The Lion King (2019) ***/5: The energy was lacking in this remake but for a few flashes. The original animated feature is a superior film. Good update for the current generation.

(Photo courtesy of imdb.com)

The live action remake of Disney’s original 1994 animated feature, The Lion King, is an inferior product. This is the case with most of Disney’s live remakes so far. They, mostly, lack the energy and intensity of the original animated versions. There is only a mild burst of energy in this live action remake of The Lion King as it simply tries to retread past glory. The voice acting is a crucial factor here and it is clearly inferior to the original. The attempt to add depth and range to the original is mild and only a few areas are really fleshed out. The majesty is lost in this retread which cannot be salvaged by Beyonce’s hollow, booming vocals. This is yet another corporate slog to milk an established brand; and what a brand it is as the opening box office numbers suggest.  The minor achievement of this film is that it is an update for the current generation. It is also testament to the enduring quality of one of the great animated films.

The main plot of the film is the same as the original. A young Simba must grapple with the burdens of his legacy inherited from his great father Mufasa to refashion himself as a King of the pride lands. He is met with great opposition by his uncle Scar and his pack of Hyenas while being allied with romantic interest Nala and his friends, Timon and Pumba.

Positives

The primary positive is the update for the current generation of young movie goers who never experienced the thrills of the original 1994 release. It is clear by the reaction of the young members of the audience that the elements that made the Lion King appealing back then still has the power to entertain a digital crazed generation-which piles on the superficiality in droves and creates a vast pile of obsolescence or obsolete material in its wake. Once in a while this generation of digital performers is reminded that there are some things that do last or endure and have great historical value where you can cash in.

The live action remake is made with a certain hyper realism which appeals to this generation which sees the original animated releases as outdated or crude. This allows the film to present the material in a visually appealing way which will hold the attention of some, even those who watched it before. With this live remake one can get a sense of the Western conception of mystical Africa from the Serengeti, Mt. Kilimanjaro, the Sahara desert and the old fashioned jungle paradise (Hakuna Matata). It is obviously a false representation and it is something I already complained about in regard to the original. The live action visuals do give a better idea of how the world of The Lion King is to be understood. A biased Western fantasy where animals reign supreme and man still lives in caves. The mystic and wise baboon is a fitting stereotype of man at one with nature. The appeal of Africa for many white westerners comes through the Discovery Channel and the National Geographic.  It is the continent where such a variety of species come together in the circle of life, particularly some of the great mammals of the Earth.

There are some elements of this new realism that I did appreciate such as the idea of  Scar’s original challenge to Mufasa and his rule as King which explained why the pride lands were desolate; the clear hierarchy of the Hyena clan led by the female (which is very realistic); Nala’s escape from the pride under Scar’s rule and a variety of species in the jungle paradise inhabited by Timon and Pumba. There were many elements not effectively delineated however and suggests weak direction. Why would prey such as the African Buffalo (in the real world they hate lions and won’t hesitate to kill them), Zebra, etc  celebrate the birth of yet another meat eating lion? The herbivore perspective was not effectively highlighted and the contradictions were exposed when the space inhabited by Timon and Pumba which included other animals but was not addressed.

Standout voice acting performances were Chiwetel Ejiofor as Scar, John Oliver as Zazu, Billy Eichner as Timon and Seth Rogan as Pumba. These actors did make a good attempt to bring back the energy of the original characters. One could make the argument that the lack of energy on the part of some characters is more realistic and the less excitable parts will appeal to a wider range of audiences and not just children. That doesn’t change the disappointment I felt while watching Rafiki voiced by John Kani.

Negatives

The energy and intensity of the original was clearly lacking. The live remake is actually an inferior product dramatically. In their attempt to exhaust the material it became hollow and then derivative when they went back on course. There could have been attempts at more fresh dialogue and maybe some more exposition in certain areas. Imitation is the best form of flattery they say but not the best form of entertainment. As a retread I could only see this as a corporate slog to cash in and I was drained in the wrong way. More could have been done to expand the world of the Lion King and not simply to do a mere retread. As a mere retread the songs do not have the same vibrancy and the attempt to fill in gaps with new songs rings hollow. Hearing Beyonce sing about Spirit as Simba returns to the pride lands was an embarrassment. Never was a song as less fitting for a movie scene as that. The elements that made the original unique are diluted in the name of update only but not integrity. This film highlights the burden of history as succeeding generations refuse to live up to the standards of the past. At each step I cringed as the voice acting never measured up and they tried to imitate, imitate, imitate.

The major elements that contributed to the energy and intensity of the original was the voice acting. This is lacking in the live action remake. In an embarrassing fashion they brought back a much older James Earl Jones to voice Mufasa. Although he voiced Mufasa in the original this time around he was unable to match the majesty and power he conveyed in the 1994 version. He is not intended to voice an old Mufasa but a Mufasa at the peak of his powers. Rafiki was another disappointment with no vibrancy as one of major original African voiced characters.  Most of the other new actors were trying to imitate instead of act. Scar was one of the few who seemed refashioned to a certain extent.

The lack of daring was astounding and only a few actors were able to offer some fresh interpretation to their characters. The rest came across as ineffectively developed as a result. This required more energy from the creative team and there was clearly not much vision regarding the interpretation of the original. They did not necessarily have to create something new but to innovate to a point where this would be The Lion King for a new generation and not just a nostalgic retread. This required fresh dialogue, even in cherished scenes, in order to give the characters more range and purpose in their actions.   Although some say it’s not good to mess with a good thing,  you can because there is always room for improvement. Always unless it is maxed out! That room for improvement is where you innovate and there were so many areas that could have been effectively developed or refashioned. The original already reached a certain peak that would not be matched emotionally just by retreading familiar territory in the same way. They attempted to innovate in areas which were not necessary, such as the soundtrack. When the original was created there was a concerted effort to make the major soundtrack songs hits that would linger in the memory and fit the feel and context of film. I don’t see ‘Spirit’ making any impact on this generation. In one sense they tried to manufacture something that would seem fresh but instead it came across as hollow, purposeless and forgettable because it was unable to convey emotion effectively. The dramatic impetus of the original has been smothered under the corporate drive, poor imitation and a lower standard of filmmaking.

The film will not astound but it will make money because it is an established property.

Spider-Man: Far From Home (2019) ***½ /5: An improvement on the original and a fitting film in the post-Endgame era.

(photo courtesy of polygon.com)

Spider-Man: Far from Home (2019) is a notable improvement on its predecessor, Homecoming, and provides a good update on the post-Endgame scenario in the MCU. The story itself is very much tied to the fallout from Endgame where there is now a world without Tony Stark/Ironman, the linchpin of the MCU since 2008. Who will rise to take his place? This is the central question of Far From Home particularly as it is expected that that person is the humble Peter parker from Queens who happens to be Spider-Man. Mixed in with the legacy discussion is the school trip which happens to be a European tour. It is actually a refreshing break from the American scene and the villain, Mysterio, cuts an interesting figure. The trailers originally suggested that he would be an ally but never indicated how he would become a villain. The film addresses that as well and it is also bundled with the legacy question.  As teenage hormones surge so do the elementals as everyone knows by now is a concoction contributing to the grandmaster plan. You know there must be a big hole in the MCU when the Avengers are not drawn to such a crisis and it is left solely to Peter Parker and his allies.

This film sees the return of the Homecoming cast led by Tom Holland as Spider-Man with the introduction of Jake Gyllenhall as Quentin Beck/Mysterio and a first time appearance alongside Spider-Man for another MCU linchpin, Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson).

Positives

The primary positive was the legacy questions. In some instances it can be overwhelming but it is a primary feature of the plot. There are those that are a part of the legacy and those shunned by it. Obviously the villain and his crew were those shunned by the great MCU/Stark legacy and are making one great attempt to be a part of it although it’s not their right.  Peter Parker is given the task to continue the great Stark legacy. Obviously at his age that is a big issue to confront especially when you’re more concerned with impressing the girl of your dreams on a European tour with your high school peers. Obviously, how he deals with it leads to major consequences with Quentin Beck/Mysterio. At first when watching the film I thought that Parker appeared so naïve and predictable but upon more reflection I realize that was to be expected of his immaturity. There is a great divide between the adult and teen perspectives that is very well portrayed here particularly how an adult can take advantage of a teen’s naivete. So the adults are thrusting this pressure on Parker not realizing that he has a teenage life to complete.  Obviously this burden is lessened as the other supporting characters start to play important roles, especially MJ. Going forward it is possible that Parker will build his a team in the real sense that makes him a better spider-man now that he has embraced these legacy issues. Obviously the 1^st post credit scene is a great tease  and ties back to the 1^st Iron Man but with a twist. Tony Stark might have boldly proclaimed his identity but  the revelation of Parker’s identity is thrust upon him in a nefarious way. The Spider-Man series is expanding nicely and after this maybe we will get a better sense of who Spider-Man is as a hero now that the legacy questions with Stark, and the associated mishaps, are somewhat out of the way.

The other impressive bit was the chronicling of teenage life and experiences post-decimation. The teenage interpretation of events is refreshing as well as their attitudes to romance. Ned’s take on the life of a bachelor, to being tied down with a woman, to being single again was hilarious and a great example of a supporting character in this genre. These elements are embedded into the plot seamlessly along with Peter’s travails concerning MJ.

The action was pretty good particularly when considering the unique challenge posed by Mysterio. Sometimes with the best villains it’s not just about coming to blows or a general fistfight.

The film gives a good sense of where the MCU is at the moment.

Negatives

The primary negative is the overwhelming issue of legacy to the point where it doesn’t feel like a Spider-Man movie. The legacy questions could have been sidelined without taking over the film. I understand the succession elements involved but there were many moments when it did not give Spider-Man his own moments. Mysterio could still have been a great villain without the Stark element. In a sense if Spider-Man is to stand on his own his universe needs to shine through beyond the teenage circuit. This is why I am looking forward to the third film in the series. Maybe as the series continues to expand and Parker fully embraces the role then we will get a full Spider-Man experience. Until then the films in this series will not fully standout especially as the position is considered an inferior one from the teenage perspective. There was a delightful scene where parker took MJ web slinging and shows the potential inherent in the series to be a distinct and fun with a more adult perspective. At the rate the series is going we will not get to see an adult Spider-Man in full swing.