The Lion King (2019) Review Thread

Oct 25, 2017
10,097




Currently at a 66%
 

Socivol

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,401
Just read the GQ article and basically it's what people thought it would be, a beautiful but emotionless remake.
 

Doof

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,846
Kentucky
how many of the first 10 reviews on metacritic will have "uncanny valley" in the headline
all

 

bananafactory

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,233
Seems divisive so far. The criticisms about the photoreal approach are valid, but I am completely baffled how negative the reaction has been here compared to the same realistic render for Jungle Book. That movie is at 93% on RT and a skim of the reviews shows lavish praise for the lifelike animals.

I obviously havent seen TLK but Im curious how an identical approach from the same director can leave one movie soulless and the other fantastic
 
Oct 26, 2017
6,758
This Lion King now has another political resonance that was absent from the 1990s version, one that Favreau, if he intended it at all, doesn’t stress too hard: The movie’s vision of a once-honorable empire being taken over by a corrupt and malevolent usurper will strike many Americans as having an undeniable ripped-from-the-headlines quality. When Scar consolidates his power by enlisting the protection of an army of hyena henchmen, it’s hard not to think of another luxuriously maned would-be dictator who relies on a pack of scavenging subordinates to carry out his vile commands
I like this reading.
 

Stinkles

343 Industries
Verified
Oct 25, 2017
12,777
how many of the first 10 reviews on metacritic will have "uncanny valley" in the headline


I guess critics have found their version of the forum poster "color grading" hot take, which in turn is the evolution of "no highs no lows must be Bose"


I ain't seen Lion King but one of the differences might be the combination of almost all the creatures being mammals with no human "anchor" and the lack of Jungle/Temple - but also the fact that The Jungle Book has an almost artsy feel, whereas this is extremely direct and mainstream.

I will say that Favreau makes fantastic movies and I imagine this will be a kind of litmus test for your ability to suspend disbelief. Uncanny Valley is an extremely odd thing to worry about with talking animals. There's no attempt to fool you and so the valley peaks and floor are not about the underlying phenomenon. I think it's misapplied here, even if there are tons of comparisons.
 

BDS

Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,622
Seems divisive so far. The criticisms about the photoreal approach are valid, but I am completely baffled how negative the reaction has been here compared to the same realistic render for Jungle Book. That movie is at 93% on RT and a skim of the reviews shows lavish praise for the lifelike animals.

I obviously havent seen TLK but Im curious how an identical approach from the same director can leave one movie soulless and the other fantastic
The Jungle Book was a fairly different approach to the animated film and took place in a variety of lush environments. The Lion King is basically a shot-for-shot remake of the animated movie.
 
OP
OP
jack_package_200
Oct 25, 2017
10,097

caliph95

Member
Oct 25, 2017
20,624
It's still going to make a billion but I thought it would at least get better reviews than it was getting considering Jon Favero made Jungle Book though he probably had more freedom with that
 

SKOL

Avenger
Oct 28, 2017
609
I'm sure reviews will be average at best.
Not going to let it influence me. I went in knowing that Aladdin was getting poor reviews but that movie was a blast.
 
Oct 25, 2017
5,237
Chicago Tribune gave it 1.5 stars.

It’s a step forward technologically and three steps back every other way. It represents a new high and a new low in Disney’s ongoing recycling program.
It’s persuasive, meticulous work within its chosen visual landscape, as far as it goes.
And for me it goes nowhere.
The new “Lion King” has every reason to exist in fiscal terms. It has no reason to exist as a movie we might take with us into our futures.
 

Blader

Member
Oct 27, 2017
9,308
Seems divisive so far. The criticisms about the photoreal approach are valid, but I am completely baffled how negative the reaction has been here compared to the same realistic render for Jungle Book. That movie is at 93% on RT and a skim of the reviews shows lavish praise for the lifelike animals.

I obviously havent seen TLK but Im curious how an identical approach from the same director can leave one movie soulless and the other fantastic
I didn't really understand what people liked so much about Jungle Book beyond the effects. I thought it was kind of boring but the animated version wasn't one of my favorites as a kid either, so maybe it's just a boring story.
 

Vonnegut

Member
May 27, 2018
1,079
Why is Disney shitting on their former animated masterpieces with these wholly unnecessary remakes?

This will only hurt them in the long run.
 

JakeNoseIt

Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,054
I see where reviewers are coming from so far.

I watched the clip at the end of the Jimmy Kimmel interview with Donald Glover and watching the characters sing was so, boring? In cartoons, the animals emote like human beings and here it seems basically like they are just dropping the jaws of the animals when words need to come out. It results in this weird sensation where you are more aware than normal that the characters aren't speaking. At least for me, I'm rarely "seeing the voiceover" as much as I was in that short clip and it kinda took me out of it
 

bananafactory

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,233
The Jungle Book was a fairly different approach to the animated film and took place in a variety of lush environments. The Lion King is basically a shot-for-shot remake of the animated movie.
Right I get that, but Im specifically talking about the frequent criticisms of the lifeless animals and the way they talk. Why did it work in JB and not here? What went wrong?
 

caliph95

Member
Oct 25, 2017
20,624
Seems divisive so far. The criticisms about the photoreal approach are valid, but I am completely baffled how negative the reaction has been here compared to the same realistic render for Jungle Book. That movie is at 93% on RT and a skim of the reviews shows lavish praise for the lifelike animals.

I obviously havent seen TLK but Im curious how an identical approach from the same director can leave one movie soulless and the other fantastic
Jungle Book had Mowgli to interact with the animals plus Jon was doing his own interpretation of the story and wasn't just a shot for shot remake of the movie.

Also I remember the cgi in Jungle book being better than what I've seen in lion king or at least it felt they had more life and character.

It probably helped there's more diversity in the animals in jungle book
 

Deception

Member
Nov 15, 2017
5,419
Seems divisive so far. The criticisms about the photoreal approach are valid, but I am completely baffled how negative the reaction has been here compared to the same realistic render for Jungle Book. That movie is at 93% on RT and a skim of the reviews shows lavish praise for the lifelike animals.

I obviously havent seen TLK but Im curious how an identical approach from the same director can leave one movie soulless and the other fantastic
I think a lot of it has to do with how iconic and memorable the original LK was compared to The Jungle Book.
 
Oct 2, 2018
1,547
I feel like the talking realistic animals won’t be able to convey the emotions of the cartoon. We’ll see though
nailed it.

But both characters have been so authentically rendered, with the limited range of facial motion their respective species possess, that we’re essentially just watching two animals stare blankly at each other.
And the lack of expressiveness becomes a real liability when it comes to caring about our hero, prince Simba (JD McCrary as a cub, Donald Glover as a grown lion), who sports the same placid, unchanging cat face when he’s confronted by the defining tragedy of his childhood as when he’s pouncing on a beetle.
 
Dec 2, 2017
5,397
But both characters have been so authentically rendered, with the limited range of facial motion their respective species possess, that we’re essentially just watching two animals stare blankly at each other. The emotional connection between them is entirely theoretical, supplied only by context or maybe by memories of what their hand-drawn ancestors more clearly conveyed.
Oof