been profitable for them in the past. It isn't even the first live-action adaptation of the book. After all you just got to get animal wranglers to the location and that's it. It doesn't take CG. The human on-screen cast is minimal, though there are some extras. There's only one song, the very catchy and completely meaningless Monkey Time, which I'm sure drove some parents up a wall when this first came out, because their offspring wouldn't stop singing it. I appreciate that it sets up the danger of Shere Khan, as well as the fear of man's fire, almost immediately. We don't see those for a while in the original animated classic. He works with other species, somewhat like Scar. The film focuses on the threat the tiger poses to the man cub, and him learning how to hunt so that he is safer. Through this, they explore the coming of age themes of finding out where you belong, discovering who to trust and not making rash decisions.
This does manage you to get a lot of mileage out of some of the critters being cute and others being intimidating. Honestly, it would be so much better if not for the 90s children's film aspects. There's a near constant chatter - including the largely unnecessary narration, usually literally just spelling out what's plainly obvious from the visuals. I wouldn't rule out that it was a studio note, rather than always the plan. It never really stands still for very long, not trusting children to have a little more patience the way that the animated classic did, at least by today's standards. The puns are too plentiful, and so often they go for the most obvious one. Some of the voice cast is well chosen, and they do the best they can with what they're given. Considering how much of a boys club a bunch of these are, I do appreciate that Eartha Kitt (Catwoman herself!) lends her silky smooth vocals to Bagheera. I'm not sure I would claim that I thought Brandon Baker did that strong of a job, but considering his age and the script, he could be significantly worse. Certainly there's a sincere conviction to his performance. I mean, he spends a lot of this literally directly talking to creatures as if they understand him, and will answer, which of course they didn't on set. 4/10.
'Twas the eve of before Christmas. I sat down by the open-fire and opened a box of sweets to share with my little sister (5). We turned on the the tv and on came Jungle Book: Mowgli's Story. Aww that Jungle Book - that's gotta be cute, right? Only 5 minutes into this film I was frozen in fear - not because it was scary, but because films could actually made this bad! Ham acting would be a compliment, it's way cheaper than that...maybe Spam acting. I was cringing in embarrassment for the actor who was forced to produce the WORST Irish accent EVER in motion picture history and cringing even more for the director, due to the fact such as film was now on his CV. I could sum this film up in 3 words - Cheap, cheap, cheap - but I won't, I'll use 5 - cheap, cheap, cheap, boring, pathetic. Even my 5 year old sister was begging me to change over to a documentary on grains of sand. 'nuff said!
(PS. I chose to comment on this movie in an effort to spare others from enduring the same punishment I received whilst viewing this "movie")
(PS. I chose to comment on this movie in an effort to spare others from enduring the same punishment I received whilst viewing this "movie")
Storyline
Did you know
- TriviaEartha Kitt (Bagheera) voiced more cat characters after this movie, which were The Emperor's New Groove (2000) and Wonder Pets! (2006).
- GoofsAkela, Raksha and other wolves are obviously dogs (Laika and Canaan Dog), not wolves.
- ConnectionsFeatured in Animation Lookback: Walt Disney Animation Studios +: Part 4 (2020)
Details
- Release date
- Country of origin
- Language
- Also known as
- Книга джунглів: Історія Мауглі
- Filming locations
- Production company
- See more company credits at IMDbPro
- Runtime1 hour 17 minutes
- Color
- Aspect ratio
- 1.33 : 1
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content