Logan Sork Film Reviews
The Lion King
The original 1994 animated film The Lion King is one of my favorite movies ever made. It has memorable characters, beautiful animation, fun energy, great music and a compelling message that makes it a worthwhile view for people of all ages. When Disney announced it would be remade with the form of realistic CG animation, I was worried that it would not capture the magic of the original film. My hopes were raised a little when it was announced that director Jon Favreau, who helmed the CG Jungle Book remake, would take over as director. This gave me hope that the film would be a little more than a shot for shot remake. Unfortunately however, a shot for shot remake is exactly what we got.
The Lion King is directed by Jon Favreau and is a CGI remake of the 1994 hand drawn animate film of the same name. The film follows Simba (Donald Glover), a young lion who is to succeed his father, Mufasa (James Earl Jones), as king of the African Pride lands. His life is thrown into chaos however, when his Uncle, Scar (Chiwetel Ejiofor), murders Mufasa, forcing Simba into exile. While exiled, he meets Timon (Billy Eichner) and Pumbaa (Seth Rogen) who teach him how great life is when you just let everything go. As Simba goes older, he forgets his responsibilities as the future king, choosing instead to live a care free lifestyle. However, when his childhood friend, Nala (Beyoncé) discovers Simba, she tells him of the horrible things that have happened in his absence. Realizing he cannot run from his past forever; Simba and his friends return to challenge Scar and restore peace to the kingdom.
Ultimately, when you boil down this film for the primary reason it exists, it serves as a presentation to showcase the CGI technology that Favreau previously used in his Jungle Book film. On that front, this film does not disappoint. The realism that this film achieves is truly breathtaking, especially when you take into consideration the fact that everything seen on screen is entirely animated. Everything in the film, from the animal cast to the smallest detail of the African landscape is almost photorealistic. There were many moments throughout the film where I was convinced that these images before me were real. From a technological standpoint this film truly succeeds thanks to its perfectly rendered characters and set pieces.
However, while the technology is truly breathtaking and the film’s biggest strength, it is also a big weakness. Because of the insane level of photorealism the technology achieves, the creative team cannot achieve the same level of energy that a hand drawn animated film can. This is most noticeable in the expressions of the animals themselves. The original film’s animation style allowed for certain aspects of the film, such as the character’s facial expressions and the colors of the backgrounds, to be exaggerated for dramatic effect. Because of this remake’s commitment to being photorealistic, the character’s facial expression aren’t as emotional as the could be, as most animals in the wild don’t use the same facial expressions as us. This creates a disconnect between the film and the audience. As we watch thee characters talk and interact with one another, you can’t help but feel it’s unnatural as the voices just don’t match the animal’s faces when they speak.
This film’s photorealistic features also hinder other aspects that made the original so great. One of the most notable is the film’s more fantastical aspects such as the musical numbers and surreal imagery. There’s a severe lack of energy from the musical sequences as, once again, the realistic features of this new film won’t allow for animals to move in an animated fashion Most of the fun choreography and imagery of the original musical numbers is instead replaced with characters just running in a straight line singing. So, while the songs are sung beautifully, the imagery surrounding them is comparatively dull, resulting in boring musical numbers that are nowhere near as memorable as the original.
But perhaps the biggest crime of this new film is that it aside from the new breakthroughs in technology, it contributes absolutely nothing new to the story. Aside from a few minor changes here and there, this film is a mostly shot-for shot remake. This makes for a dull viewing experience for people who grew up for the original because you know exactly what’s going to happen. It has the same shots, same lines, same music, even Hans Zimmer’s score is a direct copy of hi work he did twenty-five years ago. Because there is nothing new added to the table, the whole movie feels stale, and honestly a little boring. Had the film tried to change even a couple of things story wise, I would have cut it a little slack. As it stands however, I can’t think of a single creative reason for this film to exist.
This film is a real mixed bag for me. On the one hand the technology used to create this film is absolutely astounding and shows just how much CGI has come within the last couple of decades. On the other hand, this is a remake that adds nothing new or compelling to the source material and does a worse job of telling the film’s original story. If you’re just looking for a re-skin of a movie you’ve seen before, just to have a new perspective on a story you’ve seen before, then this movie may entertain you. For me however, this does not come close to the grandeur of the original animated film, and no amount of groundbreaking technology will ever help it come close.
5.5/10