After big studio pieces like King Arthur and Aladdin that didn’t quite feel like they belonged to him (although he did make quite a good Sherlock Holmes film with Robert Downey Jr., and The Man from U.N.C.L.E. was arguably fun as well), The Gentlemen is Guy Ritchie at his most untamed and… Guy Ritchie-like. He goes back to doing what he does best — making irreverent, unforgiving British crime with non-stop violence and cursing, playing around with narrative in creative ways and even referencing himself. He celebrates his creative freedom with this film to bring to life a violent, original, and entertaining crime flick that will be embraced by his fans as well as any audience member who’s willing to enjoy this great film for what it is. Matthew McConaughey’s character would be much less lovable in real life than his other roles yet is always a blast to watch, even when he’s a marijuana-obsessed crime lord. Charlie Hunnam is surprisingly the perfect choice to play the classic British crime protagonist in a Guy Ritchie movie and this is far better than his other film roles to date. Older audiences will definitely be attracted by the addition of Hugh Grant, who plays a much shadier role than his typical romantic lead but his continued partnership with Ritchie always works well. However, my favorite part of the cast was Colin Farrell, who is no stranger to this British crime noir subgenre, specifically In Bruges and Seven Psychopaths. These roles always fit Farrell like a shoe so seeing him as a mean but enjoyable criminal again is nothing but fun. The entire cast is strong, with the exception of Jeremy Strong who is awfully miscast as a role that’s supposed to come off as serious and intimidating yet ends up feeling dull and uninteresting in his performance.
From an eye-catching opening and an awesome opening credits sequence, you know The Gentlemen is something special among the action and comedy films Hollywood is used to releasing today. Ritchie definitely steps out of the box, playing around with narrative and characters, like showing you an event and then showing it again from different perspective to fool you as to what may have happened before. He also knows how to make his dialogue incredibly memorable and his characters intriguing, even when their backstories aren’t quite needed. It almost feels reminiscent not only of early Ritchie films like Snatch, but also of early Tarantino like Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction. This movie’s first act can be slow, but once the plot and characters are set up, it all becomes very interesting and unpredictable. Ultimately, The Gentlemen feels like a refreshing reward that we only get every once in a while with a superb cast at their A-game and some truly unique filmmaking that makes for some laugh-out-loud, unapologetic nonstop entertainment — or as Hugh Grant’s character calls it, “beautiful, beautiful cinema!”.
There’s been films this year that have enamored me, mesmerized me, and reminded me why I love films, but all year I have been waiting for a triumph on the level of 1917. Not only is it Sam Mendes’ strongest directorial effort, it’s one of the greatest filmmaking feats in years, breaking technical boundaries and capturing your senses from the first to final minute, leaving a remarkable lasting impact for long after the credits roll. Though on paper, the story sounds rather simple, Mendes is still able to create the most awe-inspiring and gripping cinematic experience of the year through the film’s outstanding execution. The film is made to look like one unbroken take, with the help of legendary cinematographer Roger Deakins, whose work alongside filmmakers like the Coens, Denis Villeneuve, and Mendes has earned him 15 Oscar nominations and one win — here, he breaks his own boundaries once again with jaw-dropping long takes, beautifully capturing the non-stop action through trenches and city ruins and conveying as powerful of a story with no cuts that most films do with thousands. The one-take act is not only dazzling from a technical perspective, but makes the story feel like one continuous movement, without room to stop and catch your breath, which works perfectly for this adventure war film in which time is the enemy. The unbelievable production design that brings these settings to life is immersive and exemplary. Also worth noting is the work of composer Thomas Newman. Having heard many of his scores that he’s made throughout the decades, this feels like the culmination of all his works in which he beautifully covers a variety of tones — ambient, thrilling, reflective, and emotional.
The stylistic elements work perfectly to elevate a basic concept into a nail-biting adventure where we fear for our leads’ lives as the journey into lands of uncertainty. Speaking of the leads, George McKay is especially excellent at capturing the fearful but determined spirit of his character. We don’t need to hear much about the characters’ pasts or personal lives to feel something — through moments of human instinct, persistence, and compassion, Mendes gives us everything we need to care about these characters and get more emotional than almost any film this year. So the style doesn’t just serve as a “gimmick” to round up Oscar nominations, but as a form of storytelling to make an already superb script feel even stronger. The closing cards, in which Mendes dedicates the film to his grandfather (who was a WWI veteran himself), makes the effect even more powerful. Thinking about the film after it ended, I was reminded why I go to the movies, and what storytelling is for — not just to put asses in seats, but to leave a lasting effect on an audience by utilizing the art of cinema to tell stories with true meaning and soul. Whether you’re a fan of war movies or not, it doesn’t matter, because 1917 is the film this year that cannot be missed on the big screen at any costs, and a definite frontrunner this year. It will certainly be looked back at in years to come for its originality and trailblazing in its genre, and might not be topped by another war film for many, many years.
The final chapter of the legendary story that’s spanned generations, The Rise of Skywalker follows the Resistance taking a final stand against the First Order, as Rey, the last of the lightsaber-wielding Jedi, prepares to face off against the Supreme Leader Kylo Ren.
Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker takes the challenge of concluding a culturally treasured story that’s spanned four decades head-on, yet sacrifices something important in the process. Part of Star Wars is taking you away from reality and over to a galaxy far, far away, and this film succeeds at making the eye-popping visuals stand out in every shot, especially if you watch it in 3D, as you should for every Star Wars movie considering the grand scale they have to offer. John Williams, one of the real MVPs of the franchise, has composed every film in this saga and once again stuns with his beautiful musical scores. The cast still has plenty of energy and heart, especially the trio of protagonists — Daisy Ridley’s Rey shows plenty of emotion and energy and it’s hard not to love her character as she embarks on the final chapter of her adventure, and John Boyega’s Finn, as well as Oscar Isaac’s Poe, are very lovable as the daring fighters who are eager to lead and defeat the First Order for the greater good of the galaxy. It’s difficult not to enjoy whenever the lovable Chewbacca, C3P0, or BB-8 are on-screen either. The late Carrie Fisher also appears as General Leia, and although her appearance is very small, it’s a welcome and bittersweet one. Also returning from the original trilogy are Mark Hamill and Billy Dee Williams as galactic legends Luke and Lando — if only they had a bit more to do on screen, though. Unfortunately, nobody really gets a meaningful arc this time except Rey, but even her arc gets muddled and confusing by a decision that harms the emotional weight of the previous two installments. Not even Adam Driver, who plays the main antagonist in Episodes VII and VIII, gets much to do. In the last film, Kylo Ren became the Supreme Leader of the First Order, but instead of utilizing that brilliant and original idea of having a young, conflicted boy become the head of the evil, tyrannical organization, he ends up answering to Palpatine for most of the film, and I’m not sure if Palpatine’s role in the film was even warranted. Finn’s a deserter of the First Order who’s become a sign of heroism and bravery for the Resistance, but that isn’t explored as an important character trait anymore — hell, he’s no longer a multi-dimensional character anymore, barely anyone is in this movie. Naomi Ackie is introduced as a new character named Jannah. Her character seems fantastic, yet they do absolutely nothing with her character other than make her stand next to Finn for the film’s entire second half, so unfortunately we’ll never know anything about her or if she was really as great of a character as she could’ve been.
The runtime is stuffed with so many ideas that either don’t make sense or are rushed past in the blink of an eye; it felt so rushed that it was almost like Disney mandated them to not make it a minute longer. The editing in The Force Awakens was so excellent it even received an Oscar nomination, but here the cuts are so fast and occasionally feel unnatural. In the other films, the action scenes feel nuanced but the ones here are so quick that it’s going to be hard to look at them as “scenes” for their filmmaking and purpose. In a movie with so much fighting, I ironically can’t remember a specific moment where the action is notably impressive, although it’s thankfully loud and colorful enough to be engaging, yet not resonant. In the predecessor The Last Jedi, I was shaking in suspense for a lot of the film, but unfortunately in The Rise of Skywalker, there isn’t really a moment where I had that same feeling. Maybe it’s because although there’s so much plot, the script never gives us a moment to breathe or just develop the characters emotionally. Without any emotional arcs being set up, we can’t be concerned about what’ll happen to them later in the film. There’s also a few iffy lines of dialogue that either felt like placeholders or sub-par ways to convey ideas that could’ve come off as stronger. The movie also has plenty of moments that allude to the previous films, such as A New Hope and The Empire Strikes Back, and these moments will work well because how much of an impact this saga has had throughout the audience’s lifetimes. Some moments will make you applaud and smile, and my theater experience with this film only reminds me how beautiful these Star Wars films bring people together, even after 42 years. However, by the end The Rise of Skywalker doesn’t feel like the natural continuation of the trilogy’s story, but rather like it’s trying to be the antithesis of The Last Jedi. Many of the powerful decisions Rian Johnson made in VIII feel undermined by what J.J. Abrams chooses to do in some scenes, and instead of going with the flow of the story, it feels like he disregarded the tone and value of the previous film, and even his own film The Force Awakens (I’m not even sure what the tone of this movie is, if I’m being honest). Abrams is a filmmaker I regard with lots of talent towards bringing a sense of wonder and imagination towards the screen, and it’s unfortunate because there so many moments of greatness throughout that are harmed by the light-speed runtime (which although, at 142 minutes, is longer than most other SW films, still feels incredibly rushed and overcrowded), and the director’s working against the story that he and Johnson established so well before. Although the actual ending of the film and the Skywalker Saga is nicely done, the final chapter of the journey there should’ve hit home as well. Regrettably though, it’s the least risky and exhilarating film of the bunch (although it’s arguably better than the prequels, which to me don’t capture the true meaning of Star Wars that well).
Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker is the conclusion to one of the most beloved stories in the history of not only film, but also the art of fiction itself. Unfortunately, as an enormous fan myself, I found myself disappointed. the overabundance of ideas Abrams tries to fit into a crammed runtime (if you ask me, they should’ve taken a page out of Marvel’s book and made the movie 3 hours in order to give this saga the fitting send-off it deserved), and the choice to emphasize too much fan service over a sufficient amount of character/emotional payoff end up harming the story that was so beautifully constructed in the past outings of this trilogy. This feels like a great film that was cut in half and then made some frustrating last-minute decisions that don’t even impact the later events of the film, and the main characters’ arcs would’ve been much stronger without these decisions. While there were definitely some plot points I enjoyed and the vibrant visuals and world-building, as well as the film’s role in concluding the franchise, will excite most audiences and incite instances of applause, the lack of boldness and spirit makes this the least gripping and rewarding film in the sequel trilogy, despite the satisfying nostalgia that makes for an awesome theater experience when you’re watching it with other Star Wars-loving audience members.
Though it’s the sixth Terminator film, Terminator: Dark Fate disregards the events of all but the first two Terminator films and takes place after Judgment Day. In this new future, Sarah Connor’s fate has forever been changed when she teams up with an augmented superhuman soldier sent from the future to protect Dani Ramos, a young woman whose survival is critical to ensuring the fate of humanity. Along their way to stopping the Rev-9 (a new, advanced, deadly Terminator from the future), another familiar face, well, comes back, just like he said he would.
Terminator: Dark Fate attempts to be a course correction by righting all these previous films’ wrongs, including bringing back Linda Hamilton as Sarah Connor and James Cameron as producer, and even straight up retconning them and pretending they never existed, except for the only two good ones. But even in all its efforts to return the franchise to form, the spark that this series once had is still missing in Dark Fate. It’s a step up from the previous installment Genisys, but I’m not sure by how large of a margin. It sticks closer in tone to the first Terminator film than the second, but soon it just becomes a rehash of the 1984 classic. Linda Hamilton gives it her all, returning as one of the greatest on-screen badasses on film. She’s accompanied by another returning ass-kicker, Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has some fun moments and even some humor in his role as a new T-800 who conveniently also looks like Arnie. Mackenzie Davis was well-cast to play her role, but the writing for her, as well as for the character of Dani, aren’t as interesting or fresh as they should have been. The villain feels like a ripoff of the T-1000 from Terminator 2 and the CGI for his character doesn’t feel convincing.
Perhaps the thing that’s truly missing from this installment is the groundedness the first two had; they were relatively low-budget so they felt like action chase films. But in the age of infinite CGI, nothing feels real, imminent, or threatening like it did back then. At times it feels like the movie’s attempting to be the Logan of the Terminator franchise with small-scale sequences set in Mexico like a scene involving the characters being apprehended by border patrol officers — but soon it ditches all that for a CGI-filled mess, and the finale is almost as cartoonishly bad as some sequences from Genisys. The action sequences all have nice concepts and were probably storyboarded out really well, some of the action, like an opening fist fight or a car chase, turns out to be poorly shot, although a scene involving two planes colliding and a dam was very entertaining. And the score is no longer haunting or memorable — perhaps they could have benefitted from more use of the original theme? Also, the new evil supercomputer that’s producing Terminators is exactly the same as Skynet and everything is the same in the concept, even though the future battle is well-done. There’s also a “plot twist” near the end of the movie that’s embarrassingly executed and so predictable I could see it coming before the movie even began. The theme of fate recurs throughout the film, yet it never feels like it belongs. All the dialogue about fate feels so forced, if only they had focused more on this franchise’s real theme: humanity. None of this is made better by the fact that there’s a choice made in the film that may anger fans of the first two films, and never really justifies itself — or a “we’ll make a sequel if this one makes enough money” ending that I wish had the finality the first two films had, back when we weren’t worried about the continuations and each film could stand as one. There’s some fun callbacks to the original, like the iconic line that has made the series so popular, or a scene taken directly out of the second film. However, Hamilton’s depth and Schwarzenegger’s charisma is all that make the movie, and even those aspects aren’t as strong as they used to be, to which the script is at fault, not the actors. So many times has the sequel that “brings back the true spirit and nature of the franchise that people cherish so dearly” decades later been done now — it felt exciting with Star Wars: The Force Awakens and daring and new with Blade Runner 2049, and was also done by Halloween, Mary Poppins Returns, Independence Day: Resurgence, and soonly enough by Top Gun: Maverick and Doctor Sleep. Unfortunately, though it tries its best to maintain its ties to the original, Dark Fate falls trap to some more modern action trademarks, ending up being too formulaic and not as emotionally raw as before. The big action and concepts often compromise the urgency, excitement, and resonance Terminator used to have, while this one is rather disposal and forgettable. Perhaps the dark fate the franchise may be going down is what the title warned us about.
Life in the zombie apocalypse can be quite tough — yet these four know how to make the best of it. The ten-year wait for the sequel to a fan favorite has finally ended, in the too-good-to-be-true reunion of the original cast, who by now have become renowned and award-nominated household names if they weren’t already – Woody Harrelson, Jesse Eisenberg, Emma Stone, and Abigail Breslin. Sony even successfully brought the original writers and director back on board — writers Rhett Reese and Paul Wernick, who have since then found great success with another genre-breaking, beloved series with Deadpool and Deadpool 2 — and director Ruben Fleischer, who even after an awful misstep with whatever the hell Venom was supposed to be, retains the signature taste of what made Zombieland so great. Double Tap is one of those sequels that takes everything the first film does and tries to do it all but bigger, and for the most part the film hits its target quite well. From the opening narration that will already get a few laughs, to a slo-mo opening credits action scene that recalls a montage that opened the predecessor, it’s clear that the heart and unique fun from the first film is back. It’s ideal to watch the first film to thoroughly understand the characters and their relationships, as well as some call-backs, like Harrelson’s character Tallahassee’s signature catchphrases, as well as a joke about a famous celebrity’s unfortunate demise as depicted in the first film. However, Zombieland: Double Tap can still stand on its own for general audiences searching for a violent action comedy that doesn’t hold back.
While not as iconic as he was when he first played the role, Woody Harrelson is still delightful as the badass Tallahassee who since the first film has grown to love his new family but still is the unrestrained, hilarious zombie-killer who loves Elvis and his guns, and takes annoyance towards car designs and pacifism. Eisenberg is also once again solid as Columbus, even though sometimes his narration gets a bit too explanatory or excessive, and his character arc feels slightly questionable at times when it comes to his love interests, and Stone is also charming and great again, though it’s hard today not to compare to her superior performances like La La Land and The Favourite. And while Breslin is still decent, it’s slightly disappointing to see her character separated from the rest of the gang for part of the film so we don’t get to see as much chemistry from the main four. Rosario Dawson and Zoey Deutch are surprisingly terrific additions to the cast who both have plenty of energy and also have great chemistry with the leads. While the film mostly keeps that signature fun the first film had, there’s one action scene that felt poorly shot, with too many cuts and shaky cam. However, this is redeemed by a later long-take action scene that’s quite enjoyable and creative. Also, the humor does sometimes get routine and predictable, but there are still a fair share of laugh-out-loud moments. Overall, the movie doesn’t feel as fresh as the original considering how many films have tried to do similar, and the story doesn’t have the same natural flow, but there’s still plenty to commend here, including an exciting final battle. Ultimately, Zombieland: Double Tap is a worthy sequel, and although some moments are rushed and other comedic moments don’t feel top-tier, the over-the-top violence and dialogue and the ultimate execution of the film including the cast and story, that’s set in a violent apocalyptic world yet still makes you smile and think about themes like family, is what makes it feel worthy of your time and money, so follow Columbus’ list of rules and enjoy the little things by going to enjoy Zombieland: Double Tap on the big screen.
Frenemies Luke Hobbs and Deckard Shaw must reteam two years after The Fate of the Furious in order to stop a genetically enhanced criminal mastermind from unleashing a deadly virus onto humanity.
I’m normally quite an admirer of this franchise; their storylines aren’t always amazing but they’re ridiculously fun and something that I can’t miss on the big screen. These kinds of huge action movies bring audiences together and normally put a smile on my face. So while I wasn’t expected to be moved by Hobbs & Shaw or see something particularly unique, I was at least expecting more than what I ended up getting. Fast & Furious Presents: Hobbs & Shaw lacks the energy and personality that makes this series exciting and memorable. Fast & Furious is about people using cars to pull of unbelievable stunts and going on impossible missions. Meanwhile, Hobbs & Shaw is just another action movie. Is The Fate of the Furious necessarily a great movie with masterclass choreography or some sort of strong message? No. But what makes these movies work so well for what they are is moments like Dwayne Johnson pushing a torpedo with his bare hands or Vin Diesel flying his car through different skyscrapers in Furious 7 that allow the past movies to indulge in the ridiculousness that it is and find merit through crazy popcorn action and likable characters and dialogue. Nothing about the action in this movie has any of that personality that makes the rest of the series’ action, while ridiculous, ultimately entertaining. It’s only in the climactic final battle where the movie allows itself to up the ante, get over-the-top, and actually have somewhat lively fight scenes. The cinematography and editing are also sometimes poor and either too choppy or just not consistent or interesting. The humor, despite some good moments, also falls flat many times and gets tiring. Dwayne Johnson still breathes light and liveliness into his role but after a while him and Jason Statham roasting each other gets old. Also, they made amends at the end of the last film so it’s not even clear why they still hate each other. Another thing that really bugged me is the villain, played by Idris Elba. His character is nonsensical and laughable (I mean you can expect that from this series but can we also ask for a villain that isn’t so absurd you want to laugh at it?). I mean, that’s what this movie is, absurd, and that’s what its supposed to be. But the movie tries to make Elba’s character deep and motivated but it really is hard when his evil organization feels like something out of a bad Ninja Turtles show. His purpose is questionable and his motive is nearly the same as another big villain this year from the film Avengers: Endgame. His antagonist was probably even as bad as Charlize Theron’s character in the last movie. Fortunately, the movie does make up for it with some awesome and unexpected celebrity cameos that are perfectly utilized.
I’m a fan of David Leitch’s directing for Deadpool 2, as well as some spectacular action for an otherwise mediocre debut film Atomic Blonde, and while sometimes the lighting and settings are well selected, the action feels either too quickly edited so it’s hard to take in what’s happening, or just too dull and boringly choreographed. Like I said, Hobbs & Shaw‘s action lacks personality so it feels like this could’ve been out of any standard spy action film worth passing over. The plot has a somewhat cool device involving a virus, but really nothing interesting is done with the story until Hobbs is forced to confront his past and his family in Samoa. The scenes where we see Hobbs’ family and culture being embraced are some of the best parts of the film story-wise, and every other attempt to craft a compelling story fails and there are some lines that don’t really belong. Like I said, I’m not looking for an incredible script with these movies, but at least the past movies were able to make their themes of family and friendship work. Hobbs & Shaw aims for this but it only really lands towards the end, like I said. It feels like writer Chris Morgan, who has worked on this franchise for seven films, has started to lose grip on how to make effective humor and conflict to craft a truly worthwhile blockbuster like he has several times before. When the final act utilizes a unique setting and culture, it becomes amusing, but Hobbs & Shaw unfortunately takes many of the wrong things too seriously and when it does go for comedy, it sometimes doesn’t hit the mark. There’s also a very forced hinting at a romance that thankfully never happens but the writers felt they had to push it into there just to check off a studio box. There’s also an ending that’s pretty abrupt and for some reason the movie decides to tell its entire epilogue through the credits. Believe me, Fast & Furious Presents: Hobbs & Shaw is quite ridiculous, but it doesn’t succeed in having that personality that makes everyone enjoy the hell out of this franchise, and lacks that energy that got me pumped while watching Fast 5, 6, 7, and 8. Instead this movie feels tiring and doesn’t allow the audience to indulge in the lack of believability, instead it takes the plot too seriously and the humorous banter doesn’t always succeed either. Perhaps this movie would’ve worked better if it was marketed as some sort of parody rather than a real spin-off to a franchise I’ve had better times with. I’m glad next time we’re getting a different director and writer, and some more of Dom, Roman, and Tej. If you want to watch an action comedy where Dwayne Johnson fights people, well, this movie has that. But what I was also hoping for was that spark of energy and exhilaration that has always made the absolute insanity of the Fast & Furious franchise worth it.
Disney has been dominating the decade with Marvel, Star Wars, animation (both Pixar and their titular studio), but their series that has divided people the most is their live-action remakes of animated classics. So people were most excited but also nervous when it came to the photoreal-but-actually-still-animated remake of their defining animated feature from the 20th century, The Lion King. First off, on a visual standpoint, this movie is an achievement. It follows the same reign of The Jungle Book in recreating iconic characters and setting to look as real as possible, and it really delivers. All the animals and sets look like an actual picture, even though not a single frame was actually there. It’s amazing to see how far visuals have gone these days, and Disney has been headliner these last few years in consistently breaking the boundaries of what can be done with a computer, whether it’s the amazing action in Avengers and Star Wars films or breathtaking animation in films like Toy Story and Incredibles — but the feats of the CGI completely pay off here in making the illusion unnoticable and making it feel like a more immersive journey. The film is perfectly casted with Donald Glover shining and making something of his own out of Simba’s role here, and it helps that he’s experienced in both acting and singing. Also huge standouts are Timon and Pumbaa, who are scene-stealing and Seth Rogen’s voice espeically fit for Pumbaa. Also worth pointing out is John Oliver who is hysterical as Zazu. However, for some characters, like Scar for example, it’s sometimes hard not to make comparisons to superior versions, like Jeremy Irons who was perfect in the 1994 version. Perhaps neither he nor James Earl Jones needed recasting (the latter of which was thankfully able to return as Mufasa). Speaking of roles from the original, Rafiki’s role was unfortuantely reduced this time around so he feels like less of a mentor to Simba and barely even has dialogue.
The musical numbers are still very fun, espeically the classic “Hakuna Matata”, and the “Lion Sleeps Tonight” gag is extended and made even funnier. The shame is that they shortened the Scar’s menacing anthem “Be Prepared” to be much slower but as a result feels more like a whispered spoken word poem than a song. The Lion King is stuck in a loophole in terms of delivering for fans because people want a remake to somehow reinvent the story but at the same time poeple get angry as soon as something major is changed. Unfortuantely, some of the changes made in this remake are for the worse, and other than that, a lot of sequences in the film or a shot-for-shot copy-paste of what we’ve already seen. A lot of the dialogue is the same as well, and I just wish they had added some more story to what we already know because the fact that we recognize every scene and line so well will eventually make things boring. On the bright side, it manages to retain some of the soul that reminds us why we love the original so much (themes like confronting your past or lines from Mufasa about the truth of being a wise king). The problem is that once these characters are animated to look photorealistic, they can no longer exaggerate emotions like the original iterations do — Scar is no longer a charismatic Shakespearean character, and every character just looks like an animal talking. This movie has incredible visual technology that deserves plenty of praise for Jon Favreau, maybe next time he could have used it to make original content rather than remaking known stories, or just added a little more that we haven’t seen before to do something new with the story.
The Lion King is a visual marvel and filled with nostaliga, but it’s greatest strength and weakness is that it’s almost exactly the same as the original. If the original Lion King was so perfect, why change anything? But why do we want to see the same movie over again? That’s the problem that this new remake finds itself in which is why despite being nice to look at, the script is beat for beat the same, which is why the only way this movie can really be appreciated is in 3D and on the biggest movie screen you can find. Does it offer much new? Not really, or even at all to be honest. But in terms of recommendation for the theaters I have to say go for the visuals and for the story which still stays strong, but the emotional expressions that came through the original versions of the characters (which didn’t need to feel photoreal and therefore could be exaggerated for animals) is exactly what will make the original Lion King forever superior.