Adult lion and cub stand on a rocky outcrop against a glowing sunset sky
Film review

The Lion King

2019 · Directed by Jon Favreau · 1h 58m

In a sentenceThe most lifelike lions ever put on a screen, and not one of them can raise an eyebrow

Mufasa (James Earl Jones), king of the Pride Lands, presents his newborn son Simba to the animals gathered below Pride Rock, while his brother Scar (Chiwetel Ejiofor) stays in his cave and sulks about the succession. Simba grows into a boastful cub (JD McCrary) who wants to be king now, and his father tries to teach him what the job means: the kings in the stars, the hunt, the circle of life. Zazu (John Oliver), the hornbill who serves as the king’s adviser, keeps watch and reports back. Egged on by his uncle, Simba takes his friend Nala (Shahadi Wright Joseph) past the border to the elephant graveyard, where the hyenas Kamari (Keegan-Michael Key) and Azizi (Eric Andre) are waiting. Scar has plans of his own for the throne.

Plays from YouTube when you press play; nothing loads from them until then.

Fi1m review

Jon Favreau’s remake has some of the most convincing animals ever put in a family film and cannot make one of them look sad. Chiwetel Ejiofor’s Scar and a fine opening are the reasons to stay; the rest is the 1994 film with the expressions taken out.

Jon Favreau has taken the 1994 animated film, kept its story, most of its songs and a good many of its shots, and rebuilt it with lions that look as though a documentary crew found them on the savannah. The engineering is remarkable. The film runs 118 minutes, and for most of them it is not much of a film. Jeff Nathanson’s screenplay follows the old outline so closely that you could set a watch by it, and the question the whole enterprise raises, and never answers, is what a talking lion gains by looking exactly like a lion.

For the first five minutes we were got at. Caleb Deschanel lights the dawn over the Pride Lands as a slow orange wash, the herds come in across the plain, Hans Zimmer’s brass and choir rise under them, and when Rafiki (John Kani) climbs Pride Rock and lifts the cub, we felt the old catch in the throat exactly where we felt it twenty-five years ago. Then Zazu (John Oliver) opened his beak, the animals began to talk, and the feeling drained away over the next ten minutes and did not come back.

The trouble is faces. A real lion cannot raise an eyebrow or look sheepish, and Favreau has decided his lions must behave like real lions. So Mufasa (James Earl Jones) delivers his speech about the kings in the stars wearing the same expression he uses to survey the waterhole. Young Simba (JD McCrary) and Young Nala (Shahadi Wright Joseph) sing “I Just Can’t Wait to Be King” well, and the film stages it as a rush of ostriches and antelope, but the two cubs at the centre of it look the same throughout, alert and slightly blank, like cats waiting to be fed. Adam Gerstel and Mark Livolsi cut away to the herds whenever a line needs a reaction, which tells you they knew.

What survives is the voice work, and one voice above all. Chiwetel Ejiofor’s Scar is a low, reasoning growl, a lion who has thought about his grievances for years and states them as facts. He is more frightening than the cartoon because he is less amused. James Chinlund’s production design gives him and his hyenas an elephant graveyard of tusks and steam vents, the one place in the film where the realism adds dread instead of removing fun. Kamari (Keegan-Michael Key) and Azizi (Eric Andre) squabble in the bone piles and are the closest the first half comes to a laugh. Alfre Woodard’s Sarabi has two scenes of quiet steel.

Simba grows up into Donald Glover, who is amiable and is asked to be little more. Beyoncé’s Nala arrives with authority and a singing voice the film seems slightly afraid of; the big duet is sung well and staged in broad daylight, two lions padding through a jungle, and we watched it wondering who had decided the word “tonight” was negotiable. Timon and Pumbaa, the meerkat and the warthog, are the loosest thing here, talking past the edges of the old lines, and for a quarter of an hour the film remembers it is allowed to be silly. We were grateful, and then aware of being grateful for a meerkat, which is not where a film this size should leave you.

Favreau did this once before with The Jungle Book in 2016, and that film had a human boy in the middle of it, one real face for the animals to play off. Here there is no such face. Every scene is a conversation between two creatures who cannot show what they think, and Zimmer’s score does the emotional work in their place, swelling on cue like a hand on your shoulder. He wrote it the first time round, and here it is asked to carry far too much.

The reviews so far split three ways, and we understand every one of them. If you have a child who does not know the story, the PG certificate is fair, the animals are a pleasure to look at, and the graveyard is loud enough to make anyone grip the sofa. If you know the 1994 film, you will spend two hours checking, and there is not much else to do. At home it plays as a handsome nature programme with musical numbers, and you may find yourself waiting for the lions to stop talking.

Critical consensus AI synthesised

51
Positive
6
Mixed
15
Negative
12

Most critics agree on what the film is: a technical achievement of a high order, and a near shot-for-shot retelling of the original. The photorealistic animals and landscapes are admired almost everywhere, including in the harshest reviews. The other point of agreement is Billy Eichner and Seth Rogen, whose Timon and Pumbaa are named as the liveliest thing on screen by more than a dozen critics, sometimes as the only fresh thing in it. Chiwetel Ejiofor’s Scar draws some praise too.

The split is over what the realism costs. Most say the lifelike animals cannot show feeling, so the songs and the big emotional beats land softer than they did as drawings, and the fidelity leaves the film with little reason to exist. The spread is wide. The Evening Standard, the Independent and The Skinny give four stars, and Variety calls it exhilarating; Polygon and Eye for Film find it close to empty. Mixed verdicts outnumber both ends.

Evening Standard
11 July 2019 · ★★★★ · David Sexton
80

Sexton finds the remake a cutting-edge visual spectacle but less emotionally effective than the original. He praises the lively performances of Seth Rogen and Billy Eichner, while faulting the photo-realistic animals’ inability to emote convincingly.

Read the full review →
The Independent
18 July 2019 · ★★★★ · Clarisse Loughrey
80

Loughrey praises the film as a technological marvel that uses nostalgia to experiment with a familiar story. She singles out the hyperrealistic visuals and Billy Eichner and Seth Rogen’s comic performances as highlights.

Read the full review →
Variety
11 July 2019 · Critic's Pick · Peter Debruge
77*

Debruge finds the remake exhilarating and technically impressive, though ultimately safe and reliant on the original’s strengths. He singles out the convincing visual effects and the performances, especially the fresh dimension Donald Glover brings to Simba.

Read the full review →
Los Angeles Times
11 July 2019 · Kenneth Turan
75*

Turan finds the remake a polished, satisfying entertainment that largely preserves the original. He praises its gorgeous, lifelike visuals and the care taken to make the digitally created animals feel authentic.

Read the full review →
Screen Daily
12 July 2019 · Tim Grierson
75*

The standfirst presents Favreau’s film as thrilling and loyal to the original. It singles out the photo-realistic style as a strength.

Read the full review →
RogerEbert.com
64*

The page could not be accessed, so the critic’s verdict and any specific praise or complaint cannot be established. The available page text contains only a browser-check message.

Read the full review →

Straight answers AI written, from our review

Is The Lion King worth watching?
The Lion King (2019) is a mixed remake we scored 52: the most convincing animals ever put in a family film, retelling the 1994 story almost shot for shot with the expressions taken out. Chiwetel Ejiofor's Scar and a fine opening are the reasons to stay. It suits a child who does not know the story; anyone who does will spend two hours checking.
How long is The Lion King, and what is it rated?
The Lion King runs 1h 58m. It is an adventure and drama film.
Where can I watch The Lion King in Peru?
The Lion King is streaming on Disney+ in Peru. Availability is checked daily; the links above go straight to each service.
How does The Lion King compare to The Lion King?
The Lion King (2019) is the 1994 film rebuilt with photoreal lions, and the drawn original is the better of the two: its faces move, its songs land, and it is half an hour shorter. The remake gains a more frightening Scar in Chiwetel Ejiofor and a handsome opening, but loses the feeling. Choose the earlier one unless the animals themselves are the draw.
What should I watch after The Lion King?
After The Lion King, try The Lion King (1994, Fi1m 84): The drawn one; the faces move, the songs land, and it is half an hour shorter. Then The Jungle Book (2016, Fi1m 72): Favreau’s earlier animal remake, with a real boy at its centre and better for it; and Watership Down (1978, Fi1m 81): British rabbits, hand-drawn, frightening and grieving in ways this film cannot manage.

Cast

Awards

Kids' Choice Award for Favorite Animated Movie, 2020

Nominated
Kids' Choice Award for Favorite Animated Movie

If you liked this, try…

  1. The Lion King (1994, Fi1m 84)The drawn one; the faces move, the songs land, and it is half an hour shorter.

  2. The Jungle Book (2016, Fi1m 72)Favreau’s earlier animal remake, with a real boy at its centre and better for it.

  3. The Bear (1988) · not on Fi1m yetJean-Jacques Annaud’s orphaned cub story with actual bears and no dialogue to get in the way.

  4. Watership Down (1978, Fi1m 81)British rabbits, hand-drawn, frightening and grieving in ways this film cannot manage.

  5. Kirikou and the Sorceress (1998) · not on Fi1m yetA West African folk tale animated in flat, bright colour, with a village that feels lived in.