This is a review for The Walt Disney Company’s The Lion King (2019). Consider this your spoiler warning, but honestly, who hasn’t seen this movie?

oRIGINAL sUCCESS

In 1994, The Lion King released into theaters to surprising acclaim. You see, The Lion King was never supposed to be Disney’s golden goose. At the same time of The Lion King’s development, The Walt Disney Company was working on Pocahontas. Disney poured everything into Pocahontas thinking it was going to be a genuine Oscar winner. While Pocahontas didn’t see the success that was predicted, The Lion King took the world by storm.  

Remake It All

In the recent decade, Disney has made the decision to bank on our nostalgia by remaking our favorite Disney classics. Now, Disney is no stranger to remakes. In 1994, Disney made a live action Jungle Book, which was met with mixed reviews. They tried again in 1996 with 101 Dalmations, which did a little better than the former. It wasn’t until Tim Burton’s Alice in Wonderland adaptation in 2010 that Disney realized that remakes, if done correctly, could be very successful. The Lion King (2019) marks the 9th remake in Disney’s run of films.

But WHY

While Disney is making the ‘big bucks’ from their live-action remakes, it begs the question, is this necessary? One of the first attempted remakes was 2014’s Maleficent. This was a retelling of the story of Sleeping Beauty through the eyes of its classic villain. This was a very fresh take on the old tale. It was very well recieved and did fairly well at the box-office. But what made Maleficent great was its departure from the original source material (the film). We see this in Cinderella in 2015, where a few changes were made to keep things fresh. Yet, we are seeing a dangerous trend start to emerge with the Disney remake crusade. 

It’s 1994 Again

The Lion King (2019) is a good film. Why is it good? Because it’s safe. Because we’ve seen it all before. Unlike previous Disney remakes that take risks in making changes to the story, The Lion King (2019) does not. This film is almost a shot-for-shot remake of the original 1994 animated film.

In 1998, Gus Van Sant remade Alfred Hitchcock’s Psycho, with a similar affect. It was essentally a shot-for-shot remake of the film. While, yes, he added a few new things, but no major changes. This left people wondering, “WHY?” Alfred Hitchcock’s Psycho is already regarded as one of the best horror films of all time. Was the remake necessary? The same question is asked while watching The Lion King (2019). The 1994 animated version is regarded as one of the bets animated films of all time, similar to Psycho. The 2019 version had some big shoes to fill.

Beautiful or Uncanny?

One thing to be said about this film is that it is a technological marvel. It is a gorgeous film to watch. You can definitely see the detail that was put into this film to make it look so photo-realistic. If anything, it fun to watch from a visual perspective. I can see this film winning some awards for the effects work alone. 

That being said, it does take some adjusting to comprehend. The same problem was realized in the Jungle Book remake in 2016.When watching this film and the characters begin to talk, it may throw you back a bit to see a lion speaking. This will fade as the film goes on, but it is still a bit jarring. We, as humans, are not used to seeing animals like wolves and tigars speak. We haven’t developed a grid for this. Though, this is one of the elements in the film that make it border on the “uncanny valley” side of animation. 

Great Casting

One of the great things about the original Lion King was the voice actors. Sure, they were pretty popular for the time, but their voices quickly became the character. I still can listen to Nathan Lane without thinking of Timon. Disney knew the importance of great casting for these iconic characters and chose appropriately. The voice casting is perfect. It’s very true to the original film. The actors play their characters well, but again, maybe a little too safe. It is incredible to hear James Earl Jones reprise his role as Mufasa.

Though, this is where ‘live-action’ becomes a problem. In the animated The Lion King (1994), the cartoons on screen could show the emotion behind the work of the voice actors. They could smile, raise their eyebrows, etc. The problem with taking the ‘photo-realistic’ approach is that the animals can’t quite make the same faces. This sometimes makes the voice acting and iconic lines fall flat. It’s hard to tell when any character is happy, sad, angry, because the facial expressions don’t change enough to be noticeable. 

Worth It?

When you put everthing into perspective, the animated Lion King came out 25 years ago. Just like that film was a milestone in the generation of the 90’s, so it may be for this current generation. Maybe this will be a film that children watch on DVD so much that the disc gives out, similar to our old VHS’s. Though this film is the same as the animated version, maybe an update is exactly what this generation needs to fall in love with the story of The Lion King.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Sean Smith

Student Author - Summer 2019

Sean Smith is a student at Gulf Coast State College. He’s obsessed with film to the point of blurring the realities between it and real life. When he’s not rewatching The Office to see if Pam is the TRUE villain of the series, he’s working full-time and doing homework (like this). FADE OUT TO BLACK