The animation uses many of the design elements from the original film and incorporates some nice computer generated imagery as well. It's a bit surprising that folks expect the voices of the original actors. The original Jungle Book was released in 1967 (if memory serves) and all the original actors have been dead for quite some time.

The voice casting for the sequel is quite good. Haley Joel Osmond (A.I., The Sixth Sense)makes a fine Mowogli and John Goodman as Baloo captures his character perfectly without imitating the late Phil Harris. Equally good are Jim Cummings (in dual roles as both Col Hathi and the snake...whose name escapes me at the moment. Cummings also is the present day voice for Winnie The Pooh). Bob Joles manages to recall Sebastian Cabot in his portrayal of Bagheera. It's a pity his character isn't more central to the story like in the original. Phil Collins steps in as Lucky a new Vulture to torture Sheer Khan with bad puns, jokes and timing. It's ironic that Collins plays the role as the quartet of vultures from the original film were caricatures of The Beatles.

The script is both witty and the pacing swift. Children won't get bored and, yes, adults just might be entertained. Jungle Book 2 isn't a sequel as much of an update of the original film with more contemporary references. The conflict is once again between Mowgli and Shere Khan; Shere Kahn has returned to the jungle looking for revenge against the man cub. Baloo (brilliantly played by John Goodman)is bored out of his mind and rushes out to find Mowgoli again as he misses his buddy. Mowogli takes to the jungle again with Baloo when Shanti (the little girl who tempted Mowogli into the man village in the first place)alerts the town to Baloo's presence. She believes Baloo to be a dangerous wild animal. At the same time Shere Kahn has entered the village looking for Mowogli and is attacked by the villagers who believe he is the wild animal Shanti alerted them to.

Shanti, feeling guilty for her treatment of her best friend Mowogli, goes in search of Mowogli. In the process, she becomes lost in the jungle but proves she's every bit as tough as Mowogli. The film rushes to a showdown between Shere Kahn, Baloo Mowogli and Shanti in the city of ruins.

The songs are engaging (and, yes, a number of classic songs turn up again slightly jazzed up for modern audiences. These classics manage to retain their flair and charm despite the passage of 35 years). The fluid animation, acting and witty script are not captured very well in the trailer that played late last year and early this year. The Jungle Book 2 is every bit a worthy sequel to the original. While it doesn't quite live up to the original film's spectacle and songs, it recaptures much of the fun of the first film without pandering to its audience.

My children were captivated by the film and I found it enjoyable as well. I have to admit I had my doubts but this fine production quickly won me over. It's definitely worth a visit to the theater to catch.


OK, another sequel by Disney   February 15, 2003
 17 out of 20 found this review helpful

When I wrote these lines, there were 4 reviews on Amazon.com. None of the reviewers seemed to have seen the movie. - Well, I have seen it with my 2 1/2 year old son. I also know Disney's first Jungle Book movie. Now here is what I think:

This movie is fine for kids. They will have fun. There are no scenes that I think are too scary for small children. My son was doing fine. He enjoyed the song and dance scenes a lot and I think this is why most people like the first movie. Since the "Bear Necessities" is such a great song, it is played about three times (make your own thoughts about that). So, if you want your kids to have a good day at the movies, send them to this one.

From an adult point of view I must say that the story is not very exciting. Don't forget, this is a Disney sequel again. Disney used to release their sequels only on video and DVD (e.g. Pocahontas 2, Arielle 2, etc.). But lately they think that they should show them in movie theaters. It's too bad that Disney tries to warm up successful stories. If you don't have kids that you want to take to the movies, don't watch this one unless you go into the theater not expecting too much. The movie is not bad but it's just not as great as the guys at Disney think it should be.

My top 3 Disney animated movies are:
1. Aladdin (just fabulous!!!!!)
2. The Beauty and the Beast
3. The Little Mermaid
(This list does not include the computer animated movies, of course.)


'Jungle Book 2' DVD (Walt Disney Studios)   November 2, 2004
 14 out of 15 found this review helpful

Can the Walt Disney people still assemble a good animated movie or what?I've just recently even become aware of this sequel to the 1967(was it?)original.Well,THAT movie will always have a special place in my heart as I remember seeing it when it first came out when I was,like ten.The 'Jungle Book 2',I thought had a real good storyline and production.Most of the beloved jungle characters return here,like Baloo,Bagheera,Kaa,Sonny(the baby elephant),Shere Khan and the two vultures(did they even have names?).The animation is(as always,of course)top rate.My two favorite scenes were where Mowgli and Baloo step over to King Louie's temple to join everyone else for a memorable dance number while there were animals strutting their stuff on EVERY square inch of the temple's foundation and the dramatic/eerie scene where Mowgli,the girl and Baloo try to draw Shere Khan away by secretly banging on the temple's ancient gongs and the tiger ends up being trapped...(you'd have to see the movie yourself).Their remake of "The Bare Necessities" was good.A movie that the whole family could enjoy on especially a rainy night.By the way,whatever happened to King Louie?


I can't believe this.   December 9, 2002
 9 out of 34 found this review helpful

I can't believe Disney had the gall to do this. I am judging the concept only, as I have not seen the movie (I don't even think it's ouy yet). This won't even SOUND similar to the first! Just look at those big names for the voiceovers. I'm sorry, but I really don't think John Goodman can fill Phil Harris' shoes when it comes to the voice of Baloo.
There actually was a second jungle book by Rudyard Kipling, but judging by what I see on the promotional poster, this will have nothing to do with it. I liked the original Jungle Book movie by Disney, even though it was not faithful to Kipling's tales (which are beyond compare). Disney's lust for money from sequels is just going too far.


It is not the original, but still good.   February 17, 2003
 8 out of 14 found this review helpful

I had very low expectations for this movie. I was very disappointed in Return to Neverland, more disappointed with Lilo and Stitch, and didn't even bother seeing Treasure Planet (I noticed that I wasn't alone.) When I heard Disney was remaking one of my favorite classics, I thought "Oh, no!" But we went.

1. The first thing I noticed was the animation. It looked like the original. No, it isn't beautiful and it doesn't look like the stuff we are used to now, but it looks like the Disney stuff from the Classic era. Therefore Baloo looks like Baloo, Mowgli, Kaa, etc. look like they did before. I am glad they didn't try to re-draw them. When they do put in more modern stuff, you really notice it and it is sort of distracting. (Check out the log in the river and the waterfall.)

2. Next, the voices. I actually thought this Mowgli (Osment) was better than the original. If you really listen to the original, Mowgli isn't too great an actor. Just the director's kid who they stuck in because they needed a kid's voice. Shere-Khan, Kaa, Bagiera, the Elephant Patrol, etc.--I thought the voices were GREAT. Unfortunately, the one I thought I would like the most, I liked the least. John Goodman. It sounded like the jazzy, Baloo, went south. He traded in his jazz for zydeco. Close, but too much southern-drawl accent. If they wanted to go this route, even Harry Connick, Jr. would have been better, at least he would have been a little jazzy.

3. Music Not enough. Man, do we all miss Howard Ashman. The background stuff IS good. Nice trumpets, jazz sound. The songs were more like top 40, though. The King Louie stuff isn't even close to Louie Prima, so don't expect it. Here, they kinda rip off "I just can't wait to be king" from Lion King--minus the quality of the music. Still, at least they had some original (i.e. new) music.

4. Characters. What is the deal with this baby character? Did they really need a side-kick this bad? They should have skipped him completely. My 4-year olds laughed at him here and there, but he should have been cut. The vultures, the elephants, Kaa, Shere-Khan have no musical numbers. What a shame. Their voices were good and their characters could have been better with a song or two. (Provided they were decent songs.) I never read Kiplings version, so I don't know if it follows the book. I know that Walt Disney told the original writers to forget about Kipling in the original, so I imagine this doesn't follow the book either. So what. It is Disney--do any of them follow the original stories too well?

4. Last word (if you are still bothering to read this) No, it isn't the original. I know it is probably just a money-making venture for Disney to re-do this and cash in on all the parents nostalgia. But, I will continue to pay for (and enjoy mostly) the newer kids stuff. If they see how much money they can make on a mediocre movie, maybe it will entice them to make more great ones to make even more money. I hope so. In the meantime, seeing this remake is a lot like going to a class reunion--you will be happy to see your old friends again, but things won't be quite the same. Still, I wouldn't have missed it.