Maleficent (2014) Reviews

• Maleficent? More like Magnificent!

  foxfall2014-05-28

  IGNORE THE TRAILER: GO SEE IT! I saw this movie tonight with a friend and it was spectacular. Going in, I was excited as a life-long Disney fan but also expecting a somewhat cheesy good-vs-evil type of movie based on what I had seen in the trailer. I couldn't have been more wrong! Angelina Jolie delivers an amazing performance and makes a well-known, previously rather one- dimensional Disney villain relate-able and more sympathetic, while also managing to look like a convincing, gorgeous, magical creature. The CGI is a tad heavy and a little freaky at times (such as the three coloured pixies/Aunts) but was used, in combination with some amazing sets, to create a fantastic world and creatures which were reminiscent of the beautiful and imaginative work in movies such as "Hellboy 2" and "Pan's Labyrinth". The effort by the art team here really helps to draw you into Maleficent's world at the beginning of the movie and makes you wish you were a kid growing up with this movie as fodder for your imagination. Although Maleficent's character has been humanised in this re-telling, the story really emphasises that she isn't human at all, and explores the ins and outs of her life and how she relates to the humans she encounters. The plot for this movie really fits into the current trend of exploring the anti-hero (Breaking Bad, Hannibal...) and shows that Disney is trying to break with its past depiction of characters being black and white, good or evil, etc. I feel like I am gushing over this film, but as a Disney classic lover I have been truly impressed by what is sure to be a new favourite with kids and adults equally. I do expect some controversy over parts of the film but I won't discuss those here.

  More

• Stunning Revolutionary Game Changer in the Fairy Tale Genre

  amyluna2014-05-31

  This film is a TRUE fairy tale. It's dark. It's raw. And it's written from the dark, raw experience of women. Maleficent is about what happens when your Prince turns into a Frog. It's the personal, inner journey to recover from a physical trauma and emotional betrayal by those who are closest to us and who we trust the most. It's about how to survive that type of horrific evil without becoming evil yourself. It's message is that profound. The critics complaining about this film want "fairy tales" to stay in the same "one-love-fits-all" mode where people are either good or evil and that all one needs is to find "romantic" love and marry a "good" Prince or Princess, and you will live "happily ever after," safe from any pain or sorrow. But real life is a lot messier than that. It's actually evidence of how rare it is to see women's unfiltered subjective emotional landscape portrayed on film that it seems many of the critics cannot even wrap their brains around it! No matter. This film is so sensually visually stunning and viscerally emotionally cathartic that sheer word of mouth enthusiasm is going to make this a blockbuster, no matter what the critics say. And it's equally rare to see a protagonist whose inner landscape is more complex than simply extracting revenge, destroying their enemies and...roll credits. People are more complicated than THAT fairy tale we are sold in every other "action" and "adventure" film that only serves to reinforce the psychopathic values of revenge and bravado. Sometimes a film is so ahead of its time that the critics are behind and so philosophically deep that it's message is incomprehensible to the more superficial among us. This is one such film. Woolverton and Jolie have crafted a masterpiece. Don't miss it.

  More

• An excellent adaptation

  pradeep_christo2014-05-28

  Every true fan of the original Sleeping Beauty (1959) was skeptical about this and how much it had to deviate from the actual movie, and as more of the movie was revealed, it was only proving to be another female empowerment, victimized villain kind of a movie. But I'm glad I was wrong, for I'm sure only by watching the whole movie can we truly appreciate and understand the very convincing back story and development the character was subject to. Of course with very liberal changes to the original plot, the key elements that you'd look for are intact. Need I mention the perfect casting of Angelina Jolie, Maleficent truly comes to life in full form by Angelina's stunning skills and presence. A twist that's not cliché, sentiments that are deep, humor that's ever so natural and action that always keeps you at the edge of your seat! Maleficent in this movie is not exactly as we know of her from the few minutes we got to see her in the original movie, but let me tell you she's every bit deliciously evil. It was amusing to see Angelina play a role that requires a lot of nuances to pull of this character with a lot of depth as opposed to the one-dimensional character from the movie. Never letting off the grip, she carried the movie on her shoulders. Nothing to take away from the beauty of the rest of the movie which takes breath with excellent direction and visual effects that will truly transport you to another world, and the amazing work by all the 'supporting' actors. Yes, the other characters weren't as fleshed out as Maleficent, but I see that as good thing, given the title and theme. A spectacular balance. I'd also like to bring light on the enchanting score, thanks to James Newton Howard, this maestro is underrated. A comprehensive movie, there's a little something for audiences of all ages, truly a masterpiece.

  More

• Sadly Disappointed

  mmogame3162014-06-01

  With the release of movie adaptations of classics like Snow White and Jack and the beanstalk, both of which I was highly entertained and thought it was simply amazing this movie was a sad let down. Pros: Visually stunning. Angelina Jolie's performance was spot on with the most evil of classical villains we always knew. Cons: The most beautiful princess Aurora looks like the girl next door. Why does Hollywood try to do that is beyond me. Mary Jane Watson (Spidermans love interest) is supposed to be a beautiful actress and a model. But again the movie portrays a girl next door look in ultimate Spiderman. Elle Fannig's acting was not strong and in the end not memorable in the least. It felt like she was there for the sake of being there. Sharlto Copley acting left a lot to be desired. Was he supposed to portray a loving farther and husband driven mad or a power hungry king driven insane by his overwhelming need to destroy the one creature that he could not bring himself to kill when he had the chance? If he was supposed to potray caring scenes it never really showed. ______________ ______________ The King is portrayed as an evil man who begged for his daughters life and could have easily returned maleficent's wings but instead chose not to for reasons which are beyond anyones understanding. This is the start of where the movie just becomes a drag. Maleficent curses the child to die in the original storyline and this is the most important part in the story because of which the 3rd fairy who did not bestow a gift alters the curse by making them sleep instead of death. This part is totally lost in the movie. Watching a bunch of incompetent fairies nearly almost kill a child before the curse can take effect is as much a mystery as why maleficent would watch over the child and save it. Why the king would entrust his child to faeries whom he dislikes is also as much a mystery as why he would not send a nurse maid to care for his only child. The worst part of the movie is being subjected to watch the Princess grow to 16 years old and marvel at the beautiful fairies (it feels like pointless fillers). Also when the princess realizes whats going on one day before her birthday, the 3 incompetent fairies again forget to mention about what happened to Maleficents wings. The good fairies were not incompetent, just funny in the original story and smart enough to hide away the princess for 16 years. Why they made them look so incompetent and negligent is beyond me. Once you get over the visuals you will realize its nothing more than a chick flick geared at young children (visuals) and adults who are romantically inclined. The most evil Disney villain for over 50 years reduced to nothing more than a scorned women out to seek revenge for the betrayal. A loving father reduced to nothing more than a mad evil greed driven man who plunges himself into insanity with a overwhelming urge to kill maleficent despite his daughter being returned safe and well. Many times during the movie I found myself thinking about what work I have the next day or what needs to be done. This is something I have never experienced when sitting and watching a movie on big screen completely immersed in the plot. This is a far cry from Snow White and the Huntsman which was really good barring Kristen Stewart's emo acting (emotionless) drawn from twilight.

  More

• This is NOT Maleficent

  StrongRex2014-06-01

  I was genuinely excited to hear that Disney was going to make a film about Maleficent, my favorite Disney villain of all time. I was interested in knowing the 'why' behind her actions in Sleeping Beauty, since we never really got to see that. I will say that the cinematography is amazing. I will also say that while Angelina Jolie was not my first choice, she had the look, her costume was spot-on, and there are moments where you can see where she is at least trying to play this role correctly (and really, who could replace Eleanor Audley?). But one thing I've noticed over the past 10-15 years is that animation and design seem to be their main focus, rather than story or character development. In the movie, Maleficent's back story was incredibly rushed. So much for going into depth on why Maleficent is the way she is. This movie does not explain why Maleficent is the way she is. Disney is showing us a completely different character while giving her the same name as Disney's most iconic villain. Now they're trying to say that Maleficent is a misunderstood character who becomes evil. But that never happens. She becomes angry and bitter, but not evil. Maleficent in this movie is not even a misunderstood, sympathetic character. She is a total victim who never becomes evil at all. Oh, she does do one evil thing; she does still curse King Stefan's baby out of revenge. And she has second thoughts about it two seconds afterward. See? Not evil at all. And while I'm at it, I should mention my distaste for the way she cursed Aurora: Disney completely lowered the stakes by having Maleficent utter the words "sleep-like death" and be the one to offer the cure of True Love's kiss. No! It's MERRYWEATHER that counters the DEATH curse in order to save Aurora's life! Oh, Maleficent may say later that she doesn't believe True Love exists, but that's a matter of opinion isn't it? Again, LOWERS THE STAKES. And what was Linda Woolverton thinking when she took King Stefan and the three fairies completely out of character and gives them a complete 180 in order to make Maleficent look good? If you're going to show us the point of view of a famous villain, it's okay to give them layers and gray areas in order to make them more interesting and multi- dimensional, even to show they weren't always evil. But NOT to say they were never evil at all; that just completely defeats the point of the character! Same with the good guys; they may have their own flaws, show that they have their own prejudices, or that everything they did wasn't perfect. But NOT to say "the good guys were really EVIL OR STUPID!" The fairies, Flora, Fauna, and Merryweather (I refuse to call them by their new names) are NOTHING like they were in Sleeping Beauty, and this is a big deal. In Sleeping Beauty, say what you will about their flaws but their ultimate motivation was keeping Aurora SAFE. At least they tried, even if they failed! Maleficent (2014) portrays them as nothing more than stupid buffoons who only care about saving their own skins. Aurora was just a means to an end for them; they have no relationship with her like they do in the original. The movie also took away their own personalities, so they are no different from each other. I can't even keep track of which fairy has which name! Watching them on screen with everything they say or do was as cringe worthy as I expected it to be. King Stefan has to be one of worst written villains I have seen in a while. He has no real motivation for what he does; we see him as having nothing in the beginning, and then the movie glosses over his relationship with Maleficent in order to "get to the good part" where he steals her wings in order to be king. After that, he wages war on Maleficent for cursing his daughter, and yet he only looks at Aurora as afterthought property. Why is he even after Maleficent then? What else has she done to him other than cursing his daughter? Elle Fanning as Aurora was very impressive. I do think she gave the character more of a personality that was lacking in the original, and she stole the film in every scene she was in. Unfortunately, that wasn't enough to save the movie, nor were Maleficent's interactions with Diaval, as enjoyable as they were. And of course, Maleficent does not turn into a dragon in this movie. I have to ask; why, Disney? You knew how loved of a villain Maleficent is, and her being a dragon is one of the many reasons why. Also, we live in an age where technology and special effects are abundant; you didn't use the opportunity to see how your most iconic villain looks as a dragon when done with live-action CGI? Why would you waste a perfectly good opportunity like that? Besides the fact that Maleficent is not evil in this film, she also is very wimpy and pathetic. She can't do ANYTHING. When we see her fight an army at the beginning, all she does is fly around and slap a few soldiers with her wings. The tree monsters did most of her fighting for her. In Sleeping Beauty, she could transport herself to another place in a matter of seconds, she could shoot lightning from her staff, and she could transform into another form other than her own. She didn't do any of that in this movie. Just like with Alice in Wonderland, Disney wasted a perfectly good opportunity to effectively adapt their animated work to the live-action screen. Maleficent may not be the absolute worst movie I've seen, but it's definitely in my bottom list now.

  More