Maleficent
2.5/4
Starring: Angelina Jolie, Elle Fanning, Sharlto Copley, Sam Riley, Lesley Manville, Imelda Staunton, Juno Temple, Kenneth Cranham
Rated PG for Sequences of Fantasy Action and Violence, including Frightening Images
Let me state up front that "Maleficent" is not a bad movie. There are parts of the movie that work and Angelina Jolie gives a better performance than the script deserves. It takes chances and while not all of them work, it's still interesting.
As is obvious, the film is "Sleeping Beauty" from the other side of the fence. Instead of having Aurora be the heroine, it's the villain, the witch Maleficent. It's an interesting concept, and screenwriter Linda Woolverton sidesteps the pitfall of merely telling the same story. Although it keeps the main thrust of the well-known fairy tale, much is different.
The film starts out with the land divided in two. The Moors is an idyllic land where the fantasy creatures live, and is next door to the human kingdom. A young fairy named Maleficent (Vivienne Jolie-Pitt, Angelina Jolie's daughter) falls in love with a human boy named Stefan (Michael Higgins). Things are great when they are children, but after Stefan's ambitious father, King Henry (Cranham) is defeated in battle, the king says that whoever kills Maleficent will inherit the throne. Stefan uses his relationship with her to betray her and steal her wings. Needless to say, she is deeply hurt by this and when her cohort, the shape-shifting Diaval (Riley) tells her that Stefan has had a child, she curses it. After her three fairy godmothers take it into the woods to keep her out of Maleficent's clutches, she develops a bond with the young Princess Aurora (Fanning), who doesn't know about the curse.
The set-up is the film's weakest link. It's not strongly scripted enough to really involve, which is ironic since Linda Woolverton wrote a number of Disney classics like "Beauty and the Beast" and and "The Lion King." There's also no chemistry between the young lovebirds, which doesn't help matters either. Pretty much anything that deals with King Stefan doesn't work. But when the film concentrates on Maleficent's shifting feelings for Aurora, the film takes off. This stuff works, mainly due to the superlative work of Angelina Jolie.
I think that Angelina Jolie is the only person who could have played the character of Maleficent. Not only is she an exceptional actress, her exotic looks hint at darkness that adds layers to the character. Jolie saves many of the scenes, and in fact nearly saves the film. At first, she despises Aurora because of what Stefan did to her, but her maternal instincts quickly overpower her. Jolie gives a better performance than the script deserves, and we can feel her inner conflict.
The other cast members are less impressive. Sharlto Copley is awful; he's never convincing as King Stefan. Copley can play a villain, as evidenced by anyone who saw last year's "Elysium," but he is sorely miscast in the role of the king. Elle Fanning also disappoints. Fanning can act, but the script defeats her. The three bumbling fairies, whose names have been changed, are as often irritating as they are funny.
The film was directed by Robert Stromberg, a visual effects artist who won Oscars for his work on "Avatar" and "Alice in Wonderland." It's not a hatchet job, that's for sure. It OD's on CGI and special effects, which is usually the case for a massive budgeted movie like this. But unlike, say, "Lord of the Rings" or "Pirates of the Caribbean" (which he also worked on), it looks like cheesy CGI a la "Sherlock Holmes." Every frame appears to either have or be obviously touched up by computers. It's also dark and grimy but not very atmospheric. The scale feels depressingly small; Stromberg lacks the vision to truly expand the scope.
Like I said. This isn't a terrible movie, but with Woolverton writing the script, and Don Hahn (who produced "Beauty and the Beast") behind the film, one would have thought that this would have been better.
Starring: Angelina Jolie, Elle Fanning, Sharlto Copley, Sam Riley, Lesley Manville, Imelda Staunton, Juno Temple, Kenneth Cranham
Rated PG for Sequences of Fantasy Action and Violence, including Frightening Images
Let me state up front that "Maleficent" is not a bad movie. There are parts of the movie that work and Angelina Jolie gives a better performance than the script deserves. It takes chances and while not all of them work, it's still interesting.
As is obvious, the film is "Sleeping Beauty" from the other side of the fence. Instead of having Aurora be the heroine, it's the villain, the witch Maleficent. It's an interesting concept, and screenwriter Linda Woolverton sidesteps the pitfall of merely telling the same story. Although it keeps the main thrust of the well-known fairy tale, much is different.
The film starts out with the land divided in two. The Moors is an idyllic land where the fantasy creatures live, and is next door to the human kingdom. A young fairy named Maleficent (Vivienne Jolie-Pitt, Angelina Jolie's daughter) falls in love with a human boy named Stefan (Michael Higgins). Things are great when they are children, but after Stefan's ambitious father, King Henry (Cranham) is defeated in battle, the king says that whoever kills Maleficent will inherit the throne. Stefan uses his relationship with her to betray her and steal her wings. Needless to say, she is deeply hurt by this and when her cohort, the shape-shifting Diaval (Riley) tells her that Stefan has had a child, she curses it. After her three fairy godmothers take it into the woods to keep her out of Maleficent's clutches, she develops a bond with the young Princess Aurora (Fanning), who doesn't know about the curse.
The set-up is the film's weakest link. It's not strongly scripted enough to really involve, which is ironic since Linda Woolverton wrote a number of Disney classics like "Beauty and the Beast" and and "The Lion King." There's also no chemistry between the young lovebirds, which doesn't help matters either. Pretty much anything that deals with King Stefan doesn't work. But when the film concentrates on Maleficent's shifting feelings for Aurora, the film takes off. This stuff works, mainly due to the superlative work of Angelina Jolie.
I think that Angelina Jolie is the only person who could have played the character of Maleficent. Not only is she an exceptional actress, her exotic looks hint at darkness that adds layers to the character. Jolie saves many of the scenes, and in fact nearly saves the film. At first, she despises Aurora because of what Stefan did to her, but her maternal instincts quickly overpower her. Jolie gives a better performance than the script deserves, and we can feel her inner conflict.
The other cast members are less impressive. Sharlto Copley is awful; he's never convincing as King Stefan. Copley can play a villain, as evidenced by anyone who saw last year's "Elysium," but he is sorely miscast in the role of the king. Elle Fanning also disappoints. Fanning can act, but the script defeats her. The three bumbling fairies, whose names have been changed, are as often irritating as they are funny.
The film was directed by Robert Stromberg, a visual effects artist who won Oscars for his work on "Avatar" and "Alice in Wonderland." It's not a hatchet job, that's for sure. It OD's on CGI and special effects, which is usually the case for a massive budgeted movie like this. But unlike, say, "Lord of the Rings" or "Pirates of the Caribbean" (which he also worked on), it looks like cheesy CGI a la "Sherlock Holmes." Every frame appears to either have or be obviously touched up by computers. It's also dark and grimy but not very atmospheric. The scale feels depressingly small; Stromberg lacks the vision to truly expand the scope.
Like I said. This isn't a terrible movie, but with Woolverton writing the script, and Don Hahn (who produced "Beauty and the Beast") behind the film, one would have thought that this would have been better.
I agree with most of this, although for me the positives outweighed the negatives (I would have given it 3 stars personally). There are individual scenes that are fairly brilliant, but there are times when the narrative becomes muddled. How does the metal stuff that glows when Maleficent is nearby work? Were they trying to build it all around the castle to keep her out? Why then do they leave a giant gap she can just waltz through by merely tilting her head?
ReplyDeleteThat, and I thought the ending was weak. It's set up well, but I thought that a darker one would have fit better.
ReplyDelete