The Lion King (2019)
3/4
Starring (voices): Donald Glover, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Beyoncé, James Earl Jones, Alfre Woodard, Seth Rogen, Billy Eichner, Florence Kasumba, JD McCrary, Shahadi Wright Joseph
Rated PG for Sequences of Violence and Peril, and Some Thematic Elements
For anyone who grew up in the 1990's, "The Lion King" is a cultural touchstone. Everyone knew it and loved it. It's not the best in the Disney canon ("Beauty and the Beast" takes that honor), but it's definitely the most beloved and popular. Ironically, during production it struggled with disagreements over the story and people dropping in and out of the production. "Pocahantas" was the film to be a part of, as people involved had more faith in it. It turned out to be a cinematic titan.
So the decision to remake the film was greeted with justifiable skepticism. Its predecessors like "Beauty and the Beast" and "Aladdin" were profitable, they left something to be desired from a quality standpoint. Disney had to tread carefully with it, so the brought back Jon Favreau and an all star cast. The result is a mixed bag.
Simba (McCrary) is next in line for the throne of Pride Rock. That puts him in front of his uncle Scar (Ejiofor), who is none too pleased about this new obstacle in his ambition to be king. He isn't secret about it, forming an alliance with the hyenas and eliminating his brother Mufasa (Jones). He then manipulates Simba into believing that he was responsible for his father's death and urges him to flee. But when he grows up, Simba learns that he can either run from his past or confront it.
From a visual standpoint, this new version of "The Lion King" is a flat-out triumph. The animation is so detailed and so convincing that there were precious few moments where I didn't believe I was watching something drawn on a computer. Take away the voices and you'd swear that it was a National Geographic special.
That leads into the film's biggest problem: as realistic as the animation is, it mutes the emotional impact of the story. These animals simply aren't as expressive as their hand-drawn counterparts. "The Lion King" was a film built on grand gestures; subtlety was something Roger Allers and Rob Minkoff (the directors of the original) didn't understand. That's a good thing for an epic, but the hyper realism of this new version doesn't allow for such things. When a character is scared or villainous, it doesn't come across as well.
The voice acting is a mixed bag. Donald Glover is a woeful choice for the adult Simba. He lacks the range and gravitas that Matthew Broderick brought to the film. Beyoncé isn't much better, bringing nothing to the role. Chiwetel does some interesting things with Scar. Jeremy Irons was a colorful, larger-than-life villain, but Ejiofor takes the character into a new direction. His interpretation is that of a delicate, angry monster. It doesn't always work, but there are times when he brings real menace. The obvious and inevitable choice to bring back James Earl Jones is less successful than you'd think. Jones doesn't seem to be invested in playing the character again, and as a result there is little emotional attachment to him. The supporting characters are more successful. Florence Kasumba manages to be frightening in the reimagined role of Shenzi, and while Seth Rogen and Billy Eichner aren't Nathan Lane and Ernie Sabella, they're adequate. Rogen is thankfully kept in check, and it must have taken a herculean effort on Favreau's part to get him to shut up (and not once say "no homo").
"The Lion King" is a very uneven film. For every moment that works, there is one that doesn't. Part of that is due to the heightened realism but also because of curious decisions on Favreau's part. Favreau favors long shots, which is good for scale but not for intimate moments. Scenes that should tug at the heart feel muted because he doesn't capitalize on them. Other moments don't have the same impact because of dialogue changes or they're breezed over (most of the songs are shortened). For example, the stampede is disappointing because he doesn't allow the tension to build very much. He just goes right into it. Other moments are similarly muted.
Yet I can't deny that there are moments of real power. The story from "The Lion King" is brilliantly constructed, and when Favreau sticks to that, the film works. New details, such as the political situation that develops once Scar takes over, are also intriguing. The battle at the end will still get the adrenaline pumping (like the original, this isn't for the very young). And although it's shortened and lacks the visual majesty of the original, the "Circle of Life" sequence still gave me goosebumps. But Favreau plays it safe, and that really hurts the film. He doesn't find a substitute for the emotional gap that divides animation and realism.
I can't tell you that this new version of "The Lion King" is an especially good movie, and I will always recommend the original over this one. But it is what it is, and I felt like I got my money's worth.
Starring (voices): Donald Glover, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Beyoncé, James Earl Jones, Alfre Woodard, Seth Rogen, Billy Eichner, Florence Kasumba, JD McCrary, Shahadi Wright Joseph
Rated PG for Sequences of Violence and Peril, and Some Thematic Elements
For anyone who grew up in the 1990's, "The Lion King" is a cultural touchstone. Everyone knew it and loved it. It's not the best in the Disney canon ("Beauty and the Beast" takes that honor), but it's definitely the most beloved and popular. Ironically, during production it struggled with disagreements over the story and people dropping in and out of the production. "Pocahantas" was the film to be a part of, as people involved had more faith in it. It turned out to be a cinematic titan.
So the decision to remake the film was greeted with justifiable skepticism. Its predecessors like "Beauty and the Beast" and "Aladdin" were profitable, they left something to be desired from a quality standpoint. Disney had to tread carefully with it, so the brought back Jon Favreau and an all star cast. The result is a mixed bag.
Simba (McCrary) is next in line for the throne of Pride Rock. That puts him in front of his uncle Scar (Ejiofor), who is none too pleased about this new obstacle in his ambition to be king. He isn't secret about it, forming an alliance with the hyenas and eliminating his brother Mufasa (Jones). He then manipulates Simba into believing that he was responsible for his father's death and urges him to flee. But when he grows up, Simba learns that he can either run from his past or confront it.
From a visual standpoint, this new version of "The Lion King" is a flat-out triumph. The animation is so detailed and so convincing that there were precious few moments where I didn't believe I was watching something drawn on a computer. Take away the voices and you'd swear that it was a National Geographic special.
That leads into the film's biggest problem: as realistic as the animation is, it mutes the emotional impact of the story. These animals simply aren't as expressive as their hand-drawn counterparts. "The Lion King" was a film built on grand gestures; subtlety was something Roger Allers and Rob Minkoff (the directors of the original) didn't understand. That's a good thing for an epic, but the hyper realism of this new version doesn't allow for such things. When a character is scared or villainous, it doesn't come across as well.
The voice acting is a mixed bag. Donald Glover is a woeful choice for the adult Simba. He lacks the range and gravitas that Matthew Broderick brought to the film. Beyoncé isn't much better, bringing nothing to the role. Chiwetel does some interesting things with Scar. Jeremy Irons was a colorful, larger-than-life villain, but Ejiofor takes the character into a new direction. His interpretation is that of a delicate, angry monster. It doesn't always work, but there are times when he brings real menace. The obvious and inevitable choice to bring back James Earl Jones is less successful than you'd think. Jones doesn't seem to be invested in playing the character again, and as a result there is little emotional attachment to him. The supporting characters are more successful. Florence Kasumba manages to be frightening in the reimagined role of Shenzi, and while Seth Rogen and Billy Eichner aren't Nathan Lane and Ernie Sabella, they're adequate. Rogen is thankfully kept in check, and it must have taken a herculean effort on Favreau's part to get him to shut up (and not once say "no homo").
"The Lion King" is a very uneven film. For every moment that works, there is one that doesn't. Part of that is due to the heightened realism but also because of curious decisions on Favreau's part. Favreau favors long shots, which is good for scale but not for intimate moments. Scenes that should tug at the heart feel muted because he doesn't capitalize on them. Other moments don't have the same impact because of dialogue changes or they're breezed over (most of the songs are shortened). For example, the stampede is disappointing because he doesn't allow the tension to build very much. He just goes right into it. Other moments are similarly muted.
Yet I can't deny that there are moments of real power. The story from "The Lion King" is brilliantly constructed, and when Favreau sticks to that, the film works. New details, such as the political situation that develops once Scar takes over, are also intriguing. The battle at the end will still get the adrenaline pumping (like the original, this isn't for the very young). And although it's shortened and lacks the visual majesty of the original, the "Circle of Life" sequence still gave me goosebumps. But Favreau plays it safe, and that really hurts the film. He doesn't find a substitute for the emotional gap that divides animation and realism.
I can't tell you that this new version of "The Lion King" is an especially good movie, and I will always recommend the original over this one. But it is what it is, and I felt like I got my money's worth.
Comments
Post a Comment