Maleficent Review
Released in 2014 under the direction of Robert Stromberg in his directorial debut, on a budget of $200 million with distribution from Walt Disney Studios Motion Picture; "Maleficent" is another live action adaptation of a beloved film from our childhoods with large expansive CGI worlds, bright colors and generally pissing off fans of the original. You've probably seen these movies; Tim Burton's "Alice in Wonderland" and Sam Raimi's "Oz: The Great and Powerful" (both of which, Robert Stromberg did visual effects for) and in the past, I've been rather kind to these movies when everyone else has torn them like a pack of wild wolves. But with the release of "Maleficent," a re-imagined adaptation of the beloved 1959 Disney film "Sleeping Beauty" has received mixed reviews. Does it deserve the consensus or are audiences not willing to remove the nostalgia goggles for this one?
In this storyline, Maleficent (Angelina Jolie, who also produces) is betrayed by her teenage sweetheart Stefan (Sharlto Copley) for his position to be king. Heartbroken by his betrayal, she crashes the christening of Stefan's daughter Aurora and curses her to go into a death-like sleep upon her sixteen birthday, only to be woken by true love's first kiss. The child is taken and raised by three incompetent fairies (Lesley Manville, Imelda Staunton and Juno Temple) as Maleficent secretly watches over the child with her transforming crow/manservant Diaval (Sam Riley) as she grows up into Elle Fanning. By this time, Maleficent begins to care for the child and strives to find a way to reverse the curse she placed on Aurora.
The story doesn't sound too bad and it's really not if you're willing to accept that this movie is not the original movie and it has no business to be compared to as such. Is it fair to compare a movie from 55 years ago that, even on it's release also received mixed reviews? For me, it's like trying to compare it to the original German fairy tale by the Brothers Grimm. It's a matter of interpretation and who your audience is. The audience to who you sell a story to constantly changes and, in order to sell your story, you have to make changes and it's a roll of the dice whether or not the audience accepts those changes or spits in your face (unless it's "Man of Steel," then everyone goes after each others' throats).
For this movie, I hold no ill qualms about the film's interpretation of the old Disney film to sell it to a new audience. However, that will not stop me from criticizing the movie on it's own merits, not the merits of the original film. With that out of the way, let's proceed with the things that bugged me.
-The three fairies. I understand that they're supposed to be comic relief, but their incompetence really begs the question who thought choosing them to be Aurora's guardians was a wise idea in the first place? Oh right, the guy who played "Howling Mad" Murdock in "The A-Team," how silly of me.
These three are so thick-headed, they fail to understand how to feed a crying baby, they fail to recognize when the child they were asked to protect is in risk of falling off a cliff or showing no concern whenever Aurora runs off into the woods every day. Their purpose is to give Maleficent a reason to be more of a guardian to the child than the people assigned to be the child's guardian, at the expense of making the three characters look mean-spirited and stupid.
-The Moors. It's a vast and colorful world, I can praise it for that much, but with all these other recent 3D movies with huge colorful lush worlds taking after the immense financial success of "Avatar." The problem I have with it is because of movies like "Alice in Wonderland" and "Oz: Great and Powerful," the effects don't dazzle me anymore, they are all starting to look the same. I can praise the creativity that went into designing the creatures, as I should expect from a director who did visual effects for 20 years.
-The Prince. As in, he's barely in the movie, doesn't do anything worth mentioning and it left out of the movie until the ending. But hey, at least these film-makers got it right in giving the two no chemistry as the prince and Aurora practically had none to speak of in the '59 film, so give them points for that.
But for where this movie falls under the weaker elements, it more than makes up with Angelina Jolie in the title role. Jolie is superb, the best moments of the film are the moments when Jolie never needs to say anything. The way her eyes flash different colors, the way she stares ominously over Aurora as an infant, the way she moves from behind a tree, fog sifting behind her, as he waves her hands and performs her spell on hapless soldiers. Jolie's presence alone bleeds menace, angst, scorn and, in certain times done most effectively during the second act of the film, compassion. She's not deliciously evil as Eleanor Audley did for Maleficent, but I'd like to think that even Miss Audley would give her approval of Mrs. Jolie's fleshed-out performance. I can not honestly think of anyone else who could have played this role than Mrs. Jolie.
Oh and the rest of the cast did all right, I suppose. Though when you have a star-power performance from Angelina Jolie that dominates the movie, it makes the supporting cast feel like they are part of the background and the special effects are brought to the foreground with Angelina Jolie when, usually, that should be the opposite. Bring the supporting cast to the front and leave the background in the back, especially when they're not that impressive anyway.
For the flaws this movie had, it makes up for with ambition, compassion, and an resolution to the iconic conflict that raises LGBT discussion that I hadn't seen since "Frozen" (well some people will reach that conclusion, others like myself will assume a more mother/daughter theme. But it's still worth discussing). Does the movie have problems? Absolutely, the supporting cast could have been written stronger, but that would probably sacrifice a majority of scenes with Jolie giving her characteristic mannerism. It's not a perfect movie, but it's an entertaining one. Just skip the 3D and get to a Matinee showing, bring your own snacks and just seep up Jolie's compelling performance leaking from the screen.
Just make sure you don't slip in it on the way out.
Final Rating: 3/5
And before you ask, no, Angelina Jolie doesn't turn into a dragon and not once during the film did I hear Tchaikovsky's iconic ballet score. But it does have a cover of "Once Upon a Dream" sung by Lana Del Rey, it's not bad, it's a little too slow and ominous for me. But that's just me. Take a listen and make your own decision on the songs.
