Horst in Translation (filmreviews@web.de)
"Mowgli's Brothers" is an American short film from 40 years ago and the third and final entry to Chuck Jones Rudyard Kipling trilogy. And he goes out on a high note. It is almost impossible to include the complex Jungle Book story in under 24 minutes, but Jones' approach is probably as good as it gets. Mowgli leaving everybody to live with men in the end comes a bit out of nowhere perhaps, but I have seen that storyline elaborated disappointingly on also in 100-minute movies. A difficult subject. Anyway, all before that worked pretty nicely. The animation is good and Jones' talent had gone nowhere even if the Golden Age of Animation was long over. He also got help once more from his longtime collaborator, voice actress June Foray, who is still alive today at almost 100. The characters are interesting, but also here some major characters are missing or lack screen time, most of all Kaa for example. The only thing I did not like was that Mowgli was voiced by Roddy McDowall here. He is fine as the narrator, but I have no idea why they let a grown man voice a little boy here. Yep, Mowgli does not grow up in this one and that's a major difference for example compared to the Soviet version of the tale. As a whole, this is an enjoyable watch and I recommend it.
gizmomogwai
You can point to Mowgli's Brothers (1976) and say what's oft been said: No one animates 'em, writes music, or entertains a general audience, better than Disney. Mowgli's Brothers is an animated short coming only nine years after Walt Disney's last film, The Jungle Book (1967), came out to wild acclaim. I've now seen it on the Diamond Edition Blu- ray, and it looks spectacular. This short is produced by another cartoon legend, Chuck Jones (Looney Tunes, How the Grinch Stole Christmas), but the quality of the animation pales in comparison. Looking at The Grinch, you know Jones can do better than this.The story and writing are the key strength of Mowgli's Brothers, and some will say it's here where Jones succeeded in following Rudyard Kipling more closely (indeed, I recognized some of the dialogue from Kipling's writings, including the mother wolf taking much delight in baby Mowgli's nudity for whatever reason). This is poetic, and the politics of the wolf pack more complex. It's also more interesting to see the wolves in a more cynical light (unlike the cute doggies from Disney's version), and good to see Mowgli put them in their place at the end. But say what you like about Disney's changes, the stories are basically the same, and the different, easygoing tone in the 1967 film's writing has its own charm.
Stebaer4
Interesting not only to see how uncanny the Mowgli & Shere Kahn are to the ones in Disney's original adaptation of The Jungle Book but even how Shere Kahn was seen but took a back seat.The wolves look nothing like the ones in Disney's Jungle book & have an even bigger spotlight in this feature as well as that we actually get to see Mowgli grow to manhood & prepare to leave wolfdom behind.Roddy McDowall's voice doing the narration is very impressive as he is in any acting he's done in movie's & TV show's too. But all in all any time when I think of this I recall the 2 nights on which I'd seen it as a Middle School kid.Truthfully,Stephen "Steve" G. Baer a.k.a. "Ste".
lee10538
Kipling purists might quibble over the fact that Shere Khan becomes a white tiger and regains the use of his bad leg, or the fact that some of the animal characters look as if they belong in one of Jones's Road Runner cartoons. On the other hand, this is the only adaptation from the Mowgli stories that actually sticks closely to Kipling's original plot and dialogue. So if you want to see where Disney got it wrong, this 25-minute film is definitely worth checking out.
AD
