This will be a short review – the 1994 original is a better film.
However, I’m not entirely sure that this new approach to animation is “unnecessary”, like many people are clamoring to be, and I’m even less cynic to assume that greed was the drive to get this done.
There is a lot of craft and artistry dedicated to this movie.
To start, the animators responsible for these computer graphics are borderline wizards. If the cinematography of wildlife documentaries didn’t become the most beautiful imagery we’ve got access to these days, I would dare to compare this animation movie to one of those David Attenborough’s voyages.
Moreover, if we add the fact that all the sceneries were drawn on Unity game engine and then shot using commercial HTC Vive virtual reality headsets, it’s almost frightening to think how much tech as evolved in 20-30 years.
That being said, realism has one important drawback, particularly in a film whose original design had the freedoms of cartoon animation. We are way more demanding of characterization, narratives and world rules in a realistic setting.
The shakespearean and biblical truisms that we’ve been consuming in our art throughout the years feel more plane when there aren’t colorful choreographies, big-sad anthropomorphic eyes, or heroic leaps and motions that real animals either don’t risk to do or are physically incapable of trying.
And the filmmakers knew this. To the point of a noticeable constraint in the audiovisual grandeur of the final product. Tonally, this was the correct decision. But in terms of artistic translation of the original screenplay to 2019 technology and techniques, it’s underwhelming.
After more than 20 years in a creative crisis, Disney ignited its renaissance in 1989 with The Little Mermaid. In 1991, Beauty and the Beast garnered the sole (to this day) best picture nomination by an animation film. And, between 1992-1995, the trifecta of Aladdin, The Lion King and Pocahontas made Walt Disney Animation Studios return to, not only critically, but also commercially successful productions. This period also extended to 1999 with Hercules, Mulan and Tarzan.
What made this 10-year period so special was not the fact that Disney was recapturing the magic of its golden age of the 30s-60s [Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937)- The Jungle Book (1967)], but that it was doing that AND adding scale and magnitude to their cinematic storytelling. The Lion King (1994) is a bona fide epic. Look at this:
The cinematography, the range of emotions in the characters’ “faces”, the palpable weight of journey culmination, the Hans Zimmer score following and changing with the climb, and then the eternal return of the circle of life punctuated with the title screen.
This is not great for animation. This is great. Period.
How do you replicate King of Pride Rock with animals, when this cinematic sequence is charged with human complexity?
The plot of The Lion King is fairly simple. What made it reach its emotional heights was precisely the infinite tools of cartoon animation used with pinpoint accuracy.
In 2019, we have a team of incredibly talented artists, equipped with the most modern resources, with the lessons that animation taught us, and, ironically, more constrained than their 1994 counterparts.
Even so, that doesn’t render this version unnecessary. There are a lot of people who won’t see the original because of bias against cartoon animation, or that don’t spend their free time watching wildlife documentaries because their scientific nature demands a level of engagement many don’t want as an escape from the work week.
The Lion King (2019) is a blend of both propositions, that, despite a visible dedication and love for the source material, never reaches the majesty of its father.
Opinion Seed 