Mowgli: Legend of the Jungle is to The Jungle Book what La La Land is to Moonlight. Warner Bros. may have delayed Mowgli’s 2016, release date, changed its name and handed the title off to Netflix, but the movie still lives in the shadow of Jon Favreau’s masterful 2016 interpretation.

Mowgli, by director Andy Serkis is without question, the lesser Jungle Book film, but that doesn’t mean it lacks merit. Serkis strives for a darker and grittier re-imagining that may appeal to viewers outside of Disney’s primary school demographic.

Human pipe-cleaner Rohan Chand plays Mowgli, the picture’s eponymous hero. He was orphaned as a baby after a tiger named Shere Khan (Benedict Cumberbatch) eats his family. Cumberbatch doesn’t hold back on the villainous intonations, delivering lines that ooze out of Shere Khan’s mouth like wet gravel. He’s terrifying. A pack of wolves reluctantly take Mowgli in and raise him as there own, and as he grows up, he forms friendships with the animals in the jungle.

Years later, Shere Khan returns with a hankering for some Mowgli meat. After devouring the child’s parents, he gained a taste for human blood. Shere Khan’s reckless behaviour (hunting human’s animal property) throws the order of the jungle out of whack and disrupts his pack’s hierarchy. With the pressure on, Mowgli must prove himself as a skilled pack member or get cast out while a deadly predator hunts him down.

This isn’t the Jungle Book story you think you know. The Jungle Book has lived in pop culture for over 100 years. The series began life as a collection of Rudyard Kipling stories in 1894. But it was Disney’s beloved 1967 animated film that entrenched these characters in the minds of many generations. The characters lived on in TV series, video games, and most recently, Favreau’s 2016 adaptation. When one thinks of The Jungle Book, it’s the beloved characters, musical numbers, and family-friendly vibe that comes to mind. And these elements are what separates Serkis’ version from the pack. This adaptation isn’t just darker, it will scare young kids.

Mowgli embraces the jungle’s most primal law: kill or be killed. And on top of that, many of the visuals are horrifying. The animals aren’t cutesy animated caricatures, they look like ferocious beasts – the hyena is creepy enough to star in a J-horror flick. During fights, they bite, chew, and tear at each other’s flesh, leaving behind crimson wounds. Parts of Mowgli play out like the moments on Animal Planet when you cover your kid’s eyes, lest they see a lion turn a gazelle’s throat into spaghetti. And if the violence wasn’t bad enough, the film’s motion capture incorporates elements of the cast’s faces. There’s an intense uncanny valley effect when you realize you’re looking at Peter Mullan’s eyes on a wolf’s face.

The best part of Mowgli is the fully-realized setting. The jungle looks lush, beautifully lit, and full of life. And DP Michael Seresin finds compelling ways to frame the action. I loved the way scenes teemed with life, whether it’s fish darting below the surface of a pond or the mosquitos that whiz through the frame. Quality-wise, the larger animals look inconsistent, but impressive overall. Again, it’s tough not to judge them against Favreau’s creations, but they still hold their own.

Mowgli exists in a strange tonal no man’s land. It’s dark enough to scare young children but too shallow to appease older viewers. None of the character’s pop and the story plods ahead without eliciting much emotional investment. You would almost think this movie strives to be unexceptional. How else do you waste Matthew Rhys and have Freida Pinto star in a glorified cameo?

Mowgli: Legend of the Jungle is a middle-of-the-road movie that would be tough to recommend in an alternate reality where Favreau’s version didn’t exist. While the film tells a time-honoured tale and packs solid effects work, it lacks “the bare necessities” to win over our hearts.