Movie Review: “The Lion King”

Updated on May 30, 2020
Movie Beasts profile image

There are many movies that are worth seeing, but there are a lot of stinkers as well. My goal here is to weed out the good from the bad.

The Lion King

Theatrical Release: 7/19/2019
Theatrical Release: 7/19/2019 | Source


Mufasa (James Earl Jones) rules over a massive kingdom known as The Pride Lands. He is a strong king, a fair king, a wise king, and a respected king. Mufasa has had a new lion cub, named Simba, and hopes to teach the young cub everything he knows about being a good king. Unfortunately, there are those within The Pride Lands who want Mufasa’s rule to come to an end.

The Hyenas are greedy, insatiable predators that disturb the precious balance between prey and predator. Thus, Mufasa has set rules and limits regarding how frequently they can hunt. The Hyenas have been forced to live in the shadows, and they resent Mufasa for restricting them. Meanwhile, Mufasa’s jealous brother, Scar (Chiwetel Ejiofor), wants the throne for himself and cannot stand the fact that his nephew will one day rule over him. Mufasa has kept the peace but, when tragedy strikes, and Simba (Donald Glover) goes missing, Scar and the Hyenas may finally have the opportunity that they have been waiting for.

Official Trailer

The Pros & Cons

The Pros
The Cons
The Visual Effects (+10pts)
Emotion (-8pts)
Timon & Pumbaa (+3pts)
Beyoncé (-2pts)
The Story & The Nostalgia (+4pts)
Predictable (-6pts)
All movies start with an average score of 75pts, points are then added or subtracted based on each Pro and Con. Each Pro or Con is designated points, ranging from 0-10, to convey how significant these Pros or Cons are.

Pro: The Visual Effects (+10pts)

Without a doubt, the best thing about this movie was the visual effects. The scenery looked incredible, and the animals looked even better. I went into the movie knowing that it was one hundred percent CGI, yet I was still stunned by how realistic everything looked. Obviously, the animals were talking, so I knew it was not real, but the quality of the visual effects certainly could have fooled me.

It would be inaccurate to call this movie “live-action”, but it definitely appeared to be. The photo-realistic visual effects were awesome to see on the big screen. There was one pretty major flaw with remaking this movie in this way, but I will get into that flaw next. However, if I am just commenting on the visual effects, I would have to say that they were simply incredible.


Con: Emotion (-8pts)

Humans have pretty expressive faces. From our lips, to our eyes, to our cheeks, and to our eyebrows, we have a lot of expressive features on our face. Most animals are not nearly as expressive, but the animals of this story have very human problems and emotions. In a cartoon or animated movie, this can work because the animals characters can be given very exaggerated, expressive, and unrealistic features.

By making this movie look so realistic, the filmmakers limited how expressive the characters could be. As a result, the characters, and (indirectly) the story as a whole, felt emotionless. To make this even worse, the one character that still had an expressive face (Rafiki) got no attention and was stripped of all of the personality that the character had in the original movie. Sure, the rest of the characters had voice actors who added some emotion, but audio is only half of the battle. The audio felt disconnected from the visuals, and the movie suffered greatly for it. The characters were missing emotion, and the story was missing the impact that the original movie had. The Lion King is a good story with great characters, but in this photo-realistic remake, I could not truly connect with any of them.


Pro: Timon & Pumbaa (+3pts)

Of all of the characters in this movie, these two were probably my favorites. I thought Seth Rogen and Billy Eichner were great choices for these roles, and thought they were pretty entertaining. Seth Rogen played Pumbaa pretty much exactly the way you would expect him to, and the character worked. Billy Eichner, on the other hand, was impressively entertaining as Timon. He has a pretty good singing voice, so was able to handle the character’s musical requirements, but he was probably the most comedically entertaining character. The things he said and the way he said them were a perfect fit for this character. These two characters did not get a ton of focus, but I enjoyed every second that they were on screen.


Con: Beyoncé (-2pts)

On paper, I thought Beyoncé was a great choice to play Nala. This was mostly due to knowing what songs Beyoncé would be singing, but after seeing the movie, I thought Beyoncé was probably given too little direction in her vocal performance. She was most likely left to do her own thing, and when she sang some of these iconic songs, it felt like she was trying to steal the show. It felt like she was over-complicating her songs in an effort to show how good she is.

Was it as bad as Fergie singing the national anthem? No (although you should look that up if you have not seen it), but it definitely took me out of the movie. These songs are pretty simple, and would have sounded great from the strength in Beyoncé‘s voice. Unfortunately, she got too caught up with trying to add her own spin to these songs, and (in my opinion) it ended up doing nothing but hurt them.


Pro: The Story & The Nostalgia (+4pts)

The Lion King has a very human, and very simple story, which makes it effective. It is about coming of age, it is about loss, it is about responsibility, it is about friendship, and it is about betrayal. The characters are all animals, which is entertaining. However, the issues and relationships are very human, which makes the story relatable and easy to get invested in.

The movie also significantly benefited from nostalgia. The original animated movie is a beloved classic that many audience members will have grown up with. It has left an impression on a generation, and the filmmakers capitalized on that. Some of the characters (such as Rafiki) behaved very differently than they did in the original movie, but for most of the characters, that was not the case. Those of us who grew up with the original movie, got to see this re-imagined version, with most of the iconic characters and songs that we remember so fondly.


Con: Predictable (-6pts)

This may sound like I am contradicting myself a bit, as I just said that nostalgia was one of this movie’s strengths, but I thought this movie was too predictable. Remaking a beloved, classic movie is sort of a double-edged sword. On one side, the filmmakers got to capitalize on the audience’s fond memories of the original. On the other side, making an almost shot-for-shot remake will bore those in the audience who remember the original well (as most of us do). The filmmakers claimed to have added some extra content to the story, but some of that was spent literally following a ball of poop on its journey through “the circle of life”. I get that changing the story in any significant way would have resulted in some audiences hating on the movie, so adding content (as opposed to changing content) was definitely the right call. Unfortunately, I think the filmmakers made a bad call when deciding what content to add.

Grading Scale


Grade: C+ (76pts)

The Lion King is another live-action remake of one of Disney’s classic animated movies, but the term “live-action” is not exactly accurate. The movie was made entirely using CGI and it looked absolutely incredible. The beautiful scenery, and the incredibly realistic CGI animals, made the visual effects the best thing going for this movie. The next best thing would have to be the classic story with all of the nostalgia to remind the audience of the Disney classic that they remember so fondly. Unfortunately, the best things about this movie ended up being double-edged swords, as they both had pretty significant side effects.

By remaking a story that audiences still remember well, the filmmakers made a movie that audiences will find very predictable. This is probably more true for this movie than it has been for any of Disney's live-action remakes that have come before, because of how well we still remember this story. The result is a decent story, but will be somewhat boring to anyone in the audience who has seen the original. By making the characters so realistic, the filmmakers made characters without expressive faces. As a result, the characters were missing very necessary emotion, making it difficult to connect with them. This was not a bad movie, but its strengths came with some pretty significant weaknesses.


    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment
    • Movie Beasts profile imageAUTHOR

      Movie Beasts 

      11 months ago from MA

      Thanks for the comments! Very honestly, the visual effects were outstanding. Unfortunately for the filmmakers, there is more to a movie than that.

    • Dean Howard profile image

      Dean Howard 

      11 months ago

      I am excited to see this one for the visual aspects of the film, however, I have heard it is a shot for shot remake. So, I'm a little concerned it will be unoriginal. Really good review!

    • profile image


      11 months ago

      Great review! I feel like the movie suffered big time because of the line delivery and lack of expression. I guess that is what Favreau was trying to go for but that does unfortunately come with problems.


    This website uses cookies

    As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

    For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at:

    Show Details
    HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
    LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
    Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
    AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
    HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
    HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
    Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
    CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
    Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the or domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
    Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
    Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
    Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
    Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
    Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
    Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
    Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
    ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
    Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
    ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)