But Disney is in a busy period right now, where they've given some of their most popular animated films a live-action update, this year alone already giving us Dumbo and Aladdin. The quality has varied, but in the case of this new take on The Lion King, at least that had the guidance of director Jon Favreau, who already made high marks with 2016's The Jungle Book, a film that itself could stand independently of its inspiration. Maybe this could recapture the epic magic of that original film. Unfortunately, the second time out, the mighty Lion's roar feels very tired, feeling cheaply wheeled out like a run-down circus show.
I don't even need to list off a synopsis for this movie. If you've ever seen the original rendition of The Lion King, you already know this remake's story, beat for beat. Young Simba is next in line to be king, but when his father Mufasa is murdered by his uncle Scar, Simba believes himself to blame and runs away, years later returning as an adult to claim his throne. Numerous other characters show up to help him throughout, he faces key trials on his journey to adulthood, etc. If you expect to be surprised in any way, you won't get that. You are essentially paying theater price to watch a photorealistic - not even live-action, photorealistic computer generated version of a movie you've probably seen dozens of times on home video. So if you go in with low expectations, you may come away with some enjoyment, but that's not a guarantee, considering how much I really, really didn't like this movie.
As far as the biggest selling point goes, that being the heavy CGI artistry on display, I will give all due credit to the film. It looks breathtaking! Reuniting Favreau with Rob Legato and his effects team from The Jungle Book, the animators and technicians have gone to painstaking lengths to present the animal characters in as realistic, awe-inspiring level of detail money can buy. The film is presented in an almost documentary-like fashion, capturing the animals in ways akin to a National Geogrpahic or BBC One nature series. Take the dialogue out, and plaster David Attenborough narration on, it wouldn't feel out of place. That extends beyond even the creatures, going into the lush environments, harsh weather conditions, and the majestic natural lighting schemes. It's so impressive, it can be difficult to wrap your head around the fact that it isn't real. It's such an impressive showcase of technology, and all due plaudits should be owed to that mammoth achievement here.
But... even that highlight comes with its shortcomings. The movie's photorealism is a double edged sword, as while the imagery itself is beautiful, it's also a hindrance. Try as it might, CGI can never *quite* carry the same expressiveness of hand-drawn animation, which becomes a glaring issue with the character designs. By placing so much emphasis on making them look real, it's so hyper-realistic that the film ends up shackling itself, and can't be as fantastical with their facial features. "Hakuna Matata" becomes a fitting showcase for that, as while Simba sounds elated when singing it, his face registers more as pain than joy. Not only that, but the hyper-realism makes it genuinely tough to discern which character is which. Nala and Sarabi, for example, look so similar in appearance and build (there's difference, but *minuscule*). The hyenas are especially undercut by this, especially Shenzi who's been promoted to the group's alpha, and given a wicked voiceover by Florence Kasumba. But whatever intimidation factor she had, it doesn't last, because I couldn't even tell you which one was her. At least the wolf pack of The Jungle Book had distinct coating, but this is such an error of judgment that I wish the effects artists had stopped to consider.
But really, all that effort does is highlight just what a shallow movie this really is. Even though this remake's script is credited to Jeff Nathanson, adapting this movie couldn't have been any easier than transcribing the original film, and tinkering around with a few lines. That's an issue that's been prevalent with Disney's remakes recently, especially those based on the Renaissance, in which they're so beholden to what their audience remembers (many who have memorized it word for word), they're too cowardly to venture out of their comfort zone, lest they alienate that audience and sabotage their business. So they essentially have to make the same movie all over again, but if that same exact movie already exists, what is the point of even making it? And I know you may be thinking "Well, it's a remake. Just have fun and stop unfairly comparing it to the original." That's hard when the film itself directly brings those comparisons up, so that added scrutiny is unavoidable. At least if this was a decent adaptation, that would be one thing, but it's not even that, because this movie reeks of corporate pandering.
I could pinpoint you specifically to when I realized just how mechanic this movie felt, that being the intense stampede sequence that comes in roughly 1/3 of the way through both films. From a technical standpoint, the new rendition is solid, but it flounders as an emotional centerpiece. Whereas the original felt like a PTSD-wracking assault on the senses, the stampede here feels much cleaner and less traumatizing in its staging. So when Simba mourns the loss of his father, the impact simply isn't there, again only emphasized by the lack of emotion these creatures project. There are good isolated moments from time to time, including the "Circle of Life" sequence where the film arguably peaks, but that same level of awestruck wonder is few and far between. You can especially see this, sad to say, in James Earl Jones' reprisal of Mufasa. Despite being the one who originated the character, and parroting most of his original dialogue, he sounds much less compelling than he once did. He honestly sounds like his heart wasn't fully in it, and that apathy puts a damper on the film, carried on by the rest of the film's cast.
On paper, The Lion King boasts an amazing cast of performers, but the delivery of their material wildly varies in quality. Donald Glover, for example, as the adult version of Simba is not a very strong lead. Matthew Broderick is perhaps infamous for his bland speaking demeanor, but Glover doesn't do much to rise above that when he isn't singing. Perhaps due to most of Simba's screentime being as a cub voiced by JD McCrary, so there isn't as much time to develop his side of the character, but the usually charming Glover sounds like he's phoning it in at times. Ditto can be said for Nala, voiced by Beyonce Knowles-Carter (cast more for her singing than her acting), who's intended to be the strong role model for young girls, but doesn't carry the dramatic heft to sell that nobility. This movie goes out of its way to assemble some amazing talent, including Alfre Woodard, John Oliver, John Kani, and Keegan-Michael Key, but they're severely underserved, or their characters indistinguishable, by the lack of personality fueling them.
There are some glimmers, to be certain, one of which being Chiwetel Ejiofor as Scar. He can't so much as touch Jeremy Irons' iconic performance, but he wisely chooses not to. Scar is played up a bit more pathetically in the new film, which has lead him to become more psychopathic and tyrannical in his mannerisms, making him a deeply uncaring and unbalanced leader. Even his signature "Be Prepared" number is more of a growling war cry than a musical number, so at least his efforts turned out well. But it's Timon and Pumbaa, voiced here by Billy Eichner and Seth Rogen, who handily run away with the film. Because though they carry the familiar hallmarks of their counterparts, they aren't playing it as a pale imitation. The characters are reconfigured closer to laid-back slackers, with a lot of their humor being nonchalant in nature, and with their improvisational touch and sparkling chemistry, they're easily the most entertaining characters (and it helps that their models actually show some emotion).
That leaves the music, which has been faithfully translated for the most part, but even that is as dubious as any other carbon copy element of the film. While Hans Zimmer's new arrangements to his magnum opus is terrific, and perhaps his finest work in a decade, it isn't all that challenging to simply reshuffle all your old compositions, many of which barely change beyond slight alterations in tempo and pitch. Elton John's and Tim Rice's songs also translate well, even if Jon Favreau proves that he's no musical director, given the realistic touch means he can't go wild with stylized choreography, the static numbers here mainly consisting of animals running back and forth. But some of the new performances really take some getting used to, especially the weaker rendition of "Can You Feel the Love Tonight." We also have new songs, Elton John original "Never Too Late" that plays during the credits, but the most out of place comes courtesy of Beyonce original "Spirit," which comes completely out of nowhere, and doesn't gel with the otherwise rocky musical stylings of John's compositions. It only exists as one more area to take advantage of its A-List star's talents.
There's a particularly prolonged sequence in The Lion King, recreating the dust-collecting scene in which Rafiki learns Simba is alive. That gets reimagined into an extended three minute tangent, in which a strand of Simba's mane *painstakingly* makes its way to Rafiki. That, to me, is emblematic of everything that is wrong with this new rendition of The Lion King, in that no expense has been spared to make it look beautiful, but it also takes a lot more time to say less, and by the time it reaches its point, you almost wonder "What is all this even for anymore?"
Disney essentially plunked down $260 million dollars for a two hour tech demo, that capitalizes on the nostalgia and good will of a genuinely terrific film, but recaptures none of the heart that made it so endearing. Even for all the effort that went into the film, its all in service of absolutely nothing. It's in service of a movie that, honestly, shouldn't even exist, showing Disney at the height of its laziness as a filmmaking force. They're capable of making incredible films, some of the most enchanting of all time, but they squander it by spinning their wheels on territory they've already covered, knowing they can reap the rewards for repackaging it in a shinier box. I adore The Lion King, and I wanted to like this movie, but this is easily a contender not only for the most pointless movie of the year, but quite possibly of the decade.
Not that it'll slow down Disney's string of live-action remakes, next year seeing a new take on Mulan, which to its credit at least looks like it's trying to be different. At least it looks a lot more ambitious than this, which is about as safe and pre-packaged a film as it can possibly get. Thus far, a rather uninspiring thing...
** / *****
No comments:
Post a Comment