This is a rather amazing production for 1942. The lavish sets, costumes and full-color are quite amazing for the time--especially considering it was made during one of the darkest years of WWII. So, instead of the typical black & white propaganda film, here we have pure escapism.
Now if you are looking for the Disney version of the Kipling story, you'll no doubt be disappointed. Aside from names and a few plot elements, the story really bears little in common with the 1967 film. Unlike the cartoon, this film does address how Mowgli becomes stranded in the jungle as an infant plus about 80% of the film consists of Mowgli's life AFTER returning to the village where he was born. And, also unlike the Disney film, humans are pretty greedy and awful in this film. In fact, instead of the tiger, Shere Khan, trying to kill Mowgli, the plot mostly has to do with a jungle treasure and the terrible lengths greed drives men to have it. By the end of the film, Mowgli is sick of the humans and their wicked ways--and leaves to live in his beloved jungle once again--quite the opposite of the Disney story.
Aside from very nice production values, there is a lot to admire about the film. The story is rather timeless and has some depth to it due to its examination of human nature. The only serious negative is the same negative you'd have with all adventure films of this era--no one in the film is actually Indian other than Sabu! Remember, this was the time of Charlie Chan (played originally by a Swede) and actors such as Errol Flynn and Katherine Hepburn playing Asians!! Here, such reliable Hollywood actors as John Qualen and Joseph Calleia play Indians! It's all rather laughable, though perhaps it was tough finding Indian actors at the time (especially with India in the thick of things in the war). Still, it's all very forgivable considering that it's otherwise a quality production from start to finish.
Now if you are looking for the Disney version of the Kipling story, you'll no doubt be disappointed. Aside from names and a few plot elements, the story really bears little in common with the 1967 film. Unlike the cartoon, this film does address how Mowgli becomes stranded in the jungle as an infant plus about 80% of the film consists of Mowgli's life AFTER returning to the village where he was born. And, also unlike the Disney film, humans are pretty greedy and awful in this film. In fact, instead of the tiger, Shere Khan, trying to kill Mowgli, the plot mostly has to do with a jungle treasure and the terrible lengths greed drives men to have it. By the end of the film, Mowgli is sick of the humans and their wicked ways--and leaves to live in his beloved jungle once again--quite the opposite of the Disney story.
Aside from very nice production values, there is a lot to admire about the film. The story is rather timeless and has some depth to it due to its examination of human nature. The only serious negative is the same negative you'd have with all adventure films of this era--no one in the film is actually Indian other than Sabu! Remember, this was the time of Charlie Chan (played originally by a Swede) and actors such as Errol Flynn and Katherine Hepburn playing Asians!! Here, such reliable Hollywood actors as John Qualen and Joseph Calleia play Indians! It's all rather laughable, though perhaps it was tough finding Indian actors at the time (especially with India in the thick of things in the war). Still, it's all very forgivable considering that it's otherwise a quality production from start to finish.