Fairy tales are ambiguous and have logic that only belongs to the world of fairy tales.
So everyone will not go into the logic of whether this story is true,
For example, which animals will be eaten by lions, which animals will not, where is the boundary between friends and food?
For example, can Simba grow up healthy by eating insects without malnutrition?
For example, why eat mammals but not insects? Do animals have this kind of human morality?
You don’t ask these questions in the world of fairy tales,
In that world, African warthogs and meerkats and lions can of course be friends and sing songs without extra explanation.
But in the animal world, or in the infinitely close to real animal world created by Disney,
You will ask these questions,
You will feel these things that are not right.
Expressionless, non-anthropomorphic animals, they do what humans can do, and speak what humans can say.
This creates a weird look and feel.
Am I watching the animal world without Zhao Zhongxiang's voice?
But wouldn't such a thing happen in the real animal world?
Why can those cute little animals eat butterflies and the cute Simba eat bugs? Butterflies are also very innocent and beautiful!
Expressionless, non-personalized animals make the audience feel like an actor with poor acting facial paralysis, unable to engage in emotions.
If you want to be moved by this story, it must be based on the fact that you had seen the animated version when you were young. You know what Simba is like, what Mufasa is like, and you have seen those scenes countless times, waiting for those scenes to appear.
Because the film did not succeed in shaping their image this time, there are some problems with the rhythm and foreshadowing, but the image of Scar is the most full of them.
Of course, the technology is really great, and it even makes people wonder whether the actors will be unemployed in the future.
But if Disney wants to pursue reality, it is a pity that fairy tales themselves are not true.
View more about The Lion King reviews
