|
|
Post by Popeye Doyle on Jul 24, 2019 12:32:39 GMT
25 years ago, my parents took me to see the original. Now, I took my own son to see the remake. Circle of life, indeed. On one hand, its technical accomplishments are wondrous; The various animals and locations look impossibly real. The issue with remakes is wanting to honor the original and also carve out your own path. This is something Peter Jackson's King Kong was able to do. Here, Jon Favreau's live action remake is faithful to a fault. Seeing the opening, with the animals making their way to Pride Rock, but now in live action nearly had me in tears as how beautiful it was. But any emotions we're feeling are owed to our memories of the original and nothing this remake does on its own. Similarly, Mufasa's death is still powerful (right down to the zoom out on Simba yelling "Noooo!") but again relying largely on the sense of nostalgia from the original. Despite being at least 30 minutes longer than the original, it never felt that way. I was trying to think what was added to beef up the running time as this remake went as exactly as I expected in terms of story - Simba leaves > chills with Timon and Seth Rogen > Simba comes back to kill not Jeremy Irons. Still, I'd give it a 7/10. Worth seeing at least once.
|
|
|
|
Post by ck100 on Jul 24, 2019 14:54:12 GMT
Would you say this movie is equivalent to the 1998 Psycho?
|
|
|
|
Post by Popeye Doyle on Jul 24, 2019 15:10:43 GMT
Would you say this movie is equivalent to the 1998 Psycho? It's certainly better than that movie.
|
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Jul 24, 2019 15:39:55 GMT
I felt the same. Some reviewer summed it up as more of an experiment than a remake. But they picked a good film to experiment with. The only parts I disliked was the not-rendition of “Be Prepared” and Hakuna Matata. Out of the cast, everyone was fine but I think Chiwetel Ejiofor and Billy Eichner did best. As an aside I liked how the hyenas looked far more evil than the cartoon.
|
|
|
|
Post by jonesjxd on Jul 25, 2019 11:21:08 GMT
It's fitting comparing Favreau's take on Lion King to Jackson's take on King Kong. Jon Favreau was nearing thirty when The Lion King was released. While I'm sure the original film has meaning to him through his children, the movie likely has no meaning to him individually. Whereas Peter Jackson grew up on King Kong, he was in the sandbox with a plastic ape toy laying the groundwork for the movie he eventually made when he was 8 years old, and it shows. King Kong gets made fun of a lot, and some of it is deserved, it's an extremely long and indulgent movie but there isn't a second that goes by in that movie where you question if Jackson's heart was really into this movie. It's undoubtedly Jackson's absolute passion project. I wish a 35 year old filmmaker who grew up in the sandbox with Lion King toys had been given the job, somebody who didn't just want to remake the movie, but to make a deeply personal movie looking to explore everything they ever felt about Lion King.
Sadly what we got was just a nice little movie, with amazing CGI and a star studded soundtrack.
|
|
|
|
Post by seahawksraawk00 on Jul 25, 2019 12:28:19 GMT
I didn't mind it but the biggest gaffe for me was the Scar casting. I have to wonder if the almost all black cast, for the Lions at least, was intentional. Fair enough, but Chiwetel Ejiofor doesn't really have the creepiness to his voice like Jeremy Irons brought. If they really wanted to stick with a black actor to voice Scar, then someone like Tony Todd would have been perfect.
|
|
|
|
Post by Popeye Doyle on Jul 27, 2019 15:21:37 GMT
I didn't mind it but the biggest gaffe for me was the Scar casting. I have to wonder if the almost all black cast, for the Lions at least, was intentional. Fair enough, but Chiwetel Ejiofor doesn't really have the creepiness to his voice like Jeremy Irons brought. If they really wanted to stick with a black actor to voice Scar, then someone like Tony Todd would have been perfect. The first trailer shown when I went to see it was actually for the upcoming horror movie Cats. It's like putting the trailer for Child's Play before Toy Story.
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jul 28, 2019 1:41:50 GMT
There's no reason to be of two minds.
People are comparing the two for no reason at all. They both exist and can be enjoyed independently of each other.
I was listening to /filmcast and they were complementing the performances, the visuals, and the additions that fleshed out the story and still denounced it because they kept comparing it to the original.
The reality is the visuals alone make the movie worth watching (Best CGI ever in a movie). That it is done competently is a plus.
|
|
|
|
Post by ck100 on Jul 28, 2019 2:03:52 GMT
It's impossible to not compare this film to the original if you've seen the original. You know you're going in with a bias and can't be completely objective.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jul 28, 2019 2:17:08 GMT
The reality is the visuals alone make the movie worth watching (Best CGI ever in a movie). That it is done competently is a plus. Only for someone who cares about visual effects. I don't care if The Lion King (2019) is good on it's own terms. I don't think the movie should exist. It sets a horrible precedent to remake movies just for the sake of remaking them, especially when remaking a movie without improving any aspect of it.
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jul 28, 2019 2:26:12 GMT
The reality is the visuals alone make the movie worth watching (Best CGI ever in a movie). That it is done competently is a plus. Only for someone who cares about visual effects. I don't care if The Lion King (2019) is good on it's own terms. I don't think the movie should exist. The Godfather could be remade into a great movie on it's own terms, but that sets a horrible precedent. Not true. I'm saying if you liked the original Lion King, there is literally no reason to dislike this movie. It's the same movie, slightly fleshed out with equal calibre of performances. You can see both of them and the visual are different enough to make this one worth a watch without hating the original. People who dislike the movie solely because it's a remake are thinking irrationally. It's the height of lazy criticism to say a movie shouldn't exist. I am shocked that some people actually get paid to say stuff like that. If there is a demand for it, funding for it, and it turns a profit (Actually it could be a total flop), then it has every reason to exist for a studio and for the viewer. What any particular individual wants out of a movie is wholly irrelevant because they would never have to see it. So just think about how silly it is to literally when about the notion of a movie not existing simply because we don't want to see it for whatever half baked reason one can give.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jul 28, 2019 3:14:35 GMT
Only for someone who cares about visual effects. I don't care if The Lion King (2019) is good on it's own terms. I don't think the movie should exist. The Godfather could be remade into a great movie on it's own terms, but that sets a horrible precedent. Not true. I'm saying if you liked the original Lion King, there is literally no reason to dislike this movie. It's the same movie, slightly fleshed out with equal calibre of performances. You can see both of them and the visual are different enough to make this one worth a watch without hating the original. People who dislike the movie solely because it's a remake are thinking irrationally. It's the height of lazy criticism to say a movie shouldn't exist. I am shocked that some people actually get paid to say stuff like that. If there is a demand for it, funding for it, and it turns a profit (Actually it could be a total flop), then it has every reason to exist for a studio and for the viewer. What any particular individual wants out of a movie is wholly irrelevant because they would never have to see it. So just think about how silly it is to literally when about the notion of a movie not existing simply because we don't want to see it for whatever half baked reason one can give. If I watch a remake that is almost exactly the same as the original, but less good then I see no reason why I should rate that movie with a good rating because it is likely I will be bored by it and wish I was watching the original instead.
Pay close attention to the part in bold. It also frustrates me immensely that a huge amount of money and talent is being spent on remaking an already terrific movie, when it should be spent on making original movies. Spending millions of dollars to remake an already terrific animated movie into a live action movie that really isn't even live action. That is what I would define as irrational.
|
|
|
|
Post by anthonyrocks on Jul 28, 2019 19:04:08 GMT
It's impossible to not compare this film to the original if you've seen the original. You know you're going in with a bias and can't be completely objective. Good Point, The Original Movie really is a True and Complete CLASSIC!
|
|
|
|
Post by Popeye Doyle on Jul 28, 2019 19:09:52 GMT
It's impossible to not compare this film to the original if you've seen the original. You know you're going in with a bias and can't be completely objective. Good Point, The Original Movie really is a True and Complete CLASSIC!
|
|
|
|
Post by anthonyrocks on Jul 28, 2019 19:11:34 GMT
Good Point, The Original Movie really is a True and Complete CLASSIC!
LOL, wow! 
|
|
