"King of the Lion": digital "In the animal world"
Nobody wants him except Disney. The whole movie is such a boast of modern technology, and that's all it is: watch how we do it! We can draw a realistic savannah, launch a realistically looking animal that will move realistically. Not a single living creature, except for 3D visualizers, was hurt in making the movie.
And the picture really looks very cool. The film resembles an episode of "In the Animal World," and it's a pity that there is no place for Nikolai Drozdov in the Russian dubbing - he would have at least somehow revived this parade of digital dolls.
Have you ever seen cats alive? Or at least pictures of them on the Internet? Do you have any idea how much emotion such a seemingly simple cat's face can play? Millions! How many emotions can cats play in the new "Lion King"? Two: surprise and indifference. Moreover, the little ones are poured into each other almost unrealistically. Adult Nalu, Simba's girlfriend, is no different from his mother. Scar, which in the cartoon looked like a prototype of Severus Snape, in the movie just gray and thinner than the rest of the lions.
Behind the roof-bearing realism lost the whole essence of the animated film. Lost his liveliness, lost its brightness. In the new film, of course, tried to get out of this unemotionality in a very simple way - as often as possible, showing the animals from the back during the dialogue. But to be honest, this move looks ridiculous.
Hell, yes, remember at least "The Chronicles of Narnia" and the lion Aslan, who was there. It would seem that he is also a lion, in addition and painted more than ten years ago, but he is alive. There are muscles in his face and they show emotions in his soul. Different emotions. A lot of emotions - from irritating to joy. And in the "Book of the Jungle", which, by the way, also John Favraux did, as well as the "King of the Lion", the animals' faces are not paralyzed. And what about the "Lion King"? What kind of wool is it? Well, we've seen it in Detective Piccachu, it's no surprise.
The plot repeats the cartoon frame in the frame, except for the magical moments with Rafiki and animal dancing with each other. If in the same "Aladdin" was a slight departure from the canon, there is nothing original. Well, perhaps, the hyenas have become bigger. By the way, hyenas have at least some emotions on their faces, unlike cats. And also Timon. And Pumba has everything covered by bristles.
Somehow, by the way, when watching the remake it was very strongly felt that the whole film is such an allusion to the story of real life with people. It's like the owner of a successful company lived and worked for, developed his business, raised his heir. And then he was killed by his jealous brother, conspiring with competitors, set up the same heir and took the place of CEO. The unfortunate heir, not knowing what to do, nailed the hippie commune and healed happily, while the evil uncle quietly ruined the company in the best traditions of Effective Management. Well, then the heir is found, called to his conscience, and he, absolutely inexperienced, overthrows his uncle and on the strength of his charisma and kinship raises the business from his knees.
What is interesting, when viewing the original cartoon, this analogy is not readable. I suspect that the essence is that the picture itself, the characters themselves are more immersed in the view and do not allow the brain to be so distracted by all sorts of parallels with reality.
As a result, the film is just a parade of technologies and advertising of Disney 3D-studio. It is a window to our future, showing that the age of vacation in virtual reality is not so far away. If such a savannah can be transferred to the screens of cinemas, it can also be recreated on computers somewhere through one or two generations - they just enough power to keep in mind all the objects of the environment with the necessary range of drawing or just quickly load them from the cloud.
Ah, no. It's also a remix album from modern stars. But in Russia, the viewer will not hear this case (because all the songs are duplicated), unless they go to a session with subtitles. The only song that caught me on the Spotify soundtrack is "Down" from Oceans Ahead. And it doesn't end up in the soundtrack, it's the service's algorithms that got it wrong.
And the sound is good. This is a movie where Dolby Atmos isn't used as a ticker - it really helps to breathe a handful of life into the endless digital savannah.