… Okay, I’ll bite. It wasn’t as bad as I anticipated.
While the trend of Disney remakes is exhausting, it seems like it will just be a thing until it stops making money or the company completely monopolizes Hollywood. But audience fatigue became more vocal with the remake of one of Disney’s most beloved Renaissance films, The Lion King. The more we saw of trailers and commercials, the more this film was dragged on the aesthetic choice of photo-realistic CGI and not giving the main characters any range of facial expressions. But as you do, there’s still an audience willing to play along for the sake of nostalgia and hopefully find something worth of praise in what is otherwise a shameless cash grab. Although I originally didn’t plan to see it, the offer came up, and I figured, you know what? Maybe this will be good exposure therapy to get whatever bitterness out of my system already.
How does it hold up? Well let’s dive into the story… which, let’s be honest, you fucking know it. It’s about 85 percent line-by-line, frame-by-frame. A lion cub named Simba is born into royalty and destined to be the king of Pride Rock. His father, Mufasa, is murdered by his uncle, Scar, and Simba is banished from home after being manipulated to thinking he was responsible. Scar usurps the throne and scares off the herds while Simba is living care-free and repressing a ton of emotional trauma until his past calls him back home to take his rightful place as king. Seriously, if you haven’t seen the original 1994 film by now, where did you go wrong in life?
Like about half of Disney remakes, if you’re going in expecting any originality to bring a new perspective on the story, you’re not gonna find much here. As mentioned before, most of it is line-by-line and frame-by-frame with new voices and animation. And the main criticism of the absent emotional expressiveness in photo-realistic CGI still rings true. It sucks because it’s a beautiful and damn impressive feat of CGI, but aesthetically, the wrong choice overall.
This photo-realistic aesthetic was also used in director Jon Favreau’s previous Disney remake, The Jungle Book. Although the animals characters also lacked facial expressions, it was not a major critique as the overall tone is more laid-back. Most of the story is told through dialogue and atmosphere, and the entire cast was full of strong performers to carry it all, including the only human character for the film’s emotional core. The nature documentary aesthetic works with The Jungle Book since it already has that vibe from the get-go.
With The Lion King being best known as a high energy Broadway-style musical, this aesthetic choice gives a mixed bag of tonal dissonance. The photo-realism works well for atmospheric scenes with little to no dialogue like “The Circle of Life,” both the opening and ending. This was the first movie I saw in 3D in years, and the scale and detail work on the animals and environment is freaking incredible to the point where I started shivering. All of Rafiki’s scenes also work well in this new medium with the subtle emotion behind his shaman practices, and it’s neat to see a not-so kooky version of this character. There’s such care and magic behind these particular scenes which made me feel like I was watching it all for the very first time.
Unfortunately, when the movie calls for grander emotional displays— the childish joy of “I Just Can’t Wait to be King,” the fear during the stampede, the grief of Mufasa’s death, and the longing in “Can You Feel the Love Tonight”—, that’s where it severely falters. It’s beyond difficult to get behind the intended tone of a scene when the characters have permanent neutral expressions for the sake of photo-realism. I know this is often countered with “Oh, well, animals don’t have facial expressions like humans.” Firstly, that’s not necessarily true just in case you haven’t seen nature videos in a while. Secondly, technology has come far enough that you can have a talking photo-realistic animal characters and give them a wide range of natural facial expressions. Have y’all seen Rocket Raccoon lately? And lastly, sorry not sorry, this movie still failed to make me cry when Mufasa died. This is one of the most iconic movie deaths of my generation, and I felt nothing!
Without facial expressions, more pressure is on the voice actors to emote their hearts out to compensate. Some voices are great enough to make up the difference. John Oliver plays Zazu like his talk show persona, which is hysterically too perfect. Billy Eichner and Seth Rogen have wonderfully energetic rapport as the high-strung and finicky Timon and the goofy Pumbaa, respectively. The hyenas were the most altered characters, now as legitimately terrifying threats and less as goofy sidekicks. Florence Kasumba is a fucking beast as Shenzi, the alpha female who knows how to carry herself strong to keep herself on equal footing with Scar as they form an alliance. And while Keegan-Michael Key and Eric Andre as Kamari and Azizi (formerly Banzai and Ed) don’t get a lot of limelight as comic relief, their brief bantering moments are still enjoyable.
However, all the lions suffer the most from the aesthetic choices, and despite the great talent, it’s not enough to save the permanent neutral faces. Donald Glover and Beyoncé are fantastic performers for Simba and Nala, and even the child voice actors, JD McCrary and Shahadi Wright Joseph, have freaking pipes. But aside from the musical moments, they just go through the motions. I know they’re delivering the lines the best they can, but the animation creates a huge emotional disconnect in emitting their joys and struggles to the audience. It’s not a good thing when the visuals don’t match up the voice acting, or worse, when you sense the actors are being held back from giving it their all. Even James Earl-Jones reprising his role as Mufasa and saying the same exact lines from 25 years before is incredibly stiff. I know a voice changes a lot in that time, but I was itching for that calculated power and patience which made Mufasa such a distinct voice.
Another disappointment, as much as it pains me to say it, is Chiwetel Ejiofor as Scar. It’s perfect casting, but there’s no balance between his comedic and threatening moments, which sucks because there’s amazing intent behind this character interpretation. Ejiofor taps more into Scar’s menacing side and taking what he feels like he deserves without consequence; it’s fantastic supplemental commentary on what it means to be a leader in maintaining order in a kingdom. And it does well to better explicitly show that the Pride Lands go to shit from overhunting. I also love his sick determination to make Sarabi his queen as a parallel to Claudius and Gertrude in Hamlet (the Shakespeare nerd in me is seriously reconsidering their relationship after watching this movie).
But they couldn’t let this characterization of Scar 100 percent flourish on its own, and they still incorporate a chunk of the original dialogue which Jeremy Irons delivered comedically or cowardly in the 1994 film. It’s a huge, distracting tonal dissonance when a line should sound funny or cowardly, but it isn’t. They couldn’t even get him to properly sing “Be Prepared,” one of the best Disney villain songs ever! He talks through the lyrics like a speech, but it rhymes and is trying to have melody and just… why couldn’t you let him sing?! It is one of the most awkward sounding “songs” of the whole movie, and I don’t know what the hell they thought in the recording booth. Again, perfect actor choice for the character, amazing intent on expanding the overall themes, but confused as hell and inconsistent execution. And that pretty much sums up my thoughts on the whole film.
Despite my initial apprehension, there is discernible effort put in The Lion King remake. The casting is brilliant, and most of them are fantastic in their renditions on these beloved characters. The subtle changes in music, both Elton John’s songs and Hans Zimmer’s score, are wonderful to listen to. There’s neat bits of thematic expansion without forcefully shoving any Disney meta-narrative in your face. And the photo-realistic CGI serves well for atmospheric scenes, and the detail work is freaking amazing. But the plot is predictable with most of it being copy-and-pasted, the aesthetic choices conflict with the tone and emotional investment, and when certain elements don’t fully commit to new ideas, it’s too painfully noticeable. For a lot of folks, the lack of emotional investment and facial expressions are enough to kill any and all interest, as consistent visuals and acting are key for building tone which is a part of any basic storytelling.
While not necessarily the worst Disney remake, I don’t blame anyone for their vehement hatred towards this one. It’s freaking The Lion King, one of Disney’s biggest properties of all time and a top favorite for movie-going audiences of all ages, and for a remake, okay-at-best is really the most you can do? Trust me, I was there too when that Beauty and the Beast remake released, and that was a shit show from beginning to end. But to its credit, The Lion King has a more competent production and a better understanding of the source material, even if some ideas fell flat. I actually anticipated way worse and am glad there were a few elements I genuinely loved.
If you’re really forgiving of the lacking facial expressions and want to see a neat technical demo for photo-realistic CGI paired with great music and some enjoyable voice acting, you’ll find at least a couple things to enjoy. Whether now in theaters or later on with streaming or DVD, it’s worth checking out at least once if you’re itching to form your own opinion. Take it for what it is, and see what slivers of magic you can find.
Eliza Vs. The World 