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 

Film Adaptations - Panel to Panel: The Age of the Comic Book Film

Part I: The Age of the Comic Book Film

**WARNING:Here there be SPOILERS**

For a child living in a time when there are films about Iron Man, Thor, Captain America, The Hulk, Spider-Man, X-Men, Superman, and Batman on the big screen within just as short period of time, this must be a golden age for them. However younger audiences couldn't possibly comprehend just how difficult and what a long road it took to get this point. The trail blazers for this movement such as Superman, Batman, X-Men and Spider-Man are trying to regain a new sensibility in a world that is under the dominion of MARVEL MOVIES. Just as a quick note, for those who don't know, Marvel Film Studios does not own the X-Men or Spider-Man properties due to selling them to other studios back in a time when making comic book movies was a risk.

These days comic book movies are sure fire hit...well most of the time. This is the age where bringing super powers to life on the big screen is no longer a thing of the imagination. With technology the way it is and audiences slowly being convinced that there is something worth seeing for the past few decades, it really is the right time to unleash these properties beyond their core audience.

But within that core audience comes a fine line of BIASED loving devotion and BIASED hatred. The Age of the Comic Book Film has spoiled geek culture. For the better or for the worse, it is spoiled. No longer are the days where people would just be happy with a new comic book adaptation. Now it is the pleasing of the fans that (at least to them) takes priority over the general mass audience. There are some properties who do this fairly well such as Marvel. Then there are properties who try to craft films first then comic book fan priority second such as Fox handling the X-Men property. Then there are those who are leaning more towards the real world precautions of having deities fly above us at Warner Bros. with the Justice League property. And while all of these identities are being shaped, other comics whether they be unknown but beloved superhero properties (Watchmen) or non-superhero properties (Sin City and 300) also find life on the big screen.

But this article is not really a long history of where did it all begin and where we are now. This will be the first in a series of articles about the Criticism of the Fans towards their beloved properties and the general lack of understanding that is encased inside a closed minded head. How do I know this? There was a time when I was one of them.

A shifting opinion - My views on Comic Book adaptations

As a child watching my first comic book film, Batman Forever, I did not care about how inaccurate the film was. I was an ignorant admirer of the story and the characters. I had no idea the Riddler was suppose to be a serious, cold hearted, calculating mastermind that was actually responsible for improving Batman's detective skills. I didn't know that Two-Face was a serious character with a very serious mental condition and not some cackling villain that Tommy Lee Jones was directed to portray him as. I didn't even know Nicole Kidman's character Chase Meridian was not from the comics. But I didn't care. Because a child just wants to see something cool. Of course it would lead me to watching the Bruce Timm Batman: The Animated Series along with the Tim Burton films (that frightened me as a child) but that was just scratching the surface.

When Bryan Singer's first X-Men film was released back in 2000, I knew I was in for something different. I had seen some of the X-Men cartoons in the 90s, mainly because I wanted to see that awesome intro, but was never an avid fan of it. That all changed after viewing the live action outing. I thought Hugh Jackman was the coolest man on the planet as Wolverine and Magneto was the greatest supervillain I've seen. My mentality shifted from casual fan to wanting to actually know more about them! The first comic book I picked up was an X-Men comic, and the experience was...was...not interesting. I had no idea what was going on because I thought what I saw in the movie or on the TV show would be exactly the same in the comic. I didn't know what I was reading, I didn't know who some of the characters were, or why some of the characters I knew were not on the same team. I was not willing to find out why. From that point on I decided not to pick up another comic book because I thought to myself, "Why waste my time and non-existent money (I was 12 at the time) on a product that I don't even know where it begins or currently ends." That was the day I decided to just let the movies tell me the story and not bother with all the lore. What it also did for me was gave me this mentality of "comic book costumes would be stupid in real life." I loved that they used stylized black leather outfits because I just thought that was cooler. I even remember drawing Superman in similar outfits because at the time I thought to make a "lame" superhero cool, just change their costume. My perception changed quickly immediately when Sam Raimi's Spider-Man movie came out because it had a really cool costume that looked exactly like the one in the comics. But my perception of not wanting to know the comic book lore was still in tact.

Then Robert Rodriguez had to make me change my perception again with a little film called Sin City. I was amazed by the visuals and the beautiful use of hard monochromatic contrasts. The violence, the sex, the noir, everything that I could've possibly wanted for a teenager who was going through puberty. But as a person who was fascinated by how films are made, come my surprise when I see online videos that delve into how the movie was shot "panel to panel" straight from the comic book! I was amazed. My perception changes once again. Can such a thing be possible? I had to see for myself by actually BUYING one of the Sin City graphic novels and read it while watching the movie. I was floored! I went out and bought more stuff by Sin City author Frank Miller hoping to discover what else could be turned into a movie. I felt like I reached an epiphany! Why make inaccurate adaptations of the comics when one can easily just do what Sin City did, copy the exact same thing and put it on the screen! The following years didn't stop this mentality from growing due to Zack Snyder. His faithful adaptations to 300 and Watchmen were my way of championing that it can be done and that is the way it should be done! It was a mentality that was short lived but the idea of "it should be like the comics" stayed with me. It should be noted that during this time was when my apprehension of not wanting to read comic books and understand the lore ended with me buying Sin City, 300, The Dark Knight Returns, Watchmen, and The Dark Knight Returns.

So by the time I was in college I was pretty much a fully realized comic book head geek within the span of my last two years in High School. I knew anything and everything about DC, Marvel, Dark Horse, and Image. I was the comic book guru among my friends and whenever a film came out they would ask for my opinion on it. I'd rave about what they did right and then bash them for doing things completely wrong. They wouldn't understand my new found hatred for the X-Men films because they were inaccurate. I was asked one time to list off all the problems with it, to which I learned I had many. But then I was asked if by itself is it a good movie? To which I said it was an incredible film if you don't care about comics... Then it dawned on me. Only 5-10% of the people who watch comic book films are the ones who READ and KNOW comics. 

Just 5-10% know what is right and what is wrong with the adaptation. The other 90-95% majority? They could care less. That is when it really hit me on the head. And this is a good thing that it did in college when my goal is to become a filmmaker. The priority of a filmmaker is not to please the fans, but to make a GOOD MOVIE.

In my next PANEL TO PANEL article I'll be discussing movies that are incredible films but horrible adaptations of the source material. You can check that out here.

Let's make "DONKEY KONG" a movie

Whoever made this image, you're awesome!

For those of you who don't know, its also about Mario

Donkey Kong is a legendary video game. When young gamers hear Donkey Kong they will immediate conjure up images of a gorilla with a necktie, but only real gamers would know that it is the game that introduces the world to Mario. Well...sort of. He wasn't called Mario originally but instead referred to as "Jumpman" as a way to compete with Pacman. But for all intents and purposes this is the game that introduces the world to these two iconic characters.

Didn't they make a movie already?

The shot answer to this is yes and no. Yes, Buena Vista Pictures made a film adaptation of Super Mario Bros. back in 1993 starring Bob Hoskins and John Leguizamo as the video game icons Mario and Luigi. The general consensus of that film among the video gaming community is... "act like it doesn't exist." Which is a shame because Bob Hoskins is a brilliant actor...but then again brilliant actors occasionally do bad films that they probably had no idea would be bad.

So, am I asking for a remake? Not really. Because then the title would be "Let's remake Super Mario Bros." Where I'm going with this is making a straight forward film adaptation of the original video game.

So how exactly would one were to do that? Well, the idea I have in mind, is probably not the one people want:

Dark and Gritty - The way no one wants to see....unless

Just hear me out. The term dark and gritty usually gets associated with "The Dark Knight." It is a term used to describe something that is real and grounded. Well to me Dark and Gritty means something else. When I think of Dark and Gritty, The Dark Knight does come to mind but so does a film that people seem to forget is Dark and Gritty: The X-Men Film Franchise. People don't seem to realize how dark the film is in terms of subject matter, but it may also have to do with the touches of lightness coming from the need to relieve the serious tension. This is a style that could pose a threat to a movie going experience. Do it right (X-men, The Dark Knight, Rise of the Planet of the Apes) and you got a great movie. Do it wrong (Cowboys and Aliens) and that's when debates will start triggering of whether it was the right decision. And believe it or not, the storyline of the original Donkey Kong game can be interpreted as pretty dark.

The Story

The storyline of the original Donkey Kong game is about a pet gorilla that has suffered abuse and mistreatment by his owner for several years. Fed up with the abuse, the gorilla kidnaps his owner's girlfriend and holds her hostage in the owner's factory. Now, obviously the gorilla is the titular Donkey Kong. But who is this abusive owner? Jumpman, or better known today as MARIO! 

That's right, the hero of the video game is the cause for the trouble of the video game. While this plot was really created just to give it an edge against other games that came out at the time, if one were actually to delve into the deeper meanings then you'd realize that you're playing the villain. Our knowledge of Mario is that he's the hero. This is mainly attributed to the later video games that would paint him as the true hero of the Mushroom Kingdom. This can play to people's expectations of Mario in the film.

It could be a small scale rendition of the storyline told in Rise of the Planet of the Apes. But have the James Franco character be a dick and change the setting to the fantasy world of the Mushroom Kingdom then it makes total sense why someone would have a gorilla as a pet. Or how about making the gorillas Mario's workforce for the factory that he runs? He keeps it out of the public eye that he is abusing these animals and instead makes it looks like he takes good care of them. Hell, he could be secretly the villain of the story. Donkey Kong can be his main gorilla who takes the most abuse due protecting the other gorillas from Mario. It would play into Donkey Kong's plan in Kidnapping Mario's girlfriend, Pauline. Yes, Pauline, not Princess Peach. The story would then borrow that element of King Kong with the seemingly villainous ape kidnapping the beautiful woman. Of course this is where that revelation would dawn her about the truth of Mario.

The film can end with Mario being exposed and loses his business, with Donkey Kong and his gorilla comrades being released into Donkey Kong Country by Pauline. As for Mario, he is forced to work with his younger brother Luigi as a plumber.

See what I did there? I left Mario in a bad place while also setting him up for a potential sequel that would serve as his redemption story to being a true hero. Clever huh? Well, maybe anyone can come up with that. But doesn't that sound cool?

The Downsides to making it that way

• People might be turned off by making it kind of serious and a little bit dark with the animal abuse subject matter that some would claim wasn't there
• The title Donkey Kong would be misleading as it is also a Mario movie so a studio might call it Mario Vs Donkey Kong or Mario Origins or something lame to get the public more interested and less confused when they see Mario
• Most people don't know this storyline so it would turn people off to have Mario painted in such a negative light
• Video game adaptations have a history of being bad so that could detract from the number of people who would see it

The Plus sides of making it that way

• It would make the subject matter stronger and the drama really intense
• It would have great action scenes that would all take place in one location, kind of like The Raid but in a factory
• The first big screen adaptation of Donkey Kong and the second stab at making a good Mario Flick
• It would add more depth to characters who are pretty straight forward in all their other games
• It could potentially open the doors to a Nintendo Cinematic Universe (I did say it ends with Donkey Kong Country being introduced and Mario becoming a Plumber)

Final words

Yes, that is the movie I'd want to see. And it may sound crazy to some. But again, any movie idea can be good if done right. What type of Mario adaptation would you want? Something like Marvel that is filled with comedy and moments of character development? Or my approach where it looks dark but it can also be light.