Cinematic circle of life.

Rating: 6/10 (21 July 2019)

'The Lion King (2019)' certainly looks phenomenal: its 'photo-realistic animation' actually looks photo-real (or pretty much as close to it as we've come so far) on more than one occasion. The environments often seem so real you could touch them, the water simulation is perhaps the best I've ever seen and the animals all move, essentially, as realistically as CG creatures have ever moved. However, this does mean that the movie lacks most of the flair usually associated with animated works, even going so far as to omit emotion in favour of realism. The characters, whom are all inevitably anthropomorphised to some degree, don't really emote. Aside from providing ample range in their vocal performances, they remain as stony-faced as animals of their kind usually do. It's lucky that, for the most part, the cast do a terrific job at conveying everything that needs to be conveyed. However, when the singing starts, the believability of the vocal work starts to stretch beyond its limits; it just doesn't look like these lions, with their limited jaw-range and general lack of visual articulation, are belting out the big notes that they're supposed to be. Again, it's a good job that the songs are as genuinely entertaining as they are. Sadly, the picture can't claim to own any of them - except for a couple of originals that seem strangely out of place. On top of that, the musical sequences themselves aren't all that inspired, especially when compared to the original 'The Lion King (1994)'. I mean, the big, colourful, montage-esque numbers from that flick are here replaced by often stiff and generally just sort of bland ones. The same is true, I suppose, of the whole affair. It doesn't change anything in terms of narrative but somehow makes things longer and less energetic. Of course, this is all in favour of its realist aesthetic, but it does make you wonder whether that's a wise choice. After all, why does this Shakespearean musical about talking lions need to be realistic? The end result is far less memorable than the 1994 classic; it's not as vibrant, lively or dynamic. It still tells an engaging, effective and occasionally emotionally-affecting story, though. I can't deny that it's a fair bit of fun. It's not so much new as nostalgic, almost like an experiment on a large scale. It ultimately doesn't really feel worth the effort, however, because I'd rather watch the original and I think pretty much everyone else would, too. In five years time, will this be remembered as a classic? No, it'll be remembered as a remake. It's a shame, as the technical work involved with it really is astounding. The true artistry required to make this work would probably have been better spent elsewhere. I suppose it's just a product of the cinematic circle of life, though. In twenty-five years time, I guess we can expect an animated remake of this (so-called) 'live-action' effort. 6/10