"Maleficent Review"

Maleficent

3 out of 5 stars

Family appropriateness rating: 4.75 out of 5 stars
Rated PG
-Several sequences of action violence, with no gore.
-Some images might frighten young children











Note: You may notice that the text looks uneven on this page. I do not know why this is. I tried to keep it consistent, but Blogger does not want to be my friend today. If anyone knows how to fix it, please comment below.

What the trailers promised with "Maleficent" was a deeper look at a classic Disney villainess. While the movie delivers this in some ways, it feels like the CliffsNotes version of what it should have been.

The story is a retelling of "Sleeping Beauty" from Maleficent's (Angelina Jolie) point-of-view. Anyone who grew up with the animated film — as I did — knows that in the beginning, everyone is gathered to honor the newborn princess, Aurora. While guests are bearing gifts, Maleficent crashes the party and curses the child. The villainess says on the princess's sixteenth birthday, Aurora will touch the spindle of a spinning wheel and fall into a deep sleep. There is no way to wake up from it unless she receives true love's kiss.

This exact thing happens in "Maleficent," but not until about a half-hour in. The first part is about where the title character comes from and what would drive her so far as to curse a child. She is a winged fairy who meets an unlikely friend. There is a romantic storyline that ends badly for Maleficent. As soon as that happens, she becomes vengeful.

Though her motivation for becoming this way is realistic, it is very rushed. She is good throughout the beginning, and then she turns evil without any kind of transition

This is true of the main antagonist as well. He is very two dimensional. He starts off as a nice guy, but his transition is even more rushed and choppy than Maleficent's. There are no scenes depicting what about his character changes for him to commit some of the actions he does.

After the curse is given, the story slows down a little bit to develop a relationship between Aurora (Elle Fanning) and the title character. The performances of Elle Fanning and Angelina Jolie are well executed, and there is great chemistry between them. This is especially true in a couple stand-out moments, including the one in which the title character reveals herself to Aurora, which is depicted in at least one trailer I have seen.

The overall idea of the story is good, but it feels like the studio used the rough draft of the script. It should have been about at least a half-hour longer. Everything in the beginning is so rushed that it is unbelievable. In fact, the entire first act could have been a movie on its own, and it would have been much better that way. The studio could have then decided to make a sequel that comprised the second and third acts, or it could have just stuck with saying that this film is the prequel to "Sleeping Beauty." 

The writers obviously did not work out some of the fine details that could have made this movie so much better. This is apparent from the beginning when the character's name is Maleficent even when she is good. Any English-speaking person with a high school degree should know that "mal" at the beginning of the word means "bad." That is why she was named that in the first place. Had the film been smarter than it is, the filmmakers would have played off of this more by giving her a different name when she is good. 

There is an interesting message at the end that is similar to what was done in "Frozen." However, in order to accommodate for this, the entire third act changes what happens in "Sleeping Beauty." While I often enjoy twists on classic fairy tale story-structure, I am not entirely sure how I feel about this one. To me it feels like the writers thought "Hey, we should do it this way since that is what was done in the last few fairy tales" and completely ignored how the original movie ended. There are people who might be offended by this because "Sleeping Beauty" is a classic. I do not claim to be one of these people, but I think the movie would have been better if it were a prequel rather than a complete retelling, as stated earlier.

The visuals are hit and miss. There are some beautiful shots, but there are some awful looking computer-animated characters. They look like they should be in a video game rather than a live action film. 

The three fairies who take care of Aurora also look bad. They are played by actresses Lesley Manville, Imelda Staunton and Juno Temple. Their role is often the comic relief — reminiscent of "The Three Stooges" — especially when they are in human form. When they are in fairy-form, there is something that looks off about them. Their heads look bigger than their bodies as if they were photoshopped. The filmmakers could have easily made them look more natural using the green screen, but they failed in this area.

While it does have a lot of problems, the film overall is enjoyable. Angelina Jolie does a great job in her role, and even though it is choppy, the film does a good job making likable a long-hated villainess. If you are looking for a feel-good family film, this would be good to see.

Like my Facebook page: www.facebook.com/criticalchristopher
Follow me on Twitter: @ChrisCampbell02