Tuesday, 23 July 2019

Review: The Lion King (2019)





The Lion King (2019, 3D)
Cert: PG / 118 mins / Dir. Jon Favreau / Trailer



Here we are, just over half-way through 2019, and already Disney have given us three Marvel Cinematic Universe entries, and alongside Dumbo and Aladdin, three live-action*1 retoolings of classic animated tales, too. Is this a sustainable rate?

GENERATIONS


To be absolutely clear, this film is a straight-up remake of 1994's The Lion King, songs and all, a piece beloved by generations and now presented in a new, shiner form. First and foremost, credit is undoubtedly due for the way the movie looks. It is flawless. And while we should be able to take that as a given with any Disney output by this point, it really can't be emphasised enough: This is an animated film and film and It. Looks. Flawless. This level of CGI was barely imaginable only a couple of decades ago, and yet here we are.

But are the visuals enough? Well it's certainly true that Jon Favreau's new rendering doesn't add anything to the original story. It even takes away some of the cartoonish, excitable charm perhaps, but audiences coming to this version as their first will still have a great time. The story and characterisation are clearly laid out*2 and there's no shortage of action, spectacle and laughs. Then again, how much does this need to add to the existing mythos? Well, only as much as The Lion King ever 'needed' to be remade in the first place. Which is to say not a lot.

NEMESIS


The big draw is the return of James Earl Jones as the voice of Mufasa*3, and he does well opposite Chiwetel Ejiofor as his nemesis, Scar (although the latter often sounds distractingly like the former, particularly in later scenes where they aren't sharing the screen). Meanwhile, Big Simba is voiced by Donald Glover, with Beyoncé as lioness Nala. And it's here that the movie stumbles once again. If anything, the photorealistic nature of the visuals can't accommodate the expressive nature of the the pair's voices. While both are demonstrably great performers, their relaxed - almost street - delivery just doesn't gel with the lions they're portraying. It's not unlike like that time Favreau had Bill Murray be the voice of a bear when it clearly should have been John Goodman.

Pumba and Timon remain a highlight, voiced by Seth Rogen and Billy Eichner respectively, in a turn which echoes Jordan Peele and Keegan-Michael Key in Toy Story 4. And I confess that I did get goosebumps during their rendition of The Lion Sleeps Tonight, if only because I'm a sucker for a capella*5.

OCTONAUTS ROLLERCOASTER ADVENTURE


Truth be told though, I think I'd have found a non-musical version of the film more engaging (although looking back, that's exactly what I said about the original, too). Sure, the tunes are iconic and award-winning and well-known, but their inclusion in 2019 seems to hold the whole thing back, resulting in nothing more than a pristine remake, rather than bringing anything new on a narrative or emotional level*6.

The Lion King is entertaining and it looks utterly amazing, but active enjoyment will hinge on your feelings toward the hand-animated version. And even then this will feel like less to some degree. The bottom line is that with visuals this lifelike overlaid with human voices, we're all in Johnny Morris's fever-dream, now.

Oh and Circle Of Life is basically The Power Of Love.
There. I said it.



So, what sort of thing is it similar to?
...The Lion King.


Is it worth paying cinema-prices to see?
For the visuals, definitely.


Is it worth hunting out on DVD, Blu-ray or streaming, though?
If you're making a point of racking-up all the new Disney retoolings, sure.


Is this the best work of the cast or director?
It's not, though.


Will we disagree about this film in a pub?
That's entirely possible.


Is there a Wilhelm Scream in it?
There isn't.


Yeah but what's the Star Wars connection?
Level 1: So wait, Darth Vader is Lando Calrissian's dad now, and Rio Durant is telling them and Kit Fisto what to do? Okay.

But all those desert dunes with not a dewback in sight? For shame, Ian Disney, for shame


And if I HAD to put a number on it…


*1 Yeah, yeah. Let me join the chorus in saying that while The Jungle Book had a live-action Mowgli, the rest was essentially CGI, and so by extension The Lion King is a flat-out animation. But I'll get to that... [ BACK ]

*2 Although let's be fair, The Lion King's storyline itself has always been pretty slight. 1) Little Simba gets tricked, 2) Little Simba goes away for literally years and turns into Big Simba, 3) Big Simba comes back, 4) Big Simba has a fight, 5) That is the end thank you very much for your money. There are no extra layers or interweaving subplots in either this or the 1994 version (although Favreau has managed to make his one thirty minutes longer, all the same). It's just a very linear series of events with some basic life-lessons about not being a dick. [ BACK ]

*3 Look, I get that the lions talk, and I get that they still growl and roar in some places to give emphasis. But there are sections of sound-mixing here where the growling and the talking noticeably overlap each other. They're not blended, they're just running at the same time. Are these special lions with two sets of vocal cords, then?*4 [ BACK ]

*4 Although the keen-eared among you will recall that there are scenes in the first Star Wars trilogy where Darth Vader's ventilator can be heard separately breathing in and out behind his speech. And bear in mind that when you or I talk, we're only breathing outward. This implies that Vader has a secondary set of artificial lungs to take care of this body functions, while his own damaged ones can just about handle the 'barking-orders' stuff. Perhaps Mufasa's twin-throats are an homage to Darth Vader?. I should coco... [ BACK ]

*5 No, not that a capella, I mean good a capella. The kind where I don't want to stab someone during or after it. [ BACK ]

*6 But keep in mind, my main bugbear with The Jungle Book was all the promo-press touting the movie as 'a re-imagining', rather than a remake. Which could have worked until Disney just left two of the songs in for the hell of it, meaning that they were remaking their own version after all. Unless those were the original songs penned by Rudyard Kipling, of course... [ BACK ]


DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.

No comments:

Post a Comment