The Lion King film with it’s “luxurious cast” and advanced CGI technology will definitely become the new hit in the box office. However, what behind the remake films need us to pay more attention.

With technology developing, there are many new technologies helping filmmakers to better tell their stories. With the motion capture, people making apes talking on the screen. With robot double, human actors don’t need to risk their life to do a dangerous scene. With 3D, 4DX, IMAX…, audience sinking into the scenario, having a great adventure with characters from the core of the earth to the deep space.

As the giant film production company, Disney with its top-class studios are the leader in so many ways in the industry. Such as Pixar’ 3D animation technology and the great CGI tech from StarWars. Not only has massive technology, but Disney also has various IPs (intellectual property), aka high-value stories. Seeing Disney combining IPs with high-tech would not be surprised to me. But apart from earning massive profits from remaking classic story, can Disney benefit more from it? I would say no.

After watching The Lion King, whenever I recall the scenario from the film, the picture in my head is from the original The Lion King movie, yes, that cartoon. At first, I didn’t pay attention to this, but after a few times later, I tried to ask my self why the cartoon one is the first picture appear in my head even though the CGI one I just watched days ago, which I should freshly remember and should be the first picture in my head whenever I recall the scenario. And then, I tried The Beauty and The Beast, Cinderella and include the latest one, Mulan, I watched the trailer several times. The remake films are hard to be the first picture in my head, but the classic one did.

The problem for now should be clear. Remake films may hard to beat the classic one, making the remake film nothing but a fast-food film. With the spirit of remake everything, for an industry which needs to be creative every day is very dangerous. Technology development fast than ever, 10 years later, VR, AR, or even MR movies will come to our daily life. Till then, remake everything and earn some fast money then wait for the next ten years? I highly doubt this “remake” stuff will bring the industry to higher development. Instead of not helping the industry, I would say in some way is damage the industry.

If I only accusing Disney of having no progress, it would not be fair. Like Disney, many production companies in the industry also remaking, rebooting or restoring their films. And if they really did a good job, they won’t on my accusing list.

The good news is that there still are some filmmakers who devote themselves to the industry and try to produce high-value films. But those giant production companies doing nothing but refresh their former works, the damage to the industry is unpredictable.

SS: 5.5/10 If watching life-like animals singing in English is not the count as creepy, what else would?

The fans give a lot of expectations when Disney first announced the plan of The Lion King’s remake, and with time goes by, these expectations growth more. But to me, the expectation cut to 70% when the second trailer came ou, in which the clips contain animals’ talking. The story is still the old story, even some scene exactly looks like in the cartoon version. As the directing skills and the story itself, I don’t think there is any serious problem. However, as the decision to make a talking animal, could be the topic what I am gonna talk about.

Watching Jerry beat Tom into different shapes, Bugs Bunny use TNT to blow the hunter into the sky, the cartoon has its very own advantage, which is no matter how exaggerated, it will never excessive. You might say that Peter the Rabbit or Paddington Bear movies also can talk, why they are not creepy? Because they are set in human society and in those films you know they are fake, especially when you see a talking bear and rabbits have unbelievable high IQ.

But The Lion King is exactly the opposite. The production team is from The Jungle Book, they have the most advanced technology to build a very realistic life-like nature world. They are doing their best to create the natural world by CGI, every detail is specially designed. So when you see the film, when they are not talking, you might think this is an Africa documentary. All these are worthy of praise, and the production team has put a lot of effort behind this. But when they start talking, ugh, a very strong sense of stripping, stripped the audience from the plot of the movie.

Apart from this, the remake version The Lion King reproduces a generation of classics, in which the new cover of classic songs is a recollection of a generation. This film is totally worth your precious time of two hours to watch and sing along.

SS: 1/10 Guess we have the “winner” of Golden Raspberry Awards this year.

Using music to lead the story is not new these days, somehow using music leads the story can have a very good result. However, this film will be the example of “how music can ruin a film”. The whole story over-used Bruce Springsteen and his song. Two long music videos in the middle of the movie, expressing nothing but a boring atmosphere. Hearing Bruce’s name or songs every five seconds, literally drove me crazy.

If you wanna make a song and dance film, then go on that path. If you just want to use music lead the story, then just use it at an important point. The whole film stuck in the between of those two different kinds of film style.

The lead character, the boy, his whole behaviour is unbelievable. What an idiot.

Really not recommend this movie.

SS: 6/10 When the whole KGB is speaking English, that’s how the Soviet Union failed.

This summer, Luc with his new movie ANNA back to the cinema. After the failure of Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets, which has massive investment and a not optimistic return, this movie will decide Luc’s next few years fate of creating.

According to various reviewers’ review, apparently that Anna won’t be their match. The worst thing is that only 3 shows a day in the cinema where I lived nearby. And that cinema has 15 screens.

Low score and low showing rate are enough to kill a movie. But how is this movie? Really that bad? Actually the whole story is quite fascinating. If you familiar any other Luc’s works, you will know his films usually be underestimated. His special French style narrative skills does not very feed the American reviewers’ taste, but that can’t he is bad at directing or writing.

Anna, this movie with a great story and marvellous camera, every second is beautiful, superb. The nasty thing is the time-shifting structure. Luc used time-shifting to set twists and surprise the audience, makes the audience could not guess what is the next in the film. However, when the whole movie is based on the time-shifting to narrate the story, making unpredictable into predictable. On the one hand, the audience waiting for the next twist, on the other hand, the audience tired of the twist and wish it stop.

Overview of the whole movie, the first half hour of this film is could be too slow, comparing what will happen next, the first three chapters really not fit in this film. Twice in that half hour makes me want to press the forward button. But once you calm down and keep watching it, the next few chapters will WOW you.