... with real, life-like animals. The lack of emotion and facial expressions makes you not get so attached.
Very much disliked the new song. Very much disliked Beyonce's unnesessary changes to the great song that is Can you feel the love tonight. Was also not too fond of other voice choises in this movie.
Six starts for the great story that The Lion King still is, but not even close to the same league with the original in the execution.
But I do not doubt that the children who have not seen the original would not love it.
2,704 Reviews
It's the circle of cash... and it moves us all... out to the theaters...
ElMaruecan8223 April 2022
If only it could move us inside...
Let's be honest, Disney has never been a non profit-making organization and Uncle Walt was a man of vision AND economical flair. Still, before turning into a voracious corporate blob, Disney was still the quintessential dream factory and nostalgia builder for many, many, many generations. And even for these direct-to-video sequels that spread all over the 2000s like a bad cold, some brain cells of imaginations were mobilized.
But now Disney's not even trying to pretend, investing all the efforts on a pure technical level and the kind of marketing-that-speaks-for-itself. It is one thing to adapt fairy tales into live-actions, before "Cinderella", there was "Enchanted", "Maleficent" or even Tim Burton's "Alice in Wonderland". And yet Disney executives found the trick: it's not about adapting the fairy tale but the Disney version of it. Thorns are still invisible over the head with the two round ears but right now in 2022, it seems that "awakening your inner child" isn't a motto anymore but a formula.
The formula could have interesting results: the 2016 "Jungle Book" film could center on little Mowgli and diverged from the 1967 film. Same with "Dumbo" or "Aladdin". But exclusively animal-centered movies like "The Lion King", "Bambi" or "The Lady and the Tramp" are a different challenge. You've got to humanize the way animals could act, react or display emotions. Take the kiss between Lady and the Tramp, the magic is not within the moment their mouths meet but the cute and genuine embarrassment that follows. You can't "animate" these emotions with live-action animals with all the technology of the world.
Indeed if your purpose is that your lion looks real, you can't expand the range of facial expressions: remember in "One Hundred and One Dalmatians" the way Pongo and Perdita looked at each other at the end of the garden scene: reproducing that with real-looking animals is inconceivable, couldn't work, wouldn't work. And that's the ultimate wager of photorealistic remakes: achieve documentary-like realism with storylines that were designed for hand-drawn or at the very least CGI animation, "Toy Story" CGI I mean.
And that leads to even more perplexing results when it comes to 'surreal' sequences like "I Just Can't Wait to Be The King" where two normal-looking cubs are casually running across pink flamingoes, or the moment that precedes Simba's epiphany where the figure of Mufasa is barely visible in the sky (not to mention that some lines were cut from the original). Now, maybe Disney takes for granted our passion for the "Lion King" and considers that we're there to "fill the gaps". It's true I did enjoy the film to the degree that it reminded of "The Lion King", which is a high point of my childhood, but at the end of the day, my mind was full of afterthoughts. To put it simple, I realized it was an enjoyment by proxy.
The problem of "The Lion King" isn't that it's good or bad. It is certainly a remarkable achievement on the field of animation. The problem is that it is problematic. Yes I'm talking in circles but that's a circle Disney has just taken us into and that makes it rather impossible to figure what is wrong with these photorealistic films, we know there's something that doesn't look right, maybe on a pure reason-to-be way.
"The Lion King" is one of the classics of animation, a masterpiece that speaks highhy of the dedication of old-school Disney team of animators. 1995 would change the games with the first CGI and so in a way, "The Lion King" was the culmination of that traditional hand-drawn art. Not only that but its story, very simple and straightforward carried the gravitas and dramas or movie classics. Characters like Scar, Mufasa, Simba are all printed in our memories, the songs became pop culture monuments, scenes have been parodied countless times. "The Lion King" became a household name for Disney excellence. And certainly one of the greatest opening sequences of history, the shivers down your spine sent by the sight of Rafiki carrying little Simba is one of these moments you can't just 'duplicate'.
As viewers pointed out, many things are missing: where is the friendly nod Mufasa gives Zazu? Or that hug between Rafiki and Mufasa? Mufasa comes across as a stone-faced patriarch posing like a library statue... and waiting for our nostalgic pheromones to instill some life in him .... Maybe we were just curious to see how they'd pull this out. I guess if I was told about an animated version of "The Godfather" no matter how ludricrous it sounds I would have given a shot. "The Lion King" was such a big deal, viewers did came to see and made it one of the highest grossing films of the year.
Fair enough, but what's that does say exactly? That half the job was done and make a copy of something great to make something of equally promising greatness? The purpose of a remake is to bring something new. But "The Lion King 2019" doesn't bring anything new except for the realistic animation that doesn't look like an improvement anyway.. Scar looks like a washed out lion who shampooed his mane with paint thinner, without one tenth the suave charisma of the original. James Earl Jones' voice looks like he was only testing the microphone or was bored to death, which actually matched the look of the used-to-be majestic lion.
And I swear the savannah and jungle never looked so dismal with tones of beige and yellowish green that reminded me of that Water Truce sequence in "The Jungle Book". So much for the bright colors and the escapism.... And the only thing visible right now are the thorns on the head, and the round ears have turned pointy... no it's not the devil, but a cow, a cash-cow.
Let's be honest, Disney has never been a non profit-making organization and Uncle Walt was a man of vision AND economical flair. Still, before turning into a voracious corporate blob, Disney was still the quintessential dream factory and nostalgia builder for many, many, many generations. And even for these direct-to-video sequels that spread all over the 2000s like a bad cold, some brain cells of imaginations were mobilized.
But now Disney's not even trying to pretend, investing all the efforts on a pure technical level and the kind of marketing-that-speaks-for-itself. It is one thing to adapt fairy tales into live-actions, before "Cinderella", there was "Enchanted", "Maleficent" or even Tim Burton's "Alice in Wonderland". And yet Disney executives found the trick: it's not about adapting the fairy tale but the Disney version of it. Thorns are still invisible over the head with the two round ears but right now in 2022, it seems that "awakening your inner child" isn't a motto anymore but a formula.
The formula could have interesting results: the 2016 "Jungle Book" film could center on little Mowgli and diverged from the 1967 film. Same with "Dumbo" or "Aladdin". But exclusively animal-centered movies like "The Lion King", "Bambi" or "The Lady and the Tramp" are a different challenge. You've got to humanize the way animals could act, react or display emotions. Take the kiss between Lady and the Tramp, the magic is not within the moment their mouths meet but the cute and genuine embarrassment that follows. You can't "animate" these emotions with live-action animals with all the technology of the world.
Indeed if your purpose is that your lion looks real, you can't expand the range of facial expressions: remember in "One Hundred and One Dalmatians" the way Pongo and Perdita looked at each other at the end of the garden scene: reproducing that with real-looking animals is inconceivable, couldn't work, wouldn't work. And that's the ultimate wager of photorealistic remakes: achieve documentary-like realism with storylines that were designed for hand-drawn or at the very least CGI animation, "Toy Story" CGI I mean.
And that leads to even more perplexing results when it comes to 'surreal' sequences like "I Just Can't Wait to Be The King" where two normal-looking cubs are casually running across pink flamingoes, or the moment that precedes Simba's epiphany where the figure of Mufasa is barely visible in the sky (not to mention that some lines were cut from the original). Now, maybe Disney takes for granted our passion for the "Lion King" and considers that we're there to "fill the gaps". It's true I did enjoy the film to the degree that it reminded of "The Lion King", which is a high point of my childhood, but at the end of the day, my mind was full of afterthoughts. To put it simple, I realized it was an enjoyment by proxy.
The problem of "The Lion King" isn't that it's good or bad. It is certainly a remarkable achievement on the field of animation. The problem is that it is problematic. Yes I'm talking in circles but that's a circle Disney has just taken us into and that makes it rather impossible to figure what is wrong with these photorealistic films, we know there's something that doesn't look right, maybe on a pure reason-to-be way.
"The Lion King" is one of the classics of animation, a masterpiece that speaks highhy of the dedication of old-school Disney team of animators. 1995 would change the games with the first CGI and so in a way, "The Lion King" was the culmination of that traditional hand-drawn art. Not only that but its story, very simple and straightforward carried the gravitas and dramas or movie classics. Characters like Scar, Mufasa, Simba are all printed in our memories, the songs became pop culture monuments, scenes have been parodied countless times. "The Lion King" became a household name for Disney excellence. And certainly one of the greatest opening sequences of history, the shivers down your spine sent by the sight of Rafiki carrying little Simba is one of these moments you can't just 'duplicate'.
As viewers pointed out, many things are missing: where is the friendly nod Mufasa gives Zazu? Or that hug between Rafiki and Mufasa? Mufasa comes across as a stone-faced patriarch posing like a library statue... and waiting for our nostalgic pheromones to instill some life in him .... Maybe we were just curious to see how they'd pull this out. I guess if I was told about an animated version of "The Godfather" no matter how ludricrous it sounds I would have given a shot. "The Lion King" was such a big deal, viewers did came to see and made it one of the highest grossing films of the year.
Fair enough, but what's that does say exactly? That half the job was done and make a copy of something great to make something of equally promising greatness? The purpose of a remake is to bring something new. But "The Lion King 2019" doesn't bring anything new except for the realistic animation that doesn't look like an improvement anyway.. Scar looks like a washed out lion who shampooed his mane with paint thinner, without one tenth the suave charisma of the original. James Earl Jones' voice looks like he was only testing the microphone or was bored to death, which actually matched the look of the used-to-be majestic lion.
And I swear the savannah and jungle never looked so dismal with tones of beige and yellowish green that reminded me of that Water Truce sequence in "The Jungle Book". So much for the bright colors and the escapism.... And the only thing visible right now are the thorns on the head, and the round ears have turned pointy... no it's not the devil, but a cow, a cash-cow.
Doesn't roar enough
TheLittleSongbird3 December 2019
1994's 'The Lion King' is not just one of my favourite Disney films, it is also one of my favourite animated films and one of my favourites overall. Beautiful animation, some of Disney's most iconic songs and amazing score, an entertaining and powerful story with unforgettable moments, terrific voices (especially James Earl Jones and Jeremy Irons) and joint best beginning to a Disney film alongside 'The Hunchback of Notre Dame'.
Disney's live action films are often frowned upon, they often have been described as pointless and many feel that Disney are running out of ideas. Can totally understand this, as the small handful that have been made so far have not really been necessary but the quality of them have varied. 'Cinderella' and 'The Jungle Book' were great and by far the best of the remakes, but the rest have left me mixed. Will admit to not really seeing the point of this version and was not massively impressed by the trailer, but saw it anyway being such a fan of Disney and because my sister desperately wanted to see it. Watching it way back when it first came out but with being behind with my reviewing it took me to now to review it, it was a little better than expected and not as bad as others have said. My sister did like it a lot better than me, with my feelings being quite lukewarm. Am really trying not to compare and try and judge it on its own terms, but sometimes it is hard when the quality of a remake, follow up or another adaptation is very far removed from something so good and that is the case with comparing both 'The Lion King' films.
'The Lion King' (2019) does have good things. The best thing about it by a mile is the visuals, which are absolutely fantastic. Something of a technical achievement, with the scenery being breathtaking in every sense ("Circle of Life" being a notable example) and the characters (excepting their eyes needing more expression) blend very realistically in a way where one gets the sense that this was a nature documentary. The score is still powerful, especially in the stampede and one of Disnney's most iconic tear-jerkers. Have always loved the songs, and with two exceptions they still make an impact. "Circle of Life" is truly awe-inspiring and the closest the film came to making me cry.
Most of the dialogue has some moments of humour (Timon and Pumbaa) and tension (the hyenas). The story has its moments. Can not praise "Circle of Life" enough, Timon and Pumbaa are amusing and the stampede is intense, not goosebump-inducing though, even though everybody who has seen the original will know the outcome. Making the hyenas scarier and fleshing out the lionesses (a little) more were good moves. Actually thought that a lot of the voice work was not bad at all, Billy Eichner and Seth Rogan being so much fun and by far the best faring of the voices, they were clearly having fun too with the improvising and their comic timing is full of exuberance not obvious elsewhere. Florence Kasumba's Shenzai is very different, the opposite in fact, to Whoopi Goldberg's, and the more sinister edge worked very well. James Earl Jones, the only voice actor to reprise his role, still has Mufasa's booming dignity and Donald Glover does quite well.
Didn't care for some however. Was mixed on John Oliver, who is fun but overdoes it at times. Beyonce comes over as very out of place, her voice not fitting how Nala looks, and she even sounded bored. Chiwetel Eijofor, a good actor who was brilliant in '12 Years a Slave', was the biggest disappointment, found him too subdued for Scar and he is nowhere near as menacing or enjoys himself as much as Irons (whose voice work is some of the best for any Disney, and animated, film). While "Circle of Life", "I Just Can't Wait to be King" and "Hakuna Matata" come off well (especially "Circle of Life"), "Be Prepared" was bizarre and quite over the top, what a way to waste one of the greatest Disney villain songs. "Can You Feel the Love Tonight" was reminiscent of decent at best karaoke. "Spirit" is even worse, that did not fit within the film and was more an excuse for Beyonce to show off her vocal chops and have actually heard much better singing from her.
Excepting the hyenas being scarier, some additional dialogue and the lionesses being more fleshed out, 'The Lion King' suffers from being too faithful and not having enough of its own identity. Too many of the scenes are near-carbon copies with only fleeting moments of heart and soul, mostly the film emotionally is very bland. The big death scene, heart-wrenching before, is treated in too throwaway a fashion. The additional dialogue and any interpolations are not for the better either and actually rather jar, while the cuts and changes were not necessary. The eyes and facial expressions for the characters, especially Scar, lack nuance and are at times borderline creepy.
Summing up, found a lot to like but was disappointed overall. 6/10
Disney's live action films are often frowned upon, they often have been described as pointless and many feel that Disney are running out of ideas. Can totally understand this, as the small handful that have been made so far have not really been necessary but the quality of them have varied. 'Cinderella' and 'The Jungle Book' were great and by far the best of the remakes, but the rest have left me mixed. Will admit to not really seeing the point of this version and was not massively impressed by the trailer, but saw it anyway being such a fan of Disney and because my sister desperately wanted to see it. Watching it way back when it first came out but with being behind with my reviewing it took me to now to review it, it was a little better than expected and not as bad as others have said. My sister did like it a lot better than me, with my feelings being quite lukewarm. Am really trying not to compare and try and judge it on its own terms, but sometimes it is hard when the quality of a remake, follow up or another adaptation is very far removed from something so good and that is the case with comparing both 'The Lion King' films.
'The Lion King' (2019) does have good things. The best thing about it by a mile is the visuals, which are absolutely fantastic. Something of a technical achievement, with the scenery being breathtaking in every sense ("Circle of Life" being a notable example) and the characters (excepting their eyes needing more expression) blend very realistically in a way where one gets the sense that this was a nature documentary. The score is still powerful, especially in the stampede and one of Disnney's most iconic tear-jerkers. Have always loved the songs, and with two exceptions they still make an impact. "Circle of Life" is truly awe-inspiring and the closest the film came to making me cry.
Most of the dialogue has some moments of humour (Timon and Pumbaa) and tension (the hyenas). The story has its moments. Can not praise "Circle of Life" enough, Timon and Pumbaa are amusing and the stampede is intense, not goosebump-inducing though, even though everybody who has seen the original will know the outcome. Making the hyenas scarier and fleshing out the lionesses (a little) more were good moves. Actually thought that a lot of the voice work was not bad at all, Billy Eichner and Seth Rogan being so much fun and by far the best faring of the voices, they were clearly having fun too with the improvising and their comic timing is full of exuberance not obvious elsewhere. Florence Kasumba's Shenzai is very different, the opposite in fact, to Whoopi Goldberg's, and the more sinister edge worked very well. James Earl Jones, the only voice actor to reprise his role, still has Mufasa's booming dignity and Donald Glover does quite well.
Didn't care for some however. Was mixed on John Oliver, who is fun but overdoes it at times. Beyonce comes over as very out of place, her voice not fitting how Nala looks, and she even sounded bored. Chiwetel Eijofor, a good actor who was brilliant in '12 Years a Slave', was the biggest disappointment, found him too subdued for Scar and he is nowhere near as menacing or enjoys himself as much as Irons (whose voice work is some of the best for any Disney, and animated, film). While "Circle of Life", "I Just Can't Wait to be King" and "Hakuna Matata" come off well (especially "Circle of Life"), "Be Prepared" was bizarre and quite over the top, what a way to waste one of the greatest Disney villain songs. "Can You Feel the Love Tonight" was reminiscent of decent at best karaoke. "Spirit" is even worse, that did not fit within the film and was more an excuse for Beyonce to show off her vocal chops and have actually heard much better singing from her.
Excepting the hyenas being scarier, some additional dialogue and the lionesses being more fleshed out, 'The Lion King' suffers from being too faithful and not having enough of its own identity. Too many of the scenes are near-carbon copies with only fleeting moments of heart and soul, mostly the film emotionally is very bland. The big death scene, heart-wrenching before, is treated in too throwaway a fashion. The additional dialogue and any interpolations are not for the better either and actually rather jar, while the cuts and changes were not necessary. The eyes and facial expressions for the characters, especially Scar, lack nuance and are at times borderline creepy.
Summing up, found a lot to like but was disappointed overall. 6/10
The Lion King
0U3 March 2020
Well...the visual effects are groundbreaking but it lacks heart and flare - and feels soulless compared to the original. Donald Glover and Beyoncé felt like miscasts - it feels like they're reading lines from a sheet. See this remake for the visual effects; but go back and watch the original animated masterpiece in all its glory.
If Anything, It's a Monumental Technical Achievement
DJKwa12 July 2019
As nature documentaries go, the modern remake of The Lion King (2019) gives some of the best a run for their money, quite literally. With a $250 million price tag, it achieves digitally what David Attenborough has spent his life capturing on camera. The result is jaw-droppingly photorealistic, but it also makes for a strange first impression. Imagine watching a Disneynature feature but with actors reading The Lion King screenplay over the top of it and the effect would be eerily similar. It takes time to accept lifelike looking animals talking like cartoon characters, but the ground-breaking technical skill in which they are brought to life makes the bumpy journey worthwhile.
Every tress of fur, crack in the arid soil and sun-swept vista is rendered in such immense detail that it's unsurprising that many people are calling this reboot live-action. It's a monumental technical achievement and the level of visual fidelity on display alone warrants seeing this film on the biggest screen possible.
However, in terms of the story, the film follows the original so closely that it can't help but feel second rate. Scene-by-scene, it dutifully ticks off the story beats of the 1994 original, with little by way of surprises in-between. It also doesn't help that film's photo-realism unavoidably limits the ability of the animals to convey emotion without looking unnatural or (naturally) cartoonish, and the result is a film that often creates indifference where there should be wonder. With jaw-dropping visuals, plenty of humour and solid renditions of timeless songs, it's hard to see this modern remake failing but, as it turns out, The Lion King's (2019) biggest achievement also ends up being its biggest flaw.
Every tress of fur, crack in the arid soil and sun-swept vista is rendered in such immense detail that it's unsurprising that many people are calling this reboot live-action. It's a monumental technical achievement and the level of visual fidelity on display alone warrants seeing this film on the biggest screen possible.
However, in terms of the story, the film follows the original so closely that it can't help but feel second rate. Scene-by-scene, it dutifully ticks off the story beats of the 1994 original, with little by way of surprises in-between. It also doesn't help that film's photo-realism unavoidably limits the ability of the animals to convey emotion without looking unnatural or (naturally) cartoonish, and the result is a film that often creates indifference where there should be wonder. With jaw-dropping visuals, plenty of humour and solid renditions of timeless songs, it's hard to see this modern remake failing but, as it turns out, The Lion King's (2019) biggest achievement also ends up being its biggest flaw.
How could Beyoncé ruin one of the most beautiful songs ever ??
Caglatureray12 October 2019
How could Beyoncé ruin one of the most beautiful songs ever ?? When she sings "can we feel the love tonight" , I could hear her breath more than her voice. What type of bad singing was that? Completely disappointing !! (Movie and image quality are great, but I didn't like the music quality at all) by the way, John Oliver and Seth Rogen were great!!
Great Movie
noahl-5121012 July 2019
Most people give 1 stars to remakes because they are "nothing like the original." Now I'm seeing a bunch of 1 stars because it's "exactly the same as the original." So.... it seems some people just can't be pleased.
Falls Short
slightlymad2226 July 2019
I just got out of the Lion King
And I have to say it falls short of delivering for me. Elements of this new version are spectacular because of the quality of animation... But so much else was just mediocre... Starting with the poor voice talent. My favorite animated movies are brought to life by memorable distinctive voices... I loved what Burt Reynolds brought to All Dogs Go To Heaven, then Robin Williams set the bar with Aladdin, then we have Tom Hanks, Billy Crystal, Mike Myers, then Eddie Murphy... The list is long but those films wouldn't have been the same without those voices. This new Lion King film has none of that... it's all just so flat.
About 80% of this, is shot for shot/word for word the same as the 1994 classic. Although there is a subplot involving Scar and Sarabi from the Broadway show inserted.
My next issue was the soundtrack... Again, there is nothing special here. The 1994 soundtrack was one of the all-time best. I hated Beyoncé singing Can You Feel The Love Tonight. I am not a fan of hers anyway, and her appeal is totally lost on me, but I can acknowledge when she is good as in Goldmember.
Finally, and my biggest issue... The realistic non-expressions of the animals. Because you can't see happy or sad in their faces, you fully depend on the mediocre delivery of dialog. This was very distracting. The lion's faces do not show sad... happy... scared. This was like watching a two hour voice over.
I found it less entertaining and engrossing than Aladdin and Dumbo, although at times I did enjoy this movie. I can safely say I will never watch it again, and will stick with my 1994 classic, So for me, this was just a mediocre unnecessary remake while showcasing perhaps the greatBest animation ever.
And I have to say it falls short of delivering for me. Elements of this new version are spectacular because of the quality of animation... But so much else was just mediocre... Starting with the poor voice talent. My favorite animated movies are brought to life by memorable distinctive voices... I loved what Burt Reynolds brought to All Dogs Go To Heaven, then Robin Williams set the bar with Aladdin, then we have Tom Hanks, Billy Crystal, Mike Myers, then Eddie Murphy... The list is long but those films wouldn't have been the same without those voices. This new Lion King film has none of that... it's all just so flat.
About 80% of this, is shot for shot/word for word the same as the 1994 classic. Although there is a subplot involving Scar and Sarabi from the Broadway show inserted.
My next issue was the soundtrack... Again, there is nothing special here. The 1994 soundtrack was one of the all-time best. I hated Beyoncé singing Can You Feel The Love Tonight. I am not a fan of hers anyway, and her appeal is totally lost on me, but I can acknowledge when she is good as in Goldmember.
Finally, and my biggest issue... The realistic non-expressions of the animals. Because you can't see happy or sad in their faces, you fully depend on the mediocre delivery of dialog. This was very distracting. The lion's faces do not show sad... happy... scared. This was like watching a two hour voice over.
I found it less entertaining and engrossing than Aladdin and Dumbo, although at times I did enjoy this movie. I can safely say I will never watch it again, and will stick with my 1994 classic, So for me, this was just a mediocre unnecessary remake while showcasing perhaps the greatBest animation ever.
Walt Disney's Will Fallacy
dalefl21 July 2019
For the people who are saying that Walt Disney stated in his will that he wanted the movies to be remade every 10 years: That is not even close to what he said. What is in his will is his desire to have the movies re-released into theaters in order for new generations to enjoy them. That was a common practice throughout Disney's history and he just wanted it to continue after he was gone.
As far as this one goes, I was hoping for better. Nice CGI, the music is good, but the voice acting was barely passable and it lacked the emotion that was such a big part of the original. Overall very disappointing.
As far as this one goes, I was hoping for better. Nice CGI, the music is good, but the voice acting was barely passable and it lacked the emotion that was such a big part of the original. Overall very disappointing.
For looking so true-to-life, most of this film is lifeless
Lepidopterous_23 July 2019
This remake manages to suck all the life out of the original. It really is like watching National Geographic while hearing The Lion King (1994) on in the other room. There is a total disconnect between what you are seeing on-screen and what you are hearing or supposed to feel-so much that I am surprised this was not noticed early on and left on the cutting room floor. Baloo in Favreau's The Jungle Book (2016) alone should have been a warning sign.
At its best, the soundtrack is only as good as the original. I was waiting out for Beyoncé and Donald Glover hoping maybe they would save it with charm, humor, or chemistry, but Beyoncé oversings/overacts and Glover's few moments just aren't enough. John Oliver does steal his scenes as Zazu and I'm a fan of Scar's character design. Visual effects are extremely well done, but for a production that looks so true-to-life, most of the film is lifeless.
Very disappointed.
At its best, the soundtrack is only as good as the original. I was waiting out for Beyoncé and Donald Glover hoping maybe they would save it with charm, humor, or chemistry, but Beyoncé oversings/overacts and Glover's few moments just aren't enough. John Oliver does steal his scenes as Zazu and I'm a fan of Scar's character design. Visual effects are extremely well done, but for a production that looks so true-to-life, most of the film is lifeless.
Very disappointed.
Don't listen to the Critics!!!
PabloRLbear2412 July 2019
This movie is Amazing!!! The imagery and colors are remarkable. It brought back so many memories from when I was Young. Let's face it, nothing will ever top the Original. People are complaining about the animals not having emotion line the original?? Are you serious? They try making this movie as real as it gets, you guys want to see a Lion smiling?? Seriously!!! Music was nostalgic, everything was perfect. Best Disney "live-action" movie of all.
Compromised
n-middleton-11720 August 2021
When you take one of the greatest stories to grace the silver screen and then combine it with exceptional visual effects, you'd expect the end product to be a wonderful contemporary refresh, ready to captivate young hearts and minds all over again. However, in the process of trying to out a slightly new spin on the Lion King, they've tampered with some elements that have detracted from the value of the film.
So many reboots of classic films have fallen victim to the same adaption of storyline's to try and appease more contemporary audiences, but almost always end up being worse. The Lion King doesn't deviate from the original script and story as much as some other modern remakes, but it does still mix it up. Some of the changes arguably a small improvement, but some are significantly worse. The original film has so many subtle lessons, but sadly some of the best ones have been altered or removed entirely in this new version.
Overall, the story is still close enough to the original to be decent, and the visual effects are quite remarkable. Although, the animals' faces appear somewhat dull, as the hyper realism doesn't allow for the same range of expression as the original cartoon.
Overall, it's not a bad interpretation of the original, but a far cry from stellar heights of its predecessor. It's a movie that definitely didn't need to happen though.
So many reboots of classic films have fallen victim to the same adaption of storyline's to try and appease more contemporary audiences, but almost always end up being worse. The Lion King doesn't deviate from the original script and story as much as some other modern remakes, but it does still mix it up. Some of the changes arguably a small improvement, but some are significantly worse. The original film has so many subtle lessons, but sadly some of the best ones have been altered or removed entirely in this new version.
Overall, the story is still close enough to the original to be decent, and the visual effects are quite remarkable. Although, the animals' faces appear somewhat dull, as the hyper realism doesn't allow for the same range of expression as the original cartoon.
Overall, it's not a bad interpretation of the original, but a far cry from stellar heights of its predecessor. It's a movie that definitely didn't need to happen though.
WHY...WHY WOULD YOU CHANGE THE VOICES!!!
fightsense30 July 2019
Another Hollywood smack in the face, great animation with so much promise until the characters started talking, the new actor replacements were HORRIBLE! NO emotions in the voices NOTHING...NOTHING! ZERO emotion, as if these actors didn't care or were just reading there lines in a room by them selves. This was just a travesty, a classic... RUINED by terrible acting , TERRIBLE Direction, just HORRIBLE! WHO the HELL made these decisions??!! With the very few dialog add ons WHY would you re cast WHY????? Why would you remove Jeremy Irons as Scar?? WHY??? Why would you put emotionless actors as Simba, Nala etc.. Yes Beyoncé was not good not at all, no emotions just terrible and ruined the original music. Seth Rogan was ok, yeas just Ok not close to as funny as the original Pumba.. AVOID AT ALL COSTS!
Beyonce actually made a song awkward to hear
donttouchmeprimate20 October 2019
You know the song, where "can you feel the loooooove tonight", and it looks like the lions are about to bang? Yeah, Beyonce kind of went all over the place with that and it sounded weird.
Anyways, visually it was beautiful but characters just lacked emotion, I think this was a deliberate choice but it causes a lack of investment from a viewer's perspective. The cast were hit and miss, if you've seen it then you'll know who was great and who were rubbish.
But yeah. At least it's not as bad as the mess that was Aladdin
Anyways, visually it was beautiful but characters just lacked emotion, I think this was a deliberate choice but it causes a lack of investment from a viewer's perspective. The cast were hit and miss, if you've seen it then you'll know who was great and who were rubbish.
But yeah. At least it's not as bad as the mess that was Aladdin
No reason
docasesteves13 July 2019
Good but not great
kirviti4 November 2020
I'm shocked to see so many 1 star reviews! Really unbelievable. It's not a masterpiece like the original but it's still good. The only problem is that there is not much emotion, but otherwise it's still joyful, funny and visually stunning. The songs are not very good, especially ' Can you feel the love tonight' sounds like a cash-grab and 'Be Prepared' is horrible. If you haven't watched The Lion King, I recommend watching the 1994 original rather than this. It's just like a pastime and not really memorable. I must admit that a year after I watched it in theatres in July 2019, in 2020, I could not remember a thing from this movie. It's somehow very forgettable. I watched it again this year. Good movie but huge degrade from the original. Aladdin remake was much better. Please just watch the original. I start crying every time when I watch the original, when the movie starts and I don't know why, but I never do for this remake. It's just so soulless.
Wonderful story, amazing graphics!
acam-0287526 December 2019
What a great movie. I did not watch the original, but I loved this one. It is a compelling story and the realism of the images is just unbelievable, I was in awe throughout the movie. Despite being so realistic it had a very idyllic fantasy touch to the scenes which I enjoyed very much. I guess for young children it may be scary at times for being so realistic.
Unnecessary Remake
claudio_carvalho23 November 2019
In Africa, the lion cub Simba is the pride and joy of his parents King Mufasa and Queen Sarabi. Mufasa prepares Simba to be the next king of the jungle. However, the naive Simba believes in his envious uncle Scar that wants to kill Mufasa and Simba to become the next king. He lures Simba and his friend Nala to go to a forbidden place and they are attacked by hyenas but they are rescued by Mufasa. Then Scar plots another scheme to kill Mufasa and Simba but the cub escapes alive and leaves the kingdom believing he was responsible for the death of his father. Now Scar becomes the king supported by the evil hyenas while Simba grows in a distant land. Sometime later, Nala meets Simba and tells that the kingdom has become a creepy wasteland. What will Simba do?
"The Lion King" is an unnecessary remake of the 1994 animated film. The songs are boring and the nice images tell a story without soul. In the end, this version is beautiful but does not give any emotion to the viewer. My vote is six.
Title (Brazil): "O Rei Leão" ("The Lion King")
"The Lion King" is an unnecessary remake of the 1994 animated film. The songs are boring and the nice images tell a story without soul. In the end, this version is beautiful but does not give any emotion to the viewer. My vote is six.
Title (Brazil): "O Rei Leão" ("The Lion King")
STOP PAYING DISNEY TO LAZILY REMAKE YOUR CHILDHOOD
matthewssilverhammer26 July 2019
My question going into the latest "pay-us-for-your-nostalgia" Disney-remake was, "Why do we need this? What new can it bring?". Technically, the CGI animation is impressively state-of-the-art and new. Otherwise, my worst fears were warranted. It's not just similar to its source material but is 100% the same in almost every aspect. From moment one, when the iconic "NAAAH SA-VIN-YAAAH!" bursts forth, I realized they were so beholden to the '94 classic they didn't even bother rerecording that vocal. It sets the stage for both the larger things (story beats / scenes), as well as the smaller things (specific line deliveries), to be a lazy karaoke tune. So frustratingly unimaginative, it makes 2019's Aladdin look like a feat of original storytelling.
Thankfully, the greatness of the story is left untouched, though it was already plenty great without being redone. The few things that are changed don't expand the story, but just extend scenes past the point of reasonable story economics. We're forced to sit through self-congratulatory animation montages that are useless beyond "look what we did!"
Crowds seem to be going for the cast, and many of those performances are the highlights. Listening to Glover & Beyonce sing together is special, Scar is decently rendered, and Rogen & Eichner offer the most unique and successful moments. Still, with dialogue so slavish, you can sense the actors desperately trying not to copy what they grew up hearing.
Honestly, even the technical brilliance is often a hindrance. By making the animals photoreal, we take away individual personalities, physical nuances, and even facial expressions, all of which help us relate to their plight. So, again I ask, why do we need this?
Great movie
theteamavengers15 July 2019
A real childhood tragedy
allisimlover23 July 2019
And I'm not talking about (reliving) Mufasa's death. I'm talking about Hollywood tarnishing yet another classic that needed no remake or reboot whatsoever. Despite the movie being almost two hours, the movie was rushed - they rushed into the songs, which were artless and dull regarding the setting; one of the songs was tragically shorten; and Beyonce (adult Nala) had very little screen-time in the film.
Worst of all, there was NO EMOTION, MAGIC, HUMOR.
Only good things were Hans Zimmer, Elton John, and James Earl Jones. The visuals were good, but they don't make up for the movie at all.
Worst of all, there was NO EMOTION, MAGIC, HUMOR.
Only good things were Hans Zimmer, Elton John, and James Earl Jones. The visuals were good, but they don't make up for the movie at all.
It was alright
emmanuttall2531 August 2019
I loved the Disney version growing up and I don't think Some Disney movies should be remade. As soon as the music started I started crying but that's because it took me back to my childhood and how much I loved this move. Word for word it's exactly the same as the Disney version, they look real which is probably the best bit. But for some reason I hated Beyoncé singing on it. I don't feel the need to watch again it was just alright
Best remake for sure!
bsbgal12 July 2019
Lion King 2019
jackson_ro16 November 2019
Undoubtedly gorgeous, filled with a memorable story, song and characters, but definitely not as magical as the original. Watching the newest Lion King feels like I'm watching the Discovery Channel, as the scene and animals are incredibly lifelike, but that is also the problem, all the silliness of the original was taken out just so the film could be more of a visual masterpiece. In the end, this iteration is simply a CGI masterpiece featuring a great story, and not one of the greatest movie of all time.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
