Movie Review: "Maleficent" (Robert Stromberg, 2014)

NOT SO WICKED: A FAMILIAR JOURNEY WITH MALEFICENT                                          

by Maxwell Meyers

 Above: Angelina Jolie stars as the title villain

 

"You have all heard the story, now it's time to hear the truth”—that’s the logic that Disney has attempted to apply to their newest film, "Maleficent."  It’s a retelling of "Sleeping Beauty" but this time, the story is told from the antagonist’s perspective.  Certainly, this is a different approach to an old story, but that doesn’t change the fact that the film is disappointingly executed.  At once convoluted and undercooked, “Maleficent” fails to live up to Angelina Jolie’s fantastic performance as its title villain.

Of course, Maleficent is more than a mere baddie.  In the film, we see her journey from being a curious, fun-loving orphan to being the protector of the forest kingdom called the Moors.  But despite Maleficent’s initial innocence, she ultimately earns the mistrust of the humans and their king (Sharlto Copley) especially.  Maleficent’s hatred then inspires her to cast a sleeping curse on the Princess Aurora (Elle Fanning), who maybe the key to bringing peace to both kingdoms.

Under the eye of first-time director Robert Stromberg (an Academy Award-winning production designer), this tale looks truly beautiful.  Of course, if you saw a single trailer for this movie, this will come as no surprise—the use of colors, light and, darkness makes “Maleficent” a genuinely pretty film.  And while Mr. Stromberg doesn't do anything new or mind blowing with his direction, he fully makes up for that with the gorgeous landscapes, fascinating creatures, and overall ambiance of the film.  It’s also refreshing to see Ms. Jolie inhabit a role as entertaining as Maleficent; I believe that now that she’s played this character, her serious roles be even more enjoyable to watch.

Sadly, this is where my love for “Maleficent” begins to dwindle.  Not only is the script pretty weak, but the movie barely clocks in over 90 minutes, causing the plot to fall short.  And while the dialogue is fine, I have issues with the characters’ motivations.  In particular, Mr. Copley's portrayal of the king who would sacrifice his oldest friendship makes no sense, and Maleficent's "revenge" of placing a curse on the king’s daughter endures a drastic switch that’s even more preposterous.  And why does Maleficent spend her time attempting to keep the child alive while her airheaded and negligent pixie guardians nearly kill her, starve her, and just plain natter away in the woods?

Speaking of pixies, I know this is supposed to be the story about how Maleficent wasn't really that evil, but I still feel like screenwriter Linda Woolverton could have done more to link this film to the original Disney classic.  Why not have a musical moment with Aurora and Prince Phillip?  Why are the new pixies such ditzes?  Why not have a troll army?  It was Disney who produced the original film; it's not like they don't have the rights.

 

That being said, the party sequence when Maleficent strolls in, wearing that famous black gown with her crow crony and staff, is spectacular (and does feel like it could have been straight out of the cartoon classic).  Yet I still feel that as a movie, “Maleficent” is pretty average.  I will probably pick it up on Blu-ray, but definitely on the cheap. And if you are trying to choose the movies you MUST see in theaters for the summer, I would say wait for this one until its second run or home video release.  Ms. Jolie may give a committed and colorful performance in a world that is gorgeous to look at, but the movie’s skimpy plot and wishy-washy motivations keep it from being one of the season’s must-see films.

Final Score: C