'The Lion King' Remake Is Spectacular, but Somewhat Soulless

The latest output of the Disney nostalgia, cash-grab, let’s-remake-an-animated-classic-into-live-action conveyor belt is The Lion King.  The original 1994 animated feature is widely beloved, and considered by many as the greatest Disney animated film of all time.  And thus, this 2019 live-action remake was highly anticipated by fans – which is very evident from the fact that it has grossed over a billion dollars.

Now, we refer to it as a “live-action” remake, but save for its opening shot, everything is actually CGI.  So, technically, the film is still animated, and it’s more accurate to call it a CGI remake.  Regardless, it’s visually stunning.  It’s one of those films that blow you away by making you realize how far filmmaking technology and techniques have gone.

This is not necessarily the first time we’ve had a film display photorealistic visuals so impeccably detailed, they can pass off as the real deal.  The technology has been around for some time now – most specifically, since 2015’s The Jungle Book.  Nevertheless, The Lion King still inspires the impression that it’s presenting a cinematic achievement that we’ve never seen before.  Maybe it’s because this kind of photorealistic films is rarely made (after all, four years have passed already since The Jungle Book was released) so The Lion King still benefits from a sense of novelty.  Moreover, any upgrades with the visual effect techniques from its Jungle Book benchmark may be subtle, but it’s definitely there.  And it’s also worth noting that The Jungle Book had at least one real human actor interacting with its CGI animals and environment, while The Lion King is entirely made up of a CGI ensemble of characters.  So, in this sense, we truly haven’t seen anything like The Lion King before.

Indeed, it’s a spectacular film – a sublime showcase of movie magic.  Unfortunately, beyond that, it’s somewhat soulless.

The fault likely lies with its script, which is basically the same as the original film’s – from structure to dialogue.  Sure, there are some changes made.  But they are mostly, if not superficial, then unnecessary padding (which is the common problem with these Disney live-action remakes) that kind of messed up the pacing instead of add originality or depth.  In general, the film essentially has the same plot (which, by the way, is undeniably heavily inspired by Hamlet and Kimba the White Lion) as its source material.  To be fair, with the 1994 classic being iconic and all, the screenwriters probably had their hands tied.  Changing too much of the story would have likely been for the worse.

The evident consequence of this is, of course, the “derivative” factor.  But more than that, it’s clear that such script is written with a traditionally animated film in mind.  This means that this script doesn’t quite translate as well in a film that is “live-action” – and by “live-action”, I mean one that is intended to appear realistic.  This is most apparent with the facial expressions of the characters.  Since the intention is for them to appear like realistic animals, they are incapable of having more expressive and nuanced facial expressions – facial expressions that on the other hand are utterly doable and appropriate in cartoon form.  As a result, a lot of compelling characterizations and emotional beats are lost in translation.

In relation to this, even though the voice cast is made up of a bunch of big-name Hollywood A-listers, they didn’t quite bring their respective characters to life with much impact.  Their performances are okay, but they underwhelm in comparison with the original cast’s strong work.  But it’s also possible that it’s because the aforementioned misalignment between script and medium hindered their voice acting to come across more potently.

The only ones from the cast that I felt nailed their characters are Billy Eichner and Seth Rogen.  They managed to make the iconic duo of Timon and Pumbaa the undisputed standouts.  They were pretty endearing and hilarious!  Going in, I never thought that the comedic meerkat and warthog were going to be the best part of the movie.

With all the negative things I pointed out, it seems like I’m saying this Lion King remake is terrible.  However, it’s not.  Of course, it’s way inferior to the original.  But it’s far from an atrocity.  Even though I didn’t love it, I did like it.  I enjoyed it as a whole.   First of all, experiencing its incredible visual effects alone is worth the price of admission.  It also has the nostalgia factor going for it (and, in my case, nostalgia wins me over more often than not).  But most importantly, the heart of what made the 1994 animated classic, well, a classic is observable in it, and its profound themes remain intact.

This remake has lost a good deal of the original’s appeal and emotional punch, but I think it’s still very much capable of moving and charming anybody who hasn’t grown up with the original.