Fantastic beasts — but how to define them?
a drawn cartoon can create greater emotional impact.
Contrariwise, the more real the animals appear, the more jarring their imagined humanity.
But for a generation that expects everhigher definition on all their screens, CGI is the only way to go. The Lion King is the third Disney photo-realistic remake this year — and it’s not the embarrassment that Dumbo and Aladdin were. The adaptation by Jeff Nathanson is intelligent, hewing closely enough to the original to satisfy the most conservative fan, often replicating it shot for shot, yet giving itself room (at 118 minutes fully half an hour longer than the animation) to add a little more dialogue, extended chase scenes, extra creatures (especially insects).
The whole African environment feels more present, and in specific scenes, such as the cubs’ adventure in the elephants’ graveyard and the stampede in t h e c a nyo n , there’s more p hy s i c a l i t y a l l round. The fights are more violent (maybe not suitable for tots, in fact).
“Camera angles” ( b e i n g c o mp u te rgenerated, they may not be actual camera angles) are used more dramatically, including subjective viewpoints, and there are lots of surprising close-ups on faces, relishing that pinpoint detail.
Some of the vocal performances don’t live up to the version that’s been loved so long, though. Chiwetel Ejiofor voicing Scar is no match for the sheer malevolence projected by Jeremy Irons — he has a big masculine presence, for sure, but that’s not what’s required in that role. He sounds all too openhearted. Donald Glover, who’s been such a force in so many films recently, is oddly dull as the adult Simba too. James Earl Jones’s reprise of his role as Mufasa is, shall we say, interesting. At 88, his rumbly voice is still imposing but now almost grandfatherly, rather than paternal.
Other new voicings are great, how