 |
| Simba (voiced by JD McCrary) in The Lion King. Image courtesy Disney. |
Whatever
artistic purpose exists in converting classic Disney animated films
into the husk of brilliance remains well beyond my understanding.
Take The
Lion King,
Disney's newest reboot, a film that largely copies the original a la
Psycho
1998 and yet has very little substance to add to its template. All of
these Disney reboots exist for profit, but The
Lion King
is a rather egregious attempt to feed off nostalgia.
The
movie has effectively the same plot as the 1994 original. Simba,
voiced as a cub by JD McCrary and as an adult by Donald Glover, is
stuck in the middle of a power play between his father Mufasa (James
Earl Jones) and scheming uncle Scar (Chiwetel Ejiofor) for control of
Pride Rock, which his father loses in rather dramatic fashion. Cast
out of the kingdom, Simba is taken in by snarky meerkat Timon (Billy
Eichner, a step up from Nathan Lane) and sweet warthog Pumba (Seth
Rogen), who teach Simba to let go of the past and enjoy today. That's
easier said than done though, especially after childhood friend Nala
(Shahadi Wright Joseph as a cub and Beyonce as an adult) asks him to
return to reclaim the throne and live up to his father's legacy.
Joined by faithful servant Zazu (John Oliver), the wise Rafiki (John
Kani) and his mother Sarabi (Alfre Woodard), Simba returns to battle
Scar, hyena leader Shenzi (Florence Kasumba) and her army of hyenas
(Keegan-Michael Key and Eric André
among them) for control of the kingdom.
The
biggest compliment to offer this new Lion
King
is also the root cause of one of its biggest flaws. This is a
legitimately good looking film, from the lush scenery to the
impressive CGI that does a phenomenal job making the animals look
fairly authentic. Yet the CGI is a
major weakness for The
Lion King
because the conversion from animation to realistic CGI removes a lot
of the film's charisma. By aiming for verisimilitude with the lions,
elephants, hyenas, and multitude of critters, the characters lose
much of their personality because they can't emote. Take a character
like Zazu, who is memorable in large part because his animated facial
expressions enhance the wry dialog delivered by Rowan Atkinson. Poor
Oliver is stuck voicing a literal bird, which puts the onus on his
vocal abilities to carry the character and removes a layer of
uniqueness from the character. Even the musical numbers are dinged by
this; because the animals are supposed to be “real”, director Jon
Favreau can't stage the elaborate musical numbers that highlighted
the original. What's left is outright boring musical numbers that
exist in a faux reality, which runs counter to a genre defined by its
flights of fancy.
The
Lion King
is ill served by the transition to a real-life setting, which is one
of the few real methods it attempts to distinguish itself from the
1994 version given how many shots this version borrows.
Favreau does have a little wiggle room though, interpreting minor
scenes to make subtle, often deleterious, changes to the source
content. One example worth highlighting is transporting Can
You Feel the Love Tonight
in the middle of the afternoon, dulling a lot of the romanticism of
the moment. To be fair, some of the tweaks work pretty well – an
indulgent Disney reference in the third act is an improvement over
the scenario from the original – but most of the tweaks do not
benefit the film. Where Favreau and writer Jeff
Nathanson,
and by extension The
Lion King,
have control is in the approximately 30 minutes of extra run time.
One of the main target areas is the development of the female
characters, which is hit or miss. Having Senzi lead the Hyenas
instead of serving as a Stooge is a step up, resulting in a pretty
nice payoff during Scar's demise. The film is less effective with
Nala, giving her a couple extra scenes that try to add courage to a
character that was already pretty courageous. Favreau and Nathanson
simply don't do enough with the extra time to justify having it, and
the added time hurts the narrative flow while stagnating the musical
numbers.
The
one benefit of adapting The
Lion King
is the quality of the source material. The original is so good the
ersatz version can't be all bad. Playing it safe saved the film from
being anything less than mediocre, but it prevents it from achieving
anything much greater than that. And without any interest in
exploring the text, the film lacks an artistic reason to exist. The
point is purely profit, and it makes for an uninteresting movie.
Review: Two out of Five Stars
Click here to see the trailer.
Rating: PG
Run time: 118 minutes
Genre: Drama
tl;dr
What
Worked: Billy
Eichner, James Earl Jones
What
Fell Short: Extended
Run Time, Live Action Setting, Musical Numbers
What
To Watch Instead:
The
Lion King
No comments:
Post a Comment