Last week, I went out to lunch with some coworkers. It was a Monday, so we had just come off of a weekend, and the talk of movies came up.

My boss asked me if I had seen The Jungle Book. After I had told him yes, he quickly responded with “Wow, wasn’t that great!?”

Great? As my eyebrow raised in confusion and our conversation continued, I realized that I was the only one in the group who had seen the film that didn’t like it. After going home to check to see how other critics responded, I began to see that I was a part of a very small minority of people who didn’t like Disney’s new live action adaptation of the original 1967 cartoon.

So why didn’t I like it?

By all accounts, there is a lot to admire about the film. It has a spectacular cast, who all perform their lines admirably and are able to portray a full range of emotion through their voice acting. While I loved the originals smarmy, cool Shere Kan, played by the late George Sanders, Idris Elba knocks the performance out of the park by portrayed a truly terrifying tiger antagonist. He is mincing, he is imposing, and he is the best thing about the film for me.

My problem with this film is it doesn’t know what it wants to be. Disney, as well as most of the film industry as of late, is obsessed with retelling stories with a darker, more “adult” tone. And considering the dark nature of the original Rudyard Kipling story, this could have worked incredibly well. In fact, I was really excited when I first saw trailers for this film. While I didn’t think they would get quite up to the tone of the original work, I thought this would be a great chance to tell the story closer to the Kipling version.

Considering that The Jungle Book is based on a short story rather than a novel, the 1967 version had to be stretched in order to fit a film’s running length. Here, it is stretched even further, adding in more plot elements that make the film drag at times.

And while there certainly are moments where the film looks like it could be more adult, it doesn’t want to go all the way with it. While you have a more mincing, less cartoony protagonist, you still have orangutan Christopher Walken singing “ooby dooby doo.” And because the famous voice actor’s are so recognizable through their CGI characters, its hard not to giggle at the sheer silliness of it all.

And the CGI. Am I the only one not truly impressed by it? There was very few times that I was not aware that Mowgli wasn’t standing in front of a green screen, with all the animals having some weird plasticity to their frames that just sucked me right out of the experience. I noticed I had less problems whenever real people weren’t on the screen, so perhaps this may have something to do with it.

In the end, it is too much of a jumbled mess of tones for me to get behind. And before you argue “Well of course the animals are going to sing! It was in the original! And its a kids story why does it have to be dark?” Exactly.

Overall, I can’t get behind this film because, on the whole, it is unnecessary. Besides updating technology and taking away the cartoons, it doesn’t really feel like Disney wanted to make a different film, they just wanted to update the aesthetic of the first one to fit modern film going tastes. Sure, kids may like it fine. But you know what kids will also like? The 1967 version. At least it owns up to what it is try to be, rather than setting out to please everyone. Apparently it worked, and I guess I am the only one.

Ooby doo, I want to be like the rest of you.