Lucybespro It is a performances centric movie

Allison Davies The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

Scarlet The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

Dana An old-fashioned movie made with new-fashioned finesse.

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.

Julia Arsenault (ja_kitty_71) Legendary animator Chuck Jones has brought another Jungle Book story to life after Rikki-Tikki Tavi and The White Seal, with excellent animation and story telling by Roddy McDowall and Dean Elliott's musical score. You know, the only adaptation of the "Mowgli" stories I had known is the Disney version, but I love both! including the version from Russia. But unlike Disney's version, Jones adhered to the original story, although Shere Khan becomes a white tiger and there is no reference to his lameness...of course I did not know the tiger was lame in the original stories. And also we got to see his spineless slave/henchman - the jackal Tabaqui (animated by veteran Jones' animator from the Warner Bros. years - Ben Washam), who didn't appeared in the Disney version; I love how made his appearance in the picture...what a grin.I love the little wolf babies, they're SO cute! I also love that bit a animation put into the scene when Rashka (Mother Wolf) told Shere Khan off.

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.