Was it old age or nicotine frenzy?

Rating: Null/10 (22 April 2001)

"The Jungle Book" was the last film of any kind to have Walt's personal guidance and overall stamp on it. He was very specific on precisely what he wanted to do with it, and his notes and instructions on it were massive. Then just before it was finished, he died of lung cancer (he was a heavy smoker) and the rest of his staff was left with the painful task of completing it without him. Fortunately, they had all his notes he had left behind and bent over backwards to be sure it was exactly as he had envisioned.
Now I would very much love to say that the end result to all that talent, dedication and determination to stick to Walt's intentions was proved worth it in the resulting film, but I can't.
"The Jungle Book" is the weakest and most odious of all of Walt's animated features.
The plot is not exactly the best in the world (plot: Bagheera is taking Mowgli back to human civilization, that's it). The film is basically a string of animated music videos strung together on an extremely thin strand of plot, structurally making it the only animated movie in history to resemble Prince's "Purple Rain". Many have complained that it is really Disney's animated "Robin Hood" that is the weaker film because it has virtually no plot at all--and that is true in terms of the story, but at least "Robin Hood" had genuinely catchy songs from start to finish, boasts truly inspired character design and has memorable, likeable characters with fully-developed personalities and emotions. "Robin Hood" is considered a staple on TV and in the hearts of Disney fans everywhere for those very reasons, not to mention far more memorable. In sharp contrast, none of the characters in this version of "The Jungle Book" appeal very much--although, of course, Baloo is a lot of fun (Phil Harris is perfect for this role), and Bill Peet's idea of putting in a song called "Bear Necessities" was a stroke of genius, especially since it basically could have been fit in a stricter version of the story. Maybe if Peet (who was also responsible for the wonderful animated version of "101 Dalmations") had stayed on with the staff instead of leaving after Walt's upsetting him one time too many there would have been more of such moments. The fact that all the other characters are so cardboard is completely inexcusable considering the richness of the source material.
But the biggest and weirdest problem with this movie is how it thoroughly mangles the original classic and considers itself clever for doing so. It would normally be thought that the rest of the staff screwed things up after Walt's death, but no: Walt originally INTENDED the final result to be like this! According to the original artists who worked on it, he brought in Kipling's book and said, "Here's 'The Jungle Book'. The first thing I want you to do is to not read it."
Bizarre errors of judgement are present all over this film, weird and odd errors which a younger Walt would never have allowed in, say, a masterpiece like Pinocchio or Fantasia or Peter Pan. Even the animated "Sword in The Stone" can be excused from this fact because the original T. H. White books, which "Stone" was based on, were every bit as goofy as Walt's version. Was it old age or nicotine frenzy?
An excellent example of strange ideas inserted into the film getting more messed up than they originally were: the puzzling vultures with moptops and Liverpudlian accents. Disney had decided for some strange reason that they would originally be charicatures of The Beatles and was going to invite The Beatles themselves to voice them and perform a song for them (now believe me, it isn't The Beatles themselves I object to here--I adore them!). But at the very last minute, Walt decided to have the vultures sing like a barbershop quarter instead because he decided that The Beatles were merely a flash in the pan and wouldn't remain very popular for another year or two (THIS is "great genius"??!). Now while it can be argued that this was all Walt's opinion and that he had the right to correct what he felt was a mistake, it nevertheless begs the question: if Walt was so convinced that the old idea was a bad one in the first place, then WHY DID HE LEAVE IT IN AND MERELY EDIT IT INTO ONE THAT WORKED WORSE INSTEAD OF REMOVING THE WHOLE PORTION THE WAY HE WOULD HAVE IN THE PAST? The resulting scene, rather than being "corrected", is instead even more confusing and bewildering than it might have been in the first place. Walt's instincts must have really been exhausted for some reason or other... did Mary Poppins take that much out of him?
Judgement like this abounds all throughout "The Jungle Book", and while its soundtrack boasts gorgeously hypnotic orchestration and three thoroughly wonderful songs ("Bear Necessities", "I Wan'Na Be Like You" and especially "My Own Home"), the others are simply awful. (The most annoying one of all is the one from the previously-mentioned section, "That's What Friends Are For".)
The film as a whole moves on in a droning, sleepy pace, never once picking up its molasses-running speed. You keep hoping it will pick up, but it never does.
All of these points I've mentioned, and many more, have all been pointed out over and over again since its release by not just paid critics, but also by animation fans and especially Kipling admirers, who rightfully feel that this movie is an appalling travesty and a dreadful mockery to the original stories, but none of this criticism has affected its performance at the box office and as a home video release--in this respect it has been a shocking success.
I have no idea how pleasing this is in the long run, though: "The Jungle Book" remains the only Disney animated film I ever saw as a child which, on all three occasions when I saw it at different ages while growing up, bored me to the point of nearly putting me to sleep.