The Lion King (2019)

There was a line, delivered in Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country.  I don’t know that it was meant to be important, but it stood out for me.  As said by the Federation President, “Let us redefine progress to mean that just because we can do a thing, it does not necessarily mean we must do that thing.”  It could have been an insignificant part of a monologue, most of which we wouldn‘t get to hear.  Either way, there have been a few times in my life that have illustrated it perfectly.  The remake of The Lion King is one such example.

The 1994 version was an animated classic.  It was about a young lion, Simba, who watched his father die.  In reality, it was his uncle’s fault.  However, this evil Uncle, Scar, convinced Simba that Mufasa’s death was really the young boy’s fault, thus leading Simba to exile himself.  In so doing, he meets Pumbaa and Timon, a warthog and meerkat, respectively.  As an adult, an old friend, Nala, discovers that Simba is still alive.  She convinces Simba to return and overthrow Scar, who has taken over the throne.  Thus, The Circle of Life is complete.

This movie follows the same basic premise.  Many of the songs and lines are present in both movies, as are all of the main characters.  It’s a spectacle, to be sure.  I left the theater entertained, but I was asking one question:  Why was a remake necessary?   The Lion King was a great movie that will be remembered by many as such.  There’s no reason to do this other than to show off the CGI.  You could have done that with any movie.  You don’t need to remake a classic.

This isn’t to say it’s a total waste.  John Oliver stood out for me as Zazu.  (Between this and Wonder Park, Oliver seems to do well with voice work.)  It was also probably a given that James Earl Jones would return as Mufasa.  There were also bits of the animation that seemed to work well.  This doesn’t counter the fact that many of the other elements didn’t seem better than the original.  Scar, on the whole, was less of a villain to me than in the original.  He just didn’t seem as menacing.  Much of this had to do with the animation and isn’t meant to say Chiwetel Ejiofor did anything wrong.  After all, he does have Jeremy Irons to live up to, which isn‘t easy, given the role.

To me, this is the big problem.  The Lion King is enough of a legend that people who have seen both versions will constantly compare the two.  It’s almost impossible for this version to exceed that expectation.  Even if it were to hit every mark perfectly, it’s still not the original.  Simba truly does have a big paw print to fill.

 

IMDb page

Field of Dreams (1989)

WARINING:  I’m going to give away details of the movie, including the ending.  If you haven’t seen the movie, you might want to wait before reading the review.



I’ve had the urge to watch old movies again.  I saw Field of Dreams many years ago.  When it became available on Netflix, I wanted to see if the movie would change with perspective.  I remembered a lot of it, but I wondered if the context had changed.  Is there anything that I’d pick up on now that I wouldn’t as a teenager?  The short answer is no.

For those that haven’t seen it, Field of Dreams is a movie about Ray and Annie Kinsella.  They buy a farm and live there with their daughter, Karin.  One day, Ray hears a voice telling him, “If you build it, he will come.”  Ray has no idea what it is supposed to be.  He’s given a vision of a baseball diamond, which he builds.  Apparently, Ray and Annie are hovering around the break-even point with their farm.  They have to clear their cash crop for the diamond, which will most likely bankrupt them.

They do it anyway.  Months pass and nothing happens.  One day, Shoeless Joe Jackson shows up in the diamond and asks if he can play there.   Jackson even brings the other players involved in the 1919 Black Sox Scandal.  Ray then gets another message from the voice:  Ease his pain.  Who’s pain?  Ray and Annie eventually come to the conclusion that the voice is referring to Terence Mann, an author who didn’t have an easy time with fame.  Mann also wanted to play baseball when he was younger.

Ray visits Terence in Boston.  The two eventually go to a baseball game, where Ray receives another message:  Go the distance.  He also sees stats for Archibald "Moonlight" Graham, who had played in just one game.  When Ray and Terence visit Minnesota to find Graham, they find that Graham had died years ago after becoming a doctor.

Ray is able to go into the past and meets Graham, who explains what the one game was all about.  Graham refuses Ray’s invitation to come back and play baseball.  Ray returns to the present and eventually goes back to Iowa with Terence.  On the drive back, they pick up a young hitchhiker names Archie Graham.  When they arrive on the farm, young Graham joins the players for a game.

The next morning, Annie’s brother, Mark, arrives to urge Ray to sell the farm, which he’s been refusing to do.  (Mark can’t see the baseball players.)  Ray knows that any subsequent owner will likely not maintain the baseball field.  An accident with Karin forces Graham to walk off the field, becoming the man that Ray saw in the past.  He helps Karin, then walks off into the corn field.  Mark is then able to see the players; he urges Ray not to sell the farm.

After seeing the movie again, I found that there wasn’t any special message hidden away.  It’s simply about a man who listens to a mysterious voice’s vague messages.  The one thing that had me wondering is how one baseball field would bankrupt the farm.  Granted, they were on the brink, but it looked like they Kinsellas had a pretty decent sized property.  I don’t know how selling corn works.  Are you able to get several crops during a season?

How would such a small part of their corn crop cause them to miss several mortgage payments?  I’m kind of wondering if this was done to give Ray something to worry about.  There’s no clear antagonist, so they had to have Mark try to get Ray to sell the farm.

I didn’t think the movie that great.  It’s not a story of conflict like you’d find in other movies.  The only real threat Ray has is the mortgage, which he deals with by ignoring.  Ray doesn’t seem to do much to earn additional revenue until the end of the movie, when it’s implied that he could charge admission.

Ironically, the actual diamond used in the movie still exists.  I’m not sure what kind of burden this placed on the actual farm, although the property has been sold at least once, according to Wikipedia.  There’s no fee for admission or parking, although there is a souvenir shop.

The movie is based on a book, although I’m not sure how true the movie is to the source material.  There do seem to be some differences, though.  In the book, Ray has a twin brother.  Terence Mann was actually J. D. Salinger.  (The name change was due to Salinger implying he’d sue if the character made his way to an adaptation.)

I’m not really sure what to make of the movie.  It’s enjoyable, but it’s not the kind of thing you’d watch over and over again.  It’s the kind of movie they might play in a waiting room.  It’s safe for most people.  It’s rated PG, mostly for some language in one scene.  (A woman accuses Terence Mann of masturbation and calls his work pornography.)  There’s also some cursing.  The only four-letter word is spelled out at PTA meeting.  Other than that, it’s mostly damn and hell.  It’s basically a great movie for streaming.  Unless you’re a baseball fan, I’m not sure if you’d want to buy it on DVD.