The Lion King (2019)

The financial success of the live action adaptation of "The Jungle Book" obviously had repercussions. I can just see the Disney executives gathered together and one saying "Hey guys, I know a perfect way to make a lot of money without doing very much work. We have director Jon Favreau remake 'The Lion King' almost shot-for-shot using the same technology he used to create 'The Jungle Book'". I have said it many times before that I do not watch movies for the visual splendor alone. For me, the visuals have to support the story. Because this remake follows the story of the original so closely, the film was boring at various moments. Furthermore, when you push for realism, you have to sacrifice other important elements such as the ability for the characters to express emotion. Other Disney remake in recent years took steps to create at least some originality. Whether it worked or not, they at least took steps. I felt no drive by the filmmakers working on this remake to take risks. It affects the entertainment value of the overall project.

In the case of the remake of "The Jungle Book", the filmmakers had the original book by Rudyard Kipling to look to in order to create the required originality. "The Lion King", back in 1994, was an original story that drew inspiration from a few strong sources. In might be interesting to note that the Disney executives did not have much faith in the animated film during its production. They were focused on what they thought would be the better film: "Pocahontas". This motivated the crew making "The Lion King" to prove the executives wrong. After the film was complete, the filmmakers knew that they had either created a massive hit or a big flop. I bet the film became more famous and beloved than they could have imagined. Jon Favreau and the others behind this remake didn't have the same motivation driving them but rather than create motivation for themselves by striving for more originality, they took the easy route. Favreau stated in an interview that they were not reinventing the story but the medium. In other words "If it's not broke, don't fix it." My response is that is if a masterpiece is not broke, why spend millions of dollars to tell it again? I'll answer my own question: to make a profit. However, considering the type of story we are talking about, it is true that Shakespeare is re-imagined and performed so many times over all around the world that it is impossible to keep track. The original animated film itself is a version of Hamlet after all but it is far from being a retelling of that play. "Bambi" and the Bible were also source of inspiration that the studio looked to back in 1994. The problem I have with this 2019 version is that it was so faithful story-wise to the original film that the lack of work put into it can be felt. I would guess that 75% of this remake was taken from the source material. The filmmakers were probably banking on the photorealism to provide all the originality needed. That would be like creating a photorealistic version of the Mona Lisa and then exhibiting it alongside more original pieces of art. The knock-off looks great but subconsciously, you take sense the lack of effort that went into it from a creative standpoint. The opening sequence is almost a shot-for-shot recreation of the opening of the original film. Instead of feeling the power that I do when I watch the start of "The Lion King", I felt cheated. As an example of what could have been done differently, there are other cute things that an infant lion can do besides sneeze. We have already seen that thousands of times before. When the filmmakers did make changes, they didn't go far enough. When Simba is about to be thrown to his death by Scar in the 1994 film, editing is used to surprise us. Upon realizing that Scar was responsible for Mufasa's death, Simba jumps back onto the rock and furiously pounces on Scar. The moment is edited such that we go from fear to triumph really quickly and this creates drama and excitement. In the remake, Simba takes hold of Scar to pull himself back onto the rock and backs Scar away from the edge. Once again, I felt cheated. The filmmakers had the opportunity to go original and thereby come up with something just as dramatic and exciting. Instead, they stuck too close to the original film but made things worse by modifying what made the original scene special to begin with.

Over the past year, I have notice that Disney-produced films are starting to teach a wrong message to kids. The message I am hearing is that responsibility doesn't matter because someone else can handle it; do what you want instead of what's best for you and others. First it was Vanellope, then it was Thor and then worst of all Woody. This caused me to dread what would happen with this remake of "The Lion King". Would it end with the song "Hakuna Matata"? I understand that Scar is not the "someone else" anyone would want to take on the responsibility of a kingdom and therefore the story demands that he be overthrown for the good of everyone. I also acknowledge that the other Disney examples I have mentioned did not have a Scar-type character that needed to be dealt with (Thor did have Loki but that was another movie and Thor dealt with it back then). The truth is that usually there are no Scars in our lives and we are not destined to rule a earthly kingdom. That doesn't mean that responsibility is any less important in our lives. We don't need a dictator to motivate us to rise to the occasion and to do away with a "Hakuna Matata" mentality. That is why it hurt to see these other characters choose the carefree life over a life of responsibility. Disney should be avoiding a double standard with the lessons they teach. Even though this film teaches an important message, they seemed to zip through some pretty important scenes that help this message sink in. The scene between Simba and Rafiki in the original movie was quite long. That was important because the years of the Hakuna Matata mentality had to be stripped away from Simba. Even that was taking too long so Rafiki whacks Simba on the head. In this remake, Simba's mind is changed too easily. Trying to trim the fat on this scene where in fact there is no fat was quite a mistake. I haven't timed the two corresponding scenes to compare which one is shorter but even if the scene in the remake is longer in duration, it was so similar to the original scene that it felt too quick. This is where some originality in the screenplay could have done wonders. This version of "The Lion King" did have one moment that showcased originality. Photorealistic Timon cannot "dress in drag and do the Hula". The filmmakers therefore came up with a very funny gag that works in this medium and was self-referential. The original film also had a similar moment with "It's a Small World (After All)". This witty joke also worked in the remake because of comic timing. Timon's original distraction song was longer than needed because he already had the hyena's attention and that created humor. The song that he sings in the remake was cut short and we weren't expecting that so it was equally funny. The scene is proof that the filmmakers could create originality in the midst of telling this very familiar story. Timon and Pumbaa were the main source of originality in this film because Favreau kept much of the actors' improvised lines in the final film. I wish more of the lines and story had been altered in the movie because this would have helped the dramatic scenes.

I will admit the special effects in this show were amazing. Three out of the four Oscar-winning visual effects supervisors from "The Jungle Book" supervised this film and I think they have another Oscar due. It isn't a new concept for "live action" animals to be the stars of a movie. While these aren't real animals in "The Lion King", the goal was to make them as real as possible. The film can therefore be coupled with other movies that feature real animals as the protagonists, some of which were quite successful like "Babe", "Homeward Bound: The Incredible Journey" and "A Dog's Purpose". These movies however had human characters to provide a sense of genuine drama that the animals could not provide. It is impossible for an animal's face to perform in such a way that it evokes an emotional response from the audience that matches what a human actor can do. The medium of animation makes it possible for human expressions to be translated on the faces of animals but when you strive for photorealism, you sacrifice the character's ability to act. Who is in a better position to make you cry when Mufusa dies, two-dimensional cartoon Simba or photorealistic Simba? Funny enough, it is harder to feel for animated lion that is more realistic because real lions aren't very expressive in the facial region. On the other hand, because we subconsciously know that a cartoon is not real, we suspend our disbelief and can relate more to the characters. The special effects also got in the way of making our villain more villainous. Just like the live-action adaptation of "Aladdin" had problems with its villain, so did this movie. Scar wasn't just plain evil twenty-five years ago. Being a cat, he was also playful. Towards the end of the film, he is revealed to be the coward that he truly is. We loved seeing Scar "quiver with fear" after he is exposed and at Simba's mercy back in 1994. A realistic lion however could perform none of these characteristic properly, at least not as well as the animators back in the 90's were able to pull off. The wildebeest stampede in the original film was massive and the major eye-candy moment. This photorealistic stampede was less massive and I think that reason is that the herd needed to be more realistic in number. Still, when you compare the two scenes, the 1994 version is once again superior.

Because of how closely this remake resembles its source material in terms of the story and screenplay, any alterations of the characters became too apparent for us to subconsciouly accept. While the young Simba worked on screen, the older Simba as voiced by Donald Glover just didn't work. His voice just sounded wrong for the character. I liked Glover better as a young Lando. The two best casting choices for this remake were Seth Rogen and John Oliver. There was a nice mix of originality and familiarity when it came to Pumbaa and Zazu. As I alluded to, the improvisation between Billy Eichner and Rogen worked because they brought originality to a film that needed it. Unfortunately, neither the realism nor improv provided enough originality. With all the publicity of Beyonce being a voice in this film, she didn't bring much to the role. Fun fact, Shahadi Wright Joseph, who plays in the young Nala also portrayed the character on Broadway. Another smart casting choice was John Kani as Rafiki. Kani is probably best known for playing T'Chaka in the Marvel Cinematic Universe and that persona helped create the kind of character the filmmakers were after but not necessarily what the audience desired. Rafiki for me was not eccentric enough in this remake. The original Rafiki reminded me a lot of Yoda but this Rafiki is more serious and therefore less fun without the contrast from his eccentric side. The filmmakers also made Scar a more serious character with similar consequences. Chiwetel Ejiofor does have experience with Shakespeare and so that qualities him to play Scar. While the actor did his job well, the audience longs for the playful and cowardly sides of the character. Trying to go for a slightly different version of the villain doesn't work when other story elements were not changed. Mufasa wasn't altered for example. I admit that trying to recast Mufasa appears impossible. I think it was the right choice to bring back James Earl Jones but he wasn't given very many new lines to speak. Once again, the filmmakers had the chance to create some new magic but failed to captialize. Other returning filmmakers from the original animated movie include executive producer Thomas Schumacher, musical composer Hans Zimmer, singer/songwriter Elton John and lyrist Tim Rice. The latter three all won Oscars for their work on the animated source material but Zimmer has not won a second Academy Award despite a very successful career since "The Lion King". I liked his use of his original themes to craft a somewhat new musical accompaniment. Elton John and Beyonce tried to collaborate on some new songs for the film but nothing ended up in the final product. John and Rice did create one new song for the end credits. When I found out that Pharrell Williams was producing many of the classic songs in this remake, I was expecting them to sound a little different. However, I could hear no real difference in the arrangements. Williams himself is an Oscar nominee so why hire him if he's not going to bring anything different to the table? Speaking of that, Jeff Nathanson has an impressive resume but I don't see how you can give him screenwriting credit when the film is such a copy in terms of dialogue.

As I wrote this, I came to a realization. The filmmakers didn't make enough changes when creating this remake and when they did, it was usually in the wrong areas. Also, if the filmmakers didn't want us to make so many comparisons with the source material, they shouldn't have copied the original film as much as they did. This was not a film for people like me who have the original version memorized. That's why I didn't rate this movie lower than I did because there is a new generation watching this film and there are those who haven't seen the original film in many years. This remake may entertain them more than it did me. While the special effects are very impressive, they restricted the drama that this story is known for. These Disney remakes getting out of control. They were tolerable for a while but the sheer volume of them is sending a message that entertainment is not as important as financial gain. A desire to make money doesn't motivate you enough to create true cinematic magic. It is hard work and passion that create the magic.

3 Stars out of 5