Maleficent

This weekend I was given the really difficult decision to either go see A Million Ways to Die in the West or Maleficent (end sarcasm). I normally would have seen both, but ever since I got a real life job, I find going to the double features pretty difficult unless they are two must-see movies. So early on in the weekend I decided that I would go see A Million Ways to Die in the West as a cheap matinee on Sunday morning.

Clearly my plans changed.

As I read some more reviews/opinions about the film, it seemed to me like it would just piss me off. As funny as some of the stuff that Seth McFarlane does is, I think he is a bit of an arrogant prick in real life. At least the impression from A Million Ways to Die in the West that I was getting was that it was a movie that fed into his ego. Not to mention it apparently broke the cardinal rule of comedies by revealing all the funny parts in the trailer, and that to me is an unforgivable sin. If 75% of your funny moments can be summed up in 2-3 minutes, then you don't deserve my money, with or without Charlize Theron and Liam Neeson!

Then I starting hearing the box office numbers coming in for Maleficent as was frankly blown away as I had a feeling that this might have flopped. May was SUCH a busy month that I figured not enough people would be willing to shell out the cash for what could easily be the third or fourth weekend in a row. I also always like it when we get a female-oriented blockbuster as it's a refreshing change of pace from the typical superhero fare. So A Million Way to Die in the West was out and Maleficent was in!

I wish my silhouette had that much $wag

"Oooo! Shiny, pointy thing! Must touch!"

Now that I've described my riveting decision  making experience for the weekend, we can move along to the review. Maleficent essentially re-tells the story of Sleeping Beauty. Not from the villains perspective, mind you, but as "the version you might not have heard". I was intrigued for much of the film to see where it would end exactly and I was pleasantly surprised that the film didn't stick to the original story in that regard. I don't necessarily consider that a spoiler, although I apologize if you do, but it was nifty to see Disney go back and re-write one of their classics. At a runtime of 97 minutes, I rather enjoyed myself for a movie that I went into with really no expectations for. I would never need to watch it again, but for a Sunday afternoon it was a swift delight. There were some issues with the film, yes, but I also think Disney deserves a bit of credit for going outside of their comfort zone on this one.

As you may suspect, the film pivots on Jolie's performance. While it's nothing special by any means, it's still a strong one and I honestly can't think of anyone else that I would have rather had in the role. Between her perfect skin, super-high cheek bones, pearly whites, and those luscious lips (sorry got off track here...) she really plays the role well, not only as the villain but as the hero. Maleficent is the tale OF the titular character and her evolution throughout her life and Jolie fits in perfectly to every aspect that the role asks of her. While not as impressive, Elle Fanning does good as Aurora (aka Sleeping Beauty) and Sharlto Copley is a decent villain as the king (but no where near as fun as his turn in Elysium). There were some other fairies in the film but I found them highly annoying and they were often used, miserably I might add, to add comedic relief to the film. Equally as disappointing are the film's action sequences. I'm sorry, but I'm not sure I will ever see a film that does large scale PG-battles and I wont be thinking "this would be a lot cooler if it was pushing the boundaries for PG-13", much like Lord of the Rings did. They just come across as dull and lack any weight. Not necessarily because there aren't any limbs flying, but more so because we don't get those intimate encounters that often result in some big death. Which brings me to my next point about the film and a recommendation to Disney if they continue to go down this "villain retellings" path with their other franchises: pick a tonal direction and go with it. Maleficent is PG but it had a dark enough tone to easily warrant a PG-13 movie and then at times it was obnoxiously PG rated again (read: the fairies still suck). They need to pick a side of the fence and stick to it. My vote would be for PG-13...I think that Disney is far more likely to land on a great film going the darker route but I also know that they need to put butts in the seats and its hard to market a PG-13 re-telling of a G-rated animated movie.

World's Highest Cheek Bones goes to...

Maleficent was a gamble for Disney. Clearly it was one that paid off due to the box office receipts, and hell, even it had failed it wouldn't have mattered much to them. But the point is that I applaud them for trying, and it was certainly an interesting experiment that was neither a complete failure nor a complete success.

As the saying goes, "practice makes perfect", and if Disney plans to keep making these big budget re-tellings, they might eventually have a really good one on their hands. Maleficent just isn't that one.

CONS:

• Some issues with tone. It was a darker retelling, but it tried to appeal to too broad of an audience. It might have helped it in the box office, but it hurt the movie as a whole. I'd really like to see Disney have another go at one of these types of movies and make it PG-13
• The fairies were so damn annoying. Talk about comedic relief falling flat on its face
• Some pretty bad kid-actors in the first 10 minutes
• Most of the special effects are great but a handful are very obviously fake
• This goes hand in hand with the first bullet point but large scale, Medieval-esque battles do not work as being rated PG. Maybe if I was a child under 13, yes, but as an adult who has seen some EPIC battles from similar PG-13 and R rated films, the PG ones just seem to drag on and on

PROS:

• I give Disney kudos for two things: attempting this movie in the first place, and getting Angelina Jolie in the leading role
• Speaking of Jolie, this is her film through and through. It may not be a difficult performance, or even one of her best, but I can't really think of anyone else who would have fit the role so perfectly
• As a re-telling, it is a very interesting counter to the original tale. This was surprisingly one of my favorite parts: to guess where the movie would end at
• Decent job by the rest of the cast, Elle Fanning being the best of the bunch
• There were some highlight pieces in the original score
• Short and sweet. I love when a movie can say "enough is enough"

Rath's Review Score: 7/10