Maleficent

[Kad]

Well, that sucks.

[themysteriousgrowl]

Wow. I just went from not interested at all to even less interested.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

This just looked terrible from day one. I don't understand doing these backstory stories that go out of their way to contradict the original story, like the stage version of Wicked. There cleverness and artistry to doing a backstory that actually fits with he established canon (like the novel Wicked), but if you're just taking established characters and throwing out everything that we "know" to be true about them, whats the point?

[CarlosAlberto]

I want to thank adamgreer for saving me from spending my hard earned money on this crap.

I am BEYOND disappointed. I am royally pissed.

[artscallion]

I went from "I could care less" to "I couldn't care less"...literally!

[kade.ivy]

I thought it was really great when taken for what it was: a big, action-packed Disney summer blockbuster.

As most critics concur, Angelina Jolie is wonderful. It was refreshing to see good acting alongside spectacle. As far as "dragging," I agree to an extent. With a 97-minute run, they didn't have much time to fit a lot of story in, yet there were still several scenes that didn't serve to move the plot along much at all.

SPOILERS

As far as the film changing the Sleeping Beauty story, it definitely does. I would add to Adam's summary that Maleficent does not entrance Aurora and lead her to the spinning wheel as she does in the movie. Instead, as Aurora goes for the spinning wheel, Maleficent is riding to the castle to try and save her. Not to mention that Maleficent doesn't die and Phillip is merely a pawn and passed off as sort of a dunce.

END SPOILERS

Having said all this, I still thought it was a great film. I'm content to view the two pieces (Maleficent and Sleeping Beauty) as two separate yet great entities as opposed to Wicked being a complementary side-story to Wizard of Oz. That's the only way you can view Maleficent and Sleeping Beauty I suppose because there is no rectification. Overall, it was an enjoyable night at the movies (I saw it in IMAX 3D and don't regret the extra $6).

[Liza's Headband]

^ You and you alone. This was the biggest waste of money spent in years for me. Movie SUCKED.

[finebydesign]

Wow had no idea they were going to make it a happy ending with her. Thanks for the reviews, I'll certainly pass. Oh Woolverton you got us again.

[SNAFU]

Good old Walt knew Evil was evil and always had THE Evil perish, unrepentant, because of their evilness. Made for some freaking wonderful villians! Made some very scary moments. I too believe kids like to be scared. They like to see good triumph. Disney today seems to be forgetting that.

[EricMontreal22]

Phyllis, I agree with you (and really--particularly with Maleficent, I think one reason so many people took to her in Sleeping Beauty, frankly, is because we *don't* know a lot about her. This is always the danger with these backstory heavy reduxes. Sure Disney made a ton of changes from previous versions of the fairy tale but it was still a fairy tale and part ofthe appeal of fairy tales is not explaining every little detail.)

However, I will disagree with your comment: "There cleverness and artistry to doing a backstory that actually fits with he established canon (like the novel Wicked)" The novel of Wicked hardly fits in with the official Baum Oz canon.

[EricMontreal22]

"Yup, along with a "happy ending"- Aurora gets Maleficent her wings back, Maleficent reluctantly kills Stefan (after she tried to give him a reprieve- that scene was very reminiscent of the big Simba/Scar fight), Aurora and Maleficent go and live in the forest together with Philip and Diablo (whom Maleficent turns back into a human for good) happily ever after. "

WHA? So Aurora goes off to live with the woman who just killed her father? I'm all for Disney showing some new type of family unit, but... I admit, how wrongheaded this all sounds makes me kinda wanna see it...

[sabrelady]

I know I'll go but at least I will gird my loins for the more cringeworthy moments of revisionism.

I suspect that the fact that Maleficent is THE villain they had to "Disney-fy" the character and story to make it palatable to the parents who will take their off sprung to this.

Agree it is a cheat for every fan of the original but *shrug* whuts dun iz dun. Walk away.

[Borstalboy]

Well, it's getting better reviews than A MILLION WAYS TO DIE IN THE WEST.

[EricMontreal22]

Yeah, in reply to Liza's Head's comment that the poster who liked it is completely alone--metacritic shows its getting fairly mediocre reviews, but it's far from being panned. So I don't think they are completely alone, Mr Headband.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Eric, I don't think I phrased what I meant correctly. I meant that the book Wicked tracks The Wizard of Oz in a way the musical doesn't. I probably shouldn't have used the word canon, but I was thinking that all the beats of Wicked (the novel) correspond to The Wizard of Oz whereas in the musical very little about the story matches up with the original Baum book. Does that make sense?

[EricMontreal22]

It does--and I think we're in agreement then I do think, tonally, it's a VERY different world from the Baum books, so that's why I objected to the use of the term canon. Still, compared to this movie which actively seems to rewrite some of the most key elements of the movie it's based on (the kiss) that particularly makes sense.

[bwayphreak234]

Just got back from seeing this. It was pretty damn bad.

The good: Angelina Jolie. She was really great and she made gold from a pile of sh*t and turned in a great performance. She was really the only good part of the film. Is it worth seeing this just to see her though? Absolutely not.

The first fifteen-twenty minutes seemed promising. We see Maleficent as a child growing up and what her life was like. Something terrible happens to her that seems to be a catalyst for her quest for revenge on King Stefan and an explanation as to why she became a villain. However, after this point, everything falls apart, and what seemed like the beginning of a promising and revelatory tale ends here.

My main problem with the film seems to the same problem a lot of people are having - the story. The story in no way adheres to its source material. This could be a standalone film completely. The classic Sleeping Beauty story upon which this is based upon barely ties into the plot, if at all. I was expecting this to adhere to the classic story and even reference it at multiple points, then drift away at times to show the story from Maleficent's perspective. This rarely happens. Moments in the classic film are disregarded completely and just redone to fit the new story that has been constructed.

**SPOILER** Also, Maleficent becoming Aurora's fairy godmother... There was NO reason presented as to why Maleficent would suddenly do a 180 and care about this baby so much ONE DAY after she invoked the curse. She suddenly just began taking a huge interest in Aurora's life. But why? We never know! **END SPOILER**

The bottom line here is that Maleficent is a beloved Disney VILLAIN. She is intriguing, mysterious, and regal. People WANT to know more about her. This film does not show HOW and WHY Maleficent became that villain that scared us as children. Instead it paints her as a heroine, which just does not work. Show us how she went from good to bad. Not just why she was good all along. That's just a stretch.

[candydog2]

I may be the only person who didn't like Jolie in this movie. I hated a couple of scenes she did, such as the first time she protects the moors from the guards. Not her fault, the story was bad, but in my opinion the cheesiness of the script really showed itself in the over-the-top camp moments in her performance.

I agree with everyone 100% about it not following the original movie closely enough. It didn't have to follow the original perfectly, but it should have been closer to it than it was.

The thing is, the original movie has SO MUCH potential for back stories and it also includes a 16 year time gap. We are given little hints of things that happened off screen or prior to the movie many times during the 1959 film.

The three good fairies could have featured a little more in the movie too. They're basically the protagonists of the original and we understand from it that they have had dealings with Maleficent in the past (such as when they say that Maleficent always ruins Flora's flowers when she sends a frost).

What makes this movie so disappointing for me is how much potential it had. There were a million untold stories in the original, so many little details and loose threads to pick up on, and yet it was all thrown out and a completely new story was written.

[Johnnycantdecide]

The plot and ending to Maleficent seemed like an overwrought SNL sketch. Why can't villains just be villains? Why does there have to be some elaborate "NO THEY WERE ACTUALLY THE GOOD ONES AND THE STORY WAS TOLD FROM THE WRONG POINT OF VIEW AND THE PEOPLE YOU THOUGHT WERE GOOD ARE ACTUALLY CURUPT" story that doesn't even fit with the original story years later?

The person so started the trend of retelling the story from the antagonists perspective, Gregory McGuire in the book Wicked, did it best and everything else had been a cheap imitation (including the mediocre rip off of a musical that is somehow allowed to keep the same name as the book).

Having Maleficent go off into the forest to live with Aura and Phillip at the end to the film made me actually laugh out loud as did most of the plot of the new film. Why do the villains who scared me as a child need redemption?

I'll take the Heath Ledger's Joker any day. He was still a giant character with so much substance but he didn't have some sappy reason or backstory for raising hell. He raised hell because that's what he wanted to do.
Make the villain bad because of their love of power, or their love of money, or because they feel entitled. Those are all still very human things.

I'll take Maleficent in her animated form over the neutered character in this new film any day.

Disney really needs to get its live action department under control.

[Liza's Headband]

The same answer could probably be applied to ALL of your questions... "Because it's Disney!" Ugh.

[Someone in a Tree2]

Against all odds (and despite the overwhelming negativity posted above) I had a really great time at the thing. I'm thankful I DIDN'T read any of this thread before going, or I'd have certainly stayed home.

A.-- Why go to a show like this and expect it to cleave religiously to the classics? What's the point of doing this if it doesn't set about shaking up all the preconceptions we have of Sleeping Beauty and Maleficent? I loved how and when it veered off the expected path.

B.-- There are some lovely comic beats few people above have mentioned. Angelina aces the several times her character needs to deflate the ramblings of others with a word or a look-- deliciously.

C.-- Of course the action is over the top, as are the Avatar-like flying sequences and (again!) Avatar-like tours of nature's nighttime magic show. These sequences all out-stay their welcome, but that's to be expected dealing with Avatar's production-designer-turned-director, Robert Stromberg. Even with the 97 minute running time, another 10 minutes could have been deleted to keep the 3rd Act from dragging so.

Nonetheless-- this was a treat for me. I do fear that anyone who's already read this far down on the thread will be so turned off by the pans above that there's no chance the film could get a favorable viewing though. A shame.

[jasonf]

I saw this last night. The only aspect that really ticked me off was that elements of the original story were completely ignored and changed. THat said...

SPOILERS

I actually bought Maleficent watching over Aurora. Early in the film, she's shown as a good and caring person. Yes, something terrible happened to her which caused her to want revenge on Stefan, but nothing we saw indicated that she was an "evil" fairy at all. Yeah, she was pissed and wanted revenge, but when someone is so good earlier, that change would become more difficult to believe. Had she turned "evil," that side of her would have needed to be shown earlier in the movie somehow. Remember, she beleived she had had "true love's kiss" with Stefan earlier. That isn't so easily erased, and even if you take her wings being stripped from her as a metaphor for rape, I would still have had a hard time buying her going completely evil from that based on the character they showed us earlier. I definitely got her anger and initial need for revenge, but I can also see how seeing the helpless infant would have immediately softened her. I totally bought that she would regret the curse.

[D2]

I've not seen the film, and probably won't as I never really had any interest in it anyway.

But one question: didn't anyone involved even think about her name? That someone they're portraying as basically good has a name that inherently means evil?


The meaning of MAL...

[EricMontreal22]

I liked the review that said some of it felt like being trapped inside a Thomas Kinkade painting--because certainly some of the trailer comes off that way.

Someone in a Tree said: "A.-- Why go to a show like this and expect it to cleave religiously to the classics? What's the point of doing this if it doesn't set about shaking up all the preconceptions we have of Sleeping Beauty and Maleficent? I loved how and when it veered off the expected path. "

I think the difference is that people still expect and want to see a clever story that parallels the original--so it can plausibly exist in the same world. Otherwise, why bother making the movie in the first place?

I'm seeing it with my niece and nephew this evening though, so then can more fairly comment.

[beautywickedlover]

I just got back from seeing this.

SPOILERS:











What I saw today was a film that had "borrowed" things from 'Once Upon a Time', 'Frozen', 'Snow White & the Huntsman', 'Enchanted', and 'Wicked'. King Stefan, a kind character from the Disney cartoon, is the true villain of this movie. In this movie, it's Maleficent you want to root for. She's not the "mistress of all evil" like you thought she was. Jolie was excellent though. Her scenes where she grew to love Aurora like a daughter were actually cleverly written. The three fairies scenes were funny though. It was a good movie in the end, but I've seen films and TV shows like this many times before. I'm looking forward to seeing what Kenneth Branagh does with 'Cinderella' in March 2015 and and Jon Favreau's 'The Jungle Book' later that year. I also hope that live-action 'Beauty and the Beast' directed by Bill Condon happens. Though I hope it's a live-action version of the Broadway musical.

http://collider.com/beauty-and-the-beast-bill-condon/

[dramamama611]

This was one of the worst films I've seen in recent years.

The story was paper thin. I don't mind the change is focus or even that it takes liberties with where the story goes....it was just so BORING. The script, in written form, could not have more that 20 pages. The pacing was awful, and so was the CGI....I felt like I was watching effects from 10 years ago; clunky and unrealistic. Every character was two dimensional, no one had motivation. If there was another close up of Jolie simply staring, I thought I might scream.

**Possible SPOILER**
This basically had the same "true love's kiss" twist as Frozen -- and it was ten thousand times more effective in Frozen. Even my kids saw it coming a mile away.


In case others' comments weren't enough: SAVE YOUR MONEY!