The Lion King (2019) - Review: Stunning, Catchy, Yet Emotionless
Release date (US): July 19th, 2019
Starring: James Earl Jones, Donald Glover, Beyonce, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Seth Rogen, Billy Eichner, John Oliver, Keegan-Michael Key, Alfre Woodard, Eric Andre, John Kani, Florence Kasumba, JD McCrary, Shahadi Wright Joseph
Starring: James Earl Jones, Donald Glover, Beyonce, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Seth Rogen, Billy Eichner, John Oliver, Keegan-Michael Key, Alfre Woodard, Eric Andre, John Kani, Florence Kasumba, JD McCrary, Shahadi Wright Joseph
**DISCLAIMER**: This is a subjective, opinionated article that does not have, nor should have any effect on your opinion. As such, my opinion is entitled to change over time and whatever is written here at this point in time may not and should not be held to me in the future. You are not meant to agree with me 100 percent of the time, because the nature of subjectivity is we see everything differently. If there is something you happen to disagree with, I absolutely respect your point of view if you will respect mine. Please keep this in mind.
The Review
One could argue that films like Aladdin or Beauty and the Beast, animated classics in their own right, are insignificant compared to the cultural, cinematic phenomenon that is The Lion King. The 90s animated film changed the landscape for animation and storytelling in its genre forever. It has been hailed by many as the best animated film ever to hit the silver screen. And because of that, when Disney decided, off the success of Jon Favreau’s 2016 “live-action” reimagining of The Jungle Book, that it was time to remake one of their crown jewels, people took notice.
Oh yes, Aladdin drew some attention and fanfare, but it came and went, somehow sneaking its way to making a billion dollars. But everyone knew that when The Lion King hit theaters in summer of 2019, it was going to leave a mark. There was little doubt, especially after seeing the stunning visual effects from early marketing material that this film had the potential to be a modern classic. Not to mention the voice cast; James Earl Jones returns as the King, Mufasa. Donald Glover, Queen B herself (Beyonce), Chiwetel Ejiofor, Seth Rogen, Billy Eichner, and John Oliver round out a star studded ensemble.
All the elements are in place to make one of the best, most successful, most emotionally resonant movies of 2019. But instead, something else happened. The film that we got felt more like a hollow shell, with nothing of substance on the inside. Somehow, on the way to recreating one of the most beloved classics in their library, Disney missed what makes them so relevant in the first place: emotion.
Let me start off by saying that this is not a bad film. By no means. In fact, I would consider it a good one. All the pieces are in place. James Earl Jones delivers his lines in the way that only he can. There is true majesty, power, and authority that reverberates from his lungs. It pours magic into one of the most iconic characters of all time. Donald Glover, and his younger counterpart, JD McCrary, both deliver a Simba worthy of the original. If you didn’t like the childish nature of the original SImba, nor the less powerful, slightly more naive adult Simba, you will probably frown upon these versions of the character as well. The fact of the matter is that Glover and McCrary portray Simba exactly as you would remember him from the 1994 animated feature.
Beyonce, for all of her star power, is not given a lot to do; for what she does do, she’s serviceable as a voice actor. Everyone knew going into the film that she was only brought on for her stellar voice, and she really is a notch above everyone else in that department. But voice acting is a skill best left to those who have the experience. Seth Rogen and Billy Eichner, as was reported in the early screening reactions, are absolutely the best part of the entire film. Pumbaa and Timon have the same energy and spirit as the original, and Eichner and Rogen are able to recapture that while giving these characters their own unique spin.
Which is a problem. Because all of a sudden, Favreau and company have proven that you can make these characters the same as the original, while also being entirely original. Rogen and Eichner prove that you don’t have to stick by the book for everything. They improvise a lot of their lines and their scenes, and I would argue that those lines and that banter is the best part of the entire movie - not the iconic scenes that were remade exactly as they appeared in the original. This film is almost an exact replica of the original, shot for shot, line for line, scene for scene. There is almost zero originality other than the aforementioned two characters. There is nothing that is new, nothing that is fresh, nothing that feels novel. This was Jon Favreau staying inside the lines and not thinking outside of the box, trying his best not to anger fans of the original and not trying hard enough to please moviegoers who wanted a fresh take on a beloved classic. He rides off the back of his visual effects, and he relies on them heavily.
But let’s not kid ourselves; the visual effects alone might be worth the price of admission for any hardcore movie fan. The visual effects are unbelievable. It is just uncanny that a movie has the capability of taking and transporting audiences into the African savannah in an instant. The amount of detail, the amount of care put into each and every single scene is astounding. From the way the grass moves, to the way the sun hits the characters, you catch yourself staring with awe and reverence at the movie screen.
But a movie cannot ride on visuals alone. Because eventually, the human eye grows accustomed to what they are seeing and begins to focus on what other elements the movie presents, and what other senses the movie appeals to. And because of that, the movie falters. Granted, these visuals are enough to grasp the attention of any audience member without any story for FAR longer than any other movie. But for every inch of the screen that the animators attempted to make look as realistic as possible, they also painted themselves into a corner. Because in trying to make the characters are realistic as possible, they removed any ounce of emotion from the character’s faces.
There’s only so much you can do with photo-realism. In the end, a lion cannot smile, not like a human does at any rate. Nor can he cry, again not in the way a human does. I feel with Favreau’s last effort, The Jungle Book, the animators took special care to leave a little bit more emotion in the characters, to the point that you could tell Baloo had all the personality of Bill Murray, and then some. But when Mufasa died, I saw zero emotion in Simba other than a loud “NO”. There was absolutely zero change in his expression, and that was lacking. There’s only so much you can convey through dialogue, and given the limitations of voice acting, the actors did their absolute best. Which is why the film is not nearly as bad as it could have been. Jones, Rogen, Eichner, and Ejiofor especially do their absolute best to convey as much emotion as humanly possible into these CGI characters. But it’s not enough.
On a brighter note, the music, as it was in the original, is phenomenal. The tunes are catchy once again, and the new singers bring a life and a spirit into them that is worthy of the 1994 versions. “Hakuna Matata” and “I Just Can’t Wait to be King” in particular have a vibrancy of them that I think even add to the original. In a way, even the abridged version of “Be Prepared” is more menacing and less goofy, which fit perfectly with the tone of the new Scar.
Even the orchestral score is brilliant, done once again by the great composer, Hans Zimmer. At times, the orchestral score is what carries the film along as you roam through Africa’s plains through the Pridelands. The backdrops are only augmented by the bombastic tones of brass as well as the serenades of stringed instruments.
In Conclusion: Realistically, if you remake a classic shot for shot, how much worse can it actually be? I would argue, not much. That’s the case with this film that struggles to find its own identity, instead relying heavily on what has been laid before. Does it make many blunders? Aside from emotionless characters, not many. It has all the right pieces in place. A great cast, great music, astounding visual effects; but there is that extra layer that pure, raw, unadulterated emotion brings to a film. And with the 2019 version of The Lion King lacking the strength of the original, it is forced to bow in deference to the real king: its 1994 counterpart.
Oh yes, Aladdin drew some attention and fanfare, but it came and went, somehow sneaking its way to making a billion dollars. But everyone knew that when The Lion King hit theaters in summer of 2019, it was going to leave a mark. There was little doubt, especially after seeing the stunning visual effects from early marketing material that this film had the potential to be a modern classic. Not to mention the voice cast; James Earl Jones returns as the King, Mufasa. Donald Glover, Queen B herself (Beyonce), Chiwetel Ejiofor, Seth Rogen, Billy Eichner, and John Oliver round out a star studded ensemble.
All the elements are in place to make one of the best, most successful, most emotionally resonant movies of 2019. But instead, something else happened. The film that we got felt more like a hollow shell, with nothing of substance on the inside. Somehow, on the way to recreating one of the most beloved classics in their library, Disney missed what makes them so relevant in the first place: emotion.
Let me start off by saying that this is not a bad film. By no means. In fact, I would consider it a good one. All the pieces are in place. James Earl Jones delivers his lines in the way that only he can. There is true majesty, power, and authority that reverberates from his lungs. It pours magic into one of the most iconic characters of all time. Donald Glover, and his younger counterpart, JD McCrary, both deliver a Simba worthy of the original. If you didn’t like the childish nature of the original SImba, nor the less powerful, slightly more naive adult Simba, you will probably frown upon these versions of the character as well. The fact of the matter is that Glover and McCrary portray Simba exactly as you would remember him from the 1994 animated feature.
Beyonce, for all of her star power, is not given a lot to do; for what she does do, she’s serviceable as a voice actor. Everyone knew going into the film that she was only brought on for her stellar voice, and she really is a notch above everyone else in that department. But voice acting is a skill best left to those who have the experience. Seth Rogen and Billy Eichner, as was reported in the early screening reactions, are absolutely the best part of the entire film. Pumbaa and Timon have the same energy and spirit as the original, and Eichner and Rogen are able to recapture that while giving these characters their own unique spin.
Which is a problem. Because all of a sudden, Favreau and company have proven that you can make these characters the same as the original, while also being entirely original. Rogen and Eichner prove that you don’t have to stick by the book for everything. They improvise a lot of their lines and their scenes, and I would argue that those lines and that banter is the best part of the entire movie - not the iconic scenes that were remade exactly as they appeared in the original. This film is almost an exact replica of the original, shot for shot, line for line, scene for scene. There is almost zero originality other than the aforementioned two characters. There is nothing that is new, nothing that is fresh, nothing that feels novel. This was Jon Favreau staying inside the lines and not thinking outside of the box, trying his best not to anger fans of the original and not trying hard enough to please moviegoers who wanted a fresh take on a beloved classic. He rides off the back of his visual effects, and he relies on them heavily.
But let’s not kid ourselves; the visual effects alone might be worth the price of admission for any hardcore movie fan. The visual effects are unbelievable. It is just uncanny that a movie has the capability of taking and transporting audiences into the African savannah in an instant. The amount of detail, the amount of care put into each and every single scene is astounding. From the way the grass moves, to the way the sun hits the characters, you catch yourself staring with awe and reverence at the movie screen.
But a movie cannot ride on visuals alone. Because eventually, the human eye grows accustomed to what they are seeing and begins to focus on what other elements the movie presents, and what other senses the movie appeals to. And because of that, the movie falters. Granted, these visuals are enough to grasp the attention of any audience member without any story for FAR longer than any other movie. But for every inch of the screen that the animators attempted to make look as realistic as possible, they also painted themselves into a corner. Because in trying to make the characters are realistic as possible, they removed any ounce of emotion from the character’s faces.
There’s only so much you can do with photo-realism. In the end, a lion cannot smile, not like a human does at any rate. Nor can he cry, again not in the way a human does. I feel with Favreau’s last effort, The Jungle Book, the animators took special care to leave a little bit more emotion in the characters, to the point that you could tell Baloo had all the personality of Bill Murray, and then some. But when Mufasa died, I saw zero emotion in Simba other than a loud “NO”. There was absolutely zero change in his expression, and that was lacking. There’s only so much you can convey through dialogue, and given the limitations of voice acting, the actors did their absolute best. Which is why the film is not nearly as bad as it could have been. Jones, Rogen, Eichner, and Ejiofor especially do their absolute best to convey as much emotion as humanly possible into these CGI characters. But it’s not enough.
On a brighter note, the music, as it was in the original, is phenomenal. The tunes are catchy once again, and the new singers bring a life and a spirit into them that is worthy of the 1994 versions. “Hakuna Matata” and “I Just Can’t Wait to be King” in particular have a vibrancy of them that I think even add to the original. In a way, even the abridged version of “Be Prepared” is more menacing and less goofy, which fit perfectly with the tone of the new Scar.
Even the orchestral score is brilliant, done once again by the great composer, Hans Zimmer. At times, the orchestral score is what carries the film along as you roam through Africa’s plains through the Pridelands. The backdrops are only augmented by the bombastic tones of brass as well as the serenades of stringed instruments.
In Conclusion: Realistically, if you remake a classic shot for shot, how much worse can it actually be? I would argue, not much. That’s the case with this film that struggles to find its own identity, instead relying heavily on what has been laid before. Does it make many blunders? Aside from emotionless characters, not many. It has all the right pieces in place. A great cast, great music, astounding visual effects; but there is that extra layer that pure, raw, unadulterated emotion brings to a film. And with the 2019 version of The Lion King lacking the strength of the original, it is forced to bow in deference to the real king: its 1994 counterpart.
