What is widely considered as Walt Disney Studio's magnus opus, The Lion King, undergoes the live-action treatment as the latest in a string of such remakes from the Mouse House. 25 years after the original animation lodged itself in the hearts of a generation, extensive developments in technology and the studios' drive to re-envision its film library has led us to a photorealistic version from director Jon Favreau. Do we come full circle or is the film as meaningless as Scar says life is in our first encounter with him?
In the Pride Lands of Africa, King Musafa and Queen Sarabi introduce the kingdom to baby Simba, the new heir to the throne. However, Musafa's brother, Scar, disgruntled by the future king's arrival, will stop at nothing to take control of Pride Rock. Boasting a headline-grabbing voice cast including Donald Glover, Seth Rogen, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Billy Eichner and Beyoncé Knowles-Carter, alongside a returning James Earl Jones voicing Mufasa one more, The Lion King has assembled an impressive cast and crew to bring the tale of the Pride Lands to a new audience - but does this new photorealistic format suit such a beloved tale?
As creatively lacklustre as it is entirely, wholly unnecessary, this remake of The Lion King brings even less to the table than any of Disney's previous live-action conversions. Playing out like a shot-for-shot remake at times, it only rarely diverts from the animation, offering little new and, worse, never actually improving upon the masterful original in any way, shape or form, raising the question of storytelling necessity. You could probably count on one hand the changes that have been made and hardly any of them enrich the story -- a reimagined version of Scar's solo musical number, "Be Prepared", is the biggest letdown, removing so much of the visceral energy of the original and providing a far tamer, far weaker interpretation of this pivotal, character-defining number.
Of course, the first film set such a high bar that it's almost unfair to compare them - but Disney brought it upon themselves by remaking it in the first place. Even removing those comparisons though, The Lion King is far from a perfect film. Alongside the bitterly disappointing "Be Prepared", some of the other musical numbers are bizarrely staged, with "Can You Feel The Love Tonight" and "Just Can't Wait To Be King: both lacking spirit. The additional runtime amounts to so very little that it's difficult to actually pinpoint how it clocks in 30 minutes longer than the animated classic.
Many have discussed the "groundbreaking" and "revolutionary" CGI that made The Lion King possible and yes, for the most part, it is an impressive feat. The detailed landscapes are fantastically rendered and the animals are breathtakingly lifelike close-up: more akin to a documentary, you feel that you could be watching real animals frolic around the planes of Africa. Hans Zimmer palpable composition only seeks to emphasise the grand scale and scope of this new film, returning to score this new vision of the film with continued success.
However, said CGI realism poses a major downfall, and when it comes to vocalising these character, the magic dissipates and it's continually jarring. Stilted at best and expressionless at worse, there is a mighty disconnect between what the character is saying and how they look, particularly amongst the lions who, as suggested by the title, populate this tale more so than any other animal. With some moments, notably in the second half, where the speech and appearance feel entirely out-of-sync, it can be so wildly off-putting and distracting that it negatively influences your immersion in the story.
Furthermore, there are some scenes that simply do not work in a live-action environment: the iconic fast zoom-out as Simba witnesses a devastating death is the most glaring example, and presented an opportunity for the filmmakers to deflect from the original and produce something more fitting to a photorealistic Lion King -- but their decision to copy, paste and play it safe reflects the wider film's biggest flaw: it's total lack of creativity. Reinforcing the notion that almost no risks have been taken, you cannot shake how pointless it feels with no real vision in place.
It's a mixed success from the ensemble cast, too. Seth Rogen and Billy Eichner's Pumbaa and Timon are the undisputed standouts of the film, creating an effervescent dynamic that yields some hilarious results; they riff to their heart's content and most of it works rather well, their comedic sensibilities showcased especially well during the crowd-pleasing "Hakuna Matata" and "The Lion Sleeps Tonight", two very well-staged set-pieces. Chiwetel Ejiofor has Jeremy Irons' mighty big shoes to fill as Scar and it's an admirable attempt, with the character perhaps the only one to benefit from any further depth in Jeff Nathanson's otherwise imitative screenplay, presenting a more wrought brotherly relationship from the offset.
Unfortunately though, the film's biggest star - Beyoncé Knowles-Carter's Nala - is where the film's struggle to match the vocal with facial expression rears its ugly head most notably; she gives a characterful performance as Nala but juxtaposed against the lion's expressionless face, it is a terribly disorientating experience - another reason why you never feel totally immersed within the film. Beyonce's contribution to the soundtrack, however, is much stronger - "Spirit" is a great song. Perhaps the least effective performances come from those supporting performers attempting new comedy: the hyenas and Zazu both miss more than they hit with the laughs, pale beside their original counterparts.
Despite creating a richly-textured environment, the difficulty in bringing the same level of detail to the characters' expression suggests that live-action is simply not the right format for this type of story - particularly one absent a human to anchor the film around, like Favreau's previous live-action remake, The Jungle Book, had. Disney so often thrives by immersing audiences in their lusciously-animated worlds but from beginning to end you feel like a passive spectator rather than an engaged audience member: as simple as that sounds, the difference is staggering and hurtful to the film's success.
While I could sit here all day and criticise the live-action remake The Lion King for what it is - a lazy, pointless and unnecessary cash-grab from Disney - it could have been so much worse. It's not a bad film, just one that shouldn't really exist in the first place because, if you're unable to improve upon any single elements, why bother? But, if it had to exist, at least it doesn't defile the animation which will forever hold a special place in my heart, bringing impressive animation, the same emotional beats (if not quite as potent) and characters we know and love to life in a passably entertaining live-action setting.
Of course, the first film set such a high bar that it's almost unfair to compare them - but Disney brought it upon themselves by remaking it in the first place. Even removing those comparisons though, The Lion King is far from a perfect film. Alongside the bitterly disappointing "Be Prepared", some of the other musical numbers are bizarrely staged, with "Can You Feel The Love Tonight" and "Just Can't Wait To Be King: both lacking spirit. The additional runtime amounts to so very little that it's difficult to actually pinpoint how it clocks in 30 minutes longer than the animated classic.
Many have discussed the "groundbreaking" and "revolutionary" CGI that made The Lion King possible and yes, for the most part, it is an impressive feat. The detailed landscapes are fantastically rendered and the animals are breathtakingly lifelike close-up: more akin to a documentary, you feel that you could be watching real animals frolic around the planes of Africa. Hans Zimmer palpable composition only seeks to emphasise the grand scale and scope of this new film, returning to score this new vision of the film with continued success.
However, said CGI realism poses a major downfall, and when it comes to vocalising these character, the magic dissipates and it's continually jarring. Stilted at best and expressionless at worse, there is a mighty disconnect between what the character is saying and how they look, particularly amongst the lions who, as suggested by the title, populate this tale more so than any other animal. With some moments, notably in the second half, where the speech and appearance feel entirely out-of-sync, it can be so wildly off-putting and distracting that it negatively influences your immersion in the story.
Furthermore, there are some scenes that simply do not work in a live-action environment: the iconic fast zoom-out as Simba witnesses a devastating death is the most glaring example, and presented an opportunity for the filmmakers to deflect from the original and produce something more fitting to a photorealistic Lion King -- but their decision to copy, paste and play it safe reflects the wider film's biggest flaw: it's total lack of creativity. Reinforcing the notion that almost no risks have been taken, you cannot shake how pointless it feels with no real vision in place.
It's a mixed success from the ensemble cast, too. Seth Rogen and Billy Eichner's Pumbaa and Timon are the undisputed standouts of the film, creating an effervescent dynamic that yields some hilarious results; they riff to their heart's content and most of it works rather well, their comedic sensibilities showcased especially well during the crowd-pleasing "Hakuna Matata" and "The Lion Sleeps Tonight", two very well-staged set-pieces. Chiwetel Ejiofor has Jeremy Irons' mighty big shoes to fill as Scar and it's an admirable attempt, with the character perhaps the only one to benefit from any further depth in Jeff Nathanson's otherwise imitative screenplay, presenting a more wrought brotherly relationship from the offset.
Unfortunately though, the film's biggest star - Beyoncé Knowles-Carter's Nala - is where the film's struggle to match the vocal with facial expression rears its ugly head most notably; she gives a characterful performance as Nala but juxtaposed against the lion's expressionless face, it is a terribly disorientating experience - another reason why you never feel totally immersed within the film. Beyonce's contribution to the soundtrack, however, is much stronger - "Spirit" is a great song. Perhaps the least effective performances come from those supporting performers attempting new comedy: the hyenas and Zazu both miss more than they hit with the laughs, pale beside their original counterparts.
Despite creating a richly-textured environment, the difficulty in bringing the same level of detail to the characters' expression suggests that live-action is simply not the right format for this type of story - particularly one absent a human to anchor the film around, like Favreau's previous live-action remake, The Jungle Book, had. Disney so often thrives by immersing audiences in their lusciously-animated worlds but from beginning to end you feel like a passive spectator rather than an engaged audience member: as simple as that sounds, the difference is staggering and hurtful to the film's success.
While I could sit here all day and criticise the live-action remake The Lion King for what it is - a lazy, pointless and unnecessary cash-grab from Disney - it could have been so much worse. It's not a bad film, just one that shouldn't really exist in the first place because, if you're unable to improve upon any single elements, why bother? But, if it had to exist, at least it doesn't defile the animation which will forever hold a special place in my heart, bringing impressive animation, the same emotional beats (if not quite as potent) and characters we know and love to life in a passably entertaining live-action setting.
6/10
Summary: A live-action The Lion King need not exist and never justifies its existence other than to earn Disney all the money the (projector) light touches - but that's the circle of life and simply not tarnishing the legacy of the original might have to be enough.