Le Roi lion

1994's 'The Lion King' is not just one of my favourite Disney films, it is also one of my favourite animated films and one of my favourites overall. Beautiful animation, some of Disney's most iconic songs and amazing score, an entertaining and powerful story with unforgettable moments, terrific voices (especially James Earl Jones and Jeremy Irons) and joint best beginning to a Disney film alongside 'The Hunchback of Notre Dame'.

Disney's live action films are often frowned upon, they often have been described as pointless and many feel that Disney are running out of ideas. Can totally understand this, as the small handful that have been made so far have not really been necessary but the quality of them have varied. 'Cinderella' and 'The Jungle Book' were great and by far the best of the remakes, but the rest have left me mixed. Will admit to not really seeing the point of this version and was not massively impressed by the trailer, but saw it anyway being such a fan of Disney and because my sister desperately wanted to see it. Watching it way back when it first came out but with being behind with my reviewing it took me to now to review it, it was a little better than expected and not as bad as others have said. My sister did like it a lot better than me, with my feelings being quite lukewarm. Am really trying not to compare and try and judge it on its own terms, but sometimes it is hard when the quality of a remake, follow up or another adaptation is very far removed from something so good and that is the case with comparing both 'The Lion King' films.

'The Lion King' (2019) does have good things. The best thing about it by a mile is the visuals, which are absolutely fantastic. Something of a technical achievement, with the scenery being breathtaking in every sense ("Circle of Life" being a notable example) and the characters (excepting their eyes needing more expression) blend very realistically in a way where one gets the sense that this was a nature documentary. The score is still powerful, especially in the stampede and one of Disnney's most iconic tear-jerkers. Have always loved the songs, and with two exceptions they still make an impact. "Circle of Life" is truly awe-inspiring and the closest the film came to making me cry.

Most of the dialogue has some moments of humour (Timon and Pumbaa) and tension (the hyenas). The story has its moments. Can not praise "Circle of Life" enough, Timon and Pumbaa are amusing and the stampede is intense, not goosebump-inducing though, even though everybody who has seen the original will know the outcome. Making the hyenas scarier and fleshing out the lionesses (a little) more were good moves. Actually thought that a lot of the voice work was not bad at all, Billy Eichner and Seth Rogan being so much fun and by far the best faring of the voices, they were clearly having fun too with the improvising and their comic timing is full of exuberance not obvious elsewhere. Florence Kasumba's Shenzai is very different, the opposite in fact, to Whoopi Goldberg's, and the more sinister edge worked very well. James Earl Jones, the only voice actor to reprise his role, still has Mufasa's booming dignity and Donald Glover does quite well.

Didn't care for some however. Was mixed on John Oliver, who is fun but overdoes it at times. Beyonce comes over as very out of place, her voice not fitting how Nala looks, and she even sounded bored. Chiwetel Eijofor, a good actor who was brilliant in '12 Years a Slave', was the biggest disappointment, found him too subdued for Scar and he is nowhere near as menacing or enjoys himself as much as Irons (whose voice work is some of the best for any Disney, and animated, film). While "Circle of Life", "I Just Can't Wait to be King" and "Hakuna Matata" come off well (especially "Circle of Life"), "Be Prepared" was bizarre and quite over the top, what a way to waste one of the greatest Disney villain songs. "Can You Feel the Love Tonight" was reminiscent of decent at best karaoke. "Spirit" is even worse, that did not fit within the film and was more an excuse for Beyonce to show off her vocal chops and have actually heard much better singing from her.

Excepting the hyenas being scarier, some additional dialogue and the lionesses being more fleshed out, 'The Lion King' suffers from being too faithful and not having enough of its own identity. Too many of the scenes are near-carbon copies with only fleeting moments of heart and soul, mostly the film emotionally is very bland. The big death scene, heart-wrenching before, is treated in too throwaway a fashion. The additional dialogue and any interpolations are not for the better either and actually rather jar, while the cuts and changes were not necessary. The eyes and facial expressions for the characters, especially Scar, lack nuance and are at times borderline creepy.

Summing up, found a lot to like but was disappointed overall. 6/10

If only it could move us inside...

Let's be honest, Disney has never been a non profit-making organization and Uncle Walt was a man of vision AND economical flair. Still, before turning into a voracious corporate blob, Disney was still the quintessential dream factory and nostalgia builder for many, many, many generations. And even for these direct-to-video sequels that spread all over the 2000s like a bad cold, some brain cells of imaginations were mobilized.

But now Disney's not even trying to pretend, investing all the efforts on a pure technical level and the kind of marketing-that-speaks-for-itself. It is one thing to adapt fairy tales into live-actions, before "Cinderella", there was "Enchanted", "Maleficent" or even Tim Burton's "Alice in Wonderland". And yet Disney executives found the trick: it's not about adapting the fairy tale but the Disney version of it. Thorns are still invisible over the head with the two round ears but right now in 2022, it seems that "awakening your inner child" isn't a motto anymore but a formula.

The formula could have interesting results: the 2016 "Jungle Book" film could center on little Mowgli and diverged from the 1967 film. Same with "Dumbo" or "Aladdin". But exclusively animal-centered movies like "The Lion King", "Bambi" or "The Lady and the Tramp" are a different challenge. You've got to humanize the way animals could act, react or display emotions. Take the kiss between Lady and the Tramp, the magic is not within the moment their mouths meet but the cute and genuine embarrassment that follows. You can't "animate" these emotions with live-action animals with all the technology of the world.

Indeed if your purpose is that your lion looks real, you can't expand the range of facial expressions: remember in "One Hundred and One Dalmatians" the way Pongo and Perdita looked at each other at the end of the garden scene: reproducing that with real-looking animals is inconceivable, couldn't work, wouldn't work. And that's the ultimate wager of photorealistic remakes: achieve documentary-like realism with storylines that were designed for hand-drawn or at the very least CGI animation, "Toy Story" CGI I mean.

And that leads to even more perplexing results when it comes to 'surreal' sequences like "I Just Can't Wait to Be The King" where two normal-looking cubs are casually running across pink flamingoes, or the moment that precedes Simba's epiphany where the figure of Mufasa is barely visible in the sky (not to mention that some lines were cut from the original). Now, maybe Disney takes for granted our passion for the "Lion King" and considers that we're there to "fill the gaps". It's true I did enjoy the film to the degree that it reminded of "The Lion King", which is a high point of my childhood, but at the end of the day, my mind was full of afterthoughts. To put it simple, I realized it was an enjoyment by proxy.

The problem of "The Lion King" isn't that it's good or bad. It is certainly a remarkable achievement on the field of animation. The problem is that it is problematic. Yes I'm talking in circles but that's a circle Disney has just taken us into and that makes it rather impossible to figure what is wrong with these photorealistic films, we know there's something that doesn't look right, maybe on a pure reason-to-be way.

"The Lion King" is one of the classics of animation, a masterpiece that speaks highhy of the dedication of old-school Disney team of animators. 1995 would change the games with the first CGI and so in a way, "The Lion King" was the culmination of that traditional hand-drawn art. Not only that but its story, very simple and straightforward carried the gravitas and dramas or movie classics. Characters like Scar, Mufasa, Simba are all printed in our memories, the songs became pop culture monuments, scenes have been parodied countless times. "The Lion King" became a household name for Disney excellence. And certainly one of the greatest opening sequences of history, the shivers down your spine sent by the sight of Rafiki carrying little Simba is one of these moments you can't just 'duplicate'.

As viewers pointed out, many things are missing: where is the friendly nod Mufasa gives Zazu? Or that hug between Rafiki and Mufasa? Mufasa comes across as a stone-faced patriarch posing like a library statue... and waiting for our nostalgic pheromones to instill some life in him .... Maybe we were just curious to see how they'd pull this out. I guess if I was told about an animated version of "The Godfather" no matter how ludricrous it sounds I would have given a shot. "The Lion King" was such a big deal, viewers did came to see and made it one of the highest grossing films of the year.

Fair enough, but what's that does say exactly? That half the job was done and make a copy of something great to make something of equally promising greatness? The purpose of a remake is to bring something new. But "The Lion King 2019" doesn't bring anything new except for the realistic animation that doesn't look like an improvement anyway.. Scar looks like a washed out lion who shampooed his mane with paint thinner, without one tenth the suave charisma of the original. James Earl Jones' voice looks like he was only testing the microphone or was bored to death, which actually matched the look of the used-to-be majestic lion.

And I swear the savannah and jungle never looked so dismal with tones of beige and yellowish green that reminded me of that Water Truce sequence in "The Jungle Book". So much for the bright colors and the escapism.... And the only thing visible right now are the thorns on the head, and the round ears have turned pointy... no it's not the devil, but a cow, a cash-cow.

Well...the visual effects are groundbreaking but it lacks heart and flare - and feels soulless compared to the original. Donald Glover and Beyoncé felt like miscasts - it feels like they're reading lines from a sheet. See this remake for the visual effects; but go back and watch the original animated masterpiece in all its glory.

And I'm not talking about (reliving) Mufasa's death. I'm talking about Hollywood tarnishing yet another classic that needed no remake or reboot whatsoever. Despite the movie being almost two hours, the movie was rushed - they rushed into the songs, which were artless and dull regarding the setting; one of the songs was tragically shorten; and Beyonce (adult Nala) had very little screen-time in the film.

Worst of all, there was NO EMOTION, MAGIC, HUMOR.

Only good things were Hans Zimmer, Elton John, and James Earl Jones. The visuals were good, but they don't make up for the movie at all.

How could Beyoncé ruin one of the most beautiful songs ever ?? When she sings "can we feel the love tonight" , I could hear her breath more than her voice. What type of bad singing was that? Completely disappointing !! (Movie and image quality are great, but I didn't like the music quality at all) by the way, John Oliver and Seth Rogen were great!!