The Lion King (2019) review

In 1991, Walt Disney Animation began production on two different films that would be the studio’s next big projects after the one-two punch of that year’s Beauty and the Beast and Aladdin the following year. Of the two films, the one that the studio ended up placing most of its focus on was an adaptation of the story of the Native American woman known as Pocahontas, and because it ended up attracting most of Disney’s prominent animators, the other film was primarily developed by the studio’s ‘B-Team’. Ironically, though, the B-Team would end up producing the more critically acclaimed affair; we, of course, know their project… as The Lion King. When it was released in the summer of 1994, The Lion King quickly became one of the biggest films of its time. It currently stands as the highest-grossing traditionally animated film of all-time at over $968 million worldwide, which also means that it was Disney Animation’s highest-grossing film for nearly two decades until it was ultimately out-grossed by Frozen in 2013. It’s also notably the best-selling VHS title of all-time with over 32 million copies sold. But now it’s joined the ranks of other Disney classics as the latest in Disney’s line of live-action remakes… however, calling this one ‘live-action’ would technically be false. Instead, this new version of The Lion King is a CGI remake of the original as it mirrors the style of the 2016 remake of The Jungle Book through its use of photorealistic environments and characters. The two films even share the same director in Jon Favreau AKA the man who effectively launched the MCU with the original Iron Man and is also responsible for modern classics like Elf and Chef. And while this one is sure to be a controversial release because of how it ultimately ‘remakes’ its predecessor, fans of the original Lion King will still probably find this to be an incredibly fun and gorgeously animated interpretation of an all-time Disney classic.

In the vast kingdom that is the Pride Lands of Africa, Mufasa, the King of Pride Rock (voiced by James Earl Jones) and his queen Sarabi (voiced by Alfre Woodard) celebrate the birth of their son, Simba. As he begins to grow up, Simba (voiced as a child by JD McCrary and as an adult by Donald Glover) eagerly anticipates the day when he will take his father’s place as King. However, unbeknownst to Simba, his uncle Scar (voiced by Chiwetel Ejiofor) secretly plots to get rid of both him and his father so that he can take over the Pride Lands. To do so, Scar puts Simba in increasingly terrifying situations that eventually results in a devastating tragedy, and when Scar has Simba fooled into thinking that the accident was his fault, Simba ends up running away from his home. After a while, he meets the happy-go-lucky duo of Timon the Meerkat (voiced by Billy Eichner) and Pumbaa the Warthog (voiced by Seth Rogen), who end up taking him in and showing him the benefits of their carefree lifestyle. But as Simba matures into adulthood, his childhood friend Nala (voiced as a child by Shahadi Wright Joseph and as an adult by Beyoncé) comes back into his life to warn him that Scar’s takeover of the Pride Lands has led it to ruin. Thus, Simba must now overcome the demons of his past to save his home from his diabolical uncle and to properly take his place as the new king of Pride Rock.

This new take on The Lion King is easily the closest that any of the recent Disney remakes have gotten when it comes to closely replicating their original counterparts. This isn’t a case like Maleficent, which retold the story of Sleeping Beauty from the titular villain’s perspective, or Pete’s Dragon, which nixed the original’s musical numbers in favor of a more traditional narrative. For all intent and purposes, this is the same exact story from the 1994 film with the same exact outcome. The only major differences from a narrative perspective come from minor deviations in dialogue and a different intro for Nala after she’s become an adult. As such, this could quite arguably be the most controversial Disney remake yet because of how tightly it adheres to the original film without really doing anything differently. And yet, at the same time, because it’s still The Lion King, it could potentially be argued that, at the very least, the film does maintain the original’s strong script and hits the biggest emotional moments just as effectively (i.e. that one scene that we always remember from this story). Nothing significant from the story is lost and nothing is added in that would drastically change anything. Ultimately, though, the biggest selling point of this film is its visuals. As noted in the intro, this film carries over the same method that Favreau used on The Jungle Book in which everything in it (save for Mowgli) was digitally created. And while some may take issue with the fact that the overall drive for realism results in certain moments from the original being toned down, it’s still an impressive feat of VFX work from the same team that won an Oscar for their work on Jungle Book.

Another key aspect of this film is its voice cast, as Jon Favreau selected a top-notch voice cast to portray these iconic characters. JD McCrary and Donald Glover (who have notably worked together before) headline the project excellently as Simba as a young cub and adult lion, respectively, thanks in large part to the terrific camaraderie/chemistry that they have with their co-stars. McCrary and Shahadi Wright Joseph are phenomenal together as young Simba and Nala, and while adult Nala’s role in the story isn’t really expanded upon too much when compared to the original film, Beyoncé does do a solid job in the role. Meanwhile, Chiwetel Ejiofor is a damn good replacement for Jeremy Irons in the role of Scar as he perfectly maintains that same, great sinister persona that was pivotal in making Scar such an iconic Disney villain. But as for Mufasa, the filmmakers clearly knew that there was no way you could replace the legendary voice that portrayed the character in the original film. Yes, James Earl Jones is back once again to reprise his role as the King of Pride Rock, and he is still just as commanding and awesome as he was in the original film. And to close out the main cast, we have Billy Eichner and Seth Rogen, who serve as phenomenal replacements for Nathan Lane and Ernie Sabella in the roles of Timon and Pumbaa. As many others have noted, they’re the biggest standouts of the film and their riffing is the primary source of the remake’s new material, whether it’s an entertaining fourth-wall gag or a downright brilliant homage to another Disney classic.

I have the feeling that this is the one Disney remake that some people were expecting me to be completely against. After all, the original Lion King still stands as my favorite Disney animated film of all-time. Well, to that I say… you’ve read my reviews of the other recent Disney remakes, right? If I haven’t made it clear before, I’m perfectly fine with this new trend of live-action remakes of classic Disney films (even though this one technically isn’t ‘live-action’) because I recognize that the old films will still be there when all’s said and done. More importantly, their legacies won’t be tarnished by a ‘lousy’ remake because they’re quite frankly better than they’re often given credit for. However, even with that said, I fully recognize that I won’t even remotely be able to convince any of the ‘live-action remake’ critics that this one is worthwhile because it’s almost literally the same as its traditionally-animated counterpart save for a CGI makeover. And because the CG is highly intent on maintaining a sense of realism, this means that this version of The Lion King is a lot more grounded compared to its predecessor (e.g. don’t expect Timon to don a hula skirt and ask some hyenas if they’re “aching for some bacon”). Despite this, Jon Favreau does do an excellent job of maintaining the same spirit of the original even with a different visual aesthetic. And at the end of the day, that visual aesthetic is the main reason to watch this film because it’s clear that the visual effects team went above and beyond to create an impressively photorealistic-looking film to the point where it could potentially pass as some kind of nature documentary. As such, while some may view this as the most pointless Disney remake yet, there’s no denying that it’s one of the best-looking films of 2019.

Rating: 5/5!

Solo: A Star Wars Story (2018) review

Well… this film has had quite a history. Practically ever since it was first announced, the second installment of Disney’s line of Star Wars spin-off films separate from the new trilogy of The Force Awakens, The Last Jedi, and next year’s Episode IX has been subjected to some of the worst luck to ever befall a film production in recent years. Right out the gate, several Star Wars fans were hesitant over the idea of there being a dreaded ‘prequel/origin story’ film centered on one of the most beloved characters in the entire saga, Han Solo. It certainly didn’t help matters when it was made clear that, given the context of the story, Han wouldn’t be played by Harrison Ford this time around, effectively putting tons of pressure on whoever ended up taking on the role to live up to what Ford had done with it. Thankfully, some of these fears were alleviated when the duo of Phil Lord and Christopher Miller were brought in to direct. Over the course of the past decade, Lord and Miller have become well-known for helming highly successful projects that, at first glance, seemed like they wouldn’t amount to anything special. They turned a very simple children’s book, Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs, into one of the most visually vibrant and hilarious animated films in recent memory. They turned the obscure television show 21 Jump Street, known only at the time for being the show that launched Johnny Depp’s career, into one of the funniest comedies of its year. This was then followed by a sequel, 22 Jump Street, which went on to become one of the rare comedy sequels that was not only ‘as good’ as its predecessor, but arguably better. And they turned what could’ve been a massively blatant cash grab, The LEGO Movie, into a charming and fantastically animated adventure that paid loving tribute to the product that it was based on. Thus, with the two of them behind the camera, it seemed as if things would go quite smoothly for this new Star Wars film…

…that is, until June 20^th, 2017, when all hell broke loose. In a stunning development, Lord and Miller announced that they were stepping down from the film’s production despite there being a few weeks left of filming due to creative differences with Lucasfilm. Not long afterward, it was then revealed that the two were basically ‘fired’ from the film due to the overtly comedic direction that they were taking with it, with producer Kathleen Kennedy reportedly being at odds with them since the start of filming. And while Lucasfilm quickly rebounded from this dilemma by hiring the legendary Ron Howard to step in and finish the film, the damage was already done at that point. Despite being an industry mainstay, as well as being no stranger to the studio having starred in George Lucas’ 1973 classic American Graffiti, many deemed Howard as being ‘too safe’ of a choice to take over for the likes of Phil Lord and Chris Miller. Simply put, Solo: A Star Wars Story basically became the equivalent of Marvel Studios’ Ant-Man, which also went through an infamous directorial shakeup when Peyton Reed took over for Edgar Wright, who backed out of the project due to, you guessed it, ‘creative conflicts with the studio’. And while the Star Wars franchise’s run under the Disney banner has led to three critical/commercial hits so far, the equally scandalous production of the previous spin-off film, Rogue One, and the borderline hostile polarizing reaction to The Last Jedi did not put the studio in as high of a regard amongst those on the internet compared to Marvel Studios. But let’s just ignore all that noise for now and just look at the film itself now that it’s finally hitting theaters, because despite such a notorious production behind it, Solo is a highly entertaining foray into the Star Wars universe.

Like Rogue One, Solo: A Star Wars Story takes place in-between the events of Episode III: Revenge of the Sith and Episode IV: A New Hope at a time where the Imperial Empire is in complete control of the galaxy. It is in this war-torn world where we meet Han Solo (Alden Ehrenreich), a brash, young wannabe pilot who manages to escape his rough living conditions on the planet Corellia. After a brief, disastrous stint in the Imperial Navy, Han crosses paths with a band of criminals led by Tobias Beckett (Woody Harrelson), who ends up recruiting Han for a heist on a shipment of valuable hyper fuel. During the process, Han also meets and befriends a Wookiee named Chewbacca (Joonas Suotamo), who ends up tagging along with him on the mission. However, when the heist ends up being a bust, Han, Chewie, and Beckett find themselves in hot water with their ‘superiors’, a criminal syndicate known as Crimson Dawn led by Dryden Vos (Paul Bettany). To appease Vos, Han boldly suggests an alternate plan to acquire the hyper fuel, which involves them acquiring it in an ‘unprocessed’ form from the planet Kessel. Given the seemingly impossible nature of the mission, Vos has his top subordinate Qi’ra (Emilia Clarke), who happens to be Han’s former lover who he was forced to leave behind on Corellia, accompany them on the operation to help ensure that it goes smoothly. As a means of procuring a ship for the mission, the group also recruits the notorious smuggler Lando Calrissian (Donald Glover), owner of the Millennium Falcon, the fastest ship in the galaxy.

Since the whole directorial shakeup, much speculation has been made over how much of the film was reworked under Howard’s direction. By most accounts, it appears as if he re-shot about 70% of the film, meaning that it’s likely that there are still some parts in the final film that were done by Lord and Miller. Thankfully, there’s no real indication of inconsistency between their directorial visions in the final product. For all intents and purposes, it seems as if Howard did his best to match what Lord and Miller were going for in a manner that would make the production run a lot smoother (e.g. not relying heavily on improvisation). And as for the film itself, it’s a fun ride from beginning to end. If there’s one major advantage that it has over Rogue One, it’s better pacing. As I noted a few years back in my review of that film, Rogue One started off on a bit of a slow note but eventually found its groove by the end, highlighted by its big action-packed finale on the planet Scarif. By comparison, Solo gets things rolling right out of the gate and doesn’t relent for the rest of its near two-and-a-half-hour run-time. Sure, it maybe loses just a bit of steam at the end, but that doesn’t prevent this film from having some of the best pacing in the entire franchise. But as for how the film handles the origin story of one of the saga’s most iconic characters, one’s mileage may vary over how effectively it’s handled. As for me, though, I personally enjoyed all the ways in which the film set up Han’s character. The scene where he first meets Lando Calrissian? Awesome. The scene where he first meets Chewbacca? Heartwarming. The scene where him and Chewie co-pilot the Millennium Falcon for the first time and make the Kessel Run in under 12 parsecs? So. Damn. Satisfying! Sure, this is easily one of the simplest plotted outings to come out of the franchise, but what is there is handled nicely.

Alden Ehrenreich obviously went into this film having to deal with some of the most intense pressure that an actor has ever experienced due to him having to take on a role that Harrison Ford had turned into an iconic part of cinema thanks to Episodes IV through VII. Thankfully, Ehrenreich slips into the role with ease, conveying all of Han’s notable quirks, including his tendency to make things up as he goes along, with charisma that almost nearly equals that of Ford’s. At the same time, Ehrenreich also has terrific chemistry/camaraderie with each of his main co-stars. It all begins, of course, with Chewie, as Joonas Suotamo continues to be a worthy successor to Peter Mayhew in the role of Han’s trusted sidekick. Then, there’s Donald Glover as arguably the film’s biggest standout, the younger Lando Calrissian. Granted, Lando surprisingly doesn’t factor into the film as much as one might expect going in (he’s honestly only in about a third of it), but Glover is practically pitch-perfect in terms of replicating the same swagger that Billy Dee Williams brought to the role back in the original trilogy. Ehrenreich also has great chemistry with Emilia Clarke as the film’s main female lead, Qi’ra. Obviously, most Star Wars fans know how this relationship is going to turn out given Han’s relationship with Leia in the other films, but the ways in which they develop Qi’ra for a potential follow-up or two are quite fascinating. Closing out the main core group is Woody Harrelson, perfectly sly as Han’s mentor figure in this film, and Phoebe Waller-Bridge as the franchise’s newest memorable droid character, L3-37, who’s a fun mix of the energy of BB-8 and the sarcastic wit of Alan Tudyk’s K-2SO from Rogue One as Lando’s primary co-pilot on the Millennium Falcon.  

Now with all this said, I know damn well that this film is shaping up to be one of the most polarizing installments of the Star Wars saga. Hell, most people have clearly already made up their minds about this film before they even saw it because they’re still upset about the whole Lord and Miller fiasco. And that’s a damn shame because the film is ultimately not the disaster that a lot of its critics thought it was going to be. Sure, the fact that Phil Lord and Chris Miller were kicked off the production in the middle of filming instead of during pre-production may have seemed problematic, but Ron Howard does a damn fine job of taking over for them and keeping the final product from being a disheveled mess. And as for the film itself, it’s a fun little sci-fi adventure through the Star Wars universe. Is it the franchise’s best outing? No, not at all, but that’s by no means a criticism given the quality of the Star Wars films that have been made since Disney took over. Simply put, Solo: A Star Wars Story succeeds at being a neat little foray into the past exploits of the franchise’s iconic protagonist. Granted, not everyone will like the ways in which it handles Solo’s backstory, but casual Star Wars fans like myself will no doubt get a kick out of seeing how Han met Chewbacca for the first time and the first time that the two stepped foot in the Millennium Falcon, amongst other things. And to his credit, Alden Ehrenreich manages to live up to a lot of the expectations that were thrust upon him by being a wonderful successor to Harrison Ford as everyone’s favorite ‘stuck up, half-witted, scruffy-looking nerf herder’ (“Who’s scruffy-looking?”). Now, would I’ve loved to have seen what Lord and Miller might have done with this story? Yes, but as was also the case with Edgar Wright and Ant-Man, that’s all in the past now. I’m not going to debate about this film being a case of a studio limiting their filmmakers’ creative vision. Instead, I’m just going to sit back and enjoy the ride because, contrary to what some on the internet may claim, the Star Wars franchise is doing totally fine now despite some of its most scandalous behind-the-scenes dilemmas.

Rating: 5/5!