The reviews of The Lion King generally say that the CGI is fabulous, but the film fails to entertain well. Pick your reviewer.



Great News! they left in the fart jokes!

Indie wire doesn't hold back:

Unfolding like the world’s longest and least convincing deepfake, Jon Favreau’s (almost) photorealistic remake of “The Lion King” is meant to represent the next step in Disney’s circle of life. Instead, this soulless chimera of a film comes off as little more than a glorified tech demo from a greedy conglomerate — a well-rendered but creatively bankrupt self-portrait of a movie studio eating its own tail.

With the possible exception of 2015’s “Cinderella,” which was touched with just enough magic to feel like a new wrinkle on an old fairy tale, all of Disney’s live-action rehashes have been faint echoes of their animated predecessors. But “The Lion King” isn’t an echo, it’s a stain. This zombified digital clone of the studio’s first original cartoon feature is the Disney equivalent of Gus Van Sant’s “Psycho.”

[ouch]

For good or bad, It will make millions.

---

----


Edited 999 time(s). Last edit at 12:08PM by jdc.

Just remaking a classic is not a big deal. We've enjoyed these stories as books, cartoons, plays, movies, action figures. Who says one version of anything is the Final Version that Shall Not Be Touched?

I think the limitation is that real animal faces are hard to make convey emotion effectively, no matter how good the animator. A singing "real" warthog just ain't ever gonna look right.

....they say it is like a shot-for-shot remake but adds nothing new.....the Gus Van Sant 'Psycho' remake is a good analogy.......he remade 'Psycho' shot for shot but why.....???

......if you are going to remake it, why not do it differently....

---

____________________________________________________

I reject your reality and substitute my own!

A singing "real" warthog just ain't ever gonna look right. Yup. And that is the point, correct? We don't have to believe these animals actually talk and dance and sing, do we?

59% from reviewers on Rotten Tomatoes (Audience scores aren’t available yet). Apparently same consensus. Visually great, overall humdrum.