The End!

 

And so, with over 1,700 reviews in the can, the curtains close on this blog.  It was originally created as part of my efforts to wear down my pile of purchased but unwatched DVDs, and it's lasted to a point where DVDs themselves have become a niche format.  Streaming is here and I doubt it is going away, though making it sustainably profitable is something that the entertainment industry still has to work out!

It's been a fun project, but it is time to focus on other things.  

Happy viewing, all!

Defendor (2009)

 

By day, Arthur Poppington is a mild-mannered construction site worker.  By night, he is Defendor, a costumed hero who patrols the city in search of his archnemesis, "Captain Industry".  When he finds a criminal, he employs his grandfather's trench club and a jar full of wasps to punish them.  "Feel the sting of justice" is something Defendor might say, if Arthur were better at coming up with pithy fight quotes.

Defendor's crusade has several key flaws. The most immediately obvious of these is that he's just a regular guy who has put on a costume.  Yes, he's brave and fairly tough, but he's got no special training, nor access to all kinds of gadgets.  He does definitely demonstrate some low-budget inventiveness with his weaponised wasps and some voice-activated gadgets ... but as anyone who's tried to use the voice assistant on their mobile phone knows, that's still a somewhat problem prone technology.

Less immediately obvious, but perhaps even more critical, is that Arthur's understanding of the world and how it works is little better than that of a child.  He sees things in very simple, literal ways - hence his decision to become a costumed hero - and nuances like "some cops are bad people" and "vigilantism is against the law" entirely escape him.  If his quest for justice actually brings him into contact with the real hardened criminal element of the city, will he really be prepared for it?

Defendor apparently struggled to secure funding and distribution, and I can see why that would be the case. This is not a movie that fits neatly into a genre or classification. It's certainly got humour in it - I particularly liked the "Defendoor" and "Defendog" visual gags, which are not just amusing but also help underline Arthur's 'comic book' view of the world - but it's not a "comedy". Its moments of sadness are too convincing and its consequences too serious to fit under that banner. It's also not a "parody", despite the fact that it's a superhero movie about a man who isn't super at all. Again, it's too real and Arthur is too heroic (in his flawed and limited way) to be a subject of ridicule. But it's probably got too many quirky absurdities for many people to accept it as a "drama", and it lacks the spectacle to be an "action film".

I personally liked the film a lot, and think it has a lot of good elements, but it's definitely a movie that's marching to the beat of its own drum, and that's going to be a hard sell, commercially speaking.

So, what are those good elements?

Well first, let's start with the cast.  How did this low budget Canadian film get so many talented people on board?  It has Woody Harrelson, Kat Dennings, Elias Koteas, Michael Kelly and Sandra Oh. Plus a pre-Orphan Black Tatiana Maslany in a very minor role!

All deliver their usual strong work.  Harrelson may have gone down to the wingnut factory in recent years, but he's a compelling actor when he wants to be, and does a great job as the earnest but not all together "with it" Arthur Poppington / Defendor.

The writer has also clearly given some thought to how a normal person with limited resources might try to emulate a superhero.  Defendor's crime fighting accoutrements are well chosen -  they are things that it would be possible for an ordinary person of limited means to get, and which might serve the purpose he's chosen for them, albeit in a much more limited way than a "real" superhero's gadgets. Marbles are no batarangs, but if someone chucks one at you with full force, it's going to hurt.

The story in general is more thoroughly thought out than the film's goofy title and premise might suggest.

One thing that I was worried about while watching the film was that they might do a blatant Harrelson/Dennings romance, which I'd find a bit on the nose because he's 25 years older than her. They didn't outright go there, though. There was obviously affection between their characters, but not necessarily romantic/sexual affection.  I got the impression that Arthur wasn't really aware of such things, in fact.

Do I have any outright complaints about the film?  A couple.  I'm not a fan of the script's endorsement of torture as an effective technique for the "good guy" to use.  I also foudn the ending to be a little bit pat/optimistic, overall.  

I did however really like that this is a superhero film where the good guy doesn't just win by punching the bad guy a whole lot (which is not to say that he doesn't try to win like that, mind you!)

Christmas at the Ranch (2021)

 

When workaholic career woman Haley Hollis returns to the family ranch for the holidays, she has no plans to stay any longer than familial duty requires.  As far as she is concerned, the ranch, with all its outdoorsy workings and twee Christmas hay rides, is very much in her past.  And perhaps, if she were being truly honest with herself, she resents (and feels a bit inadequate about) the way her brother and grandmother rave about superwoman ranch hand Kate.

Haley's plans for a quick escape are thwarted when she realises the financial difficulties the ranch is experiencing.  Like Emma from Vida, Haley's ultimately unable to stand by and watch her family's business get gobbled up by greedy neighbours.  Also like Emma from Vida, Haley prefers romantic companions of the female persuasion.  

Gee, I wonder who Haley will unexpectedly realise is the love of her life?

Alas, whereas Emma from Vida was a dynamic, take charge firebrand of a woman who could believably wrestle an ailing business back to profitability in spite of suspicious locals and often thoughtless sister, Haley displays no such verve here.  Her competence is all told and not shown.  In fact, what we are shown often runs directly counter to what we are told.  The dialogue, for instance, insists that Haley was a capable ranch hand in her youth.  Yet there's a scene where she can't even get on a horse by herself.  Said scene exists purely for Kate to be there to try and help her and for them to argue about that, of course.

Arguing is in fact the main thing that Haley and Kate will do for most of this film.  And sure, enemies to lovers is a popular trope in romantic comedies, and it's true that the only time the pair really show much spark together is in their squabbles ... but the spats never really go anywhere or lead to anything.  If you're going with enemies to lovers, then use the heat of the arguments to build up the heat of the relationship, people.

To be frank, though, Christmas at the Ranch is not a film where the word 'heat' has any presence.  It is as safely chaste and sweet a romance as any you'd get on the Hallmark Channel, it just happens to be two ladies performing the awkwardly close-lipped "romantic" kisses, this time.

In fact, their whole relationship - which is, let's face it, the entire point of the film - is lacking in any kind of verve. I will acknowledge that the movie does establish Haley and Kate's mutual attraction OK, before they realise who each other are, but after that pretty quickly flames out, the script makes only the most rudimentary efforts to establish a connection between them before they declare their undying love.

The conviction of the relationship is not helped by the film's acting, much of which is pretty flat and wooden.  Given that the main cast members all have pretty solid TV careers, my inclination is that the problem lay behind the scenes: quite probably, this was a production where meeting deadlines and budgets were the only real criteria of success, and whether the final product was actually any good was not a significant concern.

I've worked on some projects like that, in my time.

The most enjoyable performances in the film actually come in the form of a couple of secondary characters - Masonry the New Age Woo-Woo woman, and Lucy the hotel receptionist - that seemed to have the potential to be fun and were honestly more engaging and memorable than the stressy workaholic and stoic cowgirl leads.

I also wonder if the script went through lots of last minute changes and re-writes, resulting in parts of an earlier draft getting left in.  The movie goes to some lengths to establish that Haley owns a dog and it is important to her ... and then it is left behind when she goes to the ranch and not mentioned again.  Last minute re-writes might also explain the dialogue saying Haley was good at ranching, when she can't even get on a horse.

Ultimately, this wannabe heart-warming romance is likely to leave you cold.

Underwater (2020)

 

The Kepler 822, a research and drilling facility at the bottom of the Mariana Trench, is struck by what appears to be a strong earthquake. Part of the facility is catastrophically destroyed by the incident, killing most of the crew in that section.  Only mechanical engineer Norah Price and her colleagues, Rodrigo and Paul, manage to get out alive and make their way to the escape pod bay. 

Once there though, the news doesn't get any better.  While they do find three more survivors, including the captain, there are no functional pods left in this bay, and attempts to contact the surface have been unsuccessful.  The only other hope for escape is the pods in the abandoned Roebuck 641 base.  They will need to don pressurized suits and then walk one mile across the ocean floor.

Even in the best of circumstances, this would be a dangerous journey, as visibility at this depth will be almost nil.  With the whole area strewn with debris, and several of them not trained in this equipment, the danger is far greater - even a small tear in the suit would lead to catastrophic and deadly depressurisation.

Oh well, at least the earthquake didn't herald the release of any deadly, previously unknown deep sea monsters with a taste for human flesh, right?

Right?

Underwater; it's a bland title, but a good film.  Much better than the mixed reviews and poor box office would suggest.  Ignore the complaints that it is derivative.  Innovation is less important than execution, and Underwater executes well.

This movie reminds me a lot of The Descent, but set under the ocean rather than under the earth. Both films feature a small group of people who are trapped in an environment that is inimical to human life.  In both films, the characters can survive only by moving forward through dangerous and difficult terrain.  And both films feature excellent, tensely structured opening sections in which the only threats come  from the natural dangers of the location.

Where Underwater does differ from The Descent, though, is that it handles the transition to "monster movie" much better.  In the earlier film, after the initial monster onslaught, the nature of the threat never changed much and some of the film's tension and excitement was sapped away by a growing feeling of repetition.  The creature encounters here are more varied in form and structure, helping maintain tension and interest.  It's good work, especially because the monster threats not only vary, but escalate. The first encounters pale in comparison to the later ones in several different ways, helping the movie build to a crescendo at the end.

Going back to comparisons with The Descent, I also think this film lands its ending far better: neither the underbaked US ending of the earlier film, nor the nihilistic UK one, were particularly satisfying to me.  Underwater does a much better job of finding a thematically strong, satisfying conclusion. 

I also liked that the film eschewed the common movie gambit of having one or more of the characters be a selfish jerk or crazy loose cannon.  Underwater has the good sense to let the dangers of the situation be the focus.  All the human characters work hard to survive and have each other's backs.  That doesn't mean they always see eye to eye on what they should do, or that they will all survive - but they give it their all.

I'm not quite done with my praise, because I also need to take the time to acknowledge the strong cast, who all do solid work.  I imagine this production involved a lot of green screen work, which must be challenging, but the actors consistently deliver.  Kristen Stewart, who plays Norah, proves once again that she's a real talent - something I would never have believed in the Twilight stage of her career. I'm confident her 2022 Oscar nomination for best actress will not be the last time she's up for a major Academy Award.

The Cleaner, Seasons 1 & 2 (2021-2023)

 

 

Paul "Wicky" Wickstead is a cleaner.  A crime scene cleaner, a distinction he frequently feels the need to make to those he meets.  He is a government-certified cleaning technician, responsible for the removal of any signs of death, injury or other biohazard debris from crime scenes.

Leaving aside that this sniffy response rather dismisses the hard work that being a "regular" cleaner actually entails, Wicky's job is one tailor-made for bringing him into contact with people at a stressful time in their lives.  They may have lost a loved one.  They may witnessed the death occur.  They may actually be the murderer!

Only two things are more or less certain: first, that Wicky will squabble with whoever he meets.  He's rather an irascible and irritable fellow, after all.  And second, he will leave the place without any trace of the tragedy that befell it.  He's The Cleaner, after all.

Written by and starring comedian Greg Davies, who is perhaps best known for his title role in Taskmaster, this show is based on the German sitcom Der Tatortreiniger (literally, "Crime Scene Cleaner").  Almost every episode follows the same basic standard pattern; Wicky arrives at a scene, where he meets someone related to the case and immediately either irritates them or gets irritated by them.  Shenanigans ensue, in the course of which the odd couple pairing will generally learn to come to some understanding of each other ... or at least, some form of détente.

That kind of very specific structure could easily outstay its welcome, so this is one of those cases where the short seasons of UK TV shows is a positive.  With only six half-hour episodes per series (plus a Christmas special in between the two), the show doesn't overstay its welcome, either on an individual episode basis - each scenario remains funny throughout and builds to a satisfying conclusion - or across a season.

It is also a structure that allows for a lot of guest stars.  Other than Wicky himself, The Cleaner has only one recurring character, with everyone else appearing for only a single entry.  This is a formula that the show has turned to its advantage, with an excellent array of British actors and comedians turning up across the show's run.  The first two episodes, for instance, feature Helena Bonham Carter and David Mitchell respectively, both of whom make great foils for Davies to interact with.

Speaking of Davies, he does a good job as Wicky.  He's got the irascible, prickly demeanour down to an art, as seen on Taskmaster, but he proves he can do more than just that, here.  Wicky is less pompous and arrogant than the Taskmaster, and underneath his gruff exterior he does at heart actually want to do the right thing ... albeit preferably with as little effort as possible.  

In terms of specific episodes, I think the highlights include the opening episode - Helena Bonham Carter seems to be having a great time - and the Christmas Special.  That episode does a great job of balancing humour and sentimentality without becoming overly twee.

The finale of season two is also fun - though the final act relies a lot on implausible character decisions - and it offers a feel good last moment, that, if the show did not return, makes a satisfying finale to Wicky's story.

Worth a look if it sounds at all up your alley.

Motel Hell (1980)

 

Farmer Vincent Smith and his younger sister Ida live on a farm with an attached motel, named "Motel Hello". The Smith family farm is renowned for its smoked meats, but since this is a comedy-horror film, the secret ingredient is the old Soylent Green scenario: people.

Vincent employs a variety of tactics to collect victims. The most direct is to engineer accidents on the nearby road, such as by shooting out the front tyre of a motorcycle. But that's far from his only technique. However he initially acquires in his prey, however, Vincent has the same fare for them all. He sedates them, cuts their vocal cords to prevent them from screaming, and buries them up to their necks in his "secret garden".

Or at least, that's how it goes until beautiful young woman Terry falls into his hands. Old Vincent - and he is old, being more than thirty years Terry's senior - is instantly smitten. He tells Terry that her former lover, Bo, was killed in their crash, though of course, Bo is actually in the secret garden.

Terry's beauty also catches the eye of the local sheriff, the genial if rather inept Bruce. Bruce also happens to be Vincent's younger brother, and is bitterly disappointed when Terry returns the older man's affections, rather than his own.

Of course, it remains to be seen what Terry will think of Vincent once she learns the secret behind his famous smoked meats ...

So as noted earlier, what we have here is a comedy-horror.  Such films often struggle to develop much in the way of tension of scares.  Scream and The Faculty are among the few exceptions that come to mind. Motel Hell will certainly not be joining them among those outliers: it's very much canted toward goofy schlock and off-colour jokes.

So how well does it work as a comedy?  Well, it is very broad and absurd in its comedic style, and I think it is at its best when the goofiness is not overly called out.  For instance, the time Vincent uses cardboard cut-out cows for one of his traps. When the script more loudly sign-posts its jokes, in a nudge nudge wink wink kind of fashion. they tend to fall a bit flat.

I did like the general geniality of the murderous cannibals, and their hippy trippy motives and methods. Their self-justification is obviously spurious, but at least they're a change from the usual squalid, mentally deficient thugs of more straight-forward cannibal horror fare.

The movie definitely has some issues with its depiction of romance and gender, though.  The burgeoning relationship between Terry and Vincent is very under-developed, and no mention is made of the fact that he is more than 30 years older than her. Her quickly forgotten previous boyfriend Bo was also played by an actor 20 years older than her.

Still, May-December romances do happen.  A bigger issue is that the film ultimately casts Sheriff Bruce, who is pretty much an out-and-out sex pest, in a heroic role.  I'm not keen on that.  Not keen at all.

I also felt that the film's final act stretched out too long, with an excess of fairly clumsily staged action sequences that failed to be either exciting or amusing - and they really needed to be one or the other.

Motel Hell had a few amusing moments, but it was not good enough that I can really give it even a qualified recommendation.

Parallels (2022)

 

Four friends - Bilal, Romane, and brothers Sam and Victor - are preparing to begin high school.  It is Bilal's birthday, and to celebrate the event the quartet plan a secret late night get together.  Their chosen venue: an abandoned bunker deep in the local woods.  This is far enough from town that their music won't be heard; which is a good thing since Victor snuck a bottle of champagne out of his parent's collection for the event.

In the middle of this shindig, however, just after Sam finally confesses his feelings for Romane and the two are about to have their first kiss, the lights flicker and die. In the darkness, Victor and Romane vanish, and Bilal is mysteriously replaced with an adult version of himself - though one who does not remember anything that happened after this event.

What caused all this?  Where are Victor and Romane?  Can Bilal be restored to his younger self?  These are all questions which Sam may have to answer more or less by himself, because as you might imagine, it seems unlikely that anyone will accept the story "Bilal became an adult overnight".  It's hard enough for Sam to accept, and he was there when it happened.

And what about Romane and Victor?  Have they simply vanished from reality, or is something much more complicated going on?

Well, the title of the show is probably something of a give-away, in that regard!

This French science fiction show as produced for Disney and is available on their streaming service in France, the US, and various other markets.  It runs six episodes of roughly forty minutes each, making it functionally about the same length as a typical film.  I think this is pretty much the sweet spot for the scenario it presents, allowing time for the characters and events to develop, but not at any point feeling like it is dragging things out.

The show is helped a lot by a likeable cast.  I'll particularly call out Naidra Ayadi as Bilal's mother, Sofia, and Guillaume Labbé as the police Lieutenant assigned to the apparent disappearance of Bilal, Romane and Victor.  Both are very engaging in their roles.  They probably profit from not having to share there parts, of course: of the four "kids" at the heart of the story, only Sam is played by the same actor throughout the show. All the others have two different actors portraying the roles at differing ages.

The character writing is also solid.  The main cast all feel multi-faceted and fleshed out, with their own foibles, strengths and weaknesses.  All the "good guys" live up to that moniker, being generally well-intentioned, but they're still flawed enough to make mistakes, and they sometimes succumb to fear or frustration.  When they do succumb, however, those failures feel well-justified by the situation.  I never got the sense that a major character was acting in a counter-productive way simply because the script needed them to do so in that moment.

This is a solid show, and well worth watching if untangling a strange science fiction mystery seems at all in your wheelhouse.

If you do decide to watch this show, I strongly recommend doing so with the original French dialogue, even if you only speak English.  The dubbing is cut from the same lifeless, anaemic mould as I've experienced from European Netflix shows - about thirty seconds of it was enough to send me scrambling for the app settings to change to subtitles.

Murder on the Orient Express (2017)

 

In 1934, famed Belgian detective Hercule Poirot solves a theft in Jerusalem. The obsessive-compulsive Poirot intends to take a rest in Istanbul, but finds himself summoned to London for another case. His friend Bouc, director of the Simplon-route Orient Express service, arranges Poirot's accommodations aboard that famous train.

Once aboard, Poirot is soon introduced to the colourful array of other passengers, which include an American widow, a Hungarian diplomat and an elderly Russian princess, among others.  Perhaps the most notable other passenger, however, is businessman Edward Ratchett, who boards the train accompanied by his manservant and his secretary.

Ratchett approaches Poirot and asks the detective to become his bodyguard for the duration of the journey.  Ratchett explains that he has received several threatening letters and fears for his life.  Poirot, having already deduced that Ratchett's business is a dishonest one, declines.

Ratchett is found murdered the very next morning, stabbed a dozen times. Poirot must take on the case and investigate the other passengers in order to find the culprit.  If he does not, then not only will the killer likely go free, but it will reflect very poorly on his good friend Bouc, who is responsible for the comfort and safety of the guests.

Of course, it soon begins to emerge that Ratchett was not the only passenger with secrets.  Will even the brilliant Poirot be able to untangle this thorny problem?

Well of course he will.  That's how these kind of films work.  The real question is "will watching him do it be enjoyable and end in a satisfying manner?"  The answer there, I am pleased to say, is generally positive.

This 2017 adaptation of Agatha Christie's famous novel is helped immensely by a talented cast of well-known names.  Such star-studded line-ups can sometimes become a hindrance, turning a film into a "spot the famous face" party game, but that risk is deftly handled here.  The famous players are recognisable, but both the direction and their performances are firmly oriented toward telling the story, not in "ooh, look who it is now!" celebrity spotting shenanigans.  And since these people all became celebrities because they are good actors, they all turn in the usual excellent performances you would expect.

Director Kenneth Branagh also assumes the role of Poirot. This is doubtless a challenging combination of roles to take on, but Branagh's juggled directorial and leading man duties on multiple previous occasions, and I think he proves up to the task once more, here.

One possible flaw of the film - depending on your preferences, I think - is that it has a very mannered, stately pacing.  There are a few flurries of mild action and intrigue, but this is on the whole a restrained and genteel film, unfolding its mystery carefully and precisely, but perhaps without the verve that some viewers would prefer.  I certainly wouldn't call the film "dull", myself, but some may find it a little on the slow side.

Overall though, if murder mysteries are your thing, this is a train trip you'll probably want to take.

Motherland: Fort Salem, Season 3 (2022)

 

With the apparent assassination of the US President, the malevolent Camarilla have secretly usurped the government; the former vice president is secretly in league with this fascistic anti-witch organisation.

Witches in the military find themselves placed under the control of non-witch commanders, who are entirely ready to expend the lives of their forces in wasteful fashion.  Those witches not in the military are forced to wear magic-nullifying collars while out in public

Raelle, Abigail, Tally & Scylla continue their struggle to expose the Camarilla and restore peaceful co-existence between witches and humanity.  A struggle much complicated when Raella's connection to the Mother Mycelium leaves her in a coma, and the group is forced to seek shelter in the Chippewa Cession: native land with limited autonomy from the federal government.

The Camarilla, of course, are not the sort to let ancient treaties stand in the way of their persecution of witches, and they have many new weapons ready to use in their war of extermination.  Can our heroes and their dwindling array of allies find a way to head off a devastating war between humanity and witch-kind?

This final season of Motherland: Fort Salem is an enjoyable and entertaining ride, though the pacing does feel a little wonky.  I suspect this may be a result of a real life injury to Taylor Hickson, who plays Raelle.  Hickson was hurt in a car accident shorting after filming of this season began, and was unable to work for several weeks.  That forced a number of re-writes, of which Raelle's coma is surely the most obvious.

The show definitely misses Hickson/Raelle.  The rest of the cast are strong and enjoyable performers.  Minute to minute they fill the gap quite nicely, but the story's overall structure definitely seems to have suffered a bit because of Hickson's injury. Certain events are drawn out more than they probably need, and others - particularly toward the end - seem very rushed.  Also, however good the other actors are, Raelle has always felt "first among equals" in the ensemble of characters.  Her absence is a big void to fill.

I was also a bit disappointed by the sudden disappearance of new villain Kara Brandt. She was thoroughly despicable and really needed suitable on-screen comeuppance.  Perhaps actor Emilie Ullerup was unavailable for the final episode?  Or perhaps they wanted to keep their options open for a sequel.

Overall though, despite the occasional weaknesses likely caused by real world problems, this is a satisfying conclusion to the program.  I particularly liked that the writers recognised that the fact that the show is ending does not not magically mean that all the world's problems will be fixed.  They make it quite clear that there is still a huge amount of work left for these characters to do, and that they intend to do it; even if it will not be work we get to see.  That's a more nuanced and thoughtful resolution than I expected, back when first watching season one.

The Lion King (2019)

 

Somewhere in the African veldt, a pride of lions rule from Pride Rock. As the film begins, the current King and Queen present their newborn son, Simba, to the gathering animals.

As Simba grows, his father Mufasa endeavours to teach him about the responsibilities of kingship and the "circle of life", which connects all living things. I think it is fair to say that the elder lion is only partly successful in this regard. The bright but somewhat self-satisfied Simba is much more interested in the power and prestige of kingship than in its responsibilities.

Also very conscious of the benefits of the crown is Mufasa's scheming brother, Scar. Recognising an opportunity in Simba's naivety and over-confidence, this wicked lion plots the downfall of both his brother and his nephew, along with his partners in villainy, a cackling clan of hyenas.

This is of Disney's "live action" remakes of its successful animated films, although given that this entire movie is actually photo-realistic CGI, the quotes around "live action" are very much in full effect.

I was not much impressed by Disney's live action Beauty & the Beast, so I never bothered to see this version of The Lion King at theatres.  It took a steep discount on Disney+ to tempt me to return to Africa.

So how's the movie?  Well, it's better than the Beauty & the Beast remake, but it still feels wholly unnecessary except as a money-making exercise. 

Let's start with the visuals. The hyper-realistic CGI is technically very impressive, but ironically its fidelity to true life saps it of the energy, verve and relatability of the original. In particular, it is hurt by the fact that the character's faces are much less expressive.  It may not be realistic to have lions and other animals smile in a recognisably human-like way, but that kind of "unrealistic" artistic adaptation makes for a much more emotionally invested experience.

The remake is also hampered by how much of film feels like a shot for shot remake of the original.  There are a few minor changes; the dynamics between the hyenas are different and there are occasional brief alterations of dialogue, but not much more.  I wonder if this was a reaction to complaints about the changes in Beauty & the Beast?  If so, Disney missed the point - the issue wasn't that the remake had differences to the original cartoon, it was that the specific differences were bad ideas.

Despite how little is actually different here, this version is somehow nearly 30 minutes longer than the original. Admittedly some of that is due to the near 20 minutes of credits!

Are there any pluses?  Well, I appreciate the decision to cast African American actors for Simba, Scar and Nala. Also, the singing vocals are strong. Technically they're better than the original in some cases ... but I don't feel like the songs have the same show-stopping impact as the original.  The most obvious case here is Scar's "Be Prepared".  Jeremy Irons is not a particularly gifted singer, but his version is still more memorable to me.

Ultimately it comes down to a simple thing: even nearly 30 years after it came out, there are multiple segments of the 1994 film that still give me chills. This movie meanwhile was ... okay. In isolation, I'd probably give it a qualified recommendation. But in a world where we have the option of watching the original instead, I'd never pick this one.