Tuesday, September 23, 2014

Maleficent

TAKE 1: One Mans Opinion
…because film is largely subjective

by Frederick William Springer III
Maleficent
Release Date:  30 May 2014                                                                  Runtime:  97 Minutes              
Review Date:  23 September 2014                                                          Rating:  4.5 (of 6)
     They say not to judge a book by its cover and this certainly applies to Maleficent, the bookends here pretty atrocious.  It doesn't behoove anyone, does your credibility a great disservice in fact, to open your film with really fake looking CGI.  It ran rampant the first couple minutes and you'd think this was some newfangled technology, that this was still the 90s.  That jarring.  Listen, if you get your story started first, introduce us to the characters, get us involved and THEN want to throw some bad CGI in our face, we might accept it in the confines of the story, the story propelling our imagination and thus forgiving the faux pas, turning a blind eye to it.  But when you don't even have dialogue or characters yet, not excusable.
     The end--I'm talking the start of the credits, not spoiling the final scenes (though, there will be spoilers ahead in this review)--then had a really hurt-the-ears awful rendition of  "Once Upon a Dream" sung by Lana Del Rey.  Don't get me wrong, I can dig moody covers--Marilyn Manson's version of the Eurythmics' "Sweet Dreams" for the House on Haunted Hill remake comes to mind--but do us all a favor and never hire this chic again. 
     Now, in between these pages, if you will, was an alright story.  The narrator explained from the start that this would be a different version than we're accustomed to, so I could accept the changes made in the tale.  While not anything extraordinary, it was an interesting take.
     However--and here is where the ***SPOILERS*** come into play--there was 2 major points of contention and also a moment of coming to the table too late.
     The first, the 3 fairies, who had been friends with Maleficent, go to give gifts to the newborn Aurora.  From the tale this yarn was spinning, this doesn't jive in the least.  You mean, with the fairy world and human world kept separate because of the human propensities toward greed and power, the previous king attempting to start a war with you for no reason other than wanting your treasures and land, a war that was only averted by Maleficent, you're going to bear gifts to the newborn of the new king, the man that not only betrayed Maleficent but maimed and disfigured her by hacking off her wings?  Really?  REALLY?  Shame on you.
     Second, the curse was changed.  Here, Maleficent has strong motive to curse Aurora with death as she did in the original cartoon and fairy tale.  But instead, rather lamely, she curses her with eternal sleep here.  After all that was done to you, the anger evident in everything about you, exuding from every pore, why bother?  Even with the disclaimer that this wasn't a version we've heard before, this change still falls flat after the preceding build-up.
     As for coming too late to the table, this relates to their interpretation of "true love's kiss".  If it hadn't been done before, it would be fresh, unique, perhaps even surprising.  However, you're 2 years too late, a similar interpretation played out on television's Once Upon a Time at the end of their first season, leaving us to easily guess what's going to transpire here.
     In its favor, Elle Fanning as Aurora does look more suitable for someone gifted with beauty than Kristen Stewart looked "fairest of them all" in Snow White and the Huntsman.  That being said, Juno Temple who played fairy Thistletwit would have been more suitable in the role regarding that chracteristic, even if she was 24 in real life when it was filming rather than 15.

 

No comments:

Post a Comment