Maleficent

After a week leave of absence to gather my thoughts, I return with exciting news. I have started writing film reviews for a portion of my work. As such, reviews of the new releases I see will be posted Sundays. However, my ranking system is not part of the work I do as a reporter, that is exclusive to this blog.

Fifty-five years after Eleanor Audley gave a voice to one of Disney’s most iconic villains, Maleficent returns to the screen with Angelina Jolie portraying the Mistress of All Evil. Or so it would seem. Disney’s “Maleficent” presents viewers with the story of “Sleeping Beauty” through the perspective of the titular villain. However, where the film succeeds in cinematography and setting/set design, it falls flat in regards to its characters and plot.

“Maleficent” is quite amazing to look at. It’s dark, beautiful and grand, with quite a few well done camera angles, especially during the latter half of the movie.  

 Maleficent’s magic expresses her purposes: taking a malevolent green glow when being used for evil and a lighter, yellow glow for her benevolent side. And the magic of the three fairies is also customized to their personalities, other than just the red, blue and yellow glows from the original.

There is also good juxtaposition between the Moors (home of the magical creatures), which is almost always portrayed as a colorful, vibrant place, with the human kingdom, which is foreboding, dark and gloomy.

But while that juxtaposition is done well, it only furthers the problems with characterization. Every character is given an alternate interpretation, becoming the polar opposite of who they were in the original story. It doesn’t work very well, mainly because it feels like it was done simply for the sake of doing so. This is most obvious in King Stefan and Maleficent herself.

King Stefan is not a reasonable authority figure who misses his daughter. Instead, he’s incredibly paranoid and waging a war for his own pride and ambition. He has no interest in the well-being of his subjects and when Aurora shows back up, he’s rather indignant and shows zero affection. In the same vein, Disney’s most famous chaotic evil villain is turned into a misunderstood lawful neutral anti-hero. Rather than the Mistress of All Evil, she is a betrayed lover who desires revenge and eventually recants. She is also given an unexplained weakness that has varying degrees of effectiveness depending on the scene.

The other characters don’t fare very well either. The three fairies become neglectful morons, Aurora is considerably bland and Prince Philip feels hurriedly written into the story as an afterthought. The only somewhat likeable character is Maleficent’s raven, Diaval, who is given human form and is the main source of the film’s sarcasm.

As for the story itself, the entire second half of the film changes every single plot point from the original story and seems completely unnecessary. The film rushes itself through the first half, where Maleficent becomes a villain in the blink of an eye to get to the second half, which has a gradual build into the aforementioned anti-hero who eventually saves the story by deconstructing the meaning of true love.

Despite all its problems, the film is very well acted, especially with Jolie. She is able to take the inflection and mannerisms Eleanor Audley gave the original Maleficent and make them her own. And even though Aurora’s character is quite bland, Elle Fanning at least tries to make her a likeable character. Sam Riley also was able to do very well in giving character to a raven magically turned into a man.

This film could have been so much better had it focused on the first half, giving Maleficent a more gradual descent into villainy instead of having her take a diving leap off the slippery slope. Unfortunately, the second half is something we’ve all seen before and it brings nothing new to the table.

With the revamped system, Maleficent comes in at #2, but doesn't pass either edge.