MovieChat Forums > Maleficent (2014) Discussion > My Review: This is NOT Maleficent

My Review: This is NOT Maleficent

posted 11 years ago by StrongRex
137 replies | jump to latest

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

[–] dogsoldier_spoon-1 10 years ago

You, StrongRex, are a 100% correct about the movie. Sums up perfectly what I thought about it.

[–] StrongRex 10 years ago

Thanks.

Author of one novel in-progress at http://www.wattpad.com/user/StrongRex

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] PoisonRegal 10 years ago

OP i have to agree with you. Every word you put. I wanted to like this too. This is not Maleficent. A completely different version all together. If they wanted to go down a god fairy who does a bad thing and is a hero story then fine but don't call it Maleficent! They should have made a separate film all together.

As for people who love this movie and are disagreeing i can't believe it. Maleficent is the mistress of evil!! Can't believe this has been so popular.

[–] StrongRex 10 years ago

This is not Maleficent. A completely different version all together. If they wanted to go down a god fairy who does a bad thing and is a hero story then fine but don't call it Maleficent! They should have made a separate film all together.

EXACTLY. I was excited that we were going to get a movie about Maleficent, but only because I thought we would see more of her being a badass villain and seeing how she became that way. I would rather they never made this movie at all than the end result being this crappy movie.

Author of one novel in-progress at http://www.wattpad.com/user/StrongRex

[–] dwellman21 10 years ago

Good thing this wasn't the original Maleficent, because the original Maleficent was boring as sin.

The only thing Maleficent EVER had going for her was A) a badass character design, and B) a decent performance by Elanor Audley (who honestly did much better with Lady Tremaine and even made The Queen work).

She's BARELY even in Sleeping Beauty; she flat out disappears for a good 30 minute chunk in the middle while we follow Aurora/Phillip's incredibly dull, tedious, and ultimately pointless relationship struggles (they want to marry each other but are arranged to marry other people...but those other people JUST SO HAPPEN to be each other! What serendipity!), then she shows up randomly with 15 mins. left at the end to turn into a dragon and getting PWN'd just like that.

And her "motivation" is that...she wasn't invited to Aurora's celebration? Or she's just "the embodiment of evil" and just felt like screwing with this one random kid because Reasons? You really can't even say she had a "limited" character like most early movie villains. Even Devil characters in other, better movies have SOMETHING else going on, like some kinda Chosen One thing where they'll be the only one that'll be able to stop them or something like that to let us know why this particular protagonist. Maleficent's motivation is weaksauce, bordering on non-existent. I'm sorry, but for me, "evil for the sake of being evil" just isn't compelling enough to carry an already boring movie that was SB.

At least with this movie, they TRIED to make her relevant to the other characters, to Sleeping Beauty lore. If you took Maleficent out of the original, what really changes? Aurora doesn't live out in the woods, the "misunderstanding" between she and Phillip never happens, and the two of 'em get married anyways. Again, little to nothing. Seems to be a running trend with that original film. In this movie, she's tied to every important character one way or another. Could it have been done a lot better? Very much so. But I appreciated the effort and felt a lot more invested in this story than I ever did with the 1959 version.

[–] StrongRex 10 years ago

Your entire post proved you missed the whole point of Maleficent's character in general.

[–] Blackjack254 10 years ago

If you took Mal out of the original, The king and queen wouldn't have lost the chance to raise their daughter and they wouldn't have missed the first 16 years of her life. (and in medieval times, that's a lot more significant than you think) I've only seen Maleficent once and I couldn't really get into it because there were some noisy, bratty kids behind me, but I've come to agree with StrongRex.

also, a little blurb on Linda Woolverton: She thinks Belle shouldn't know how to cook since she's an "empowered woman", yet Woolverton seems to forget that Belle is also an 18th Century rural peasant.

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

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] JustEs 10 years ago

I can't understand how someone who wrote something as unfeminist as "The Lion King" or as beautiful as "Beauty and the Beast" could've screwed up such wonderful stories as "Alice in Wonderland" or "Sleeping Beauty".

I PRAY she doesn't write the live version of "Beauty and the Beast" or I may stay away as far as possible as much as I love watching Emma Watson act.

[–] StrongRex 10 years ago

JustES, she was on a team of writers for Beauty and the Beast and The Lion King. I'm willing to bet money that any ideas she put forth were thrown out or at best heavily improved upon.

[–] Blackjack254 10 years ago

yes, for example, having the enchanted objects was largely Howard Ashman's Idea.

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

[–] StrongRex 10 years ago

Howard Ashman wrote the music.

[–] otness_e 9 years ago

There were some ideas she had that were unfortunately kept, at least regarding Beauty and the Beast: For example, Gaston being the sole main villain and the cutting of Aunt Marguerite/Belle's wicked sisters and their suitors was in fact Linda Woolverton's idea, as was cutting out Belle's younger sister Clarice to "emphasize Belle's loneliness" (which I argue didn't do a very good job since, 1. her dad was still around and they have a good relationship, 2. she certainly was friends with that bookseller, and a throwaway scene had Belle having a casual conversation with one of the villagers, and 3., if the triplets helping set up the wedding and especially their not knowing Gaston was the groom is anything to go by, they certainly WERE Belle's friends.), and it was also Linda Woolverton's idea to remove Belle baking when Gaston came over to propose to her, since, according to her, "a liberated woman like [Belle] wouldn't know how to bake" (which is despite the fact that she was only baking for herself to have a meal, NOT for Gaston who she didn't even KNOW was arriving at the door, and certainly not for Maurice since he was out of town, not to mention back then people had to prepare meals by hand and couldn't just go to a McDonalds for a bite to eat). Heck, Belle being a second-wave and possibly even third-wave feminist as well as the film itself pushing feminist values was in fact Linda Woolverton and Jeffrey Katzenberg's idea, and in fact, that's the reason the latter hired the former in the first place.

In fact, if Time Magazine is anything to go by, several of the story elements from that film were in FACT the same ones that Beauty and the Beast had. http://time.com/2798136/maleficent-beauty-beast-writer/

At best, they were toned down in BATB, at worst, they were in fact kept.

The Lion King definitely avoided that route, though. Actually, I'm not even sure how much of a role she actually had in writing the film even though she was billed as one of the main writers.

[–] otness_e 9 years ago

Oh, don't worry, Woolverton's slimy hands won't be touching the story or screenplay for the remake, not directly, anyways. The story will be written by Evan Spiliotopoulos and the screenplay will be written by Stephen Chbosky.

And quite frankly, she screwed up the original Beauty and the Beast, believe it or not. It's not quite as apparent since, unlike Sleeping Beauty or Snow White, there hadn't been a Disney adaptation of it before she made it, but if you read the original story, you'd see not only a LOT of changes to the story, but many of them were just disrespectful as well (like claiming Belle's an outcast simply because she's a bibliophile as well as the strong implications that back then women weren't allowed to read at all. What, did she forget that the original authors of the fairy tale were women?). Say what you will about The Little Mermaid by Disney and the changed ending, at least IT tried to retain as much of the fairy tale as humanly possible otherwise, and the moral as well (if anything, they actually improved on the moral).

[–] StrongRex 9 years ago

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3MtBnYYTGTE

[–] otness_e 9 years ago

Fully agreed with you there. It was bar none the worst, and such a disgraceful use of the Mistress of All Evil. It also doesn't help that it utterly ruined the original storyline for no real reason (in fact, I'd even argue that it's even worse than The Little Mermaid: Ariel's Beginning. At least THAT movie retained Ariel's rebelliousness trait at Jodi Benson's request, even if pretty much everything else about her and what we knew about the film got warped otherwise).

Want a very famous cultural villain who got his own tell-all story and actually remained evil? Try Emperor Palpatine from Star Wars, more specifically in the Darth Plagueis novel. It went into his backstory, and unlike Maleficent, they made NO restraints to just how much of an evil monster he was even BEFORE he joined the Sith. Woolverton really should have taken notes from that book. Heck, she should try playing Resident Evil: The Umbrella Chronicles sometime, as even Albert Wesker (who in the Resident Evil franchise is pretty much Maleficent's equivalent in terms of popularity and marketability) got something a LOT better than what Maleficent got.

As a side note, I'm not sure if it was this topic or on another topic on this board, but someone on here mentioned she should get the Claude Frollo treatment. I just want to say that, although I see your point there, she'd actually need to be even WORSE than Claude Frollo since, due to her being the literal embodiment of evil, that means even Frollo would come across as a saint by comparison.

[–] chiibiprincess 9 years ago

I finally caught this movie on an Encore channel and I definitely agree with your points, OP.

I don't have anything against retelling stories from other characters' point of views; I think that can be pretty interesting, honestly.

But the movie shouldn't have put down so many characters in order to make Maleficent look better. That's very jarring and it feels a LOT like fanfiction...yes, she's practically given the Mary-Sue treatment. I'm not saying Maleficent IS a Mary-Sue in this movie but that is what bad writers tend to do to characters and you could sense it here....just way too much.

It felt like an amateur's work that only wanted to worship Maleficent and served no other purpose.

The three fairies were the worst part; they were all unlikable idiots and very annoying when they were on screen. You COULD still make them like the original three in Sleeping Beauty and have the same plot; a little silly but at least FUNNY, caring, and not completely stupid.

"But it's a ROCK!"
"I KNOW IT'S A ROCK!"

[–] littlemermaid22 9 years ago

I know this is a very old thread & I commented on this thread on my old account but I thought I would comment on this thread again but it's going to be a different comment. I get so annoyed when people say this movie is more feminist than the 1959 version. People say it's a feminist film because Maleficent saved Aurora & not Phillip. That doesn't make it more feminist because Aurora still had to be saved. This has probably been pointed out before but this film made all the men look bad. On top of that what the film did to the fairies was atrocious! In the old film they were capable but in the 2014 version they weren't. How is that feminism? The old film had more important female roles than the new one did. The fairies were really the ones that saved the day at the end of the 1959 version & not Phillip. It's a shame more feminists don't take this into account. Maleficent in the old movie was stronger than she was in this movie. This has probably been pointed out as well but in the old film she wasn't motivated by a man but in the remake she was. Again how is that feminism? If women don't need men why take out their problems on men? People complain how Aurora is not the heroine in the 1959 version but you can't make her the heroine because her role in the story is to sleep. That's literally what happens in the fairytale, she sleeps. People don't seem to like the fact that the 1959 film focuses on the fairies but I thought it was refreshing that it focuses on fairies & not a princess. The fairies get ignored by feminists & it is probably because they are not young & beautiful like Aurora. It's really a shame they are overlooked. When I saw Maleficent in the theater, I wanted to leave the theater but I didn't because I was with my friends & that would have been rude. I'm sorry for this very long this post. This movie made me so angry! It ruined my childhood.

[–] otness_e 9 years ago

Just so you're clear, what's your definition of feminist? Only asking because the word feminist got either hijacked or whatever during the 1960s, and you can blame the likes of Simone de Beauvoir, Gloria Steinen, and Betty Friedan for the mess that occurred with Maleficent and how it promoted misandry. I personally prefer the Susan B. Anthony definition of feminism myself.

[–] littlemermaid22 9 years ago

I always thought feminism was the equality between men & women.

[–] otness_e 9 years ago

It originally was that, at least under the Suffragette era. Unfortunately, sometime during either the 40s or the 60s, the term got hijacked by Marxists to essentially promote man hatred and maybe make women either Communists or otherwise hookers (sorry for the bluntness of the latter, but it has to be said, especially when the feminists during that time and even today seem to oddly think the likes of Playboy defended women's honor). Now? It's more likely when you find a feminist that they're going to claim women were illiterate until they took over Colleges during the sixties (which is false, because my grandmother was definitely literate well before then and even briefly worked at a computer company while my grandpa was undergoing World War II).

[–] JoWilli (21648) 5 years ago

tldr...