film review of the lion king in the following format
title:
story:
review:
Answers
Answer:
Jon Favreau’s remake of the Disney classic “The Lion King” is one of the most interesting productions of the year — from a craft standpoint, at least. The filmmakers spared no expense to turn this story about anthropomorphic animals, conservationism and regicide into a photo-realistic animated feature, with animals so painstakingly rendered that one could — if one weren’t paying close attention — confuse them for the real thing.
It’s an impressive technical achievement, but as detailed as the imagery is, it’s anything but “realistic,” because real animals don’t talk, they don’t sing, nor do they make funny pop-culture references. This distinction isn’t just academic; it’s integral to understanding the fundamental irony of the production. Realism was never possible for “The Lion King.” It’s a fundamentally fantastical story, and yet Favreau & Co. have eschewed the fantastical representation of these characters and their world. Subsequently, the contrast between the impossible events happening on-screen and the hyper-realism of the imagery doesn’t always work in the the movie’s favor.
In other words, this new version of “TheLion King” isn’t realism; it’s literalism. This is what it would actually look like if the events in a Disney animated movie happened in real life. Sometimes it’s fascinating, frequently it’s ludicrous, and sometimes — like when an incredibly realistic animal dies on-screen in front of you while its only child mourns him — it’s borderline grotesque.