NEW REVIEW: "The Lion King" (2019)

MRMOVIESETC REVIEWS:

“The Lion King” (2019)

Alright, let’s do this thing.

I didn’t see the new “Lion King” until the second weekend of its run, and even then, there were about eighty new reviews per day on social media ranking it, on average, as either “pretty good” or the “worst thing Disney has ever done”. Intentionally, I waited to put my take out until the dust had a chance to settle from both the masses and in my mind, because this remake was a momentous event in cinema regardless of emotions pre- or post-viewing. I honestly loved sitting back for a while and watching the film community buzz the loudest it has in years, regardless of negative or positive commentary.

As everyone and their dead relatives know by now, since this new version of “The Lion King” wasn’t altered all that much from the original 1994 material, I’m going to approach this review a little differently than I usually do as there’s not much benefit in rehashing on what does and doesn’t work with the story and its various beats. Instead, I am going to list out what my favorite and not-so-favorite things about this remake were, and put a nice bow on it afterwards.

Cool?

Cool.

THE POSITIVES:

-          The Animation – Duh. The trailers for this film alone were enough to indicate that this was going to be one of the most jaw-dropping studio animation productions ever made. For somebody like me that is a dork when it comes to these things, “The Lion King” was nothing short of mesmerizing. I wouldn’t say it was entirely “realistic” across the board, especially with the lion cubs, and oddly, adult Nala for some reason, didn’t quite look as solid as Mufasa, Scar, and the other background wildlife. Nevertheless, from the crawling ant, the leaping antelope, and all the way down to the giraffe dung ball carrying Simba’s fur (super cool scene), this was a job well-done for the ages and will be taking home all kinds of hardware during award season.

-          Scar – I fucking LOVED Scar in this remake. Oh, he doesn’t sound like Jeremy Irons? Well, for the rest of my life, there will now be the Jeremy Irons “Scar” and the Chiwetel Ejiofor “Scar”, and they will live together in harmony. I thought his design in this film was brilliant, and he even got a few new shadow scenes that were borderline scary. Additionally, Ejiofor brought a Shakespearean touch to the role that I felt totally worked. Considering this was the dynamic of the film that I was most concerned about seeing that Scar is my favorite character in the original, this reworking far surpassed my expectations.

-          The Hyenas – If we had gotten about another thirty minutes in their world, I would have been fine with it. To attach the term “bad-ass” to any character in this film, it belongs to none other than Shenzi. Sadly we only got a few glimpses of her in that position, but to have her in her own alpha dynamic – including over Scar if you think about it – she was both intimidating and commanding of all her scenes. Realism was clearly one of the top goals of this movie, and should one watch a National Geographic documentary or two, hyenas are not to be taken lightly in the wild even when it comes to lion competition. While I think this could have been pushed further to the forefront, the film overall did a good job of making the pack something to be feared whilst still keeping some of comedy of the first film intact.

-          The Voice Acting – Obviously I’ve already spoken to Ejiofor, but some of the other standouts were Donald Glover (Adult Simba), James Earl Jones (Mufasa again), Alfre Woodard (Sarabi), Florence Kasumba (Shenzi), John Oliver (Zazu), Billy Eichner (Timon), and Seth Rogen (Pumbaa). There were of course others that were good as well, but in my mind, this batch best embodied their respective creatures. I know this film has been much maligned for the animals’ inability to emote; however, taking into consideration how difficult it must have been to rely solely on voices to carry out all the emotion and character vibrancy, this group did a fantastic job doing just that. On an added note, I’m not at all shy to say that Glover took Simba to a whole new level of sexy and suave that Matthew Broderick could not. Oh, and before anybody gives that look of “’Sexy’ in a children’s film??” you know damn well there were crushes on ’94 Mufasa. Don’t even try to lie to me.

-          The Music – Alright, before you bite my head off on this one, it only applies to a few. “The Circle of Life” came back just a strong thanks to a lovely performance by Lindiwe Mkhize, which isn’t at all surprising given her already awesome performance of said song in the Broadway production; “I Just Can’t Wait to Be King” worked pretty well considering the animals weren’t dancing on top of each other in an acid trip of colors; lastly, I got a big kick out of “The Lion Sleeps Tonight” and the montage of animals joining in the fray to add some volume.

-          Jon Favreau’s Brass Kahunas – Look, no matter your perspective on this project and its legitimacy in film culture for years to come, you have to at least appreciate the magnitude of this risk Jon Favreau took on here. Something like “The Jungle Book” is easier to get away with, and clearly boosted his confidence to take on a project like this. Even if he received a massive paycheck and “The Lion King” turned out be a massive piece of garbage, a move like this can be a career-burner. Sure, not all audiences and critics loved this one, but I like that Jon went against the odds and came still smelling pretty rosy.

THE NEGATIVES:

-          “Be Prepared” – I keep going back and forth on this one, because I highly doubt that the same theatrics during this number in the 1994 version would have carried over  to this one very well at all, so I can understand the thought process behind the “spoken-word” approach. That being said, it still didn’t work and ultimately felt entirely too limp for such an important scene. There’s not much more I can say about this missed opportunity to bring more heft.

-          Cringe in the Gorge – I am mainly referring to the flashback of Simba’s “NOOO!” scene where the camera panes away in cheesy awfulness. If you’ve not seen this film yet and you still plan to, I’m sorry, but you’ll have to suffer through that three seconds like the rest of us.

-          Adult Nala – This is going to sound like nitpicking, and that’s probably because it is. I didn’t have any issues with her character or Beyonce’s voice work. Both of those were fine. In fact, they made some rather positive adjustments to her overall presentation to make her bolder and stronger. I’m not entirely sure how they would have done any differently, but every time her mouth moved on-screen, it looked mechanical, whereas most other animals looked more natural, as ridiculous as that sounds. No matter what the angle or lighting, Nala, to me, just didn’t look right.

-          “Can You Feel the Love Tonight” – Beyonce’s and Glover’s voices went together like hot gravy on mashed potatoes. It was in the afternoon, though. Why? Why, Jon?

-          The Absence of the “Morning Report” Song – I’m just messing with you. That song sucks. Thank Neptune it wasn’t in here.

Assuredly, there are a few things in both categories that I am forgetting or that you feel you should be in there, but I think that covers most of it.

Overall, I dug this reboot, and I do not say that often when it comes to reboots – even Disney. As far as 2019 goes, I didn’t care for “Dumbo” at all, and “Aladdin” was mostly decent, but it had flaws up the wall, too. “The Lion King” does perhaps benefit from playing it safe and sticking close to the original script. Also, taking into account that different doesn’t necessarily mean better nor good, I have to counter the claims that this version is “soul-less” and call bullshit on it – this version is different. It had to be, and frankly, I don’t understand why that’s somehow automatically a fault.

Would dancing animals not look slightly ridiculous in something that is trying to look like it came straight from location in the African savannah? Did everyone want the animals to look like they did in “Mowgli”, i.e., terrifying (no offense, Serkis)? Given the amount of effort that went into this production, “soul-less” would seem more like a projection, no?

At the end of the day, this film it what it is. I’m pretty good at compartmentalizing and seeing two films with the same name in two different packages. I believe this one was made with enough care and style that I will sometimes want to watch this one instead of the 1994 version; just like I’ll want to watch the 1994 version ahead of this one. Depending on my mood, that is likely how it’s always going to be for now on.

The big question now, for me, is what Disney is going to do with these achievements moving forward. Make no mistake; the studio was flexing its muscles with this one, on the beach, lathered in baby oil, without a scrap of shame. That’s all well and good, but will they do more with it? We know they can, and really from here, they must. Stick this technology and dedication to a new idea, and movies will be taken to the next level just like “Avatar”, “Jurassic Park, “Jaws”, etc., did back in their day. Both “The Jungle Book” and “The Lion King” can be seen as the pioneers that started the next evolution, but Disney and other such giants cannot let the opportunity rust with more of the same.

You’re move, Hollywood. We the Audience are waiting.

“The Lion King”: 8/10