The Lion King

The animators have done an excellent job in terms of authentic portrayals of living creatures and nature, ensuring that the animation is absolutely breath-taking, and many shots look as if they came from natural history documentaries. The problem is that The Lion King is not a documentary from the African savannah, but rather a musical from Disney, in which the animals talk and sing, and this truly does not work well together with photo-realistic animation. In order to achieve the greatest possible credibility, the animal heroes were deprived of all "human" facial expressions, and therefore the only emotions in their dialogues are the voices of their voice actors, which leave something to be desired. The story (basically Hamlet) is no different from the animated version (except that it’s half an hour longer) and it's still understandably great, but it just doesn't have much to surprise you with if you've seen the original The Lion King. The new The Lion King is a technologically perfect, but otherwise somewhat soulless copy of its much better predecessor. (03/10/2020)

A mechanically generated remake that looks beautiful and has a couple of ideas of its own, but that’s also something that nobody who didn’t expect to profit from it needed in this world. I haven’t watched the original since I was a kid and I don’t have many memories about it, that’s probably the reason why I was able to endure this version unharmed and don’t need to condemn it to a below-par rating. And of course, I praise the superb voice acting, among whom Seth Rogen as the faithful warthog stands out (only Jeremy Irons was missing). 60% (16/03/2020)

A beautiful visual aspect and Hans’s faultless, Oscar-winning composition. A remake of one of my favorite kids’ movies with a minimum of changes, which suits me just fine. More action scenes and a little more romping in the perfectly rendered countryside do nothing but good. I liked the voice of James Earl Jones and Seth Rogen is fantastic as Pumba. (09/11/2019)

A verbatim remake that, while visually stunning, is an identical copy of the famous original without any additional ideas, improvements or moments of surprise (except for the dung beetle). Favreau thus remains just a hitmaker who can deliver a film that will hit the hundred-million mark at the box office, but the soul of the original is nowhere to be seen. Commercially, it’s fine, perhaps, but otherwise it’s a pointless update of something that was already almost perfect. (21/07/2019)

I felt as uncomfortable watching the new Lion King as I would have felt watching natural history documentaries with narration that jokingly imitates the “voices” of animals. At the same time, it is an inordinately long (and drawn-out) film, very dark (the hyenas could sign up for a horror-movie casting call) and verbose, i.e. not very suitable for younger viewers who would most likely appreciate the talking fauna. I very much enjoyed Caleb Deschanel’s camera work, which was adapted to the characters’ point of view, and one wordless scene including the odyssey of a dung beetle with a ball of giraffe droppings. Otherwise, a negative feeling of inappropriateness predominated. When you see a photo-realistically animated (and talking) warthog and a (talking) meerkat tame a (talking) lion cub and turn it into an entomophage, it is more disturbing than funny or cute. Whereas I can still be impressed by the original to this day, the reboot just makes me want to cry over the idea that it will be a huge commercial hit and Disney will continue to churn out such empty, asexual, absolutely unsurprising remakes of its successful films. The Jungle Book had a faster pace and more convincing characters, and it did not merely copy the original film, but developed it in a meaningful manner. It was unique in some way. Conversely, The Lion King is only a soulless imitation, perhaps technologically perfect, but almost worthless artistically. 50% (18/07/2019)