1. The New York Times
Reviewer A.O. Scott notes “there are a great many impressive moments in this film”, all to do with the technical wizardry of the CGI animation. But he says the movie “plays more like an especially glitzy presentation reel at a trade convention … There is a lot of professionalism but not much heart.
“The closer the movie gets to nature in its look, the more blatant, intrusive and purposeless its artifice seems.”
2. Buzzfeed
According to Adam V. Vary, a senior reporter for Buzzfeed, “the animals’ photorealistic faces lose a lot of the emotion that came in the original. Some of the scenes just weren’t as powerful as they were in the 1994 film, including the death of Mufasa, which felt stunted. The stoic expression on the senior lion’s face as he plunged to his death didn’t have the sad or traumatic effect director Jon Favreau may have been going for. Instead, I just felt indifferent.
“That said, the film is a visual masterpiece, and some characters, including Timon (Billy Eichner), Pumbaa (Seth Rogen), Zazu (John Oliver), and Nala (Beyoncé), were strong.”
3. Vulture
While technically speaking the film is “a marvel”, Vulture’s Bilge Ebiri writes “the characters in some cases have been rendered with such realism that they have lost all human expression on their faces”.
The characters are still talking and singing as before, “only now their faces are inexpressive; it’s a weird disconnect”. Despite all the resources in the world, the film has “no vision to bind it all together”.
4. Indiewire
Calling it a “disastrous plunge into the Uncanny Valley”, IndieWire’s David Ehrlich says the film “fatally misunderstands what once made Disney special”.
“Unfolding like the world’s longest and least convincing deepfake, Jon Favreau’s (almost) photorealistic remake of The Lion King is meant to represent the next step in Disney’s circle of life. Instead, this soulless chimera of a film comes off as little more than a glorified tech demo from a greedy conglomerate — a well-rendered but creatively bankrupt self-portrait of a movie studio eating its own tail.”
5. The Hollywood Reporter
“Everything here is so safe and tame and carefully calculated as to seem predigested. There’s nary a surprise in the whole two hours.” They didn’t sound impressed.
6. Forbes
Reviewer Scott Mendelson warns viewers to “be prepared for a crushing disappointment… At almost every turn, this redo undercuts its own melodrama by downplaying its own emotions. The key direction seems to be “like the 1994 version, but less”.
7. The Guardian
“Basically, this new Lion King sticks very closely to the original version, and in that sense, it’s, of course, watchable and enjoyable,” wrote Peter Bradshaw in his three-star review.
“But I missed the simplicity and vividness of the original hand-drawn images. The circle of commercial life has given birth to this all-but-indistinguishable digiclone descendant.”
7. Polygon
In a savage review titled, The New Lion King Doesn’t Even Try, writer Matt Patches says the remake’s photorealism “never makes a case for itself.
“From the very first shot, the movie is caught in a limbo between raw nature footage and the imaginative power of cartooning.”
So, the issue doesn’t seem to be with the cast as such but more of the technical aspect of the film. Beyhives may well take some solace in that.
And while the experts have seen and have spoken, moviegoers will wait until the film hits the cinemas on 19th July to form their own opinion.
has the critics dampen your enthusiasm for the film? Why or why not. Share with us in the comment section.
A version of this story appeared on the news.com.au website.
