MoviesReviews

Review of Maleficent

 

malf poster

Article By: Dan Clark

They say there are two sides to every story—including fictional ones. As a child I remember finding great joy in books that would retell a classic fairy tale through the perspective of the villain. Maleficent  takes that idea by giving us the ‘true story’ behind one of Walt Disney’s most legendary animated films Sleeping Beauty.

Starring a revitalized Angelina Jolie, Maleficent  has all the makings of a classic Disney affair—magical creatures, majestic lands, and an underlying desire for enchanted adventure. What becomes apparent fairly quickly however is that there is not much behind the initial concept. Quickly it gets bogged down with an overload of exposition and is never able to recover. Maleficent  fairs much better than other live-action fairy tale adaptions like Alice in Wonderland andMirror Mirror, nevertheless it suffers from many of the same issues.maleficent-angelina-jolie-smiling_zps4dd11c3e

As mentioned previously one thing Maleficent  has going for it that similar adaptions lack is a strong character in the lead role. Jolie works wonders as the titular character. She has the ominous presence needed for one of Disney’s most iconic villains. Her theatrics are amusing to witness, especialy when she is given the opportunity to go full evil. Everything from her cold dead eyes to her maniacal laughter fit the character perfectly. If anything she was not given enough opportunity to explore this side of Maleficent, as we find out Maleficent may not be the cold-hearted witch we assumed she was.

We come to learn the world is split into two kingdoms. One ruled by the fear and greed of man, and the other a supernatural realm called The Moors. The Moors is full of colorful and peaceful creatures, and the young faerie Maleficent acts as their protector. When a young boy stumbles into the forbidden land he forms an unlikely friendship with Maleficent. They grow old together and eventually fall in love. It appears the two warring kingdoms may finally have the motivation to seek peace. Peace is not meant to be as greed takes hold. Maleficent’s lifelong friend betrays her for an opportunity to claim the King’s crown. Seeking revenge Maleficent places a curse on the new king’s daughter that will cause her to fall into a deep sleep on her sixteenth birthday.

Maleficent-(2014)-71

As you can see there is great deal of story here that needs to be told before we even get into the main conflict. There is a dichotomous structure to the films design. The first half has an abundance of story that is rushed through in a clumsy manner. Motivations for major character decisions are broad and generic. Nothing is dwelled on in great detail, which at least keeps the pace moving. There are a few standout sequences including a Narnia  meets Lord of the Rings  battle between the woodland creatures and the knights of man. Momentum is clearly established and leads to a heart wrenching sequence of Maleficent loosing what she holds most dear.

There are many reasons to tell an old tale anew. For Maleficent a feministic element is rather apparent. The metaphorical implications of Maleficent being taken advantage of in such a forceful manner are undeniable, and some many argue a little to risqué for a Disney inspired film. Enough ambiguity is given to hide the harsher elements from the more innocent minds. Having such a weighty theme allows it to separate itself from lesser attempts at similar stories.

Nearly all of the momentum is lost in the film’s second half. After the curse is cast the progression begins to meander. Maleficent becomes a voyeuristic figure watching Princess Aurora from afar. Years go by in seemingly random chunks. Aurora’s age is the only decipherable factor one can use to determine how many years have passed. The purpose behind these prolonged sequences is there but the drive is not. An overabundance of dullness becomes a steadfast anchor bringing the pacing to a screeching halt.

MalefEverything hinges on Jolie. All the characters that surround her are developmentally deprived. Depth is nothing more than an inept wish. Some may hope for an interesting characteristic or two but they will not find it. Sharlto Copley, who plays Maleficent’s former friend and the now King, is over the top in the worst ways possible. Elle Fanning is given nothing to work with and gives a bland performance in return. Imelda Staunton, Juno Temple, and Lesley Manville who play the three pixies are all types of annoying in both CGI and human form. Still, this is Jolie’s show and she reveals every moment. If only she was given more time to relish the evilness of the character.

Maleficent has the vivid imagery that works as an additional representation for the films mood—colorful and vibrant when hope and curiosity fuel our protagonist—dark and eerie when anger overcomes her. Overall the CGI works effectively. Unlike Alice and Wonderland this world feels lived in. There is physicality to the landscape. Characters are a part of the world. Not just existing in a green screen atmosphere. Unfortunately there is more substance in the special effects than most of the characters. You have to feel bad for Angelina Jolie as she does everything she can possibly do to make it worth watching. This may be a new take on a classic tale, but it suffers from some age-old problems.

 

Final Rating:RATINGS - 2.0 STAR

 

Show More

Dan Clark

A fan of all things comics, movies, books, and whatever else I can find that pass the time. Twitter: @DXO_Dan Instagram: Comic_concierge

10 Comments

    1. she has lost a bit of her luster over the years, but her as this character I thought was perfect casting. I still need to see the film though lol

    2. I will never understand why people hate on Jolie so much. I have never been someone who flocks to her but I have consistently been impressed in the roles I have seen her in.

    3. Well the last role she had that was live action was four years ago so maybe that’s the issue. She’s got more into directing and I’m looking forward to her next directorial effort Broken. It has a lot of great potential.

  1. Have to disagree with you more than I have disagreed with you in a long long time my friend. I think you are being overly harsh on this film, I understand a few of your issues but 2 out of 5 is just way too critical. I am glad you agree with me that Angelina Jolie is amazing and I agree with you that the first half is better than the second half but overall this was still a good film. In fact, I would venture to say that this is the best live adaptation of a disney film we have ever received.

    You do this from time to time I have noticed where you stretch to read into a film an element that most likely was never intended. I didn’t get an ounce of what you are talking about with the ‘feministic’ themes. I never one time throughout this film even thought about gender outside of the basic relationships that are set up between the men and women.

    I do agree with you wholeheartedly that the three pixies are the worst part of this film. This is an area that could have given us three very memorable characters. I was hoping we would get an even better version of the original three pixies but instead we got something far far worse. I also can possibly go as far as saying that I agree that Fanning was not nearly given enough to work with.

    However, Jolie was masterful, Sam Riley was simply great in what could be one of his ‘early breakout roles’. Isobelle Molloy and Ella Purnell were fantastic as the younger versions of Maleficent. Kenneth Cranham was perfect in his part and Hannah New was not far behind him. Although, I didn’t LOVE Copley, I didn’t find him nearly as bad as you did.

    You hit another point on the head though as well. This world felt so much more natural and believable than many of this genres predecessors have been able to do. The visual and special effects were amazing and where Oz the Great and Powerful stumbled when it came to its iconic character (the wicked witch) Maleficent triumphantly succeeded.

    I failed to see where it was bogged down or lacked concept as you describe. On one hand you seem to be saying that there was too much exposition that bogged it down but then in the same breath complain that there was no substance or motivation for character decisions…. I didn’t see either. I thought for what the film was trying to accomplish they struck a rather good balance between action, pace, effects, storytelling and substance. People should go see this film, and I am glad they are in droves. Listen to MWire weekly next week for my official rating but this film was far better than a 2 out of 5!

    1. Well you’ve always like these live action adaptations much more than me. I had hopes for this one but ended up being mostly bored throughout.

      “You do this from time to time I have noticed where you stretch to read into a film an element that most likely was never intended. I didn’t get an ounce of what you are talking about with the ‘feministic’ themes. I never one time throughout this film even thought about gender outside of the basic relationships that are set up between the men and women.”

      The purpose of reviewing a movie is to read into it. You can say it’s a stretch to look into the gender aspects but they are there. Having a woman be drugged, taken advantage of, and to awake in the manner she does—to me is clearly more than just a simple fairy tale. Also have to consider the fact that historical tales of fiction or nonfiction tend to be told through the male point of view. Women are secondary characters given little depth. The sheer act of telling this through a female character’s point of view has some implications.

      Let’s also look at the setting of the curse. Maleficent becomes more powerful through her anger and in that scene usurps control. Also the indication that true loves kiss will remove the curse is more of a twisting of the knife than an opportunity for escape. It was supposed true love in fact that was the cause of her grief.

      Meaning through art is never about intention it’s about interpretation. Do I or anyone find meaning that was perhaps not intended. No doubt, but just because it was never intended doesn’t mean the evidence is not there to support it. Most importantly I find a discussion like this, one about the true meaning behind the story, much more engaging that one on plot points. I love hearing how my interpretation can be wrong and what someone else took from it. As I mentioned in my review I consider it a positive that the movie had more to say than something like Alice in Wonderland or Mirror Mirror.

      “I failed to see where it was bogged down or lacked
      concept as you describe. On one hand you seem to be saying that there was too
      much exposition that bogged it down but then in the same breath complain that
      there was no substance or motivation for character decisions…. I didn’t see
      either. I thought for what the film was trying to accomplish they struck a
      rather good balance between action, pace, effects, storytelling and substance.
      People should go see this film, and I am glad they are in droves. Listen to
      MWire weekly next week for my official rating but this film was far better than
      a 2 out of 5!”

      Yes as I explained in the review the first half has too much story, while the second half has little driving what happens. It becomes too episodic showing chapters just for a means to an end. The second half is supposed to Maleficent having her heart warmed by Aurora, but the issue is they pulled their punches way too quickly to even make that development mean anything. Shortly after she cast the curse Maleficent is already casting doubts over what she did. She is only a true villain in one scene.

      So nearly the entire second half is waiting for a character to get to a point that she was clearly already at. I found the majority of those sequences just dull, mainly due to the questionable performances and uninteresting characters. The film wanted to make Maleficent into a character that wasn’t a hero nor a villain but it didn’t really accomplish that. She is a hero that had a few bad years.

      Overall I didn’t hate the movie, but I didn’t enjoy my time beyond Jolie’s performances. Everything else was forgettable to me.

      I do look forward to hearing your thoughts on MWIRE and how I wrong. Always good to get the other side.

      1. Dangit my whole first response apparently did not go through lol

        I am not disagreeing at all in many of the points your bring up but moreso in how much they bothered me compared to you. I agree that the first half was measurably better. I also agree that most of the faults you bring up are in deed present….just not to the level you make them out to be I guess. GRANTED I just saw the film and tend to like a film more in the first 24-48 hours than what I eventually settle in at. My grade may change by the record date for this episode of MWire Weekly. I just think 2 stars is a bit low especially since that means you liked Godzilla MORE than this film which to me would be a travesty! :)

        (also, I’m not saying there weren’t gender messages but I see that scene as what it was, he drugged her and did what he did because he was too much of a coward to either stand up for her or to just outright kill her. That’s all it was to me, and I thought you were making some sort of ‘rape analogy’ which I would have disagreed with big time)

        1. I was making a rape analogy there. Sure you can just take it at face value, but you cannot deny the implications are there. You may say I’m ‘reading into it too much’ but is that the purpose of watching and especially reviewing a movie. If all a movie has is face value, there’s not much else to talk about besides stale plot points.

          Also I did enjoy Godzilla more than this. Godzilla had some huge issues but there were moments that engaged me and I’d would want to revisit. There’s really nothing about Maleficent that ever really engaged me. And there’s no scene I can really point to that I have a desire to revisit.

  2. Here’s the thing, I felt that I’ve been down this road before with both WIcked and Frozen. Both seem to say “There’s your side of the story. There’s the other person’s side of the story. In the middle there is the truth.” Wicked did it adequately, Frozen I feel the same way. You could also throw in Darth Vader form Star Wars…the point is who’s the real big bad. You could also say…”Hey, everyone thinks I am the bad guy…might as well be.” I can’t see Maleficent as a misunderstood/shrek-esque monster. I could go on and on with Frankenstein and so on and so forth. This seems to come off as an Angelia Jolie property. As for Elle Fanning…well she’s half of the Fanning sisters…so nuff said. I’m a fan of their work. However this is not enough, and I don’t want to know how Cinderella will handle this next year. Why not do a point of view from the hunter from Bambi? Or better yet a Judge Doom movie? This is just another idea that just doesn’t click. Enclosing, Frozen did it smarter and better than this cluster of a Disney film.

Leave a Reply to Optimus SoloCancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Back to top button