For whatever reason, The Walt Disney Company has pivoted away from producing original works and has seemingly instead shown themselves to be the very embodiment of the concept of resting on its laurels – not only are many of the works they have produced in the last decade been sequels to some of their most prominent properties, they’ve always begun producing live-action remakes of these same works, operating under the assumption that audiences will feel nostalgic enough to flock to theatres to see reinterpretations of classic works (which are in reality just shot-for-shot remakes with questionable choices throughout), and they seem to see this as a profitable enterprise, despite consistent public outcry against such endeavours. However, there are occasionally bright spots in this abundance of unnecessary re-imaginings. They almost always emerge when a genuinely gifted filmmaker is handed the reigns and given the chance to make their version of a classic story, as we have now seen in the case of Barry Jenkins, who was granted the opportunity to voyage to the Pride Lands, making Mufasa: The Lion King, which serves as a prequel to the beloved The Lion King, arguably Disney’s most acclaimed and iconic film from what is popularly referred to as their Renaissance, and which was previously subjected to its own remake a few years ago, where Jon Favreau (one of their in-house directors) took the responsibility of bringing this timeless story to the screen in a different way. Focused on the early years of Mufasa and his adopted brother Scar (here referred to as Taka), the film follows the titular character as he goes from rambunctious cub to the king of the animals, undergoing several challenges along the way, both physical and emotional, working to become the brave leader he was destined to be. Jenkins, who has risen to the status of being one of the most exciting voices in contemporary cinema, was given the chance to experiment with a much bigger budget and innovative technology, and while no one will ever dare to claim this to be a landmark entry into his body of work, Mufasa is most certainly one of the better attempts to revisit these stories (or in this case, the characters the populated one of the most famous), even if there are some slightly less-ideal qualities throughout.

Much like The Lion King, this film is steeped in commentary and meaning, a lot of which is entirely obvious from the start. While it may not be as directly inspired by Hamlet as its predecessor, Mufasa is still a film that has a very unique perspective. Some have asserted a reading onto this film that draws correlations between this and either the story of Cain and Abel. or even The Jungle Book (insofar as they are both stories of young protagonists venturing into the wilderness and finding kindred spirits in the form of different animals he encounters along the way), but these elements are merely tenuous, and credit has to go to Jenkins and writer Jeff Nathanson (who had previously worked with Favreau on the prior remake) for taking the time to develop something that is as original as it can be, given the constraints of not only working within a world that is extremely familiar and firmly protected by the fervent supporters dedicated to honouring the legacy of the original film, but also a studio that has proven to be quite stringent, often making a lot of their films by committee, something that has become more evidently clear as time as progressed. The core of this film is to revisit many of the themes of the original film, while still leaping a mainly original story. There has not been much mythology around the origins of these characters for the most part, so the team behind this film did have the opportunity to develop a more bespoke story, but only to a certain point before it had to tie into existing material (such as the use of the framing device in which a few of the recognizable characters are brought back – entirely unnecessary and bordering on a nuisance, but an obvious requirement to situate it within the realm of the familiar), creating a peculiar dialogue between the two films. Some of the new elements that we find this film exploring are that of brotherhood – which is vitally important considering The Lion King is a father-son story – and how blood is not always thicker than water, and a chosen family can be just as integral to one’s growth as the one into which we are born. Conceptually it is quite rudimentary, but often these themes tend to have the most profound impact, and Mufasa does prove to have enough heart to convince us of its narrative merits, even if it isn’t at all original in its perspective.

For all of its inherent shortcomings that have emerged in recent years, one aspect that we can count on Disney to always deliver on is the choice of actors – and Mufasa certainly continues their tradition of enlisting solid names to voice most of these characters, which is especially importance since many of these roles are some of the most iconic in the studio’s history. The younger versions of Mufasa and Scar (who were voiced by James Earl Jones in both versions, and Jeremy Irons and Chiwetel Ejiofor in the animated and live-action versions respectively) are here portrayed by Aaron Pierre and Kelvin Harrison Jr., both very promising young actors that have emerged as being generational talents, and capable of playing a number of different roles. They’re both exceptional (although the choice to cast the Pierre as the American-accented Mufasa and Harrison as the British-accented Taka is a bit peculiar, considering the inverse would have made more sense – and both are strong enough to handle either role), but are mostly going through the motions since there’s not much to the characters outside of the arc that the film essentially dictates above their actual performances. We see the return of Donald Glover, Billy Eichner and Seth Rogen as Simba, Timon and Pumbaa respectively, and while they are also as solid as expected, these are superfluous performances that just existed in the framing device, which could have been entirely elided. Surprisingly, the one truly great performance in Mufasa comes from acting legend John Kani, who reprises his role as Rafiki, the wise mandrill, and the film offers more context to his story than any other character, making us wonder whether an origin story about his roots would have been more appropriate, especially since there was enough material to make a compelling story. There’s also a solid performance by Mads Mikkelsen as the film’s primary villain, but even he feels weighed down by the more lacklustre character development that we find scattered throughout this film, which could have easily been repaired had there been more focus on exploring the characters beyond assigning them positions in the same usual narrative tropes.

The fact that Jenkins was hired to helm Mufasa could be considered a slight coup since the studio has shown itself to be more committed to following familiar patterns rather than allowing auteurs to have free reign. It’s difficult to pretend like the director had that much artistic liberty here, as it was clear he was still working within the confines of what the studio wanted, but there are traces of his ingenuity scattered liberally throughout that make it quite intriguing, at least from a distance. The Lion King is known to be one of the most visually striking films that Disney ever produced, and therefore any attempt at live-action would be at an inherent disadvantage, precisely because there was a desire to recreate this story through photorealism, which seemed like a peculiar choice considering how expressive and defined the original animation was, and how it would be impossible to recreate quite the same elements in a more realistic version. The same problem emerges with Mufasa, which takes a similar approach, but at the very least does try and infuse the surroundings with some degree of originality, rather than being the slightly drab and colourless affair that we saw under Favreau’s direction, which had its merits, very few of which had to do with the visual component. It also helps that Lin-Manuel Miranda was enlisted to write songs for this film, and while absolutely none of them reach the heights of what Elton John and Lebo M (the latter still being involved in this film) did with the original score, there are some solid compositions throughout this film, with particular emphasis on “I Always Wanted a Brother” and “We Go Together” as highlights, which give enough context to make the film at least partially worthwhile. It’s not a massively impressive achievement as far as technical innovation goes, and therefore it doesn’t quite earn its keep as far as the creative side of it goes, but there are some strong elements scattered throughout, with our challenge being to find them and decide whether or not they justify the film’s existence, which is certainly something left up to individual interpretation.

Everything considered, perhaps Mufasa was not a necessary film, and it’s difficult to fathom any legitimate argument that can justify the film’s existence outside of the studio wanting to make yet another film based on existing properties in the hopes of drawing in audiences that feel a sense of nostalgia for the original work, a very risky approach that doesn’t bear much weight when we realize how middling the response to these films have received over the years. Perhaps it was not the most worthwhile use of Jenkins’ time to spend half a decade developing this film, especially when his skills have been more well-suited to other productions, such as his revolutionary Moonlight and If Beale Street Could Talk, or the little-seen television serial The Underground Railroad, all of which are incredible works that more closely aligned with the director’s vision on a fundamental level. Yet, it is also difficult to not be at least charmed by Mufasa, a film that should not have existed, but still earns our time for the most part, is a solidly-crafted, but still quite middling, folktale that has its strengths, but mostly just exists to convey the same fundamental message that we’ve been encountering for years when it comes to this story and the various spin-offs and sequels that it’s received over time. Mufasa is not going to define the careers of anyone involved – for Jenkins, its a chance to work with a bigger budget and more advanced technology (although I’d much rather he return to the classical style of filmmaking that he seemed to be focused on before signing onto this film), and for the actors it’s just a prominent addition to careers that consist of much better films, this being simply a chance to work in the realm of the blockbuster, giving them some sense of visibility for the most part. As entertaining as it could be, while still having a firm conceptual foundation that conveys some meaning, Mufasa is a decent offering, albeit not one that we can feel particularly excited about, especially since it seems to signal the fact that Disney may not only continue to make these live-action reboots but now have a foot in the door as far as origin stories and prequels can go, so we can only hope that they keep true to the spirit of ensuring the legacy of their existing work is preserved as far as possible.