Maleficent - Analysis and Review

Not as bad as you think

By that I mean the character of Maleficent is not as bad as you think. This film is about showing the other side of the classic Disney Film, Sleeping Beauty, and a passion project of Angelina Jolie. This year will see the fruition of two passion projects, with the second one being Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson's Hercules. It is the beginning of a trend that is starting to take hold by showing the origin story of the villain rather than the hero. While Sony Pictures wish to take that a step further with their Spider-Man universe, this is the first film since the Star Wars prequels that really pegs the question: Can we root of the bad guy?

The Plot

Maleficent, a demonic looking kind hearted fairy, becomes the victim of one man's greed. A man she once thought loved her, but that isn't so. This changes her from the guardian of the fairies to their oppressor who sinks to wield her abilities against the man who betrayed her. That man had since become a king and sired a princess to whom Maleficent places a curse of "sleeping death," upon her once she turns 16. The tale is not the same as one knows.

Analysis

We live in an age of complexity. We require our heroes to be complex and our villains to be even more complex...er. These are qualities that we all love for in dramas or action films and even the superhero genre. Good has to be explained and evil has to be explained. But is that really the case? There is something terrifying about evil we don't understand. Heath Ledger's Joker in The Dark Knight was the embodiment of evil and chaos who gives a different origin for himself every time he decides to talk about his life. Given that he's never telling the truth, there is no clear point of origin for this character, and his madness just gets amplified. Even the police couldn't find out where he comes from. He just came into existent. He just is evil. Tim Curry's Darkness in Legend is not only the greatest interpretation of the devil ever put on screen but a being who is literally reveling in operatic evil. He is the way a fairy tale villain should be: unquestionably evil. For my thoughts on the matter of Fairy Tale films click here. 

Those villains benefited a lot from knowing little about them. Which makes them terrifying and almost unpredictable. But then you have a case like Darth Vader, arguably one of the greatest villains (and now a new Disney villain) ever put on film. In the original film, he made his entrance and already for some inexplicable reason you know he's evil. However with the events of Return of the Jedi and what was shown in the prequel trilogy, he may not be as cool or as evil as we once believed. While it works for the overall story arc, it does diminish his character as we originally view it instead of adding to it.

That's where Jolie's Maleficent comes in.

Review

I'll just get this out of the way and say this: Angeline Jolie IS Maleficent! There is literally no one who can play her. Not even that actress from Once Upon A Time could match up what Angelina has done. Yes, I know the Maleficent in Once Upon a Time is a different take on the character. At least that one turns into a dragon...spoilers. But despite that one problem that I had about her, Angelina is just mesmerizing as the demonic fairy who turns into the embodiment of evil. She makes it all seem easy when in truth it is difficult to pull off a character like that without the presence that she brings. 

District 9's Sharlto Copley plays King Stefan, the father of Princess Aurora aka Sleeping Beauty and the man responsible for turning Maleficent into a monster. Unlike his cartoon evil villain in Elysium, his portrayal of the guilt ridden king who slowly descends into madness even more horrifying than the evil that Maleficent has sunk to is truly amazing. You really believe that this guy is losing his mind out of fear and paranoia of losing his daughter but also from the guilt of knowing he's responsible. Is his madness really justified? I guess, but it looks like he descent way over the edge for the sake of giving the film a more horrifying antagonist due to the sympathetic nature of Maleficent in this film.

I can't really speak much for the rest of the cast. Though I have to say, the three pixies taking care of Princess Aurora. annoyed the hell out of me. I didn't like their CGI characters, and I did not like the performances. They're idiots because they have to be idiots so that it forces Maleficent to care for Princess Aurora. I know this story is suppose to be about making Maleficent look good, but making the pixies complete idiots was a little bit too much. Its a shame that such talented actresses (Imelda Staunton, Lesley Manville, and Juno Temple) were reduced to those roles. 

Elle Fanning as Princess Aurora was...memorable. Memorable in a sense that you're trying to remember just exactly how long one person can stay smiling through a whole movie. She didn't really had much to do except be really really happy. Though I blame the pixie magic that ensured that she will never be sad. But then there is the part of Prince Phillip played by Brenton Thwaites. The heroic prince who battles Maleficent in the animated movie is reduced to a glorified cameo in this movie. He serves the plot just to have a love interest right when they need him the most. 

It's not like the supporting cast was bad. They were good with what they're given. They were just given terrible roles. 

And the story. It would be really compelling if the storybook narration only stayed at the beginning and end of the film, instead of coming in every now and then to the point where it seems like we need to be walked through what is going on instead of just letting the viewer figure some things out. Plus there's something that happens at the end that just makes me quickly think if Disney has some hidden agenda in promoting a certain message. The reason why I say that is because it has been used in another popular Disney film this year. It works well one time. It might even work well in a couple years. But in one year almost consecutively. No. And to think this was written by the screenwriter of Beauty and the Beast and The Lion King. That makes me even more sad about this tale.

Final Thoughts

The reason why I put Angelina front and center is because she saves this movie. You're drawn into her performance despite the movie not being anything worthy of such a performance. Only Maleficent and King Stefan were developed while the others were just window dressing. All I can say is that I now understand how the people who hate Man of Steel feel. Because like that film, this film will be loved by some and hated by others. I don't hate it, and I praise Angelina. But unless someone asks me too, I don't plan on seeing this again. 

SCORE: 6.7/10 - A powerful performance by Angelina Jolie saves the film 

Why "The Lord of the Rings" film trilogy ruined Fairy Tale movies

2001, 2002, and 2003. Those three years would invigorate my love for the fantasy genre in a completely different way. Because those three years were the release of what will be considered one of the greatest film trilogies in movie history. That is Peter Jackson's The Lord of the Rings.

It was a film that took fantasy seriously and presented it as a drama with a fantastical setting. It breathed a believable life into these characters in a world that can almost be viewed as subdued fantasy. Magic is not common place and only limited. The races are given distinctive cultures. Everything was just masterfully done. It is thanks to this trilogy that it would pave the way for what can be considered the greatest fantasy series ever achieved on television: Game of Thrones.

However, in its wake, there haven't really been a lot of fantasy movie to come out as a result. Many people believed that the Star Wars effect would happen. If you don't know what that means, to put it simply when the original Star Wars became a mega hit a lot of studios starting making vaguely similar sci-fi films or start banking on sci-fi properties. That didn't really happen when The Lord of the Rings finished its run. Sure, there was the Harry Potter film series, but not really the classical fantasy that I'm talking about. Then again there was the Chronicles of Narnia which had a great first film then slowly began to degenerate with the later films. And then there was Eragon....amazing cast, but nice try. The strangest thing to happen from Lord of the Rings is that all of a sudden films began incorporating large armies in movies. Which I guess is what studios thought made those films work?

But let's get to the point that I'm pretty much building to. The Lord of the Rings ruined the fairy tale genre.

Small scale becomes LARGE SCALE

What? How is that possible? The reason why I say this is because of three major examples that I can think of: Snow White and the Huntsman, Jack the Giant Slayer, and Maleficent. Three films that are based on fairy tales that are not large scope by any means yet their films made them so.

Snow White and the Huntsman
The classic fairy tale about a young maiden whose beauty was the bane of a vain Queen has been told countless times. It is a simple story with a very small cast of characters. There is the Queen and the Magic Mirror on the side of villainy. Snow White, The Prince,  and the Dwarves represent the side of good. Then there is the Huntsman who becomes a wild card. It is a simple story about how one woman's vanity could cause harm onto others. But in this adaptation of Snow White, the story takes the dark tone but then magnifies it with Lord of the Rings tropes: the world has to be at stake; complex motivations drive the characters; there has to be a gigantic battle in the beginning and/or end. It is strange that the conceit now is to make Snow White some sort of warrior who can lead an army when she has no training whatsoever. All these liberties do make for visually pleasing film, but not exactly a great one. The performances are even questionable, ranging from strong to over the top to non-existent.

Jack the Giant Slayer
Another classic fairy tale, or rather two separate fairy tales rolled into one mainly because they both feature a character named Jack who deals with a Giant. It is a simple story, or rather the Jack and the Beanstalk story is. A boy buys some magic beans, the beans grow into a beanstalk, he climbs, he finds a magical goose, there's a giant, he climbs down, the giant chases, he cuts down the beanstalk, giant slain. There is a lot more added to this story along with borrowing elements of Jack the Giant Killer. In that story the young man in King Arthur's kingdom makes a living of killing giants. Obviously the idea of a kingdom getting attacked by a giant is borrowed, but enhanced in here as making them an army of giants. Jack is still our reluctant hero, but the small big world of the original story becomes overwhelming in this large world in a now even bigger story. Does this make it any better? Not really. At least the performances were great. But at the same time, "less is more."

Maleficent
Arguably one of the most iconic villains in not only Disney canon but in film history. The dark fairy godmother that was pure evil becomes a sympathetic character who has some motivations for being the way she is. Then of course there the overblown use of CGI to make a magical world and bring about creatures that are little more than decoration in a film that could've been put more simply. Also there is the gigantic battles that has now become a staple of fantasy films. While it is understandable why this story has them, one has to wonder did it really need all of them? Granted, even her original fairy tale counterpart wasn't complicated or misunderstood, she was just evil. That was something that seems to be lost in this film along with the overuse of needing to have gigantic armies crashing into each other. There is some gorgeous imagery and it is hard to deny that the only woman on the planet who can play Maleficent is Angeline Jolie, but again some things are better left simplified.

Fairy Tales are simple not epic

That is a common problem that I started developing towards these new wave of fairy tale inspired films. Usually there is just a hero or a heroine that has to confront a problem that only effects a town or a city. These days, it is not just the town it is potentially the entire human race. Granted, not all of them do that, but it always seems like the stakes are higher than they are suppose to be. That is something that I feel is missing. Or rather, I feel like what really is missing is the idea of personal fights. No armies. No extra monsters that don't add to the story other than just being there. Just a hero facing off against a villain. Each side surrounded by just a small group of allies instead of a massive army. That is something that the Fairy Tale Animated Disney films have done so well. Did Aladdin rally the people of Agrabah to storm the Sultan's castle? No, he just had his carpet and his monkey as allies. In Frozen there was no epic final battle where Elsa attacks an army. Beauty and the Beast straddled this line but not having an army but more of an angry mob. Even then the confrontation still resulted into personal fight between Beast and Gaston.

I know there is a need to bring these stories into an epic scale, but they are not epic stories. The Odyssey is an epic, Snow White's tale isn't. But with The Lord of the Rings, epic became synonymous with the Fantasy Genre so much so that even a small fairy tale has to be turned into an epic. That is not how Fairy Tales are and that's now how they work. And again, I'm not criticizing the way these films LOOK. In fact the filmmakers have the right tone and palette for their films but a completely unnecessary way of executing them.

Examples of Fairy Tale films done well with restraint

The Princess Bride

This is definitely one of the classic swashbuckling films as well as the classic fairy tale film. It keeps everything simple and small. There are no grand battles but there are grand fights which have a more mystifying effect than seeing two clashing armies. It is also a light hearted romp that joyfully takes the viewer through a grand adventure on a small scale. The Hero is a hero. And he is joined by a small band of allies in order to save the damsel who is perfectly capable of helping herself but not so overblown. The simplicity of this film is what adds to its charm. It really is what a modern fairy tale should be. Sure it is not dark and grim like the fairy tales of old, but it is not like it loses sight of that fact by dealing with dark subject matter. The performances are top notch and electrifying. Particularly Cary Elwes as Wesley and the now legendary performance of Mandy Patinkin as Inigo Montoya. Heartwarming and dazzling with a tale that will surely make one believe in love. Or if you don't, its still entertaining.

Stardust

This is one of my favorite Fairy Tale stories, as well as my first exposure to one of my favorite directors: Matthew Vaughn. It is often hailed as being the successor to the flair of The Princess Bride and I would have to agree with whoever said that full heartedly. Based on a book by renowned Fantasy Author, Neil Gaiman, this story is a complicated fairy tale with many moving parts yet it still finds a way to be simple. It is not overblown, especially for a film that was made post Lord of the Rings. That is where I found the most enjoyment of this film. Other than a shocking twist involving a certain tough sky pirate, this film just gives off that flair of the whimsical swashbuckle that Pirates of the Caribbean held on to for a while but starting losing sight of it. The confrontation between the villain and the hero is once again very personal without too much over the top. It was just the right amount of borrowing the right elements from Lord of the Rings but not trying to imitate the epic storytelling.

Legend

Another one of my favorites and one that doesn't get a lot of recognition. This was Ridley Scott's only foray into the fantasy genre as he wanted to make a Disney story but in live action and darker. Sound like what directors are doing now right? Nope. What he meant was taking that simplistic nature of the Disney stories, but just bringing them to life. It is a hero of nature versus a villain of pure darkness. And what a villain this film had. Tim Curry displays a memorable performance as the film's central antagonist: DARKNESS! This villain is everything a villain in a fairy tale needs to be. Pure evil. Plain and simple. While it wasn't well received when it first premiered, this film developed a cult following that now sees it as an overlooked gem. People often laud the effects in the film, knowing that if it were made today it would be over blown and unnecessarily epic just like the first draft of its script. We'd be thankful if Legend remains the way it suppose to be: Legend.

Is it really a bad thing?

Seeing as how people flock to the theater in droves to see them, no. But filmmakers do seem to be losing sight of what makes a fairy tale strong. If it was any other fantasy genre, then this need to "Lord of the Rings it" is gladly welcomed. But for a fairy tale, it is best to remember that these stories are simple, but the ideas are grand. Not grand stories for a simple idea. Fairy Tales are not Epics, and they really shouldn't be.