The Jungle Book 2

“The Jungle Book 2,” released in 2003, is so thin and unsatisfying, that it looks like a direct-to-DVD sequel, not a theatrical release. Roger Ebert admitted, “Clocking in at 72 minutes and repeating the recycled song "The Bare Necessities" three if not four times, it offers a bare-bones plot in which Mowgli wanders off into the jungle, is threatened by a tiger and a snake, is protected by a bear, takes care of his little girlfriend, and sings and dances with Baloo.”

What is missing is the involvedness, in story or style, which we looked forward to in this golden age of animation. It’s a throwback where jungle animals of no depth or tone play with the protagonist or threaten him in not really frightening ways.

As the film starts, Mowgli (Ebert said, “who once, long ago and at another level of literacy, was the hero of stories by Rudyard Kipling”) lives in a village and is ordered to not cross the river. However, “you can take boy out of the jungle, but you can’t take the jungle out of boy,” we find out. Whoever wrote that line must have been homesick after a hard day’s work.

Mowgli (Haley Joel Osment) and his village girlfriend Shanti (Mae Whitman) do, however, go into the forest, where Mowgli’s old friend Baloo the Bear (John Goodman) is happy to see him, but is a little jealous of all the attention he is giving Shanti. Ebert suggested, “Maybe Baloo should discuss this problem with a counselor.” They dance and sing and peel mangos and then Mowgli and/or Shanti wander off alone to be threatened by Shere Khan (Tony Jay) and Kaa (Jim Cummings) (Ebert credited, “whose coils are cleverly animated”), and to be rescued by Baloo, with a reprise or two of “The Bare Necessities.” Only two years after Hayao Miyazaki’s best animated film “Spirited Away” (also a Disney release), parents have some sort of job to take a close look at the films in theaters. Ebert mentioned, “I got in an argument at Sundance with a Salt Lake City man who sells software that automatically censors DVDs in order to remove offending scenes and language. (Theoretically there could be a version of "Fight Club" suitable for grade-schoolers, although it would be very short.)” In these conditions, “The Jungle Book 2” is inoffensive and harmless.

However, this is not healthy. In this day-in-age, the average American child spends a good majority of his time watching television than talking with his parents, and movies like “The Jungle Book 2” are moronic baby-sitters, not educated moments. Ebert gave a good point when he mentioned, “If kids grow up on the movie equivalent of fast food, they will form an addiction to that instant action high and will never develop the attention span they need to love worthwhile fiction.”

Disney can do better, will do better, and usually does better. To release this film theatrically is a negotiation of its traditions and standards. Ebert advised, “If you have a child in the target age range, keep them at home, rent an animated classic or Miyazaki's great "My Neighbor Totoro" and do them a favor.”

Much like I had already stated yesterday when I gave the hint, this movie is a disgrace to the first movie. It falls in the same ballpark of painful direct-to-video Disney Sequels, like “Lady and the Tramp 2” and “Return to Neverland.” Avoid this movie at all cost because nothing in this movie can save the monstrosity that it has created and the grief it caused to many lovers of the first movie.

Check in tomorrow when I look at another direct-to-DVD sequel that was supposed to be a pilot to a cancelled animated series.