Butler's Cinema Scene

“THE LION KING” My rating:  B-

118 minutes | MPAA rating: PG

The original 1994 “Lion King” was classic Disney animation featuring hand drawn backgrounds and characters — or if  computers sometimes were used, at least the final product appeared to be hand drawn.

A quarter century later we get a “Lion King” redux done in a live-action format…though one cannot begin to figure out what (if anything) is live and what rendered through the ones and zeroes of digital animation.

There are moments, especially early on, when Jon Favreau’s updating of the beloved yarn offers such a sumptuous  visual feast that the eye and mind struggle to take it all in.

Against an absolutely believable African landscape lifelike lions, elephants, impalas, hyenas and other creatures do their things.  Your senses tell you that these are real animals filmed in action (after all, the great Caleb Deschenal — “The Black Stallion,” “The Right Stuff,” “The Passion of the Christ” — is credited as cinematographer)…except that invariably these creatures do something no animal ever could.

A lion tamer with years to refine his act could never get actual big cats to hit their marks, strike perfect poses and execute complicated action sequences. Not to mention move their mouths to utter dialogue in human voices.

Indeed, I have no idea how this was done. Were live animals filmed and then digitally diddled to make them do the impossible?  Do the backgrounds even exist? Or were they built entirely in the computer?

Let it be said up front that “The Lion King” is one of the most amazing-looking films of all time. The work Favreau did a couple of years back on the similarly-rendered  “Jungle Book” looks a bit  primitive by comparison.

Timon and Pumbaa

As for a dramatic analysis…well, the film is just OK.

This “King” is pretty much identical to the first film.  The plot remains Hamlet-on-the-savannah-meets-Joseph-Campbell: An evil prince kills the king, usurps his throne and exiles his son, who after a period in the wilderness returns to vanquish evil and reclaim his rightful inheritance.

Jeff Nathanson’s screenplay in some instances recreates the earlier animated film shot-by-shot.  For that matter, I’m guessing that at least two-thirds of the dialogue is lifted from the original. It doesn’t take long for a bad case of cinematic deja vu to kick in.

The voice work is provided by a deep cast of name performers, many of whom are instantly recognizable: John Oliver as the officious bird Zazu, James Earl Jones reprising his original role as the old lion king Mufasa, Seth Rogen as the flatulant warthog Puumba, Beyonce (especially when she sings) as the lioness Nala.

Chiwetel Ejiofor is fine as Scar, the villain of the piece (although no one will ever surpass Jeremy Iron’s unctuously evil drawl in the original); J.D. Mccrory and Donald Glover are solid as the younger and older versions of our hero, Simba. Billy Eichner is comic gold as Puma’s fast-talking merecat buddy, Timon.

That’s just the tip of the iceberg. The cast also includes Alfre Woodard, Amy Sedaris and Chance the Rapper.

The voice work is especially important here because the uber-realistic rendering of the animals doesn’t even attempt to invoke human facial expressions.  Except for the moving lips this might be a National Geographic wildlife special.

The film features Elton John/Tim Rice tunes from the original (“Circle of Life,” “I Just Can’t Wait to be King,” “Hakuna Matata,” “Can You Feel the Love Tonight”) plus an extended rendition of the Tokens’ 1961 classic “The Lion Sleeps Tonight” devised as a comedy showcase for Timon, Pumbaa and young Simba.

Here’s the thing:  The original “Lion King” ran for a taut 84 minutes.  This new one clicks in at two hours, and it feels overstuffed and drawn out. This is a fairy tale, after all, and pilling too much psychological realism on top of fantasy is self-defeating.

For that matter, I never bought the whole Circle of Life business that has lions munching on the other animals until the lions die, at which time they become grass and are munched on by the long-suffering herbivores. Sounds like some pretty heavy rationalizing at the top of the food chain — a meat eater’s version of trickle-down economics.

Anyway.

Is it colorful and diverting? Diverting enough, anyway.

Is it moving?  Not particularly.

| Robert W. Butler