My initial dilemma was whether to review this film at all. Disney entreats us to consider this remake of the 1994 film as “live action”, since there is apparently some photography used. However, I decided to disregard the semantic arguments. This version of The Lion King is undoubtedly an animated picture, and that, indeed, is the problem.

Ah, the animation. After viewing this film, one might credibly wonder whether any improvements in computer-generated imagery are even possible. It would be an understatement to say that the rendering is astounding or that the characters are indistinguishable from real animals. Both savannah and jungle are realistic to the point where one can practically feel the water splashing on one’s skin or the foliage rustling against the skin. If the atmospherics were any more lifelike, one would expect to be walking into the sub-Sahara upon leaving the theater.

This is all that saves the film from total failure, and even that is debatable. Rather than lend grandeur to the story, the animation lends a level of creepiness when not coming off as ludicrous. In fact, this Lion King is a step backwards: It more recalls a Disney True-Life Adventure from the 1950s rather than a significant advancement. It gradually dawned on me that this remake, which is nearly a shot-by-shot reprise of the original, was an unnecessary and expensive waste of time and talent.

Here’s the problem: Disney (and presumably director Jon Favreau) tried to have it both ways: Hyper-realistic characters performing roles that were perfected in an animated film. Two examples: Timon the Meerkat, originally performed by Nathan Lane, was a very expressive character. Animators were even able to throw in a shade of the voice actor into Timon’s facial expressions and characterization. Cut to Timon in the remake: Not only do Meerkats have tiny, beady eyes, they are ringed by black fur, making them nearly invisible. A bad look, especially when voice artist Billy Eichner put so much effort into the character. The original animators made Timon’s sidekick Pumbaa a raffish, flatulent comedian capable of varied expressions. This new rendering only shows how repellently ugly warthogs are (and cuts out a great gag from the 1994 version featuring the Hawaiian War Song). This, of course, undercuts a fine vocal performance by Seth Rogen.

Worst of all, we no longer have the wonderfully oily portrayal of the villainous Scar, animated to perfection by Andreas Deja. The original was a classic scene-stealing scoundrel capable of turning from condescension to menace in a heartbeat, thanks to the masterful animation work. The latest Scar? Let’s give Chiwetel and “A” for effort, but the CGI Scar is simply ugly, more scruffy than Shakespearean. Even Scar’s signature song “Be Prepared” has been shaved down to inconsequence. This is probably because room was needed for a new song sung by Beyonce. She is the reigning queen of pop and social media, while most audiences today would not catch the original song’s visual references to Leni Riefensthal’s Triumph of the Will.

As for Donald Glover as Simba, The aforementioned Beyonce as Nala, and James Earl Jones’ reprise of Mufasa, the voice cast is quite good. John Oliver’s portrayal of Zasu may even surpass his predecessor’s. But I can’t say much because they are almost beside the point.

After being castigated by fans nearly two decades ago for releasing direct-to-video sequels to their “classics”, Disney has found a new cash-cow strategy: Live-action versions of their neo-classics! It does not matter whether they reek as badly as the remake of Aladdin or, for that matter, The Lion King; they make mints of money. Next up is Mulan, which is at least defendable. Take Eddie Muphy’s MuShu out of the film, and the original was very close to a live-action film anyway, but I’m certain that future horrors await after that.

After viewing this film, I had some admittedly paranoid thoughts: What if Disney, who can buy the rights to seemingly any property extant, decided to start remaking not only their own films, but landmark movies of cinematic history. After seeing what Disney did with CGI in The Lion King, how hard could it be to generate images of Bogart, Bacall, Groucho or Brando and remake their classic films? And what might stop them?

It would be fitting, then, to close this review with a quote from another character that Disney now owns as well. It comes from another time when special effects were far more primitive but served their films quite well. As Darth Vader might warn Disney: “Don’t be too proud of this technological terror you’ve created.”