As a masters student in animation, it pains me to watch this film. I loved the original storyline and the renditions told to me as a child but this is missing the essence of the story: the companionship between a man and animal, their adventures in the bush and how the underdog triumphs above all. The Jungle Book, done in 1967 achieves this far and beyond this movie. Story is king, the animation is bad but if the story was any good then they could have gotten away from it- an example of this being "Hoodwinkd".The character design and models are poor and unappealing and there so many supporting, useless characters, such as the rooster. The animation is floaty and cringe-worthy, none of the 10 principles seem to be taken into account which places this movie technically behind Snow White, done in 1937. Fitzgerald is possibly the most unappealing animated character I have ever seen, worse than Gurgi in the Black Cauldron. The pitiful voice acting makes me sad, for something that is so 'proudly South African', they literally chose every other accent to be the voices of the characters (including a put-on French accent??).The sad thing is that the emphasis of this production is completely wrong: hair, fabric and other simulations should be the last added extras, and redoing the whole film because Stereoscopic films were starting to become trendy is a terrible waste of money and time.To say "but my kids enjoyed it" is a sad excuse for this film, they probably enjoyed the TV-watching experience more than anything else and with so many fantastic 3D animated features done before this production even began (The Incredibles, Finding Nemo, Ratatouille), there are far better things to take your kids to see where you don't have to suffer through in the process.The creators say that the success of this movie depended on the distribution and marketing of the film, which was difficult coming from SA and out of their hands but the real reason why this movie failed was due to the lack of skill, reference and focus. For how could they have taken the most loved South African classic and failed so badly?

This was the worst movie that I have seen in 2011, how could this movie be named "Jock". Not only is the animation totally crap but the story is completely different from the novel. This novel is based on a true story and even the 1992 movie was closer to the truth than this movie. I was totally disappointed at this movie that starred the voices of people like Donald Sutherland, Helen Hunt and Arch Bishop Desmond Tutu. The best version of this movie is a South African production that was made in the 80's, based most accurately on the true story. Please find the novel and read it to see the real story, this is one of the best South African legends written.

Funny, especially a monkey named Basil and a rooster like friend of Jock's. This storyline is more for adults. The narrator of the story sounds really old with a not so good voice.A lot of cruelty in the story, death of dogs mother, fighting between animals and George a very mean gorilla who takes orders from his-"master" who owns a store. Most characters are mean and aggressive, too much like real life.The animation is great and goes really well with the singing and dancing of the characters. The music and singing is great too, especially an act by Basil the monkey who used to work in a club with George the gorilla who played the piano.I found some scenes hard to understand at times with conversations going on in the background and other characters talking. The story has a good ending. Story tells of doing the right thing under difficult circumstances. It uses animals and people in different times of their lives. The writers do this with Jock and his owner who is honest, hard working and upstanding in character.

JOCK (2.4/10) Horrible, amateurish animation makes this a major disappointment. The animation looks like the cut scene animation from an elderly computer game, and any subtlety of lighting or background animation is nearly entirely absent. The motion is often jittery and jerky, and the facial animation of characters can be called basic, to be charitable. The direction of the voice acting often misfires as well, letting down the pace of the story. The story is aimed to be young audience friendly, but it lacks any real emotional involvement with its characters, and the funny bits are, well, not very funny, so little ones are likely to get antsy. As for adults, it is barely survivable. The lyrics are surprisingly bad, coming as they do from Tim Rice, and the songs are just average at best, seeming like first draft efforts that should have been rejected. Come to think of it, the whole film feels like a rough draft, with the voice actors reading through their lines while looking at unfinished animation. The life lessons are suspect as well: we are told that Jock has a big heart, but in almost every situation he finds himself in, he survives because of luck, or the actions of another character, not because of his determination or courage. This has to be one of the biggest letdowns in South African film history, and must have set back the reputation of its film industry globally, which is a grave disservice to the many talented people who do work in the South African film industry. There is no excuse for making a movie this lazy and sloppy other than either arrogance or greed: this level of ineptitude cannot be explained in any other way. Only the ghost of the source material occasionally shining through, and the fact that animals are generally cute saved this from being a 1, but that is no credit to the filmmakers.