★★☆☆☆
Two Stars
In preparation for finally seeing Disney’s Maleficent, I googled it to gauge what others had thought of it thus far. The top hit was a scathing Guardian review: 1 star, slating the film for its confused intentions and being an overall “derivative mess”. A little perturbed to say the least, I nonetheless put this aside, and as I took my seat in the cinema, I was determined to like the film. I really, really was. But unfortunately, I have to admit that The Guardian wasn’t far off.
People are comparing this film to Wicked; but to do so does Wicked a disservice. Wicked does not amend the original story, but simply illuminates it from another perspective. Maleficent starts off in the same way, but as the film progresses director Robert Stromberg starts to make drastic changes which render our knowledge of the original tale completely invalid. In my pre-release thoughts, I speculated as to whether Maleficent would destroy our classic childhood visions of Sleeping Beauty (1959); as it is, the two films are incomparable.
True, they overlap visually, but the conclusion of Stromberg’s film could not be more alternative. Though aspects such as the “true love’s kiss” are given a thoroughly modern (and delightfully feminist) twist, there are so many narrative changes at the close of this film that are problematic and incompatible with the original. To name just one thing: Maleficent does not die. Make of that what you will, but the perfect happy ending felt horribly unfulfilling to me.
However, the look of the film cannot be faulted. In 3D, the visuals are really quite staggering; Hollywood has not seen cinematic landscaping like this since Avatar. The world that Stromberg creates truly comes alive onscreen, and is nothing short of mesmerising, from breathtaking vast landscape shots to an intricate attention to light, detail and the movement of the camera through this glittering virtual world. The budget was estimated at $130–200 million, and clearly, visuals and world design are where the money has been spent.
And then, of course, there’s Angelina Jolie, who is absolutely fabulous and looks wonderful (kudos to the makeup and costume team). The depth of character that she creates is exactly what a film like this needs; we find ourselves rooting for Maleficent, which ticks a big box for Stromberg.
If only the casting of the other actors had been as successful. It isn’t often I find myself actually cringing whilst watching a blockbuster movie of this scale, but Elle Fanning’s portrayal of Aurora made me feel like I was being quite literally smacked around the face with sunshine and happiness. Nobody smiles that much in real life, because doing so would be, quite frankly, excruciatingly painful. Sharlto Copley, as King Stefan, absolutely nails the “angry Scotsman” archetype, but alternative shades of his character are virtually non-existent.
Maleficent is a dazzling film which is in serious need of a drastic redraft. Disney evidently wanted to produce a remake of a classic, but a remake which stood separate from its original (though surely, by principle, this is impossible). In doing so, however, they have lost sight of the basics. This version of the story is full of holes, climaxes early, rushes scenes from the original that Stromberg feels compelled to include whilst drawing out new narrative sequences that could do with being paid a bit more attention and being paced much more effectively.
Oh, and basic marketing. I previously debated who this film would be aimed at…and after having seen it I have unfortunately reached no conclusion. It’s like Disney have tried to do a Harry Potter, creating a film that speaks to all audiences; and it hasn’t really worked. The tone and atmosphere are too dark to be a out-and-out children’s film, but basing the story on a character from a Disney classic makies it difficult to see the attraction for an older, adult audience. What they’ve ended up with is a film which speaks to everyone in part, but nobody as a whole.
