the lion king review essay

The Lion King

It may be a long time before viewers can appreciate the 2019 remake of “The Lion King” as a freestanding work, instead of judging it against the original. The 1994 version was “Hamlet” plus “Bambi” on the African veldt: a childhood-shaping, Oscar-winning blockbuster, the second-highest grossing feature film of its calendar year, one of the last great hand-drawn Disney animated features (Pixar’s original “ Toy Story ” came out 18 months later), and a tear-producing machine. This remake was controversial long before it opened, mainly because it seemed to take the Walt Disney company’s new branding strategy—remaking beloved animated films as CGI-dependent “live action” spectaculars—to its most drastic conclusion. It serves up the same story with different actors, different arrangements of beloved songs and soundtrack cues, a couple of original tunes, a few fresh scenes and sequences, and, of course, photorealistic animals. The latter are the movie’s main selling point, so believable that one of my kids remarked afterward that sitting through the film was like watching a nature documentary on mute while the soundtrack to original “The Lion King” played in the background.

But here’s the thing: the movie is helmed by a Disney veteran, actor-director Jon Favreau , who’s great at this kind of thing. And this might be his best-directed film, if you judge purely in terms of how the scenes and sequences have been framed, lit, and cut together. The cinematographer is Caleb Deschanel , who shot some of the greatest live-action animal adventures in movie history, including “ The Black Stallion ,” and this production straightforwardly owns the notion of “realness,” modeling its animals on actual creatures, defining character more through body type and ingenious details of movement than through facial expressions, which might’ve looked kinda creepy here, honestly. (The animals are a little bit creepy at times, though not as creepy as in Andy Serkis’ “Mowgli,” where you sometimes felt as if you were watching top secret footage of gene-spliced animal-humans.) 

Favreau broke into filmmaking with such hip indie comedies as “ Swingers ” and “ Made ,” then improbably transformed himself into a junior version of Steven Spielberg or James Cameron , overseeing the biggest of big-budget properties, including the first two “ Iron Man ” films and Disney’s recent hyper-real remake of “ The Jungle Book .” This may be his most daunting challenge yet, or at least his most provocative if you cherish the source material. The very idea of presuming to remake Disney’s most financially successful late-period animated film with the latest in computer-generated imagery, while continually reminding people of the original by recycling the same story and music (and many of the same iconic shots and locations, including the lions’ distinctively shaped Pride Rock), is as close as Hollywood gets to courting charges of blasphemy. 

Visually, the original was 88 minutes’ worth of stylized paintings in motion, like a child’s storybook come to life, but with expressionistic or psychedelic elements (like the freaky green highlights in the “Be Prepared” sequence, and the stylized hellfire and skewed camera angles during the end battle) that tickled the sensibilities of film-buff parents. In contrast, this new “Lion King” is rooted deeply in the real, from its plain, sometimes drab colors to the animals’ intricately rendered bone structures, muscles, and fur. Even when the characters are singing the familiar songs and repeating the familiar lines (or, in one hilarious and oddly postmodern interlude, quoting another Disney movie) the entire crew is working double-overtime to convince you that these creatures exist, that they shed fur and drop scat on the jungle floor. 

Favreau and Deschanel’s camera (or “camera”—this is a digital movie built from ones and zeros) follows closely behind the animals as they gallop through grasslands, scale cliffs and hills, tumble and wrestle and fight, and romp through water and rain. It’s as as if they were real animals with intelligence and agency who allowed camera crews to follow them rather than eating them. (Disney always released animal documentaries in addition to their animated and live-action features, and this one sometimes feels like a very basic one from the 1950s, where an editor would cut to an unremarkable close-up of a bear panting in the summer heat, and the narrator would tell you it was sad because it missed its mom.)

It’s impossible to deny that this movie represents a technical milestone. We’ve seen digitized versions of real animals before (perhaps most strikingly in the recent “Planet of the Apes” movies, and in Favreau’s “Jungle Book”) but they’re presented so matter-of-factly by Favreau that if they didn’t talk and sing, and if you squinted just a bit, you’d never know they weren’t the real deal. And the filmmaking itself adds credibility. The “camera” (again, there is no camera, just CGI) seems to have weight. When it “flies” over “Africa,” you’d swear it had been attached to an actual helicopter. When the elder lion king, Mufasa ( James Earl Jones, the only actor from the original reprising his part), scales the walls of a canyon to rescue his son  from rampaging wildebeests unleashed by his evil brother Scar ( Chiwetel Ejiofor ), it’s clear that the filmmakers have put a lot of thought into how a 400-pound alpha predator would do such a thing, whereas the original was content with “the lion climbs up the rock.”

Of course there’s something to be said for sticking to “the lion climbs up the rock” rather than proving you that know how to answer the question “How does a 400-pound lion climb up a rock?” The Dad Joke answer is, “Any way he wants to,” but animators need more direction than that. It’s easy to make a case that lions and hyenas and baboons and hornbills and antelopes drawn with ink and paint, with an eye towards the simple yet daring gesture rather than Nature Channel texture, register as more emotionally “real” than things that might be mistaken for photos, especially when they’re doing vaudeville wordplay and delivering sad monologues and singing songs by Elton John and Tim Rice . 

But that doesn’t fly, not anymore, because the movie industry has conditioned audiences to think that “reality” and “believability” are the greatest of all creative virtues, and that the live-action blockbuster is the classiest, most respectful way to tell a story. That’s why visually daring animated films like “ Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse ” only make a fraction of the box office haul of more literal-minded live-action Marvel movies. And it’s why almost every spectacle-driven live action (or “live action”) blockbuster, from Marvel and DC to the “ Star Wars ” franchise and the American Godzilla films, and the Transformers, and even Pixar, are obsessed with making sure that countertops and pavement and glass and hair and skin and fur and fire and water look photographically real, and that everything moves believably even you’re watching wisecracking toys or combat droids or city-destroying kaiju. To quote a friend, if you follow this creative impulse too slavishly, it’s like using a magic wand to make a toaster . 

Where you fall on this stuff is anyone’s guess, if you care about it at all. You might not, and that’s OK. But it should be said that even if you’re not obsessed with cinema minutia, this film is still a fascinating aesthetic experiment, less reminiscent of Favreau’s previous photorealistic Disney animal picture, “The Jungle Book,” than of Gus van Sant’s 1998 remake of Alfred Hitchcock ‘s “Psycho,” a curiosity that wasn’t quite shot-for-shot but got eerily close. Watching this new “Lion King” reminded me of seeing the “Psycho” remake in a theater and hearing people scream their heads off at the film’s jump scares, even though they were near-exact reproductions of things Hitchcock had done 28 years earlier, with the same music, but in color instead of black and white, and with different actors. 

Who deserves credit for inspiring that powerful emotional reaction in 1998? Alfred Hitchcock, for making “Psycho” in the first place? Or Gus van Sant, for realizing that the master’s work was so fully realized that if he copied it as closely as possible, audiences would still scream in the same places 38 years later? If you retain as much of an original work as possible while reimagining it, is it a gesture of respect or timidity? Is the result a thought experiment, or just an easy way (“easy” in terms of imagination, not effort) to make lots of money by creating a slightly different version of a thing people already know they like? Maybe films like the new “Lion King” take the phrase “give the people what they want” absolutely literally, and that’s the whole (cynical?) point of their existence. But is slavish fidelity to an old text really what “the people” want? Or is it possible—to paraphrase a different showbiz maxim that’s equally true—”the people” don’t actually know what they want until someone shows it to them?

There are parts of the new “Lion King” where that second maxim comes into play, and it’s beguiling, sometimes glorious. Like many “live action” Disney remakes of animated movies, this one is much longer than the original, and yet (like Favreau’s “Jungle Book,” still the best entry in this photorealistic remake series) it uses the extra length to make a statement, creating a sense of stillness. This might sound odd in a review of a CGI-driven 2019 Disney movie, but Favreau often appears to be trying to create a mid-twentieth-century motion picture made with the shiniest new tech—the kind of movie that took its time and gave viewers a bit of mental breathing space, permitting them to contemplate what they were seeing as they saw it.

There are times when the movie clears out music and dialogue and just lets you hear natural sounds and watch lions, giraffes, elephants, birds, rodents, and insects move through the frame. This movie uses the motif of “light” more subtly than the original, because it’s striving to look “real” rather than stylized, and the result is a great example of how CGI animation can achieve a different kind of poetic effect that’s different from the kind that old-fashioned cel animators might attempt. 

When Mufasa tells young Simba that his domain is “everything the light touches,” the scene is illuminated by a golden, dawn-like glow, and when they have what proves to be their final conversation before Mufasa’s death (that’s not a spoiler, folks—”Hamlet” is 400 years old) the sunlight ebbs and gives way to darkness, and the sky fills with stars, foreshadowing Mufasa taking his place among the ghosts of kings and queens up above. A sequence two-thirds of the way through takes a brief transitional bit from the original—Rafiki the baboon realizing that Simba is still alive by catching his scent in the wind—and builds a lengthy, chain-reaction sequence around it, with a tuft of Simba’s fur traveling, like the “ Forrest Gump ” feather, from the Eden-like jungle where he’s exiled himself to the pridelands. 

And while the photorealism of the animals snuffs out any possibility of subtle “human” facial expressions, the creatures’ bodies provide more characterization detail than you might expect. Especially impressive is the way Scar’s physique contrasts with Mufasa’s. The former is angular and raw, a Mick Jagger or David Bowie sort of body that lopes and limps, while the latter is a magnificent bruiser like Dave Bautista or Dwayne Johnson , so thick and powerful that when he moves, you can imagine the air parting around him. When Scar licks his paw and grooms himself absentmindedly as his brother pontificates, the gesture comes across as decadent and contemptuous even though it looks like something a real lion would do. That’s filmmaking magic of a different kind than was contained in the source, and it’s not necessarily lesser. 

What distinguishes all these choices is that they aren’t blatantly trying to re-create or pay homage to something that viewers loved in an original work, in order to comfort us and press our nostalgia buttons. That means they can stand on their own two paws, making unflattering comparison harder. When the movie is doing its own thing, you don’t think about whether Donald Glover’s performance as the adult Simba is better or worse or merely different from Matthew Broderick’s Simba (he’s different—more internalized and shell-shocked), or whether Beyonce gives a better acting performance as Nala than Moira Kelly (she doesn’t, except when she sings), or whether Billy Eichner and Seth Rogen are a funnier meerkat-warthog duo than Nathan Lane and Ernie Sabella (call it a tie, and ties go to actors with Broadway-caliber singing voices). The movie is never less interesting than when it’s trying to be the original “Lion King,” and never more compelling than when it’s carving out negative space within a very familiar property and strutting to the beat of its own, new music. 

The worst thing you can say about this movie, and perhaps the highest compliment you can pay it, is to say it would be even more dazzling if it told a different story with different animals and the same technology and style—and maybe without songs, because you don’t necessarily need them when you have images that sing. 

Matt Zoller Seitz

Matt Zoller Seitz is the Editor-at-Large of RogerEbert.com, TV critic for New York Magazine and Vulture.com, and a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize in criticism.

• Donald Glover as Simba (voice)
• Beyoncé Knowles as Nala (voice)
• James Earl Jones as Mufasa (voice)
• Chiwetel Ejiofor as Scar (voice)
• Alfre Woodard as Sarabi (voice)
• John Oliver as Zazu (voice)
• John Kani as Rafiki (voice)
• Seth Rogen as Pumbaa (voice)
• Billy Eichner as Timon (voice)
• Eric André as Azizi (voice)
• Florence Kasumba as Shenzi (voice)
• Keegan Michael Key as Kamari (voice)
• JD McCrary as Young Simba (voice)
• Shahadi Wright Joseph as Young Nala (voice)
• Amy Sedaris as (voice)

Writer (story)

• Brenda Chapman

Cinematographer

• Caleb Deschanel
• Hans Zimmer

Writer (characters)

• Irene Mecchi
• Jonathan Roberts
• Linda Woolverton
• Jeff Nathanson
• Jon Favreau
• Mark Livolsi

Leave a comment

Now playing.

Merchant Ivory

The Deliverance

City of Dreams

Out Come the Wolves

Seeking Mavis Beacon

Across the River and Into the Trees

You Gotta Believe

Latest articles.

Venice Film Festival 2024: Babygirl, The Order, The Brutalist, I’m Still Here

“Risky Business” Remains One of the Most Daring Films of the ’80s

Venice Film Festival 2024: Separated, Maria, Kill the Jockey, One to One: John & Yoko

Experience the Star Trek Movies in 70mm at Out of this World L.A. Event

The best movie reviews, in your inbox.

Home — Essay Samples — Entertainment — Animation — The Lion King: Symbolism and Themes in a Timeless Classic

The Lion King: Symbolism and Themes in a Timeless Classic

• Categories: Animation

About this sample

Words: 731 |

Published: Mar 8, 2024

Words: 731 | Pages: 2 | 4 min read

Table of contents

The circle of life, identity and self-discovery, family and community.

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Dr. Karlyna PhD

Verified writer

• Expert in: Entertainment

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

1 pages / 538 words

7 pages / 3043 words

1 pages / 507 words

3.5 pages / 1685 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Animation

The 2007 animated film Ratatouille, directed by Brad Bird and produced by Pixar Animation Studios, is a delightful and heartwarming story that explores themes of ambition, creativity, and the pursuit of one's dreams. The [...]

Wall-E is a 2008 Pixar film that tells the story of a lonely robot that cleans up the trash-covered Earth while dreaming of finding love. Through its satirical portrayal of contemporary society, modern technology, and [...]

Karen Dufilho's animated short film, Geri's Game, has captivated audiences since its release in 1997. The film tells the story of an elderly man named Geri who plays a game of chess against himself in a park. The film has [...]

The animated film "Coco," directed by Lee Unkrich and Adrian Molina, tells the heartwarming and culturally rich story of a young boy named Miguel who dreams of becoming a musician despite his family's strict ban on music. The [...]

In the film ‘Inside Out’, directed by Pete Doctor, there is a key relationship between two emotions, Joy and Sadness. Their relationship was very negative during the beginning of the film because Joy always keeps preventing [...]

Formalism is an approach which contains intrinsic properties and treats each work as a distinct or unique work of art. The historical context, the author, or any other external contexts are not necessary or important in [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

Film Review: ‘The Lion King’

Jon Favreau’s 'live-action' remake of the 1994 cartoon classic leans on the strength of the original story while pushing the animation to photo-realistic new extremes.

By Peter Debruge

Peter Debruge

Chief Film Critic

• ‘Saturday Night’ Review: Jason Reitman Finds the Right Ensemble to Capture the Lunacy From Which ‘SNL’ Was Born 22 hours ago
• ‘The End’ Review: Tilda Swinton and Michael Shannon Took Shelter, but 20 Years Underground Starts to Get Tedious 1 day ago
• ‘Baby Invasion’ Review: Harmony Korine’s Latest Brain-Barf Synthesizes a Career’s Worth of Big Ideas 1 day ago

From the ecstatic Zulu chant that opens the film — “Nants ingonyama bagithi baba!” — to the thundering drumbeat that ends it, director Jon Favreau ’s exhilarating live-action take on “ The Lion King ” hews closer to the Walt Disney animated masterpiece than any of the studio’s recent remakes. Technically, “live action” is the wrong way to describe the movie — it’s more a cover version, really — which is every bit as animated as the 1994 original, and leagues beyond Favreau’s 2016 “The Jungle Book” update in terms of how breathtakingly photo-realistic the visual-effects work looks.

At times, the movie mimics the earlier Disney toon practically shot for shot — as in the presentation of baby Simba on Pride Rock and the spectacular wildebeest stampede that endangers him as a cub — so much so that composer Hans Zimmer didn’t need to change a note for these sequences. That raises the inevitable question, “Why bother?” and though any number of artistic arguments could be made (no one balks when a fresh version of “Hamlet” hits the stage, and what is “The Lion King” but a leonine riff on Shakespeare’s regicidal classic?), the answer here can be spelled in dollars. Considering the 1994 film was the top-grossing movie of its time, and factoring in the success of “The Jungle Book” (the project whose nearly billion-dollar box office sparked this entire phenomenon), “The Lion King” could be Disney’s most successful do-over yet.

Related Stories

‘Existential Threat’ of AI Central to Animation Guild Negotiations

Two Docs Bring Scott Peterson and the Murder of Laci Peterson Back Into the Spotlight. Which Is More Truthful?

If the lesson of the original “Lion King” was one of birth and death and mutual respect — a concept represented by the movie’s intuitive “Circle of Life” motif — then its successor’s driving philosophy could be described as the “Circle of Commerce”: First there was “Hamlet” (which scholars consider to be a retelling of an earlier Scandinavian legend), then “The Lion King,” then a Broadway musical, and now this, the latest trend in Disney’s efforts to mine new gold from its animated catalog.

Audiences are either on board with the Disney remake machine or they’re not, and apart from Tim Burton’s “Dumbo” — an artistic and financial disappointment that strayed too far from the source — the box office for the remakes has been strong enough that “The Lion King” was inevitable. And let’s be honest: It’s not like Disney would have otherwise used that money to solve world hunger. If the studio was going to update “The Lion King,” it might as well do it right.

I have a theory that all 20th-century American kids go crazy for at least one Disney animated movie in their lives. They demand the toys; they own the home video; they watch it so often, they have it memorized. Think back to your own childhood. Maybe you got hooked on “The Little Mermaid,” or if you’re older, fell for “Lady and the Tramp” or “Fantasia.” That magic connection seems to occur when kids are 4 or 5 years old, although in my case, it happened right before my senior year in high school — embarrassingly late to develop a cartoon fixation. The movie was “The Lion King,” and I loved it so much, I bought the lunchbox, I bought the bedsheets. I didn’t care that it wasn’t cool, because I’d never seen anything like it.

Looking back, it’s clear that “The Lion King” was the pinnacle of what we now refer to as the Disney Renaissance. Pixar’s “Toy Story” came out the following year and began the transition to computer animation, but at the time, “The Lion King” was a revelation: It brought cinematic techniques to a medium in which something as basic as a 3D camera move (anything more than a zoom or a horizontal pan) posed enormous challenges for animators. Just compare the opening sequence — as Zazu swoops over herds of animals who’ve gathered to witness the presentation of Simba — to the magic carpet ride in “Aladdin,” which cheated “over, sideways and under” with tight framing and standard left-to-right movement.

“Pocahontas,” “The Hunchback of Notre Dame” and “Tarzan” would follow, but of all these movies, “The Lion King” holds up most beautifully all these years later. That means Favreau’s most important responsibility in overseeing the remake was simply not to mess it up. Which he doesn’t. Then again, nor does he bring the kind of visionary take to the material that Julie Taymor added when staging the Broadway version. That makes Favreau’s “The Lion King” an undeniably impressive but incredibly safe entry to the catalog — one whose greatest accomplishment may not be technical (which is not to diminish the work required to make talking animals look believable) but in perfecting the performances.

Even a quarter century ago, audiences were savvy to the kind of representation problems that Hollywood creators are finally addressing today, and “The Lion King” rightly took flak for casting white actors in Disney’s first Africa-set animated movie (“Home Improvement” star Jonathan Taylor Thomas played young Simba, while Matthew Broderick performed the adult version). Favreau doesn’t make the same mistake, casting actors of African descent as the lion and hyena characters and bringing back just one voice from the original, the incomparable James Earl Jones, to rerecord nearly all the same dialogue as Simba’s father, the mighty Mufasa.

It can be distracting to be constantly comparing the line readings between the two versions. As Zazu, John Oliver is essentially doing his best Rowan Atkinson, repeating mostly the same jokes, whereas Seth Rogen and Billy Eichner rehearsed together to play warthog Pumbaa and meerkat Timon, the “no worries” buddies who convince Simba to adopt an all-bug diet during his time in exile. Rogen and Eichner’s riffing sessions result in a fair amount of fresh material, and an overall even-more-likable version of these two beloved characters — although the most hilarious change to Timon’s personality comes from observing how real meerkats sit, sprawling awkwardly back on their haunches. To punch up their personalities even further, Favreau and DP Caleb Deschanel work out a GoPro-style way of “shooting” them at clownishly close range.

Midway through Timon and Pumbaa’s jungle anthem, “Hakuna Matata,” Simba’s voice changes — as actor-singer-comedian Donald Glover takes over for JD McCrary — and it’s then that something remarkable happens: The character assumes a dimension that was missing from Broderick’s performance, and the detail that never quite rang true in the original (that Simba thought he was responsible for Mufasa’s death) becomes part of a bigger and more plausible self-confidence problem. As Simba’s bride-to-be, pop goddess Beyoncé Knowles-Carter lends still more depth, conveying aspects of bravery and independence in Nala’s personality that weren’t there before. And, of course, Glover and Beyoncé are both singers, which gives the “Can You Feel the Love Tonight” montage new life as an old friendship turns romantic, reinforced by the two lions’ body language. Beyoncé also contributes a largely unnecessary but exhilarating single, “Spirit,” over the couple’s return to the Pride Lands, which Mufasa’s scheming brother Scar (Chiwetel Ejiofor) has turned into a barren desert.

Of all the cast, Ejiofor has the toughest job, reinventing the film’s second-most-iconic performance, Jeremy Irons’ conniving purr. His is the character who changes the most. Screenwriter Jeff Nathanson (who boasts some of the hackiest high-profile credits in the biz) hardly deserves the sole credit he gets, considering the debt he owes to “The Lion King” writers Irene Mecchi, Jonathan Roberts and Linda Woolverton, although he does add a few key lines here and there to explain — and update — Scar’s motivations. Elsewhere, his song, “Be Prepared,” is whittled down to a verse or two of spoken-word evil, after which Ejiofor repeats the title like some kind of malicious mantra.

Overall, the songs pose a unique challenge to Favreau’s approach, since he’s striving for realism — or at least the illusion that we’re watching flesh-and-blood animals — whereas the original belongs to that period of Disney animation when the stories often halted to make room for Broadway-style show tunes. Rather than replicating the Busby Berkeley-style choreography of “I Just Can’t Wait to Be King,” the director does a fantastic job of reimagining this sequence, tipping his hat to certain memorable shots without anthropomorphizing the animals too much.

Rendering technology has advanced so much in the short time since “The Jungle Book” — to say nothing of the vastly increased amount of labor assembled to pull it off — that “The Lion King” no longer requires audiences to pretend that the CGI looks more believable that it does. With the exception of the strangely out-of-sync mouth movements seen when these digital creatures talk, effects house MPC makes the animals look utterly convincing, blending characteristics of their various species (the way a cat’s ears hinge backward when it’s hesitant or scared) with recognizable human expressions (where a subtle eye flicker serves to reinforce those same feelings).

By focusing his attention on upgrading the look of the earlier film while sticking largely to its directorial choices and script, Favreau reinforces the strength of the 1994 classic. If you were never a fan of “The Lion King,” then nothing here will win you over. On the other hand, for those too young ever to have seen it, this could be a life-changing experience, one that strives to create a kind of understanding between audiences and the animal kingdom that Disney once made a regular part of its mission, back in the era of films such as “The Legend of Lobo” and “The Incredible Journey.” It’s a shame to sacrifice the hand-drawn artistry — whose human touch will surely hold up better in the long haul — but those are the terms with this latest wave of remakes, and “The Lion King” at least honors what came before, using current animation technology to convince us that we’re watching the real thing.

RELATED VIDEO:

Reviewed at El Capitan Theater, Hollywood, July 10, 2019. MPAA Rating: PG. Running time: 118 MIN.

• Production: A Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures release of a Disney presentation of a Fairview Pictures production. Producers: Jon Favreau, Jeffrey Silver, Karen Gilchrist. Executive producers: Tom Peitzman, Julie Taymor, Thomas Schumacher. Co-producer: John Bartnicki.
• Crew: Director: Jon Favreau. Screenplay: Jeff Nathanson, based on “The Lion King” by Irene Mecchi, Jonathan Roberts, Linda Woolverton. Camera (color, 3D): Caleb Deschanel. Editors: Mark Livolsi, Adam Gerstel. Music: Hans Zimmer. Original songs: Tim Rice, Elton John.
• With: Donald Glover, Beyoncé Knowles-Carter, Chiwetel Ejiofor , John Oliver, James Earl Jones, John Kani, Alfre Woodard, JD McCrary, Shahadi Wright Joseph, Penny Johnson Jerald, Keegan-Michael Key, Eric André, Florence Kasumba, Seth Rogen, Billy Eichner, Amy Sedaris.

More from Variety

Julia Louis-Dreyfus Says Kamala Harris Is Not a ‘Narcissistic, Megalomaniac Sociopath’ Like Her ‘Veep’ Character: That ‘Might Be Another Candidate’

Take-Two Earnings Emblematic of Endless Risk-Taking in Gaming Biz

CBS Orders Comedy Pilot ‘DMV,’ to Develop Single-Cam ‘Eternally Yours’ From ‘Ghosts’ Creators

CBS Gives Drama Pilot Order to Detective Drama ‘Einstein,’ From ‘Monk’ Creator

4D Movie Tech Lacks Consumer Awareness: Survey

Drew Barrymore Says She Will ‘Try to Practice Physical Distance’ With Her Talk Show Guests: ‘Not My Strong Point’

More from our brands, hostages killed in gaza, five from supernova festival, spark israel protests.

I Went Diving With Ocean Explorer Jean-Michel Cousteau in the Maldives—Here’s What Happened

ESPN and ABC Go Dark on DirecTV as Carriage Deal Expires

The Best Loofahs and Body Scrubbers, According to Dermatologists

Snowpiercer Recap: (At Least) Two Deaths and a Chilling Reveal About Who Caused the Big Freeze!

“The Lion King” by Disney Essay (Movie Review)

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

As a rule, the tradition of the Disney animated family pictures dictates that the plot of the show or movie should be based on a fairytale; this is how the company has marketed its products since its very beginning. However, there is a product that stands out of the line of Disney fairytale adaptations. Based loosely on Shakespeare’s Hamlet (“Prince of Denmark, and the film shadows this work so closely, that parallels between the main characters themselves are wildly apparent” (McElven para. 2)), the movie spawned the show that has been staged countless numbers of times in different theaters. The Boston Opera House staging, which is one of the recent adaptations of the famous story, introduced its rendition of the story, which has become timeless classics over the past seventeen years, both retaining the key characteristics of the original and introducing new and unique features into the well-known story.

Following the existing tradition of storytelling, the musical represented a typical three-act storytelling. At the beginning, the key exposition details are provided in a very subtle manner; the song that the musical opens with is a send-back to the first animated movie. The singers rendered the song that is already viewed as the Disney heritage in a very skillful manner. As the setting revealed the famous mountain, the family of lions represented their cub and the heir to the “throne” to the pride.

Almost immediately after the ceremony, the main villain and the key antagonist of the lead character, Uncle Scar, the brother of King Mufasa and the uncle of the newborn lion, Simba, was revealed. Exposing his sorrow for losing an opportunity to be the king, treacherous Scar starts plotting the murder of his brother. Meanwhile, young price Simba learns what the nature of the king’s duties is and how important it is to maintain balance between every single element in the kingdom. Thus, Simba learns that the life of every creature is important, as even the smallest ones contribute to creating the great circle of life, which the narrator sung about earlier.

However, the boisterous nature of the young prince takes its toll, and he nearly gets into a trap set by Scar and his henchmen hyenas. Eventually, Scar manages to kill Mufasa and makes Simba leave the kingdom by making the prince believe that he was to blame for his father’s death. Scar returns to the Pride Lands to declare the death of Mufasa and Simba and claim the throne.

As Simba escapes the pride land, the setting changes drastically, and the yellow-and-orange colors of the Pride Land are switched with the green landscape of the African savanna. Simba comes across a warthog named Pumbaa and a meerkat named Timon; the two befriend Simba and tech him that he should learn to leave the past behind him. Therefore, Simba is not haunted by his tragic past anymore and enjoys life with his new friends, who sing a joyful song called Hakuna Matata , which literally means “no worries.” Simba spends quite large amount of time with his new friend, growing into an adult and forgetting nearly everything about the Pride Lands and his family.

However, by a stroke of luck, he comes across a lioness called Nala, his childhood friend, who tells him that Scar has seized power over the pride Lands and basically destroyed everything to the point where lionesses have to starve. She asks him to return home, yet Simba, still under the false impression of murdering his own father, refuses to leave. The interaction between the two characters occurs with an unearthly beautiful musical number called Can You Feel the Love Tonight .

The third act unwraps as, after understanding that he needs to reconcile with his past instead of running away from it, Simba returns to the Pride Lands, Timon and Pumbaa coming along with him. The setting changes from the bright and colorful images of savanna to the dark and gloomy remnants of the Pride Land. Simba searches for Scar to dispute his right to be the heir and, therefore, confronts his fear of disclosing his secret, i.e., his presumable fault in Mufasa’s death. However, as Scar and Simba start fighting, the former tells Simba the truth in anticipation of the latter’s death and as an attempt to gloat. Simba, therefore, finds the way to fight back and overthrows Scar, becoming the new king. The musical ends with Simba’s “coronation” and his acceptance of his duties and responsibilities as a king.

Being another interpretation of Disney’s The Lion King , the musical staged in the Boston Opera House, nevertheless, represented an original approach towards the famous story of the Hamlet-like heir to the throne. Being one of the most memorable performances of the year, the staged performance incorporated a very detailed reiteration of the key scenes that the movie and the traditional musical included, yet added a unique flair to each of these scenes, therefore, making them memorable and very relatable.

Works Cited

McElven, Trey. “ Hamlet and The Lion King: Shakespearean Influences on Modern Entertainment. ” Lion King . n. d. Web.

• "You Got Served directed"
• "The Man Who Was Almost a Man"
• The Scar of Colonialism and Ongoing Post-Colonialism
• The Lion King: The Concept of Nature
• Fairytale: No More Monkeying Around
• Descartes’ Epistemology in "The Matrix"
• "Raise the Red Lantern" and "The Story of Qiu Ju"
• "The Pursuit of Happiness" a Film by Gabriele Muccino
• "The Hundred Foot Journey"
• "Crimson Tide" by Tony Scott
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2020, July 3). "The Lion King" by Disney. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-lion-king-by-disney/

""The Lion King" by Disney." IvyPanda , 3 July 2020, ivypanda.com/essays/the-lion-king-by-disney/.

IvyPanda . (2020) '"The Lion King" by Disney'. 3 July.

IvyPanda . 2020. ""The Lion King" by Disney." July 3, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-lion-king-by-disney/.

1. IvyPanda . ""The Lion King" by Disney." July 3, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-lion-king-by-disney/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . ""The Lion King" by Disney." July 3, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-lion-king-by-disney/.

Your browser is not supported

Sorry but it looks as if your browser is out of date. To get the best experience using our site we recommend that you upgrade or switch browsers.

Find a solution

• Skip to main content
• Skip to navigation

• Back to parent navigation item
• Digital Editions
• Screen Network
• Stars Of Tomorrow
• The Big Screen Awards
• FYC screenings
• World of Locations
• UK in focus
• Job vacancies
• Cannes Close-Up
• Distribution
• Staff moves
• Artificial intelligence
• Territories
• UK & Ireland
• North America
• Asia Pacific
• Middle East & Africa
• Future Leaders
• My Screen Life
• Karlovy Vary
• San Sebastian
• Sheffield Doc/Fest
• Middle East
• Box Office Reports
• International
• Golden Globes
• European Film Awards
• Stars of Tomorrow

Subscribe to Screen International

• Monthly print editions
• Awards season weeklies
• Stars of Tomorrow and exclusive supplements
• Over 16 years of archived content
• More from navigation items

'The Lion King': Review

By Tim Grierson, Senior US Critic 2019-07-12T09:59:00+01:00

Jon Favreau’s thrilling ’photo-realist’ Disney drama remains loyal to the original jungle monarch

Source: Disney

‘The Lion King’

Dir: Jon Favreau. US. 2019. 118mins.

Like other recent Disney remakes, The Lion King largely lionises the original animated film, reluctant to risk alienating fans or to veer wildly from the source material. Nonetheless, director Jon Favreau ( The Jungle Book ) manages to give this version its own spark thanks to a willingness to embrace the story’s inherent darkness and a photo-realistic computer-animation approach which amplifies the majesty of the tale’s animal characters. Blessed with some excellent voice performances, this new King is familiar but still lively enough to encourage audiences to emotionally invest again in story they are already so familiar with.

There’s a savage ferocity to these characters that accentuates their kill-or-be-killed reality

Disney will release the film across much of the world by July 19, looking to match (or better) the worldwide grosses of live-action remakes Beauty And The Beast ($1.3 billion), The Jungle Book ($967 million) and Aladdin (currently $924 million). The original Lion King was the biggest global hit of 1994 — it seems fairly certain that the remake will be among this year’s top-grossing films too, buoyed by a faithful recreation of the original’s beloved soundtrack which never quite tops the Elton John and Tim Rice originals — or, frankly, tries to offer substantially different versions of them (Pharrell Williams produced five songs on the track).

Favreau  takes us back to the African savannah, where wise Mufasa (voiced by James Earl Jones) rules over a pride of lions, including his sprightly son Simba (JD McCrary). But when Mufasa’s conniving brother Scar (Chiwetel Ejiofor) secretly murders the king — and makes Simba believe he was responsible — the cub flees, befriending two lovable outcasts during his exile: meerkat Timon (Billy Eichner) and a warthog named Pumbaa (Seth Rogen).

Even more than 2016’s The Jungle Book , The Lion King achieves what looks like wondrous live-action filmmaking as the wild animals behave in realistic ways — except, of course, for the fact that they talk and sing. Creating digital environments based on actual African locations, Favreau and his effects team concoct an immersive landscape that, although occasionally set-bound, is visually resplendent. (Special credit to Caleb Deschanel, whose cinematography is a rich mixture of evocative shadows and beautiful, sun-splashed widescreen compositions.)

It’s unfortunate, then, that this remake doesn’t attempt to enrich a narrrative that, despite its primal prodigal-son stirrings, has always felt as if it could be fleshed out. At its weakest, this Lion King merely rehashes the original story, but even then, it’s a luminous production which is satisfying enough to simply let the vistas enrapture the audience. And, while this remake is primarily geared towards families, Favreau doesn’t shy away from the story’s sombre, even scary underpinnings. If it’s enormously cute to watch photo-realistic cubs scamper to and fro, it’s equally unnerving when the wiry Scar enters the frame — or when his hellacious hyena henchmen threaten Simba. To be sure, the original’s traditional animation had flair, but the remake’s live-action-ish quality allows us to fully appreciate just how powerful and dangerous these creatures are. Mufasa’s regal bearing and Scar’s coiled fury have a potency that the 1994 version can’t match — there’s a savage ferocity to these characters that accentuates their kill-or-be-killed reality.

Favreau has also done a good job with his casting, picking Donald Glover to voice the adult Simba who, after long abandoning his destiny, will finally rise to the challenge of taking his father’s place. Jeremy Irons gave us a cheeky Scar, but Ejiofor is far more ominous, while Rogen and Eichner are an amusing comic duo. Reprising his role as the mighty Mufasa, Jones provides the same velvety authority that has been his trademark for decades. While The Lion King ’s love story feels as rushed as ever, at least Glover and Beyoncé Knowles-Carter (as Nala) have a warm rapport. And John Oliver is in fine form as Mufasa’s loyal aide Zazu, an anxious hornbill.

Yet for all the computer wizardry on display, it seems to be mostly in service of mimicking the sensation of watching the ’94 movie, which can feel like a lot of effort exerted for a trivial objective. And yet, Favreau and his cast have zeroed in on what remains so moving about this material — its wrenching father-son portrait, its extolling of the need to grow up, and its clear-eyed divide between good and evil. It’s easy to be swayed by the craftsmanship on display, even if one wishes all involved weren’t so loyal to the original King .

Production company: Fairview Entertainment

Worldwide distribution: Disney

Producers: Jon Favreau, Jeffrey Silver, Karen Gilchrist

Screenplay: Jeff Nathanson

Production design: James Chinlund

Editing: Mark Livolsi, Adam Gerstel

Cinematography: Caleb Deschanel

Music: Hans Zimmer

Main voice cast: Donald Glover, Seth Rogen, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Alfre Woodard, Billy Eichner, John Kani, John Oliver, Florence Kasumba, Eric André, Keegan-Michael Key, JD McCrary, Shahadi Wright Joseph, Beyoncé Knowles-Carter, James Earl Jones

• United States
• Walt Disney

Related articles

‘Deadpool & Wolverine’ crossing $600m at North American box office as Labor Day rounds out bounceback summer

2024-09-01T19:53:00Z By Jeremy Kay

Summer season trails 2023 by 14.3%.

‘Wolfs’: Venice Review

2024-09-01T19:50:00Z By Lee Marshall

George Clooney and Brad Pitt hit the comedy bullseye as two solitary fixers forced to work together

‘I’m Still Here’: Venice Review

2024-09-01T17:05:00Z By Wendy Ide

Walter Salles directs Fernanda Torres in a standout performance as a real-life matriarch in military-ruled Brazil of the 1970s

More from Reviews

‘The Brutalist’: Venice Review

2024-09-01T13:05:00Z By Jonathan Romney

Brady Corbet’s meticulous, lengthy drama centres around a Hungarian architect in 1940s America

‘Anywhere Anytime’: Venice Review

2024-09-01T12:05:00Z By Jonathan Holland

The theft of a bicycle is the catalyst for this confident, incisive drama about a Sengalese immigrant in Italy 

‘The Order’: Venice Review

2024-08-31T19:35:00Z By Tim Grierson Senior US Critic

Jude Law and Nicholas Hoult go toe-to-toe in Justin Kurzel’s gritty crime drama set in 1980s Idaho

• Advertise with Screen
• A - Z of Subjects
• Connect with us on Facebook
• Connect with us on Twitter
• Connect with us on Linked in
• Connect with us on YouTube
• Connect with us on Instagram>

Screen International is the essential resource for the international film industry. Subscribe now for monthly editions, awards season weeklies, access to the Screen International archive and supplements including Stars of Tomorrow and World of Locations.

• Screen Awards
• Media Production & Technology Show
• Terms and conditions
• Privacy & Cookie Policy
• Copyright © 2023 Media Business Insight Limited
• Subscription FAQs

Site powered by Webvision Cloud

The Lion King (2019) Review: A Photo Realistic Nostalgia

As one settles onto the seat and puts on a pair of 3D glasses, ready for an animated experience, Disney’s The Lion King (2019) stupefies its audience in its first scene itself. In almost a second you are transported to the Pride Lands of Africa and you stand there observing the sun, grass and the animals. The imagery is so real that you can almost feel the wind as you hear the African Savanna rustling.

The 2019 remake of the 1994 classic is a visual spectacle. Jon Favreau’s modern rendition takes you into quite a realistic journey into Simba’s life. With Jeff Nathanson’s screenplay remaining true to its classic version, the film is a scene by scene replica of the original with just a few tweaks here and there.

One for example, this time we see Nala fighting Scar and the hyenas before she escapes to seek help. The humour in the dialogues of Zazu, Pumbaa and Timon are surely hilarious but have somehow lost the touch that they reflected in the classic. That is the thing with the photorealistic CGI that we see.

Also Like The Lion King (2019): The Jungle Book (2016): Hello, Childhood

It gives a very realistic feel, with each of Mufasa’s whiskers feeling real but paradoxically it is too close to real to let us immerse into Simba’s story. Emotions are felt but are not as raw and soul touching as the happy, bouncy, colourful animation of 1994.

Simba’s predicaments, Mufasa’s death, Zazu’s jokes all hit us harder when we knew we were watching a fictional tale and the animation assured us of the same. In the contemporary version however, the mind is unable to seamlessly sync with what the eyes see. It can be said that it feels like watching Animal Planet knowing that the commentary is a fictional tale.

A part of the reason why the classic Hamlet-inspired narrative does not fascinate us much is because the story is being re-told. Like any other classic that is revised after many years, it needs a change in the way it is narrated. While Favreau has added a few new elements, the major change lies only in the imagery.

Also Read: Toy Story 4 (2019): A Pixar Film You Enjoy But Do Not Take Home

A lot of credit to what we feel in the film’s important moments goes to the voices that we hear. Scar (Chiwetel Ejiofor), Zazu (John Oliver), Mufasa (James Earl Jones), JD McCrary (Young Simba), Seth Rogen (Pumbaa), Billy Eichner (Timon) ,Donald Glover (Simba) and Beyonce Knowles-Carter (Nala), all are at their best.

Not to forget, Hans Zimmer’s remake of his Oscar winning music is beautiful and so are the scores ‘Circle of Life’, ‘Hakuna Matata’ by John Elton and Tim Rice. Beyonce’s ‘Spirit’ is also a great addition.

All of Disney’s films that are being re made are not as good as their original versions. Like all stories that are told and re-told down the generations and altered to make them interesting, Disney too needs to do something more to give to the toddlers today what was fun loving, cute and heart wrenching back in the 90s. It is only then that the ‘circle of life’ will be complete.

The Lion King (2019) Rating: ★★★½

The lion king (2019) trailer:.

The Lion King (2019) Links: IMDb , Wikipedia

Similar Posts

Deep Sea (2023) ‘Tribeca’ Movie Review: Stunning Animation Cannot Salvage This Facile, Emotionally Overwrought Saga

Jujutsu Kaisen (Season 2), Episode 3: Recap & Ending Explained – Does Toji Succeed In Killing Riko?

Son-Mother [2019] ‘TIFF’ Review – A stark reflection of Women’s place in Iranian Society

The Crow (1994) Review : How This Movie Dared To Do Things Differently

Special Ops: Lioness (Season 1) Episode 4: Recap & Ending Explained – Will Joe Be in Trouble?

50 Years of Nirmalyam (1973): Timeless, Introspective, and Radical

• Consequence

Film Review: The Lion King Suffers from an Identity Crisis in Jon Favreau’s Sleek Retelling

The Circle of Life becomes The Line of Indifference in Disney's latest glossy update

Directed by

• Jon Favreau
• Donald Glover
• James Earl Jones

Release Year

The Pitch: Royal lion cub Simba aspires to measure up to dad, King Mufasa ( James Earl Jones ), in this slick remake. No longer in contention for the throne, Uncle Scar ( Chiwetel Ejiofor ) plots with outcast hyenas to murder Mufasa but tricks young Simba into thinking he’s to blame. Simba ( Donald Glover ) flees the kingdom and learns the meaning of responsibility and identity in adulthood. With the help of friends Timon ( Billy Eichner ), Pumbaa ( Seth Rogen ), Zazu ( John Oliver ), Rafiki ( John Kani ), and love interest Nala ( Beyoncé ), of course.

Shiny New Mane, Same Roar: With The Lion King , Disney continues their streak of “live-action” retellings of animated classics (they’ve already released two this year). Swapping traditional animation for photorealistic computer-animation under the direction of Jon Favreau , this update is an incredible visual feast for the eyes. Favreau matches many of the iconic frames from the original film all while maximizing the impressive visual effect work to implement stylistic flourishes and breathtaking details.

Make that a major emphasis on the details. Though the starring animals may talk, sing, and dance, they move and behave just like their real-life counterparts. In other words, this retelling feels as if National Geographic aired a nature video of African savanna wildlife and Disney dubbed it over with their familiar story.

Save for minor changes that ultimately have no bearing on the whole, the story remains untouched by time. A lot of the dialogue, character beats, and narrative are lifted directly from the original, though screenwriter Jeff Nathanson makes minor updates here and there. Those changes will only be noticeable to the most devout fans. Though the retellings of Cinderella , Beauty and the Beast , and Dumbo tried to add something new to the equation, Favreau continues the precedent he set with The Jungle Book by adhering closely to the path with very little deviation.

The Lion King (Disney)

You’ll Be Achin’ for Some Bacon. And Emotion: The downside of opting for hyperrealism is that there’s a serious disconnect with the emotions of the voice actors and the appearance of the animal characters they portray. The traditional animation style of the original film allowed for exaggerated emotive expression that made it easier to connect with these beloved characters.

Animals in the wild aren’t able to express love, grief, anger, and fear through discernible facial expressions in the same way a cartoon can. The heavy lifting for the emotional pull of the story then falls solely on the shoulders of the voice cast and the score. But the mismatch between the feeling the actor is conveying in their performance against the impassive countenance of a lion can be jarring. It doesn’t help that the heartstrings are tugged nearly as hard this go ‘round.

Hakuna Matata: Though the entire cast brings immeasurable talent to the fold, meerkat Timon and warthog Pumbaa stand out as the endearing comedic relief. Eichner and Rogen make these fan favorite characters their own and quickly become the highlight of the movie. When the emotional beats of the narrative don’t pack quite the same punch, the effortless charm of Eichner and Rogen make for a welcome surprise.

Under the Stars: The soundtrack to the 1994 film was a juggernaut best-seller, roaring with hits by Elton John , Hans Zimmer , and Tim Rice . Naturally, they all return to Pride Rock; however, under producer Pharrell Williams , their classics get some fine tuning. There’s also a number of surprising tweaks: “The Lion Sleeps Tonight” gets some extended play, Scar’s nefarious “Be Prepared”  evolves in a fitting way, and Beyoncé’s own anthem, “Spirit”, makes Nala fiercer than ever.

The Verdict: This Disney-meets- National Geographic take on a cherished classic makes for a stunning spectacle that’s meant to be seen on the big screen. Yet the photorealism and attempt to capture authenticity in animal behavior means a jarring disconnect between the actors’ voice work and the visuals. It’s a technical marvel of a film, well crafted at every possible level.

Yet, it’s also one that feels a bit hollow because of that disconnect and the refusal to present anything new for those already familiar with this story. Because of this, The Lion King serves as both a striking introduction of a timeless tale for a new generation, but also a puzzling, lifeless duplicate for those who can already quote the original.

In the end, it’s less the Circle of Life and more the Line of Indifference.

Where’s It Playing? The Lion King roars into theaters on July 18th.

Personalized Stories

Around the web, latest stories.

Adam Sandler's New Netflix Special Is Chaos on Purpose, Thanks to Director Josh Safdie: Review

August 27, 2024

The Crow Review: Don’t Answer the Caw of This Lackluster Reboot

August 22, 2024

Alien: Romulus Slithers Its Way Through a Fun But Familiar Entry in the Series: Review

August 14, 2024

India Donaldson's Powerful Good One Tests The Limits of Familial Trust: Review

August 8, 2024

Trap Review: Josh Hartnett's Smile Is the Creepiest Part of M. Night Shyamalan's Latest

August 2, 2024

Matt Damon and Casey Affleck Have Fun on the Run in The Instigators: Review

August 1, 2024

Dìdi Skates Into the Summer of '08 as a New and Noteworthy Coming-of-Age Story: Review

July 26, 2024

Deadpool & Wolverine Goes All Out for the Fans with Multiversal Madness: Review

July 23, 2024

Film Review: The Lion King Suffers from an Identity Crisis in Jon Favreau's Sleek Retelling

You must be logged in to post a comment.

The Definitive Voice of Entertainment News

Subscribe for full access to The Hollywood Reporter

site categories

‘the lion king’: what the critics are saying.

'The Lion King' reviews are in to answer the question: Do critics feel the love tonight?

By Graeme McMillan

Graeme McMillan

• Share on Facebook
• Share to Flipboard
• Send an Email
• Show additional share options
• Share on LinkedIn
• Share on Pinterest
• Share on Reddit
• Share on Tumblr
• Share on Whats App
• Print the Article
• Post a Comment

The prospect of remaking the most successful G-rated movie of all time and, in the process, transforming it from a hand-drawn cartoon into a CGI animation marvel so photorealistic it looks, at times, like a live-action feature, is certainly a bold one. Add in a voice cast that includes Beyonce and Donald Glover, and Disney’s new version of The Lion King feels like a cinematic event. But, with the review embargo lifted, the question on everyone’s lips is a simple one: Do critics feel the love tonight?

The answer is… complicated. While there is certainly praise for performances and an overall positive impression for the level of wizardry required to make the movie look the way it does, it’s fair to say that critics weren’t too impressed with what they saw beyond the technical achievement of it all.

The Hollywood Reporter ’s Todd McCarthy praised the technology, but yearned to see something new from the plot. “After the initial fascination and moments of enchantment in watching the extraordinarily lifelike animals talking and relating to one another as human beings do, you begin to get used to it to the extent that it’s no longer surprising, which in turn allows the familiarity of it all to begin flooding in,” he writes. “Everything here is so safe and tame and carefully calculated as to seem predigested. There’s nary a surprise in the whole two hours.”

Vox ’s Alissa Wilkinson was equally disappointed by the new movie’s fidelity to the original, writing, “As an expansion of the 1994 film,  The Lion King  says and adds little. It’s a half-hour longer than the original, but for no discernible reason. Scar has gone from being creepy to some kind of beta incel. Some of the campiness of the original, particularly from the hyenas, is gone, and even a (very) slightly expanded role for Nala still fails to offer anything interesting.  The Lion King  has always been a film with quite a lot to say bubbling below its surface. But 2019’s telling adds bloat, and nothing more.”

ScreenCrush ’s Matt Singer has similar feelings. “Favreau’s  The Lion King  feels like a bad Xerox of Roger Allers and Rob Minkoff’s; the colors aren’t as sharp, the characters aren’t as crisply performed, and everything feels a little fuzzier and more diffuse,” he argues. “While the traditionally animated  Lion King  ran a sleek 88 minutes, the update spreads the exact same story across two full, lifeless hours by adding a new song, more dialogue, and one sequence that follows a tuft of Simba’s fur through the wilderness as another illustration of the circle of life. The stiff, muted animal performances are matched by the general look of the film, credited to cinematographer Caleb Deschanel, which swaps all the vibrant emerald, ochre, and sapphire of the 2D animated  Lion King  for a palette of brown, tan, khaki, and additional brown. The new film is a lot less fun to look at than the old one.”

Related Stories

Box office: 'lion king' pounces on $23m in thursday previews.

There was, across the majority of reviews, a mixture of awe at the realism on display with the new animation and frustration that it was quite as photorealistic as it ended up being.

“Look, trailblazers pushing the edge of technology are necessary and Favreau’s clearly onto something here and hats off to the guy, especially when you consider his career started in indie comedy; his growth and willingness to learn as a filmmaker over the years has been remarkable,” writes The Playlist ’s Rodrigo Perez. “But without a marriage of inspired storytelling, straight up regurgitation doesn’t elevate new tech. Also, thinking about could and should, one needs to consider good taste, but that’s clearly not driving any of the decisions here. Animated photorealism is going to have its day in the sun, and will find practical storytelling applications in something that will likely astound audiences down the road, and such is the precarious life of the visionary trying to forge new paths. But this lifeless nostalgic rehash that offers absolutely nothing new, aside from a shiny new leopard print aesthetic to tell the same exact story, just ain’t it.”

“It’s as if every creative decision were subordinate to the film’s misguided insistence on realism, on keeping the mannerisms and movements of these magically intelligent creatures ‘believable,’” writes A.A. Dowd of The AV Club . “And so, all the pleasures are not just secondhand but diminished: We’re watching a hollow bastardization of a blockbuster, at once completely reliant on the audience’s pre-established affection for its predecessor and strangely determined to jettison much of what made it special.”

Perhaps, some argue, the fault is in marrying the photorealism to a story that demands the elasticity of hand-drawn animation. “What’s remarkable is the whole thing looks like a well-done nature documentary,” notes USA Today ’ s Brian Truitt in his review. “The eye-popping visuals Favreau used three years ago for  The Jungle Book  seem obsolete compared to what he unleashes here. The attention to detail is exquisite, from Timon’s jittery hands and random scratching fits to the water droplets hanging off the whiskers of wise mandrill Rafiki (John Kani) during a torrential rainstorm. It only gets strange when those realistic animals start singing, though you’re less weirded out by the time hippos and antelopes are seen crooning ‘The Lion Sleeps Tonight.'”

New York Times critic A.O. Scott picks up on the idea Truitt approaches above, writing, “The closer the movie gets to nature in its look, the more blatant, intrusive and purposeless its artifice seems. It might have worked better without songs or dialogue: surely the Disney wizards could have figured out how to spin an epic tale of royal succession and self-discovery through purely visual means.”

Perhaps all this worrying is overthinking things, as Screen International ’s Tim Grierseon would appear to think. “At its weakest, this  Lion King  merely rehashes the original story, but even then, it’s a luminous production which is satisfying enough to simply let the vistas enrapture the audience,” he writes. “And, while this remake is primarily geared towards families, Favreau doesn’t shy away from the story’s sombre, even scary underpinnings. If it’s enormously cute to watch photo-realistic cubs scamper to and fro, it’s equally unnerving when the wiry Scar enters the frame — or when his hellacious hyena henchmen threaten Simba. To be sure, the original’s traditional animation had flair, but the remake’s live-action-ish quality allows us to fully appreciate just how powerful and dangerous these creatures are.”

The Los Angeles Times ‘  Kenneth Turan notes in his positive review that “though the new ground it breaks is visual rather than dramatic or emotional, this is a polished, satisfying entertainment that just about dares you to look a gift lion in the mouth.”

Entertainment Weekly ‘ s Leah Greenblatt asserts that despite not presenting much new when it comes to story, The Lion King still has something to offer: “If the film feels a little airless for all that open space, maybe it’s because the movie’s CG is so elaborately, meticulously made that it doesn’t leave much room for the spark of spontaneity. The story and the songs, with a few notable if hardly unexpected updates, are fondly faithful to the original; the magic mostly intact. Another reboot was never terribly necessary, maybe — but it’s good, still, to be King.”

The best summary of the discomfort critics are feeling about the movie likely comes from Stephanie Zacharek from Time , who writes that “this  Lion King is a faithful remake, and in terms of its technology, it’s at times quite beautiful to behold. Giraffes run hither and thither on spotty, spindly legs; zebra herds dash by, a stripey blur. But there’s no sense of wonder in this new  Lion King — its most visible attribute is ambition. It works hard for the money. Chiefly, yours.”

The Lion King opens in theaters July 19.

'Lion King' Director Jon Favreau Talks Virtual Production and Working With Beyonce in 'Behind the Screen' Podcast

Thr newsletters.

Sign up for THR news straight to your inbox every day

More from The Hollywood Reporter

Telluride: ‘the apprentice’ filmmakers discuss blind criticisms of their movie, offer to screen it for trump, think he will like it, ‘nobu’ review: a glowing and straightforward portrait of the japanese chef and his empire, brad pitt and george clooney whip venice film festival into a frenzy with ‘wolfs’ world premiere, ‘battleground’ review: a sober but overly academic italian drama about the moral conflicts of world war i military doctors, amazon prime video’s new releases coming in september 2024, ‘wolfs’ review: brad pitt and george clooney reunite for a cunning caper that never takes itself too seriously — sometimes to a fault.

This domain has expired. Is this your domain? Renew Now!

Get a new domain registered at NameSilo.com. Find out who owns any domain name with the WHOIS tool.

This webpage was generated by the domain owner using Sedo Domain Parking . Disclaimer: Sedo maintains no relationship with third party advertisers. Reference to any specific service or trade mark is not controlled by Sedo nor does it constitute or imply its association, endorsement or recommendation.

The Lion King (I) (1994)

• User Reviews

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews

• User Ratings
• External Reviews
• Metacritic Reviews
• Full Cast and Crew
• Release Dates
• Official Sites
• Company Credits
• Filming & Production
• Technical Specs
• Plot Summary
• Plot Keywords
• Parents Guide

Did You Know?

• Crazy Credits
• Alternate Versions
• Connections
• Soundtracks

Photo & Video

• Photo Gallery
• Trailers and Videos

Related Items

• External Sites

Related lists from IMDb users

Recently Viewed

Fiction | Novel | Early Reader Picture Book | Published in 1994

Plot Summary

Continue your reading experience

Subscribe to access our Study Guide library, which offers chapter-by-chapter summaries and comprehensive analysis on 8,000+ literary works ranging from novels to nonfiction to poetry.

• Andhra Pradesh
• Arunachal Pradesh
• Chhatisgarh
• Himachal Pradesh
• Jammu and Kashmir
• Madhya Pradesh
• Maharashtra
• Uttar Pradesh
• Uttarakhand
• West Bengal
• Movie Reviews
• DC Comments
• Sunday Chronicle
• Hyderabad Chronicle
• Editor Pick
• Special Story

The Lion King movie review: Despite great potential, it falls disappointingly short

Director: Jon Favreau

Cast: (voice-over by) James Earl Jones, Donald Glover, Seth Rogen, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Billy Eichner, John Oliver and Beyoncé.

'The Lion King' (1994) is among Disney's most perfect creations, and this all-new adaptation proves that we have hit a point of no return in terms of remakes. Director Jon Favreau, who also helmed Disney's 'The Jungle Book' (2016), retells the story of the original, where the spin on an old idea misses the mark and ultimately results into the classic case of style-over-substance.

The film journeys to the African savannah where the young lion Simba lives a cushy life with his family. Simba, a crown prince, idolises his father and the king of the clan, Mufasa (James Earl Jones). As fate would have it, Simba's jealous uncle Scar (Chiwetel Ejiofor) forms a devious plot which results into Mufasa's death and Simba's exile. However, with the help of his best friend Nala (Beyoncé), Simba (Donald Glover) is drawn back into a battle with Scar to take his rightful place as King of the Pride Lands.

'The Lion King' is undoubtedly the most anticipated and ambitious film by director Jon Favreau. It's a beautifully designed film, and Hans Zimmer's wonderful score is spot-on. The animation and the scenery is really a new age in CGI. Not only are there CGI characters and creatures, but locations too. The entire jungle looks absolutely stunning. But what Lion King most lacks isn't something you can see or hear, it's something you can feel. As far as presenting elaborately garish spectacle, the film is an absolute triumph. It has a gorgeous look to it, but so many other factors of Favreau's epic leave much to be desired. Despite the bright lights of it all, the progression of the plot fails. The story, one would expect it to have more depth, something new, unfortunately there is no any addition at all, in fact it was more short version of the story. It's a film that very much works on a surface level - stylistic, vibrant and vivacious from a visual perspective, but when digging deeper there's really little substance. Sure film is visually pleasing, but it does not carry near as much weight as the original classic.

The film also awkwardly acknowledges its own pointlessness: since the only way to "improve" on the original is to make everything faster, louder and bigger. So, we get exaggerated sense of urgency, overly amplified emotions and highly stylised climax showdown between Simba and Scar. The dialogues seem to be written in a way that assumed the audience had seen the 1994 adaption. The film suffers from serious structure problems and the flow of the film is a bit jumbled and awkward. Even the cast seem to be lacking real charisma that Favreau's 'The Jungle Book' had. As a complete motion picture experience, 'The Lion King' falls considerably short.

Out of all the voice cast, only a few stand-out as the best; with Billy Eichner and Seth Rogen giving out their winning chemistry as carefree Timon and Pumbaa. Other stand-outs within the film, are James Earl Jones as Mufasa, JD McCrary, Shahadi Wright Joseph as both the younger versions of Simba and Nala and John Oliver as Zazu. The rest of the voice cast is either miscast (Beyoncé) or too feeble to make an impression (Chiwetel Ejiofor as Scar).

Overall, 'The Lion King' may not be necessarily what we expected, but if you're a Disney fan, it's charming enough to see on the big screen. If you're after light entertainment, heavy spectacle and ingenious filmmaking technology, this new adaptation will deliver. For others, the only reason you'd enjoy this movie is nostalgia and thus, it's better to watch the original instead. There's nothing much you would be missing.

Watch 'The Lion King' trailer here:

Latest News