Ripping off one film is it's own thing. Ripping off two films at once is also unique. But it takes an extra special brand of arrogance to rip off three products at the same time. Thus was the case with 2014's Maleficent. A film based on Disney's most infamous villain was virtually a guaranteed success when it was first announced. But people really got behind this film as the trailers came out and it seemed once again, Disney was onto something with this film. But the cracks in the perfection began to show very early on in the film and what was supposed to be a landmark in film making followed in the footsteps of Alice in Wonderland, utilizing cliches and ripping off other film's and stories narratives to create an utter mess of a film. And yet, despite the mess of a film it is, could this film be even slightly better than the previous dumpster dive Disney took? Well, let's find out...
Plot: Maleficent is a free-spirited fairy in a magical realm, beloved by all for her kindhearted nature and pureness of heart. She even befriends a peasant boy from a nearby kingdom named Stefan and the two share a romance. After a long time apart, however, Maleficent grows and becomes the guardian of her realm, fighting to protect her realm from the evil king. Stefan and Maleficent reunite and spend the night together, only to have Stefan cut off her wings and present them as a gift to the king in hopes of marrying his daughter and becoming the king.
A vengeance based Maleficent changes into a cold and merciless fairy who darkens the once peaceful dominion. Upon learning of the birth of Stefan's daughter, she arrives at the kingdom and curses the baby to fall into a deep slumber on her sixteenth birthday. Tracking the infant to her hidden location in the woods, Maleficent reluctantly becomes a guardian for the child, realizing that she could perhaps be the key to maintaining a peace with the humans and the fairies and even begins to question whether or not Princess Aurora deserved to suffer for her father's treacherous ways.
What's Bad?: The film is a combination of three previously written stories: Sleeping Beauty, the Broadway show Wicked, and (whilst trying my hardest not to spoil part of the film) Frozen. Noticing the similarities can definitely be distracting to the film, not to mention making you despise the film even more with each viewing. Combining the three is not the problem, though. What is the problem, however, is when it becomes abundantly clear that the filmmakers aren't trying anything new or special with the material. And let's face it, little if nothing at all, is new or fresh about this movie. We all know virtually every step Maleficent is going to take on her own journey and we all know that it's going to spin the story to make it so previously viewed upon as "good guys" aren't so good. Believe me, the day I first saw this film was when I saw the stage show called "Twisted" a parody of wicked that focuses on the plot of Aladdin, told from Jafar's prospective. It did a much better version of the whole Wicked story line. Not to mention the fact that the elements ripped from Frozen makes this film almost insufferable to watch as little of what was on screen in Frozen exists in this film.
I should also think it is obvious that I absolutely detest the character of Princess Aurora in the original film. She was arguably the most useless female lead in a Disney film, period. Not much changes here, unfortunately, though Elle Fanning does do her best to provide some sort of character to this walking and talking Barbie doll. This frustrates me, because you could have done something to make the bond they were trying to add to her and Maleficent so much stronger had you just given her the smallest of characters. But they try so hard to keep her with the original "superior" character, that it ruins any suspension of disbelief as we find out just how she overcomes the curse placed on her.
What's Good?: As I said in a previous post, some of these reboots do provide some solid performances. And Angelina Jolie's performance as Maleficent really is a stand out performance. Certainly nothing compared to Eleanor Audley's original role, but she really wasn't meant to evoke the same kind of terror, Maleficent is more of a tragic figure than some devilish hellspawn bent on revenge on being snubbed for a party invitation. And while she doesn't have many intimidating moments, she does capture what the film was gunning for, so I can't exactly say her performance was weak.
The effects in the film are up to par with other fantasy films of the time, especially The Hobbit trilogy. No serious standout good moments, but no seriously standout awful moments either. Just a crop of well woven special effects and CGI that doesn't seem hammy or dull.
Overall: While not the complete dumpster fire Alice in Wonderland was, this film certainly lags behind the original in terms of it's villain and it's artistry, though it updated things moderately well and told a cohesive and slightly less cliched of a story than Tim Burton's little mess was. It does the job it was meant to do quite well and most importantly, while borrowing heavily from other sources, does seem to be more of it's own story and doesn't whole-heartedly rip off from other films. Trust me, we'll get to THAT film next time.
Final Grade: D or 68
No comments:
Post a Comment