The Lion King reviewed by Mark Kermode
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 5 фев 2025
- Mark Kermode reviews The Lion King. Simba, the heir to Pride Rock, finds himself in exile when his villainous uncle Scar convinces him he is guilty of an unforgivable crime.
Please tell us what you think of the film -- or Mark’s review of the film. We love to include your views on the show every Friday.
If you like this, why not subscribe to our podcast for more reviews, interviews and general wittering of the highest order: www.bbc.co.uk/...
Twitter: @Wittertainment
www.bbc.co.uk/5...
Fridays at 3pm on BBC 5 live.
I hate it when you're watching a nature documentary and the animals just start singing.
So lovely when their weird animal mouths barely move but somehow produce English sentences.
It just feels so contrived. Animals almost never do that in their daily lives.
With great CGI comes great responsibility
John Judd that’s actually a very profound statement.
It's a dangerous place. Sonic was murdered there recently, too.
“And of course.. the animals are singing.”
“That’s always the clue, isn’t it?”
I just adore this banter 😂😂
Simba’s facial expressions in 1994: :) :( :() :D XD :/. Simba’s facial expressions on 2019: :| :| :| :| :|
Real animals have facial expressions so why would they do an animated animal with no facial expressions?
I just thought it was weird when the hyena looked into the camera and yelled "chaos reigns."
brutal
I wish
Mufasa: See Simba? Everything the light touches is our kingdom
Simba: What about that shadowy place?
Mufasa: Those are live action disney movies.... you must never go there
Or straight to VHS sequels
I think the problem with the story in this format is that the plot of the Lion King doesn't actually make logical sense. It's a celebration of hierarchical power structures. Why would antelope be excited about the birth of a new Lion who will ultimately end up slaughtering and eating them and their children? Scar and the hyenas simply want the same thing that Simba wants: To rule the kingdom and eat the other animals. And the way we get people to accept flawed logic is to wrap it up in the mystical and the abstract. So we have all this mystical talk about the "circle of life" and the "great kings of the past" etc. When this is served to us in a vibrant, stylised cartoon, we read it in much more of an abstract nature. But when the film asks us to accept this as coming from _real_ animals, the flawed logic is much more obvious as we read the film in a more literal way. That's my take, anyway.
he's absolutely right, traditional cell animation which can be more abstract and fantastical is far more limitless than having to maker everything look 100% believably photo-real
...and if it was 100% photo-real the hyenas and lions would hunt and eat the other animals...
It would have had more emotion if they'd used glove puppets.
I watched the original Lion King last night and the beautiful hand-drawn 2d animation hasn't aged a day. Still a truly great movie.
I feel the same way about photo realism art, it’s beautiful, but all I’m looking at is talent, not something which moves me or my imagination.
Thats how I felt about Avatar. I was amazed at the visual beauty of it but the moments that I thought at the time should have sent shivers up my spine or made my stomach lurch didn't have any effect on me. I was left sitting in the cinema feeling totally cold and detached thinking to myself "why am I not engaged by this, this is the kind of stuff that should really work for me". I mean I don't really know why but I have the feeling its because all the attention was put into making them look real rather than making them feel right. I was way more effected by watching How to Train Your Dragon on the TV.
Surely a photo would be far more engaging?
Is this genre of film making a reaction to the next gen being unable or unwilling to engage in fantasy?
Beyonce is an actor now ?
@@WhichDoctor1 Avatar really hasn't dated very well.
"All I'm looking at is talent" The talent is the art. If you don't feel anything upon realising a picture isn't in fact a photo but a painting, that's your failing. Also, the photorealism alone isn't the problem, it's the realism in the context of a fantasy story. Fundamental difference.
The fact that Scar never screamed out “SARABI!!!!!!” in the remake, completely ruined the film!
"Elephant the light touches" :-)
Nick Zimmermann An emo band name if ever I heard one lol
Nick Zimmermann they should have that be the critic quote on the poster.
The original is flawless. Why even bother with this?
$$$
Absolute guaranteed money. Also, some critics/viewers will praise a film solely for how realistic its CGI is.
I agree that the original is flawless. It is my favourite cartoon. Scar is simply one of the best baddies ever in any film. Nevertheless I am definitely looking forward to seeing this.
Not just money... copyright protection too 🤮
The original isn't flawless, the parts when Simba fleed and comeback to home were poorly written
Can't imagine Scar without Jeremy Irons ' voice
That scene with Jeremy irons banishing young simba and says run away simba and never return. Is iconic
"Heavy On The Carcass - The Best Of Mark Kermode"
"I wouldn't listen to me because I'm a film critic. All I can do is tell you that MY brain.."
Mark chose his words carefully there and it shows how humble and professional he is. He doesn't think he can do these movies better, he only wants to express how these films make him feel.
Thi$ film ha$ almo$t no rea$on to exi$$$t.
It's a Photoreal Animated Film, there we go
I enjoyed it for the effects etc but the song be prepared was disastrously short I could not believe we did not get a full version of arguably the best song
The heart of The tardis Same. I was devastated they didn't do the full version somehow
He expressed that very well. I had similar thoughts
I hate every frame of this version. There is no way to fully express how much I wish they had never done this.
@GiRayne you say that but a lot of children won't watch older cartoons, saying that they look rubbish
@@dayglowjoe Which is why they need the new version. Some of them have aged badly, that's objective.
@@fredh1720 no it's not, that's completely subjective. as if the sole purpose of art is to be photo-realistic! pffffft
@@dayglowjoe That's not what I said at all.
Without facial expression there's no emotional feedback.
That will work well for the zooming of simbas face in the stampede scene then
So, dogs don't ever ellicit emotional responses? I love my dog.
@@danieloneill9560 dogs have actually developed an enhanced capacity for facial expression that humans respond positively to. Warthogs and other forms of non-domesticated African Wildlife not so much.
Look - go see the film - I don't care.
@@PhDTony_original I already have and I didn't need to see a Lion with a sad face to feel sad myself.
Surprised at the neglect to mention how it was basically a carbon copy of the original adding little to nothing of its own to the story although I do appreciate the debate about animation it does take up the whole review
Linda Higgins just came in from watching it and I said the same. Would have been cool to see a twist. Also certain scenes just seemed empty for me.
I said exactly the same thing. As I watched it a wave of nostalgia and love for original kept washing over me. At least with The Jungle Book some things were tweaked and changed - this was exactly the same, where I could quote line for line in some cases. I also found some of the voice acting poor, but I don't know whether this is because there were no facial expressions from the animals - there was a huge emotional disconnect for me with James Earl Jones as Mufasa compared to the original. My partner said that it was like watching a dubbed film, where the voices just didn't quite match the mouths of the characters. It was all bizarre, as at times I felt like I was watching a documentary and my mind just could not compute that these animals were not real. So odd. In conclusion - I just want to watch the magic of the original.
@@laurenmccarthy3664 That encapsulates my experience of it too: there was just something missing, and I couldn't find any "emotional immersion" while I was watching it if that makes sense?
I just don't see the point of this remake. The original; also had amazing animation and a great cast as well as the same story so why remake it? I also can't help but feel although this animation is impressive it just not anything that's as impressive as the original. So many films use CGI that looks almost real now but none use the classic hand drawn style so I don't see why this film was made other than for money. It has nothing other than it's new art style to show off and the new art style isn't any better than the original so there is no reason for me to watch this. If it was a new story that I had never seen before I would watch it but it's not so why bother?
No Jeremy Irons or Rowan Atkinson - 0/10
Yep, that kinda ruined it before it even started for me.
I liked the different take on Scar, but other character voices felt like knockoffs: not cheap, but still knockoffs.
None of the promotional material I've seen has shown the characters singing (perhaps I have missed it), which suggests that they know that it's where the weak point is in the realistic talking animals genre. Many reviews have mentioned the singing breaking the suspension of disbelief. Personally, I always found that to be the case in animated films - even as a child ('who is playing the music?'). Would it not have been better to drop the musical element of it if the big prize for the remake was the hyper realistic visuals?
I was REALLY hoping for this. The songs just don't fit with the visuals. Except slightly for Hakuna Matata
I don't get the point of these, I'd rather the cartoon
Allan Coote same point as the cartoon. There is none.
Making money - simple enough really.
It baffles me every time someone asks what the point is of these films. Look at how much The Jungle Book remake made. Same with Beauty and the Beast. Same with Aladdin. They’d be stupid not to make something that makes so much profit. Would you turn down a billion dollars? They might not be critically well received but the shareholders care not about that.
nicbam14
When the animated film was released, it was something new. This is a stupid comparison.
@upgraiden. You’re right. The reason they make these films is because they make money because a lot of people go to see them; the question should be “I don’t know why people go to see these types of movies.”
“Cartoons” and “non-photorealistic” animation generally is its own genre that has its own rules that work.
Switching it up to make it “real” changes it so totally that films that work perfectly as animation don’t work when supposedly “real”
Can you imagine the disaster of Snow White and the Seven Dwarves made as “live action”. It wouldn’t work. But as a cartoon it’s awesome.
Just because it can be done, doesn’t mean it should be done. Technically I’m sure it’s amazing but there is more than the technology at work here. When the method of production is part of the story, changing that method ruins the story.
richard mattocks I don’t agree completely (some animated stories can make the transition better than others, but you’re right in cases like Snow White) but you made your point so well I had to like lol.
The obsession with trying to make photo realistic cg is wank. The magic of hand drawn animation is the distance which allows it to embrace the fantastic element.
I watched the scene of mufasa’s death of the 2019 version and I laughed
Same..it was comedy
I'd rather watch Planet Earth if i want to watch real lions on the big screen. The CGI is great, but it lacks the charm of the simple drawn characters of the original Lion King.
I know it’s sacrilege to say it in some circles but I thought the voice acting from Donald Glover and especially Beyoncé was actually very very poor. The CGI is pretty fantastic though. (Apart from the Simba-zoom in after the “long live the King” moment). 6/10.
Edit: Seth Rogan as Pumbaa stoke the show for me and was a real bright spot. But then I do have the sense of humour of a nine year old.
Spectacular to look at, but surprisingly souless. The original is far more emotionally engaging.
Having already seen the original lion king hundreds of times as a kid on VHS I don’t feel the need to rush out and see this one though I might see it at some point
Check it out I think it's the best film of the last 10 years.
That's a really excellent explanation and it makes a lot of sense to me, especially the part about the joy to be found when you suspend (dis)belief and your imagination runs free.
The foundations of my love for film were built on old monster movies, and when the budget was tight but the story was good the film makers trusted their audiences' imaginations to leap beyond the studio backlot and fly with the story and characters.
First thoughts - just scratching the surface - but I think it is a very astute observation from MK.
I couldn't help but feel Mark Kermode was being a bit soft on this. It's clearly inferior to the original.
Amen to that
Desperately disappointed Kermode didn't make more of a cultural stance here.
The entire concept of the film is artistically moribund. There is no rationale in making anthropomorphic animals that behave like humans look 'more' real.
This is like the inverse of the uncanny valley. The canny mountain?
It all reminds me of a bit from Terror of the Zygons:
"Very good, very good! Almost impressive, but why bother?"
The trailer gave me airbud flashbacks (photorealistic animals talking)
Was that a review of the film or 7:09 minutes talking about the style of animation? Was it better than the original Lion King?, is it worth seeing? Is the (voice) acting done well? Do the story changes work well? I feel a little short changed Mr. Kermode.
Terrific review. I understand what Mark is getting at. Spot on!
I don't disagree with Mark but this video is basically 7 minutes of Mark repeating the same one thing over and over.
I agree. I'm still waiting for him to do a review where he finishes every sentence, instead of continually cutting himself off. It happened at least 3 times, possibly more.
@@RazorbackPT yeah that is the best part
I think it's because it's basically a rerelease of an old film, almost word for word, just recreated in a new animation style. So he spends the review focused entirely on that animation style, instead of all the things we know. There's not much more else to say...
Its just so uncomfortable... really makes you realise the skill that went into giving the original drawings such emotion and humanity. The animals in this are just lifeless beasts with voice dubs.
0:20 True-to-life animation? I don't know, I'm really not gonna watch this. Looks great but that's about it.
"I saw all the works that were done under the sun, and look! everything was futile, a chasing after the wind."(Ecclesiastes 1:14) Nuff said.
They should have just called it "The Lion King: Remastered".
No, you’re breathtaking!
Problem with these films is they make you feel like we’ve regressed since they first came out lol
Is this video live action or just CGI made to look like live action?
It is, as Kermode said, photorealistic CGI.
I must have missed that bit too. He clearly glosses over that point too quickly
Remaking animation movies in live action (or cgi that’s supposed to look real) goes against the point of making them originally. Those old Disney movies worked BECAUSE they were animated and stylized
I had the same feeling about Black Beauty (1994) watching real animals talking on screen. It jarred on me and I couldn't watch it. The dilemma is being asked to believe that real animals can talk which I'm unable to process. An animation is not demanding that. It is saying that the voices and the schematic shapes are both metaphorical or representational, and are there for you to supply your own real interpretation. There's no conflict in that for me.
ROAR from 1981 - was a better representation of lions...
I’m still waiting for ROAR 2: Melanie’s Revenge
It's just an exercise in showing us how far technology has come. It doesn't serve much point after that.
Could you imagine the famous Lady and the Tramp scene with this technology? Who would want to watch real-looking dogs eating real-looking spaghetti? There’s far more technical heft, but in this medium, the CGI rebooting completely drains classic Disney stories of their magic.
Disney has no imagination anymore with all these remakes of its classic animation . It's time they got creative took a risk and made something completely new.
Stephen Taylor they do from time to time and they all mercilessly and hilariously bomb
Does anyone remember Brad Bird’s Tomorrowland?
Aladdin makes sense as it was a cartoon and remade it as live action, whereas the lion king they remade a cartoon with a cartoon
So... we didn’t really get a review then?..... anyways I’m going tonight so I have high hopes!
The biggest problem with the film was because they made it photo-realistic, they neutered the visual humour and the characters ability to emote, so they apparently compensate for it with the dialogue. But sadly the dialogue was very stilted, on-the-nose and riddled with obvious statements. Chiwetel Ejiofor's performance was one of the saving graces, but even he couldn't disguise the lazy writing here. James Earl Jones sounded almost bored when he delivered his lines.
I appreciate your honesty Mark
"Can you feel the love tonight" dance song was done during the day....sums up the movie pretty much
I value Mark's opinion. I wish he would finish his sentences so I could get his opinions.
Dan Preston I think he’s thinking out loud though
I started watching the film, but gave up after 5-10 minutes, because it looked and felt like a frame-for-frame re-rendering - albeit with amazing photo-realistic CGI - of the original, which was - and is still great! This 're-imagining' didn't feel like it brought anything else new? Perhaps I should have waited for more of the songs - particularly I Just Can't Wait to Be King? Perhaps I was subconsciously feeling the same as Mark?
Disney seems to learn nothing from these remakes. They're banking on nostalgic fanservice for some quick cash. Beauty and the Beast felt like a Children in Need sketch, Aladdin was just flat and forgettable and this film should not have happened.
And yet i would venture to bet that they all turned a profit.
What is there to learn? They make hella money.
I love to say that the cast of characters in The Lion King remake should've been rendered with performance-capture technology; record the actors' facial expressions and emotions and apply it to the animals, like in Netflix's Mowgli: Legend of the Jungle or the Planet of the Apes reboot trilogy.
I've been looking forward to this review
i've only seen the trailer but i agree with Mark. The characters in the original obvisously represent specific animals but each one also has a very recognisable look that I immediatly connect to the character. In this one every animal just looks like "a typical" lion, meerkat etc. And maybe that makes it a little less immersive and phantastical in a way.
Film is a LOT better than the trailer. Watch the film!
@@r4h4al No it wasn’t! 94 was better!
Will be interested to see after the first wow of seeing the visuals if it will have rewatchability factor or will people go back to the cartoon
This movie just sounds like a carbon copy CGI remake of the classic 1994 original. If you are going to make a new version surely you should not make a cut and paste copy.
I think this is one of those "damned if you do, damned if you don't" moments. There are a few changes here and there, but I think people would have complained loudly if they had made major changes to the story.
@@trondmm agree
Disagree. Cut and paste copies have existed since the 1930's, why change that now?
It is an animated movie. There are tons of animated movies that go for a sort of photo realism, just not the most famous ones so far.
Some great points and thoughts there Mark on Photo-Realism in 'animated' movies! :)
I saw the extract of them singing hakuna matata.. And it looked horrible. The photo-real animals did not have the muscles available to sing those syllables... .And even when they're talking, it looks off. I think they got away with Baloo in the jungle book, because bears have a similar jaw structure to humans (lips and jaw positioning) and it was only a few seconds... but these lions just didn't look right. So I'm wondering if it affects the immersion.
An interesting point to ponder.
Just wondering, having watched/listened to that review, where the review was?
"Well, I'd tell them to not listen to me, I'm a film critic."
I agree with this review. Although visually stunning, there is something missing in the new version. I felt I was watching one thing and then listening to the story. There was this gap that he is talking about, that the animation version doesn't have. So I think he is spot on.
I suppose the question is: does the new style tell a better story? (or at least one that is almost as good enough as the original)? If it doesn't what's the point? Nice visuals?
I have not seen any of these recent Disney live-action remakes and have desire to. When it comes to the technology, it is possible that the CGI will look like garbage in five years or sooner. On the other side you have hand-drawn animation from over eighty years ago that still looks incredible today. I think the main thing is that hand-drawn animation, stop-motion and CG animation (used correctly) should create their own worlds rather than trying to duplicate what is real for the sake of saying, "look how advanced and realistic our effects are". If I want to see a photorealistic world, I'll go outside. Anyone with two brain cells to rub together knows these were made to make money but I hope this is just a phase for Disney. Believe it or not, I have met people who have already forgotten about the live-action Beauty and the Beast existing.
The film is so absurd and surreal I couldn't help but laugh when I saw it.
I got the fear because of the uncanny valley feel of it all.
Your philosophical inquire is spot on.
That ant is singing, wait a minute...
lol
America: Drugs are bad, drugs are bad, drugs are bad.
Goes on to create an two hour long acid trip with photo-real singing animals. LOL
It's rare I disagree with Mark but this was fantastic. 4 stars from me!
Lion King 2019: I'm not sure what the point of me is.
Cats Trailer: Hold my beer.
Before i watch does mark mention the exorcist
This seems to be the consensus on this film, its visually stunning, the technology has advanced so far everything really does look real, but what's the point?
It's just the Lion King, save your money, sit at home and watch the dvd instead.
As Jeff goldblum once said. They were so excited to realise they could, they didn't stop to think Wether or not they should. (or something like that)
Hopefully coming to a turning point where we’ll get more traditional animation in the future
No disrespect to who ever played the roles this time round but can you really improve on Jeremy Irons and Rowan Atkinson? If you keep James Earl Jones why not keep them aswell!
They could have just gone to the zoo, shot hours of footage of lions and giraffes just standing around, then just dubbed the dialogue and it would have been exactly as good as the version they made. What a ridiculous waste of money.
Comparing this to Jungle book as there is a human element in Jungle book with Mowgli so the rest of the animal characters had to have human expressions because of their close interactions with Mowgli. Lion King is all animals so the facial expressions is not so important in the character interactions.
we call it the end of cinema
It doesn't matter if people think animation means cartoons, this was an animated movie. Calling it something else is nothing but a publicity stunt so it can fit into Disney's little "live action remakes" package.
Impressing does not make it charming, I went back to the version of can you feel the love tonight of 1994 to feel goosebumps again. Fortunately Pumbaa and Timmon kept this movie alive. All over the reviews we made, we all felt the movie is technically stunning though emotion is not for this time 😋😉
The CGI looked both good and bad at the same time. I never felt like I was watching real animals and that's why it didnt work.
totally agree with his conceptual disagreement. the more realistic the animation the more distracting it becomes in a film where animals are speaking/singing.
Elephant the light touches indeed!
How was Jeff Nathanson credited as the sole screenwriter?
The main problem for me is that it doesn't even try to fix the minor problems the original has such as going from kid to adult whilst crossing a bridge. It looks amazing but has no soul. Money always wins in the end
I predicted this when I heard this was getting made. You're being asked to accept photorealistic lions and stuff, only for them to start talking. I figured this would be a problem. Unlike the original - which was animated - it's easier for our subconscious to accept the fantastic because the film-making aesthetics lent themselves to the content of the story. Here, though, I'm suspecting that the combination of realism and fantasy is a little too jarring. That being said, I expect this to be huge. But I think I'll skip it and stick to the original.
6:08 Six minutes to find out Mark was wishing he was watching the original movie the entire time lol
So, was it any good? Did it feature any new songs, characters or sequences? Was it funny, scary, emotional? Did it have Elton John? Is it suitable for young children or too scary? All I heard was Mark saying the CG was too good. Fair enough, make that point, but also talk about the rest of the film please!
I'm surprised they weren't forced to re-title it 'The Feline Monarch'
Kermode hits on the reason I am not interested in seeing this version of The Lion King. Disney used to assemble geniuses at the art of animation. So I would look at Beauty and the Beast and say "that's beautiful!" To react by saying "that looks real" is not about art and beauty.