“Mufasa: The Lion King” has one very important thing: an original story.
This may seem like faint praise or at least a very, very low bar in the grand scheme of things. But in a scenario where Disney continues to remake its animated catalog in a slightly different, and usually less interesting form, whether it’s “live action” or “photorealistic” that usually only serves to remind us that As good as the 2D animation was, the originality should not be underestimated. ,
And this story isn’t just about checking fan service boxes and explaining more of the origins than they ever needed: it’s actually good. The prequel to “The Lion King,” releasing in theaters Thursday, is a tale of family, betrayal and destiny that begins to explain the estrangement between brothers Scar and Mufasa that we all know about. The ending will result in murder, how Mufasa ends up as king of the Pride Lands and, perhaps most importantly, why only one has an English accent.
In this telling, Scar was once Taka, destined to become king of his pride, and Mufasa was a lost cub, separated from his parents in a dramatic flood. Taka rescues Mufasa and brings him to his family. His mother embraces the newcomer; His father rejected him, calling him nothing but a vagabond. Not that it matters much to the Cubs; Both are thrilled to have a brother. They play with each other, protect them and grow up together. But cracks begin to appear in this foundation as Mufasa emerges as an extraordinary individual and Taka as a coward. Just then a lioness enters the picture. We’ve all seen enough movies to know what it does.
The script comes from veteran screenwriter Jeff Nathanson, whose credits include 2019’s “Lion King,” this year’s beloved “Young Woman and the Sea” and “Catch Me If You Can.” They clearly took a corporate mandate and created the least reprehensible version of it. The corporate-feeling choices are still questionable, like Rafiki attempting to tie it to the present and future “Lion King” by having Simba and Nala’s daughter Kiara tell the story to Pumbaa and Timon. These comic pauses, and Lin-Manuel Miranda’s songs in full swing, are not additive. They really only serve to break the momentum of the compelling main story.
But the biggest issue remains the form. Photo-realistic computer-generated animals may have improved technologically since 2019’s “Lion King,” but they’re still not movie stars like their 2D animation counterparts. While it may be intellectually impressive, the reality of watching these animals for two hours despite the best efforts of director Barry Jenkins makes for a somewhat numbing and dull experience. The Oscar-winning filmmaker of “Moonlight” did a commendable job of adding visual interest and color to the scenarios, bringing it closer to the vibrancy of animation than ever before, and making it as cinematic as possible. The origin story also helps here in that it never has to recreate iconic scenes in a less provocative form. There are some inherent limitations that the filmmakers haven’t explored yet, including how awkward it feels to have these animals move their mouths and speak English words. It is at its strangest when they are singing, with their mouths wide open to hold the long notes in a way that a lion’s mouth would never be visible.
If this is the future of filmmaking there is still a lot of room for improvement and experimentation. This does not mean that it should not be accepted when working on glitches. But that also doesn’t mean the movie-going public has to get excited about every iteration. “Mufasa: The Lion King” is better than the films that came before it, but that doesn’t mean it’s great.
Walt Disney Studios’ release “Mufasa: The Lion King,” in theaters Thursday, is rated PG by the Motion Picture Association for “danger, action/violence and some thematic elements.” Running time: 118 minutes. Two and a half stars out of four.
This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without any modifications to the text.
