Hello again, it’s your friendly me, neighborhood film critic, here with a (rather delayed) review of Disney’s remake of The Lion King. Which I saw, quite happily, in theatres—yes, yes, putting money into their remake-lined pockets, etc etc. I know. But, and here’s the crux of my review… unless you’re watching this in theatres, it’s just not worth it.

Because this movie is, sadly, somewhat empty behind the extremely glossy, big screen-friendly, well, screen. There’s no substance. And, more to the point, there’s nothing new.

This kid—er, cub? We’ve all seen him before.

I mean, this isn’t exactly news. When the trailer was first released, it was very clear that Disney was striving for a shot-for-shot remake of their beloved 1995 classic. Just with updated visuals. And a new soundtrack. And Beyoncé.

And, well, that has its appeal. Especially Beyoncé. Especially in a movie theatre. The animals seemed so lifelike, it felt like I could reach out and touch them. (Which, I might add, has the slightly childhood-destroying effect of making it clear just how gross warthogs are. Sorry Pumbaa.) The wildebeast stampede in stressful, gritty detail, the Pride Lands more expansive and lush, the grubs that much more slimy, yet satisfying—it’s just plain fun. Or at least, it is if you’re the kind of person who likes to put BBC’s Planet Earth on and veg out on the sofa at the end of a long day. Because that’s what this movie is, in effect: a musical nature documentary. And that’s the problem.

Disney didn’t add anything besides visual improvements. And the original Lion King is a bar that, frankly, can’t be reached. So it’s a lifelike, lovingly rendered, golden-hour-lit shell of its former glory. Beautiful, and fun, but the beats have all been done before, and much better. Pretty animation (and it is animation, stop calling it “the live action Lion King,”) can’t make up for that—unless you see it on a big screen and really, really like nature documentaries. In which case, no judgment. I’m one of y’all.

*cue David Attenborough*

Still though, for what it is, isn’t not bad. Donald Glover does a great job as Simba, and the moment he bursts into “Hakuna Matata” as adult Simba (if you wanna jump, it’s at 3:06) is musical artistry, pure and simple. Seth Rogen and Billy Eichner are scene-stealing as Pumbaa and Timon, and I would definitely watch a The Lion King 1 1/2 remake starring just those two. And the Beauty and the Beast shout-out that replaces the original’s “dress in drag and do the hula” joke is one of the funniest moments in the whole film. Chiwetel Ejiofor is no Jeremy Irons, but his turn as Scar is far more menacing and terrifying. And bringing back James Earl Jones as Mustafa… let me say that there were three moments in the film in which I got chills, and he was in all of them.

As I said, though, it’s not bad, which is why it’s so frustrating. Because a bad movie, well, that’s cut-and-dry. But a movie that’s rather stunningly mediocre, even if lovely, is just… wasted potential. Disney is capable of making good live-action (or “live-action”) remakes. They did it with The Jungle Book and Cinderella, even if they were less successful with Aladdin and Beauty and the Beast. But The Lion King falls into the latter category for the exact same reason as the other two I named: it fails to innovate. Both Cinderella and The Jungle Book expanded on their animated originals, whereas Beauty and the Beast and Aladdin opted for shot-for-shot style covers. If Disney had chosen to go in a more original direction for this film, maybe expanding on the backstory behind Scar and Mufasa, or giving us a deeper look at Simba’s self-loathing and apathy, it could have been much richer. As it is, it’s just… fine.

The Lion King: 3/5 (Letterboxd)