My Review: This is NOT Maleficent
I'm not going to lie. I was genuinely excited to hear that Disney was going to make a film about Maleficent, my favorite Disney villain of all time. I was interested in knowing the 'why' behind her actions in Sleeping Beauty, since we never really got to see that. When Angelina Jolie was cast and talked about Maleficent being a great person but far from perfect, my feelings of excitement wavered a little. They wavered more when I saw that the fairies' names were changed. Then the script was leaked online, and it was then that I realized it was going to be an atrocity that would butcher Walt Disney's crowning achievement while he was alive.
Several users went out of their way to prove the script fake on the IMDb forums, and my hopes were somewhat restored. But the teaser came out and showed remarkable similarity to the leaked script. Those same users tried to show that it was still different, and that Maleficent will still be evil (even though she wasn't!). With each trailer that came out, I saw similarity after similarity to the leaked script, to the point where the users were now saying, "Oh, it's a new take on Maleficent, just see the movie before you judge it, and appreciate it for what it is!" Well guess what? I DID see the movie. And it is hardly different from what we read.
I will say that the movie is beautiful to look at; the cinematography is amazing. Disney spent a lot of money trying to make this movie look good. I will also say that while Angelina Jolie was not my first choice, she had the look, her costume was spot-on, and there are moments where you can see where she is at least trying to play this role correctly (and really, who could replace Eleanor Audley?). But one thing I've noticed over the past 10-15 years is that animation and design seem to be their main focus, rather than story or character development. In the leaked script, there was more development in the first half before we get to Sleeping Beauty's story. It was lame, pathetic development but still development. In the movie, all that development was cut and Maleficent's backstory was rushed as a result. So much for going into depth on why Maleficent is the way she is.
Which brings me to my next point; this movie does not explain why Maleficent is the way she is. It doesn't even try to make us feel sorry for her. This movie is trying to give us a completely different character while giving her the same name as Disney's most iconic villain. Disney is now trying to say that Maleficent is a misunderstood character who becomes evil. But that never happens. She becomes angry and bitter, but not evil. And they give us the same tired cliché of how a villainous is spurned or betrayed by a lover, and doesn't do it in a way we've never seen before. In short, Maleficent in this movie is not even a misunderstood, sympathetic character. She is a total victim who never becomes evil at all.
Oh, she does do one evil thing; she does still curse King Stefan's baby out of revenge. And she has second thoughts about it two seconds afterward. See? Not evil at all. And while I'm at it, I should mention my distaste for the way she cursed Aurora (who I'll get to in a minute): Disney completely lowered the stakes by having Maleficent utter the words "sleep-like death" and be the one to offer the cure of True Love's kiss. No! It's MERRYWEATHER (yes, in my book she's still Merryweather) that counters the DEATH curse in order to save Aurora's life! Oh, Maleficent may say later that she doesn't believe True Love exists, but that's a matter of opinion isn't it? Again, LOWERS THE STAKES.
And what was Linda Woolverton thinking when she took King Stefan and the three fairies completely out of character and gives them a complete 180 in order to make Maleficent look good? If you're going to make a well- known villain a backstory and show us their point of view, it's okay to give them layers and grey areas in order to make them more interesting and multi-dimensional, even to show they weren't always evil. But NOT to say they were never evil at all; that just completely defeats the point of the character! Same with the good guys; they may have their own flaws, show that they have their own prejudices, or that everything they did wasn't perfect. But NOT to say "the good guys were really EVIL OR STUPID!"
The fairies, Flora, Fauna, and Merryweather (I refuse to call them by their new names) are NOTHING like they were in Sleeping Beauty, and this is a big deal. In Sleeping Beauty, say what you will about their flaws but their ultimate motivation was keeping Aurora SAFE. At least they tried, even if they failed! Maleficent (2014) portrays them as nothing more than stupid buffoons who only care about saving their own skins. Aurora was just a means to an end for them; they have no relationship with her like they do in the original. The movie also took away their own individualities, so they are no different from each other. I can't even keep track of which fairy has which name! Watching them on screen with everything they say or do was as cringeworthy as I expected it to be.
On the other hand, King Stefan has to be one of worst written villains I have seen in a while. He has no real motivation for what he does; we see him as having nothing in the beginning, and then the movie glosses over his relationship with Maleficent in order to "get to the good part" where he steals her wings in order to be king. After that, he wages war on Maleficent for cursing his daughter, and yet he only looks at Aurora as afterthought property. Why is he even after Maleficent then? What else has she done to him other than cursing his daughter? Not to mention that Sharlto Copley showed only two emotions during the time he was on screen; anger and indifference. Hardly his fault, since the script didn't give him much to work with.
Elle Fanning as Aurora was very impressive. I do think she gave the character more of a personality that was lacking in the original, and she stole the film in every scene she was in. Unfortunately, that wasn't enough to save the movie, nor were Maleficent's interactions with Diaval, as enjoyable as they were.
And of course, Maleficent does not turn into a dragon in this movie. I have to ask; why, Disney? Why? You knew how loved of a villain Maleficent is, and her being a dragon is one of the many reasons why. Also, we live in an age where technology and special effects are abundant; you didn't use the opportunity to see how your most iconic villain looks as a dragon when done with live-action CGI? Why would you waste a perfectly good opportunity like that? And...leather pants? You had Maleficent wear leather pants in the battle scene? She practically reminded me of CatWoman! That brings me to another point actually; besides the fact that Maleficent is not evil in this film, she also is very wimpy and pathetic. She can't do ANYTHING. When we see her fight an army at the beginning, all she does is fly around and slap a few soldiers with her wings. The tree monsters did most of her fighting for her. In Sleeping Beauty, she could transport herself to another place in a matter of seconds, she could shoot lightning from her staff, and she could transform into another form other than her own. She didn't do any of that in this movie.
I really wanted to like this movie. But just like with Alice in Wonderland, Disney wasted a perfectly good opportunity to effectively adapt their animated work to the live-action screen. Say what you will about Oz: The Great and Powerful, but at least that movie didn't alter characters or change the story of The Wizard of Oz completely. Since L. Frank Baum didn't write a book about the Wizard himself, Oz doesn't even get many things outright wrong. Plus, there's a lot of room at the end for interpretation. This is not the case for Maleficent. In fact, Maleficent can't get even some minor details right, such as Prince Philip's father's name or the fact that Fauna gave her the gift of song before Maleficent came in.
Maleficent may not be the absolute worst movie I've seen, but it's definitely in my bottom list now. 1/10