Negative reviewers can't see past the original...

Rating: 10/10 (3 August 2019)

I enjoyed this film very much while appreciating the technology and the amount of work that went into this film to tell a timeless story. They wanted to push the envelope in what's possible and they did it very well.
I challenge anyone to point out a single scene that we did not feel we were seeing the real thing. For those of you who thought it sucked, then it's because you were comparing it to the original that was an animation to make it more expressive as a human.
In fact, EVERY SINGLE negative reviews are because they are comparing it to the animation... seriously, you were hoping they'd be able to make it more emotive and energetic based on REAL LIFE ANIMAL models?
If Lion King first came out as a motion picture with real animals, this is how they would have done it. THAT WAS THE POINT. Those who are criticizing it because they were "dull" and lacking "emotions" well congratulations you just acknowledged animals can't appear as expressive as humans because we probably didn't get to see any real animals in such situations to begin with.
So why such negativity? Why can't we appreciate the art form that have potentially changed people can do films like Avatar did a decade ago?
What Avatar did ten years ago, I felt the same sense of awe with this movie and maybe even more so because it felt like I was actually witnessing the actual event after having spent the past quarter century being shown a sketch or a written account of that event.
It honored the original and told the story as if they had to do it for real. I feel sorry for those who gave poor reviews because they missed the point.