The Lion King (2019) is directed by Jon Favreau and stars Donald Glover, Beyonce, Chiwetel Ejiofor, James Earl Jones, John Oliver, Billy Eichner, Seth Rogan, John Kani, Alfre Woodard, JD McCrary, Shahadi Wright Joseph, Penny Johnson Jerald, Keegan-Michael Key, Eric Andre, and Florence Kasumba. This is a “live-action” remake of the 1994 Disney animated classic and follows the story of Simba (Glover & McCrary), a young lion prince who is forced to go on the run after his father, King Mufasa (Jones), is murdered after being betrayed by his scheming uncle, Scar (Eijofor). With nowhere to turn, Simba is adopted by Timon (Eichner) – a quickwitted meerkat, and Pumbaa (Rogan) – a gluttonous warthog, who teach him the power of Hakuna Matata – a way to let go of one’s worries and live a life a relaxation. As Simba grows into adulthood, his childhood friend and arranged queen, Nala (Beyonce) discovers his existence and informs him of the pain Scar’s reign has caused the animal kingdom and urges him to reclaim his rightful place as king. Simba is forced to set aside his worry-free attitude in order to save his people from annihilation. 

  Movies of this kind live and die on the shoulders of two elements: the visuals and the various voice actors that are hired to portray the iconic characters. Unfortunately, the quality of the performances is a mixed bag that leans more in the direction of disappointing than refreshing. Although some of the performances such as Chiwetel Ejiofor’s Scar and John Oliver’s Zazu are on par with the original portrayals or at least satisfyingly reinvent them, the rest of the cast feels like a huge step-down. The big problem with the various characterizations is that they rely far too heavily on the real-life personalities of the celebrities playing them. Although John Oliver is as fun as Zazu, he essentially just plays himself. It breaks immersion and makes these characters feel like nothing more than glorified celebrity cameos. 

It also doesn’t help that the decision to use CGI to create hyperrealistic visuals hurts the characters’ ability to communicate with recognizably human facial expressions. The reason non-human characters work so naturally in animation is that the medium allows the artists to give these beings whose physical expressions aren’t necessarily easy to connect with a distinct human element that the viewer can. Because this remake uses entirely GCI to create lifelike characters, it displays all the flaws of animation with none of the strengths. It also ends up being tough to distinguish some of these characters, especially the supporting members of the Lion Pride. Excluding Nala, the other female lions are nearly indistinguishable in both look and voice. I will say that some of the wide shots of the African savanna as well as some closeups of various characters look stunning and show the peak of hyperrealistic CGI. Unfortunately, this quality is terribly inconsistent coupled with some of the most obvious green screen shots I’ve seen in such an expensive production. It screams of a special effects team that was horribly rushed and I’m not surprised considering that this was most likely the heyday of Disney working their visual effects artists half to death. However flawed and unnecessarily expensive this visual approach happens to be, it is unique. I’m just not sure if that single fact justifies its existence. 

Although the film isn’t boring in any traditional sense of the word, it might be the most egregious modern example of a 100+ million dollar movie that feels completely unnecessary. It adds not a single element that improves the original story. In fact, every attempt to add/change something is either silly, pointless, or feels like a shameless attempt by the studio to shove modern politics (regardless of how relevant they may be) down the viewer’s throat. I’m not sure if a family film like this is the place to be telling people how they should see the world on a macro scale.

It’s also never particularly fun or funny because it seems allergic to taking even the smallest risks in fear that it may offend someone. This puts the jokes in a seemingly board-approved box that only leaves room for fart jokes and witty comebacks that would come from the mouth of a sassy 8-year-old. You know when your film’s idea of a joke is watching a dung beetle push some poo around, your script is clearly lacking in the intelligence department. 

The classic songs are somewhat fun to revisit, but again, these versions are all a significant step down from the original. They’re not bad, but why watch this when you have a much better version that came out more than 2 decades ago? 

The pacing is also strangely drawn out and spends far too much of the runtime on the story’s least compelling beats. Fun and action are often sacrificed in favor of forced themes of leadership and duty that are intended to be emotionally effective. These themes are important, but they’re undeniably simple and don’t require the amount of focus the movie gives them. The film also has an easily recognizable three-act structure, but for some reason, the first act (the slowest act) takes up half the film and causes the mostly comedic second act and action-centric third act to feel extremely rushed.

Overall, this is one of the worst examples of big studio greed at the expense of a beloved intellectual property. It essentially just feels like watching the same movie over again, but it’s a version from a slightly alternate reality that sucks. I would compare this to Gus Van Sant’s infamous 1998 shot-for-shot remake of Psycho (1960), but I honestly hate this movie more. This film adds things and avoids being shot-for-shot, but who cares if the differences make the experience worse? It feels like a movie that’s intentionally designed to be only half-paid attention to because it knows it has nothing new to offer. Please stop paying money for these movies. Think of anything else Disney could produce, and I bet it sounds better than another remake. D