Nostalgia carries The Lion King to mediocrity

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

Us finds horror in implications and atmosphere

Lupita Nyong'o in Us. Image courtesy Universal Pictures.

There is something bothersome about Us, a slow dawning sense of terror that just lingers for a spell once the curtain closes and the lights go up. The film otherwise lacks a true moment of shock or terror – the jump scares are minimal, and the humor is ample enough to mitigate some of the traditionally scary moments – but goodness are the implications of Jordan Peele's film absolutely awful to dream about. Even as Us is hampered by ambitions it can't quite reach, it excels brilliantly at planting some dreadful thoughts and allowing them to grow.

 

Us stars, and is often carried by, the enigmatic Lupita Nyong'o. She plays Adelaide Wilson, a normal mom on vacation in Santa Cruz with her husband Gabe (Winston Duke), daughter Zora (Shahadi Wright Joseph), and son Jason (Evan Alex). It's a typical beach vacation – sun, sand, copious amounts of booze with friends Kitty (a great Elisabeth Moss) and Josh (Tim Heidecker) – except for a dark cloud that hangs over Adelaide. She has a bad childhood memory of running into another version of herself, and she can't escape the feeling she hasn't escaped her other self. Her fears come to fruition when their home is invaded by the Wilson's doppelgangers, who have murderous intentions for Adelaide and her family.

As shown in Us and Get Out, Peele has an excellent grasp of the fundamentals of horror. He's an expert at evoking discomfort even amid what are otherwise friendly and bright locations – a busy boardwalk filled with games and rides is just as terrifying as the spookiest of houses in Peele's hands. Something sinister lurks behind every corner, which works conceptually with Us, a movie whose universe contains a shallow mirror just below a vibrant surface. The Wilson family can't trust the upper-middle class shell they've created for themselves because right below the surface are the forgotten wishing for a taste of what they have.

And, well, there's a lot that can be read into that idea. Us could very well serve as a political statement, centering on the subjugation of a class of people who aren't even worth considering. The film could be a comment about the illusions of wealth, or about the strength of family. It can be about the emptiness of life in a technological age, about the ferociousness of motherhood, about fatalism, about the complexities of the soul. Peele's films are read as much as they are watched – he's just as skilled at planting clues as he is setting atmosphere – yet the message for Us is a little muddled. Peele has a lot to say about a lot of subjects with Us, and he can't deliver on everything he wants to say. The enormous ambition he has with this film is admirable and worth an attempt to emulate, but his drive toward divine profundity comes at the expense of a thematic direction and a modicum of sanity.

Us suffers a little from a tonal funk. The film relies a lot on its sense of humor – it's often as funny as it is scary – but the jokes undercut some of the vital gravitas of the horror. Moments designed for silent awe are infiltrated with uproarious laughter from the audience because they aren't quite sure which direction the film is leading them toward. The divide between humor and fear is often quite thin – a point Peele is very well aware of – but the film can't shed its jokiness enough for some of the horror to truly hit.

Well, at least in the moment. The brilliance of Us lies in the after scare, the residual fear that boomerangs back with more force than it was thrown. The final twist creates a rabbit hole of horrible thoughts and possibilities about the very nature of humanity and the lack of clarity between good and evil. It's a disturbing note to end a film on, the kind that results in a few chills and a restless night miles away from the theater. The point of Us is to leave its audience perturbed by these ideas. It wants to exploit the dark thoughts that reside in the depths of the mind and bring them to the surface, haunting the viewer like the best horror films should.

Review: Four and a half of Five Stars

Click here to see the trailer.

Rating: R

Run time: 116 minutes

Genre: Horror

tl;dr

What Worked: Lupita Nyong'o, Elisabeth Moss, Atmosphere, Implications

What Fell Short: Imbalanced tone, uncontrolled ambition

What To Watch As Well: Get Out, C.H.U.D.