(Because I can’t pretend this thing isn’t happening) let’s take a look at the Maleficent trailer.

Unshaved Mouse has been nominated for Best Blog Post at the Blog Awards Ireland 2014. Please take a minute to click on this link and vote for me. You can vote once every week. Thanks a million, Mouse.


Sigh. You know, I told myself if I just stuck my head in the sand and pretended that this wasn’t happening everyone involved would gradually realise just how ill advised the whole endeavour is and this movie would quietly die like the sequel to 7even where Morgan Freeman’s character has psychic powers or the live action Akira remake with white actors. But no, this thing is apparently happening and what’s more Disney have released a trailer that proves once and for all that their marketing department is staffed by wizards who can make anything look good. Sorry, that sounds unfair and I know any movie should only be judged after it’s actually been released but…I have serious reservations about this. Now, granted, after seeing the trailer I am a little more optimistic for reasons that I’ll get into in a bit but firstly let me just point out that the basic logic behind this movie is flawed. That logic is as follows:

1) We need to make a movie about a character that people love.

2) People love Maleficent.

3) We should…what, you want me to spell it out?

Now, Maleficent is undoubtedly a fantastic character but it’s more complicated than that. She is specifically, a fantastic antagonist. Saying that a great villain will make a great leading character is like saying an astronaut is the perfect guy to perform your heart operation. It’s a completely different skill set. Villains, by and large, occupy less screen time than heroes. A villain is someone who you’re glad when they show up, do something outrageous and cool and then vanish again. A good protagonist is someone you have to be willing to spend two hours with. Villains are great in small doses, but the larger than life traits that make them so entertaining tend to get really wearying after too long. Of course, that’s assuming that this movie is just Maleficent as she was depicted in Sleeping Beauty but for two hours. It won’t be. Maleficent in the original doesn’t have an arc, her character progression in the movie is evil, evil, evil, evil, dragon. So of course this movie is instead going to make her an anti-hero, a troubled misunderstood figure whose motivations we will be able to understand and sympathise with through seeing her backstory and all the horrible things that happened to maker her who she is. This approach, historically speaking, has killed more awesome movie villains than cliffs and Arnold Schwarzenegger combined.

This is how..




..became this.



...became this.

…became this.

And THIS...


....became...I don't even know what the fuck this is.

….became…I don’t even know what the fuck this is.

Now, if I’m wrong I will happily eat my words. I’m just saying I got history on my side. Okay, so let’s take a look at the trailer.

<iframe width=”560″ height=”315″ src=”//www.youtube.com/embed/_pgmFAOgm5E” frameborder=”0″ allowfullscreen>

Alright, so here are my thoughts in order.

  • Angelina Jolie’s eternal status at the top of the A-List has baffled me for some time. Not that she’s bad, but surely you should have to have some critically/financially successful movies under your belt before they crown you Queen of Hollywood. Seriously, look at her filmography and find something that you’d give more than three stars. Having said that, that is an absolutely phenomenal impersonation of Eleanor Audley she’s doing, almost to the point where I’m not entirely sure they didn’t just dub some dialogue from the original movie over her. Also that smile she flashes is a good sign. Jolie looks like she’s having a blast. Above all, Maleficent should enjoy being evil.
  • Gotta say, loving Lana Del Ray’s dreamy, sinister rendition of Once Upon a Dream. Love the atmosphere.
  • Three fairies hovering by a crib while Maleficent stalks through the court. These aren’t Flora, Fauna and Merryweather even though they’re colour coded the same. According to wikipedia the fairies are Thistlewit, Knotgrass and Flittle and are all played by actresses in their twenties. Godammit, I loved that the heroes of the original movie were three dumpy middle aged women. Where else do you see that?
  • Maleficent standing with arms raised, wreathed in green flame and vanishing from the court. So it looks like we’re going to get a pretty faithful recreation of the cursing scene.
  • “NOW FIND OUT THE TRUTH” Ohhhh…first big warning sign. If they think that we’re actually going to accept this as a definitive take on the story that supplants the original then this ship is crewed by fools and madmen.
  • Okay, now this is different. Maleficent surpises Briar Rose in the woods, blows some sleeping gunk on her and then walks through the moonlit forest with the unconscious body floating behind her. Gotta say, it’s an eerie, beautiful image. Again, Del Ray’s vocals really setting the “dark fairytale” tone.
  •  King Stefan stabbing a table. Why is he stabbing a table? Maleficent controls the trees. Trees are made of wood. Clearly, this table is a spy.
  • "Urk! You may have killed me, but my mistress will crush you all! Also, would it kill you to use a coaster?"

    “Urk! You may have killed me, but my mistress will crush you all! Also, would it kill you to use a coaster?”

A green clad  Maleficent strolling through a field. Part of me really hopes that this movie ends with the reveal that Maleficent is actually Girl Loki and that this is all just a teaser for Avengers 3. Hey, they’re both owned by Disney, you can’t say it’s not possible.

Or even that it's not plausible.

Or even that it’s not plausible.

  • If I were to guess I’d say this is part of Maleficent’s origin. The movie seems to be playing up her nature powers, showing lots of sentient tree monsters and such. If I were to guess, Maleficent starts off with a naturey/defender of the forest kind of schtick, hence the green duds, and then King Philip does something to fuck with nature’s balance or whatever forcing her to go all emo and black. Which sounds pretty awful and again, why the character works better as a villain and not a protagonist.
  • Okay, seriously, what is up with her cheekbones? She looks like she swallowed a china plate.
  • The CGI at least, is going to look amazing. In fact, we can at least rest assured that this will be a very pretty movie.
  • The old knight with a beard is so dead.
  • “There is evil in this world. Hatred. And revenge.” Ohhhh stop that right now. That looks like Maleficent imparting some motherly advice to Briar Rose. That looks like Maleficent and Briar Rose bonding over a campfire. That looks like the movie is actually setting up that Maleficent secretly cares for Briar Rose. That looks like the still beating heart of Sleeping Beauty getting ripped out and stamped on the dirt. That looks like I’m gonna have to get mah pitchfork.
  • Okay, the little hurt “oh” followed by the pscyho laugh has me convinced that if nothing else, Jolie is going to kill the role.

So, colour me cautiously pessimistic. I still think that the basic concept of the movie is fails the smell test but there’s a lot in the trailer to give me pause. I’m certainly less sure now that it’s going to completely suck than I was. So, good job Disney marketing team. Good job. You have moved the dial in the right direction. Now if you could stop making me think that your awesome full length musical returns to form are going to be awful, weak-ass Dreamworks ripoffs, that’d be lovely.


  1. IF they made a movie about Maleficent being born out of the inner circle of hell, a movie about how she loves being evil and relishes in it – than I think the result would be great.

    But that’s not the story we will get. We will get a nice little story designed to make us “understand” Maleficent. I don’t WANT to understand Maleficent. That’s the whole point of the movie, it is all about symbolism, and Maleficent stands for everything bad in the world, while the fairies (and honestly, a movie about them dealing during the first years without their magic would certainly made a great comedy) stand for everything good.

    I wish they would just leave this masterpiece alone. I was so glad that it (mostly) got away when the Disney suffered from sequelities, and now this.

    1. Agreed 100%. I’m beyond sick and tired of “oh, ze’s not really bad, just a misunderstood, mistreated victim!” SO sick of it.

      Frankly, it would be refreshing to see a villain’s backstory just be, “Born evil, and I own it!” (I also think it would make for a much more interesting character.)

      1. I actually have to disagree
        with you guys on this point. Having the main character start and end as a wholly evil, unrepentent villain would be very dull because there’s no arc, no journey and really no point.

      2. Depends on what kind of story you try to tell. Watching Maleficent trying to find Aurora, trying (and failing) to understand what the fairies did might have worked out.

      3. But Mouse, per your own reviews, some of your most highly rated villains start and end as evil and unrepentant villains: Ursula, Shere Khan, Scar, Hades, Jafar, The Coachman, Yzma, Ratigan, and even the original Maleficient herself.

        Some of these have bits of backstories and hints at motivations, but not all of them do. Yet they are all memorable villains because they all have personalities and distinctive behaviors. I think my problem with so many of the “poor misunderstood villain” backstories is that they try to replace personality with backstory. (And that the backstory for too many villainesses “got my heart broken by a man.”)

      4. What about characters like Sweeney Todd, the Grinch, Alex DeLarge in Clockwork Orange, etc.? They are evil and yet they are protagonists of their own story. By your logic, they should be villains because they’re evil.

      5. What I’m saying is that a character that begins and ends the story as being evil doesn’t make an interesting protagonist. None of those three matches that description.

      6. Sweeney Todd does. In the stage musical/Tim Burton movie, he starts off bitter and with a desire for revenge…you understand his background and feel sympathy for him but he is not a good man. In fact, I would say he is evil from the start.

        And the Grinch is evil for about 95% of his story.

      7. But he starts the show already as Sweeney Todd. He had abandoned his identity as Benjamin Barker long ago.

      8. Yeah, but what you’re talking about is an evil character who DOESN’T need a tragic backstory as a motivation. Sweeney has one, and even though we don’t actually see it onstage its referenced and explored in a lot of the songs.

    2. “IF they made a movie about Maleficent being born out of the inner circle of hell, a movie about how she loves being evil and relishes in it – than I think the result would be great.”

      That does sound like an interesting beginning for Maleficent, though of course Disney wouldn’t include a “being born in hell” part, because that would be too scary for kids. Even if they WERE on the right track to doing this movie correctly.

      Actually, I see a “Lucifer being cast out of heaven, then becoming the devil Satan” type of backstory for Maleficent. She could have been a princess named Carabosse (from the ballet) of the fairies whom everyone saw a lot of promise for, but her mind and heart could have been filled with conceit, greed, and pride. One day she would take that too far and be banished to the Forbidden Mountains. Maleficent could have been a name she chose for herself. I see that working much better for the character than being spurned and betrayed by a lover (also something that’s been done too many times before).

      1. That doesn’t sound half bad. Still would like to see this one though. Even if it is an alternate take on Disney’s Sleeping Beauty…well, I’m all about alternate takes/retellings of fairy tales.

        There is one other very strong reason I’d like to see this: PETER CAPALDI. He’s going to be playing someone named King Kinloch. (Maybe he’s Maleficent’s dad?) Our new Doctor is quite prolific these days: he’s also going to be in the upcoming Paddington Bear film as grouchy neighbor Mr. Curry. (“BEAR! What are you doing, bear?!”)

  2. *Sigh…Okay, get ready to hear a LONG rant from me.

    When I first heard that this movie was going to be made, I was actually very excited and optimistic about it. Tim Burton was originally going to direct this movie, but I guess something happened that prevented him from doing so. I can accept Angelina Jolie in this role…I haven’t seen her in much expect for Kung Fu Panda (her performance as Tigress is awesome), and there were other actresses that I would have chosen but she seems to be fine. But like you mentioned, they changed Flora, Fauna, and Merryweather’s names to Knotgrass, Flittle, and Thistletwit. And I have to ask…why??? What’s wrong with keeping their names the same? They’re doing that with Maleficent, Stefan, Aurora, and Phillip, why aren’t they changing the last three names I mentioned at least? What is the point of changing their names? We know them by the names they had in the original Disney movie. Do they want to ruin that?

    I became more worried when Angelina Jolie said this about her character Maleficent: “Just because she protects herself and is aggressive, it doesn’t mean she can’t have other [warmer] qualities. [Maleficent] is actually a great person. But she’s not perfect. She’s FAR from perfect.”

    Angelina, Maleficent is NOT a great person. She is called The Mistress of All Evil for a reason. I want to see this movie so I can know the back story of Maleficent and understand what makes her evil, and I’m sure that we will learn more about Maleficent than we initially did, but don’t call her a great person because she’s not. As far as her “protecting herself” and saying she’s far from perfect, you make her sound like she’s a victim who just needs tender loving care, and that’s not who she is.

    Even the movie hasn’t come out yet, I’m really concerned that they might not only not embrace those qualities as much as they need to, but they might make Maleficent into something she wasn’t. Maleficent, while she is probably one of Disney’s top five great villains, she is still a villain who is not only devious, heartless, narcissistic, ruthless, and spiteful, she is EVIL INCARNATE. She represents pure, deliberate wickedness, and we love her for it.

    But that’s not the worst part. Do you remember when I commented on your Sleeping Beauty review saying that I read the script and that they were going to ruin Maleficent? Well, it may have had some revisions since then, but everything I have seen so far has shown to be supporting the leaked material, so I have reason to believe the script was real. And the script…oh, the script…

    It’s BAD. I mean, it’s HORRIFICALLY bad. Linda Woolverton, who wrote Alice in Wonderland (2010), shows once again that she cannot write. The dialogue and the structure of the story are terrible, but that’s not what even bothers me the most. What bothers me the most is this:

    Maleficent starts out good, and NEVER becomes evil at all. They don’t even make her a sympathetic evil character, Maleficent is a total victim who NEVER becomes evil. She only does one evil thing, and that’s cursing Aurora.

    You mentioned your issue with Maleficent and Aurora bonding…yeah, I am totally with you on that one. That would NEVER happen in a million years. Not to mention that Maleficent didn’t even know where Aurora was until the DAY of her sixteenth birthday! That IS important to the story because her raven FINDING Aurora sets everything in motion.

    But as bad as that is alone, there are other things about the script that are unforgivable. Stefan and Maleficent have some kind of childhood history together, and he abandons and betrays her and this sets her off something awful (which then she gets revenge by cursing his daughter). Stefan is not the gentle, kind ruler that loves his daughter and his kingdom that we see in Sleeping Beauty. He is an evil jerk who cares nothing for Aurora, and actually FORCES the three fairies to take her.

    And speaking of the three fairies…THIS makes my blood boil. They are stupid, selfish, lazy, and neglectful when it comes to taking care of Aurora. NOTHING like the good, noble but unique characters who went above and beyond to protect the life of a girl who was in danger from an evil force. They even come close to letting her run off a cliff (which Maleficent saves her from).

    Maleficent somehow regrets cursing Aurora because she “took it out on the wrong person.” She tries to stop her from touching the spindle but fails, and after Phillip can’t break the spell MALEFICENT is the one who kisses Aurora on the forehead, and that breaks it. There’s some kind of battle that happens between the humans and the fairies, and there’s a dragon all right…but it’s not Maleficent.

    You read that right.

    Maleficent DOESN’T morph into a dragon.

    You know who does?


    WOW….just wow, Disney! Not only did you ruin your most iconic villain of all time, but you couldn’t even consider to let us see her turn into that awesome, epic dragon. You HAD to have her raven do it for her.

    Again, I don’t know how much of this movie has changed since that awful script, but judging by the trailer it hasn’t changed enough. In my opinion, it needs to be thoroughly rewritten. I will go see it, but only to verify to others that I have seen it and that I have the right to criticize it the way it deserves.

    1. I don’t understand what makes you so angry! Provided this script is real, it is clearly a “everything you were told was wrong” kind of take. As in, the victor writes history, so we got the original fairy tale; now here’s what actually happened. The two stories are deliberately incompatible—everything has been reversed on purpose, either for comic relief, for adding plot twists, or just for plain trolling.

      (This does not explain why they changed the fairies’ names, though.)

      Also, first time commenting here, thanks Mouse for this great blog. (When I clicked on Pepijn van Erp’s Vi-Aqua link, I don’t think I could expect less to land on a Disney review blog!)

      1. A movie-length trolling? . . . I had never even considered such a thing, but you know, that’s going to become my new default mindset whenever I come across a reboot that’s just too bad to be believed.

        Thank you!! 😀 (No, I’m serious. This concept will save me from so much mental ranting it’s not even funny.)

      2. “I don’t understand what makes you so angry! Provided this script is real, it is clearly a “everything you were told was wrong” kind of take. As in, the victor writes history, so we got the original fairy tale; now here’s what actually happened. The two stories are deliberately incompatible—everything has been reversed on purpose, either for comic relief, for adding plot twists, or just for plain trolling.”

        You…just summed up why I was upset about the script. That is, it’s completely incompatible with the 1959 animated film.

      3. Am I the only one who sees this story as more of an alternate universe deal, like “what could have happened?” I don’t see it as supplanting the 1959 film or turning the 1959 film into a “written by the victors deal.” They’re just two different takes on the same fairy tale.

        Now as for the quality of the leaked script… yeah, it looks terrible. I’ll be seeing the movie anyway because the visual style and atmosphere look great, and there is a small chance the script has been polished.

    2. “Linda Woolverton, who wrote Alice in Wonderland (2010), shows once again that she cannot write.”

      Ok, while I agree that Alice in Wonderland wasn’t that good of a film (I wouldn’t call it terrible, just an ok, nothing worth remembering film), what keeps her from being what I believe to be a bad writer mainly comes from writting three of the most beloved animated films of all time: Mulan, a little bit of Lion King, and her magnum opus, in my opinon, Beauty and the Beast (both screen and stage).

      Not to mention, at least according from what I read on wikipedia and a little bit of IMDB, the original writer of the film was Paul Dini. Yes, the guy who gave us Harley Quinn, co-produced BTAS, and the first two Arkham games, starts his film career by writing this. Truth be told, Woolverton more than likely must be doing a bit of rewriting on it, but Dini started it, so the question now is how much is Woolverton’s work and how much is Dini’s work?

      What gets me a bit nervous is that the director is a guy who’se main form of work is from working as a special effects guy on films like Avatar, so this is his directing debue. More than likely, I feel like this is going to be more or less just a pretty looking film much more than anything else. But that’s just me thinking. Could be wrong and he might bring something new to the frey, just gonna have to wait and see when the time arises.

      1. With Mulan, Lion King and Beauty and the Beast, Linda Woolverton was in a group with other writers. In my opinion, it’s highly likely that the other writers were what made those movies great, and anything she may have put forth was highly improved upon.

  3. When I first heard about this movie and saw the trailer I thought, “Huh, so it’s Wicked but with Sleeping Beauty. That sounds awful.” I’ll most likely see it out of morbid curiosity but I don’t have high hopes for this one.

  4. Well, I am here for this film. Partially because I do not really like Maleficent or Sleeping Beauty. I find Maleficent to be one of the flattest Disney Villains to exist, and is a bit overrated, so it would be nice to see her become an……. actual character.

    We will see. Also, the fact that Angelina Jolie is her kind of helps. I know you SB fans are gonna rip me apart for this.

  5. No. Just no. Not attracting me to this film at all, Boo to Lana Del Rey, she sounds and looks permanently stoned. Hate her version of the song. Boo the fairies not being who they are supposed to be. Boo to Maleficent being good. I like background to a character but this is nothing like the book if Wicked at all, there is no misunderstanding on this level. Boo to the casting of Aurora

    1. I don’t mind the song, but I really don’t see the point considering that Maleficent already has a theme which is way creepier. I still shudder when her eyes turn up in the fireplace, mostly because of the score.

  6. I too am not looking forward to this film. To reiterate prior posters, I DON’T want to understand/sympathize with Maleficent, the CGI looks so basic (like “Alice in Wonderland”), and the story seems a la “Wicked” or “Once Upon a Time”.

    And I too never loved Maleficent and found her quite overrated. And I also am not an Angelina Jolie fan.

    Yeah, the only good thing I like about this film is Lana Del Ray’s version of the song.

      1. Frollo would be mine. Maleficent is a close second for me, though. Shere Khan I would put quite lower (number 17, since he has little screen time compared to most of the others. I do love George Sanders’ voice for him, though.)

  7. I read the old draft of the script that’s floating around the internet. *sigh* Why does every female villain need a backstory in which their evilness was caused by some guy they’re in love with betraying them? Seriously, aren’t there any female villains who are evil for the evulz/money/anything non-“jilted by a guy”-related?

    “Oz the Great and Powerful” is a guilty pleasure of mine, mostly due to the score, but I hated that the freakin’ Wicked Witch of the West had such a lame reason for turning to the dark side.

    Who’s next, Cruella de Ville? *shudder*

    1. YES YES YES

      Because the only reason a woman would ever go evil is from being jilted by a lover. Now, how many times have we seen the opposite, where a man turns evil after being jilted by his lover? Uh, that would be none.

      (OK, maybe Davy Jones from “Pirates of the Caribbean” but that’s still stretching it a bit. He didn’t turn evil, really, he just stopped doing the job that Calypso gave him.)

      1. But it is never framed as “he went that way because he was wronged” but as “he was always an a-hole and the female in the triangle made the right decision to shun him”

      2. It’s not a question of what is better and what worse, it’s a question of woman portrayed in a certain way and men in a different one (plus, the “always evil girlfriend” exists too).

  8. I am SO not looking forward to this film. Though many old-school Disney villains scared the crap out of me as a kid, Maleficent made me want to smash my TV screen, reach in, and shake her hand vigorously for being such an AMAZING villain. I DO NOT want to see her be “a victim of some bad incident that turned her evil.” You want to do that? Then do it with the Sleeping Beauty fairy tale, NOT Disney’s Sleeping Beauty.

  9. I remain cautiously optimistic about this film. For one, Angelina Jolie is known for playing tough female roles that go against the usual female stereotypes in cinema, so there might be some hope that her involvement leads to a character that isn’t evil just because she was shunned by a guy or anything else like that. On the other hand, she isn’t known for playing villains either, so we might still end up with an antivillain or, I shudder to think, an antihero.

    Secondly, as stated, the writers have some seriously good movies under their belts. Always a positive thing.

    From the trailers and from what I’ve gathered from Wikipedia etc. it seems pretty obvious to me that will end up with Maleficent that at least starts out sympathetic. One can only hope that she at least will eventually become a true villain and that her descend into the dark side will be done correctly. And really, it could make sense. If she starts out as a nature spirit, or something like that, I could see her getting crueler and crueler as time goes on, until she finally snaps in a suitably dramatic and gleeful fashion. Nature is a bitch to begin with, after all.

    The key factor here will be whether or not her fall (if there is going to be one) will be depicted as a sad, tragic event that could have been prevented or whether it is shown to be something she starts to enjoy. Dark and twisted humour could save a lot here.

    1. “On the other hand, she isn’t known for playing villains either, so we might still end up with an antivillain or, I shudder to think, an antihero.”

      Wasn’t she Grendel’s mother in Beowulf (2007)?

      1. True that, and now that I took time to look through her other bigger roles, she did win an Academy Award for playing a sociopath, though whether Girl, Interrupted had any true villains is debatable. Still, the percentages are heavily on the hero side.

      2. I say just because someone has played mostly good guys, doesn’t mean they can’t play bad guys.

      3. Of course not, but a risk still remains when a big, famous actor gets a role and a script such as this that she will want to make it more like she wants it to be. Not that I think Jolie is prone to care about her public image quite that much, but I wouldn’t be surprised either.

  10. The only thing that gives me the faintest sense of hope is that Linda Woolverton is the writer. If her previous work is any indication, she can pull this off. However, I read the leaked draft of the script and really hope she basically burned that draft and started from scratch. From what I’ve seen of the finished product, I fear she didn’t and this will be a massive stain on her portfolio.

    I honestly wonder if this is a story that’s just not meant to be told.

  11. Out of the three actresses playing the good fairies, only one of them (Juno Temple) is in her twenties. The other two, Imelda Staunton and Leslie Manville, are middle aged just like their animated color coded counterparts.

  12. I…can’t say I have a problem with it. I think we all know it’s going to change Maleficent (in a good or a bad way…), but at the end of the day, this movie is not part of Sleeping Beauty and I don’t think it’s been marketed as such.
    I’ll enjoy it for what it is, even if it ends up turning Maleficent into some treehugging hippie (the horror…NO! Gotta keep it together, I’ll…enjoy…this movie…)
    Oh yeah, it’s really pretty because the director’s an special effect artist and production designer. And it shows.

    Hey Neil! Have you heard? The terrible month of terrible movies (aka January) is finally over! Apparently The Lego Movie is one of the best animated movies of recent years…you should totally see it. Do it for me. I gotta wait until March. Pretty please?

    (By the way ,is that poster real? It looks…horrible)

  13. The thing is, “villain backstories” aren’t necessarily bad. Look at Wicked, or Wide Sargasso Sea (Jean Rhys’ novel about Edward Rochester’s mad wife from Jane Eyre).

    I’m still willing to give this a chance. I’m all about alternate takes on fairy tales, and new live-action versions of the same. I wish Mirror Mirror had done better–I liked it a LOT more than Snow White and the Huntsman, which just seemed to be all over the place.

    There’s also the fact that I never did see Sleeping Beauty as a child…I didn’t see it until I was a young adult, so I don’t have that “tampering with a childhood villain” feeling that some others have. I’m willing to accept this as an alternate take in a “history is written by the winners” way.

    Besides, if this does well, it bodes well for future fairy tale movies (like that live-action Beauty and the Beast directed by Guillermo del Toro).

  14. LOL imagine if they made a movie about the backstory of the Coachman from Pinocchio (1940). They’d probably make him a precious, wronged creature too.

  15. As I have never seen “Sleeping Beauty” from begining to end, I had next to no bias when I saw “Maleficent”. But I thought Angelina Jolie was terrific in her role, and while the whole “a woman is bad because a man has wronged her” is on its way to become a cliché, I did like her character. But yeah, everything else about that movie felt wrong. Aurora and Philip were just bland, I have no idea why Aurora never got to meet her mother, and it only felt weird that Philip wasn’t the one to give Aurora the kiss of true love. And yeah, the fairies were terrible. But as my familiarity with “Sleeping Beauty” doesn’t reach beyond online reviews and some clips on YouTube, I can’t totally hate “Maleficent” like others do.

  16. I am really not a fan of Sleeping Beauty, and I found Maleficent overrated, and am I the only person here who really liked this film? I’ve watched it twice, once in the theatre and once on a plane. Pretty good. I don’t really get the big deal about its mismatch to the original. It’s more like an ‘in a different dimension/universe’ deal.

    1. Like I said in my comment above, I saw this movie with next to no bias. But except for the character of Maleficent, and indeed Angelina Jolie’s performance, it just felt like a mess.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s