Review: It’s hard to feel the love for bland ‘Lion King’ remake | TribLIVE.com
Movies/TV

Review: It’s hard to feel the love for bland ‘Lion King’ remake

Life moves in a circle, “The Lion King” tells us, and, increasingly, so does studio movie-making.

Close on the heels of “live-action” remakes of “Aladdin” and “Dumbo” and on the precipice of a reborn “The Little Mermaid,” ”The Lion King” is back, too.

Round and round we go. Cue Savannah sunrise. Cue “Naaaants ingonyama bagithi baba!”

The remakes have themselves been a mixed bag offering some combination of modern visual effects, fresh casting and narrative tweaks to catch up more dated material to the times. Don’t count on a new “Song of the South,” but much of the Disney library will soon have been outfitted with digital clothes for the Internet era.

It’s easy to greet these remakes both cynically and a little eagerly. In the case of “The Lion King,” the songs are still good, the Shakespearean story still solid. And, well, Beyonce’s in it.

And yet Jon Favreau’s “The Lion King,” so abundant with realistic simulations of the natural world, is curiously lifeless.

Merging cartoon and nature documentary

The most significant overhaul to an otherwise slavishly similar retread is the digital animation rendering of everything, turning the film’s African grasslands and its animal inhabitants into a photo-realistic menagerie. The Disney worlds of cartoon and nature documentary have finally merged.

It’s an impressive leap in visual effects, which included Favreau, cinematographer Caleb Descehanel and VFX chief Rob Legato making use of virtual-reality environments. Some of the computer-generated makeovers are beautiful.

Mufasa, the lion king voiced again by James Earl Jones, is wondrously regal, and his mane might be the most majestic blonde locks since Robert Redford. And the grass stalks of the pride lands shimmer in the African sunlight.

But it’s a hollow victory. By turning the elastic, dynamic hand-drawn creations of Roger Allers and Rob Minkoff’s 1994 original into realistic-looking animals, “The Lion King” has greatly narrowed its spectrum of available expressions.

Voices remote from characters

Largely lost are the kinds of characterization that can flow from voice actor to animation. (Think of how closely fused Tom Hanks is with Woody in the “Toy Story” movies.) Here, most of the starry voice actors (including Donald Glover as the grown-up lion prince Simba, Beyonce as the older lioness Nala and Chiwetel Ejiofor as the villainous Scar) feel remote from their characters. And, in many cases, so do we.

It’s worth asking: Just how real do we need our talking animals? Do we need the feathered majordomo Zazu (voiced by John Oliver) to look enough like a red-billed hornbill to win the approval of avid birders?

“The Lion King” may well be a pivotal stepping stone toward CGI splendors to come, but for now, it feels like realism has been substituted for enchantment.

That doesn’t stop an army of top craft professionals and an enviable voice cast from doing their best to inject some vitality into “The Lion King.” The familiar songs by Elton John and Tim Rice are back, along with a new tune by Rice and Beyonce, though this time, the score by Hans Zimmer, with Lebo M., feels more airy and buoyant.

Yet the degree to which this “Lion King” mimics the first is disappointing. (Jeff Nathanson gets a solo writing credit but scene-to-scene the film hews extremely close to the original.) There’s a sound case to be made that the tale, which has been running on Broadway for more than 20 years, needs little revision.

But the few deviations taken by the filmmakers make you want more.

Bland, unimaginative rehash

The role of Nala has rightfully been elevated and toughened. The most rope for riffing has been extended to the new Timon and Pumba: Billy Eichner and Seth Rogen. Taking over for Nathan Lane’s meerkat and Ernie Sabella’s warthog, Eichner and Rogen make their own shtick together and they, more than anyone else, give “The Lion King” a breath of fresh air, even as they make plenty of fart jokes.

Yet that’s hardly enough to warrant a bland, unimaginative rehash like this, let alone merit Beyonce’s imperial presence. Instead, “The Lion King” is missing something. A purpose, maybe, and a heart.

The life expectancy of Disney classics has begun to feel more like a hamster wheel than a circle of life, and it’s getting harder and harder to feel the love.


1404212_web1_1404212-986942718aed4dd9b6192261d3621e8b
Disney/AP
This image released by Disney shows characters, from left, Zazu, voiced by John Oliver, and young Simba, voiced by JD McCrary, in a scene from “The Lion King.”
1404212_web1_1404212-1284d641480040c9bd18d46e272d8bee
Disney/AP
This image released by Disney shows characters, from left, Mufasa, voiced by James Earl Jones, and young Simba, voiced by JD McCrary, in a scene from “The Lion King.”
1404212_web1_1404212-9c9955ef5e354fc2bb52e98fbc06a88f
Disney/AP
This image released by Disney shows Scar, voiced by Chiwetel Ejiofor, in a scene from “The Lion King.”
1404212_web1_1404212-0dc6a40cd87140d091b40d145a49ddbe
Disney/AP
This image released by Disney shows, from left, young Simba, voiced by JD McCrary; Timon, voiced by Billy Eichner; and Pumbaa, voiced by Seth Rogen, in a scene from “The Lion King.”
1404212_web1_1404212-6907f152452141cf9f17dc98ca1bfe28
Disney/AP
This image released by Disney shows Nala, voiced by Beyoncé Knowles-Carter, left, and Simba, voiced by Donald Glover in a scene from “The Lion King.”
Categories: AandE | Movies TV
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.