Maleficent


Here's a link to a review of the Maleficent Blu-ray combo pack. I was disappointed that the story of Maleficent did not compliment the story of Sleeping Beauty, and rather negated it. Are we not supposed to enjoy Sleeping Beauty anymore? Are we supposed to hate King Stefan?

Unlike other retellings of famous fairy tales, this story is about Maleficent, Disney's character from their "Sleeping Beauty," and the screen writer and Disney make it clear that this is related to their classic animated movie.

Anyway, it is worth watching for the beauty of the movie, and the acting, and just to check out this version of the story.

http://www.examiner.com/article/maleficent-blu-ray-combo-pack-review

reply

[deleted]

Did you mean to say the 1959 version was sexist towards women?

reply

[deleted]

Hi Disneyfan,

I agree, this was a childish story. Everything in black and white. Stefan should not have be made all bad, all evil. People are more complex than that. I understand the point about human greed for power, land, and natural resources. That's a good motivation for them sacking the fairy land.

And Maleficent is made to be too good. It would have been more interesting to have Stefan not be so evil. It would have been better to have him be duped into leading the king's men to Maleficent's land. He could have gradually changed and been corrupted by power. It was too much of a change in him without showing how and why he changed. Not good story telling. It could have been about human greed with out being so black and white and simplistic.

People often become corrupted when they get in positions of power without intending to. They often start out very well intentioned, but being in that position, wanting to stay there, owing political favors to people who helped you get there, etc.. cause people to change, and they don't even see it.

That is a truer story, a more mature story, and a more interesting story.

If they wanted to say that Maleficent isn't all bad, and there are reasons for what she did, then the same must be said of those who hurt and betrayed her.

No one has to be all bad, or all evil. People just aren't that way. It would have been so interesting and compelling to see her change and become twisted by her anger and become vindictive, then we would have loved her, and been torn apart to see her destroy herself, then she could have been redeemed in some way in the end. That would have been a good story.

reply

[deleted]

I would have to watch "Maleficent" again to see what I really think of it, But I don't think it's saying we're supposed to supposed to throw out the 1959 movie. This movie makes it clear that it is NOT the same universe as the original movie.

As for the movie claiming it's the "true" version of events, That's actually more common than you think, such as "The True Story of the Three Little Pigs by A. Wolf".

At least Disney isn't pulling a George Lucas and changing the 1959 film to make it fit with the 2014 one.


How you can make the world a better place:
Don't shop at Wal-Mart.

reply

Good Point-and if Disney did THAT, what little is left of their reputation would go right down the drain.

reply

I would have to watch "Maleficent" again to see what I really think of it, But I don't think it's saying we're supposed to supposed to throw out the 1959 movie. This movie makes it clear that it is NOT the same universe as the original movie.

As for the movie claiming it's the "true" version of events, That's actually more common than you think, such as "The True Story of the Three Little Pigs by A. Wolf".

At least Disney isn't pulling a George Lucas and changing the 1959 film to make it fit with the 2014 one.
But what if Walt Disney was still alive and wanted to change his own work? 'Malificient' is not even a direct sequel. Just not a very good comparison.

Why would Disney make a movie that would "replace" a beloved animated classic? That's stupid. Obviously NOT the intention. 'Malificient' is just a re-telling of the classic story. It complements the animated classic, which obviously has very little backstory on the character of Malificient.

reply

Why would Disney make a movie that would "replace" a beloved animated classic? That's stupid. Obviously NOT the intention. 'Malificient' is just a re-telling of the classic story.


I thought that's what I said. My response to the OP is that you can basically take "Maleficant" or leave it, unlike Star Wars where George Lucas wants to force it down your throat by changing the original trilogy to fit the "prequels" so that "either you will enjoy all 6 movies or I'll see to it you won't enjoy any of them."


How you can make the world a better place:
Don't shop at Wal-Mart.

reply

Exactly. As for ''Maleficent'', I think it has about as much to do with the original ''Sleeping Beauty'' as ''Snow White And The Huntsman'' has to ''Snow White''. I saw it once, and that was enough. I doubt people will remember it in ten years, let alone 55. It served it's (commercial) purpose, which is the only reason it was made. ''Sleeping Beauty'' will live forever.

reply

I know that retellings are very common. This one is directly related to Disney's "Sleeping Beauty" though. At the end Aurora says that this is what really happened. It's not like "Snow White and the Huntsman" or "Ever After" in that they were not made by Disney and the writers and directors don't say that they are related. And remember that the screenwriter says in the extras that Disney's "Sleeping Beauty" is what this comes out of. Unlike the other 2 afore mentioned movies.

Maleficent is Disney's character. The source stories just refer to her as either a witch or a fairy. That makes this very much related to Disney's "Sleeping Beauty." Disney clearly related this story to their animated classic. her character and story come from the 1959n movie.

While there is either a fairy or witch, or other being in the various source material for the "Sleeping Beauty" story, Maleficent is Disney's creation.

reply

In "Maleficent", Aurora is not an opera singer, she is never nicknamed "Briar Rose", she doesn't wear a color changing dress, and the three guardian fairies are not named Flora, Fauna or Merryweather.

That's enough to convince me that "Maleficent" has nothing to do with the original Sleeping Beauty. In fact, when I watch the original, no thoughts of "Maleficent" enter my mind at all.

How you can make the world a better place:
Don't shop at Wal-Mart.

reply

I KNOW that ''Snow White And The Huntsman'' is not a Disney film. But my thoughts are the same- Disney has, with the animated fairy tales, often taken them far from the traditional sources. ''Beauty And The Beast'' ''The Little Mermaid' and ''Aladdin'' are recent examples. All three are ,if you read the original stories, nearly unrecognizable (especially ''Beauty And The Beast'') But, at Least the older ones ended up where they were meant to go. To take a film like ''Sleeping Beauty'' and turn it upside down, is a sad testament to the lack of imagination in the film business these days.

reply

As much as I love Sleeping a Beauty, I can understand how the new version may be canon. How many times have I read that the story told has been changed to protect us. In the 50s and 60s there was no middle ground. You were either good or bad. Today there are so many layers, that Maleficent works. This movie solidifies loving step mothers. Changes the Disney universe in their treatment of step mothers, in my opinion.

If we can save humanity, we become the caretakers of the world

reply

Maleficent was not a Stepmother (loving, or otherwise.)Take the villainy out of a classic story, and you have no story. As far as ''layers'' go, a bad act is a bad act-excuse them, and we're really in trouble.

reply

We disagree, no problem.

If we can save humanity, we become the caretakers of the world

reply

As far as ''layers'' go, a bad act is a bad act-excuse them, and we're really in trouble.

byphillindholm » Mon Nov 10 2014 09:43:15

phillindholm, I initially misread your last sentence as LaWyers instead of layers. The sentence still worked remarkably well: "As far as ''lawyers'' go, a bad act is a bad act-excuse them, and we're really in trouble."

You just think Yeah! don't excuse those lawyers or we really will be in trouble! 

reply

Maleficent is a terrible movie that betrays all of the original characters. Hopefully it gets forgotten within the next 10 years.

The three fairies, the lovable protagonists of the 1959 original, are turned into annoying idiots (and they got Dolores Freaking Umbridge to play one of them).

Maleficent isn't given any additional depth. She's just an entirely different character altogether. She's not even an anti-hero. She is a GOOD person who makes one mistake…cursing Aurora, and the fact that she immediately regrets it takes away its impact.

Stephan is a completely one dimensional villain with no clear motivation other than greed. Very boring. He also lacked any charm that makes a villain interesting to watch.


reply

[deleted]

To be honest, the bad reviews didn't surprise me.

RIP
Bon Scott
1946-1980

reply