Maleficent: Mistress of Evil (2019) film review

Year: 2019
Running Time: 118 minutes
Director: Joachim Rønning
Writers: Linda Woolverton (story and screenplay), Micah Fitzerman-Blue (screenplay) and Noah Harpster (screenplay)
Cast: Angelina Jolie, Elle Fanning, Michelle Pfeiffer, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Sam Riley, Harris Dickinson, Robert Lindsay, Imelda Staunton, Juno Temple, Lesley Manville, Ed Skrein
Maleficent: Mistress of Evil  will be released on October 17, 2019 and is distributed by Walt Disney Pictures. 

Following on from the 2014 film about one of the scariest, if not the scariest and most infamous Disney villain of all-time, Maleficent: Mistress of Evil continues the live action fairy-tale with a new story in the Sleeping Beauty universe that speaks to the world we live in. With it's spectacular visuals and seemingly simplistic story that will delight children and entertain adults, the film by Joachim Rønning is deeper than it would have you believe with it's themes of inclusion and gender equality, and obvious parallels to current world events.

Maleficent: Mistress of Evil continues the tale of the misunderstood Maleficent (Angelina Jolie) and her goddaughter, Aurora (Elle Fanning) by keeping the re-imagining of Sleeping Beauty a story that is gloriously drenched in feminism, something the Disney 1959 absolutely was not. While the original animated film had a large number of female characters and outnumbered male characters, the clear message of the film was that women are the weaker sex that are there to raise and nurture (as seen by the fairies), but are also to be feared (Maleficent) as they are easily tempted by evil (Aurora and the spinning wheel). In the end, it is the man who will save the woman from herself.

2014's Maleficent was Disney's opportunity to undo this injustice and they did not waste this. While Jolie's Maleficent took on maternal qualities, she was also the one to save Aurora while the men in the film took the role as the villain (Sharlto Copley's Stefan), the follower (Sam Riley as Diaval) and the prince who did not have the power to break the spell and save his princess (Brenton Thwaite's Prince Phillip). It was about realising that our true love is not always a romantic love, but rather the love of a family member or friend. The film also presented a more sympathetic side to Maleficent by providing her origin story and making her far more likable and the hero of the story.

Maleficent: Mistress of Evil continues with it's feministic retelling of the beloved, but flawed Disney classic with it's strong female characters who drive the story. Much to her godmother's dismay, Aurora finally says yes to marrying her Prince Philip (recast as Harris Dickinson) and two kingdoms are set to be united. However, it soon becomes evident that her new mother-in-law, Queen Ingrith's (Michelle Pfeiffer) intentions are not quite as honorable as her son's and she is not prepared to be at peace with Maleficent and the Moors.

It is true that these three lead characters are not quite as fleshed out as they could be, with Jolie's Maleficent being restricted by the screenplay and being not be able to truly showcase the thrilling and charismatic character she has made her own. Fanning's Aurora is also subdued and controlled, but also quietly unflinchingly strong. Pfeiffer is also a brilliant addition to the cast with another strong female character, but again wavers on the edge of giving her character true depth because of the whimsical nature of the screenplay. Her character of Queen Ingrith is not interested in the joining of the two kingdoms, but rather the destroying of a race which she believes is not equal to that of the humans. She exhibits qualities that are not unlike that of a dictator and in particular, that of Hitler and his attitude towards the Jews. Her views and actions in the film are similar to those of his and other current world leaders when it comes to those who are deemed different on the basis of race and religion. Along with gender equality, the message of inclusion and acceptance is a much talked about topic in society today and comes through in the film.

However, Maleficient, Aurora and Queen Ingrith are not only strong characters, but also strong leaders and the male characters merely take to shadowing these three. The fact that these three are leaders rather than the male characters (despite two of the main male characters holding royal titles) shows how gender equality has been worked into this extended Sleeping Beauty universe.

Maleficent: Mistress of Evil's screenplay, which is written by Linda Woolverton, Micah Fitzerman-Blue and Noah Harpster, is deceptively flimsy and whimsical. While this is an inherent trait of the large majority of Disney fairy-tale films, it is commendable how it says so much while it appears to be simplistic and a typical family tale of good and evil. What the film also does so well is deliver incredible cinematography and breathtaking visuals, specifically those of the Moors and the Kingdom (especially in the later scenes). The costume design by Erin Mirojnick is absolutely exquisite with entrancing variations of Maleficient's costume and breathtaking gowns worn by Aurora and Queen Ingrith.

Maleficent: Mistress of Evil may not pack the same punch that 2014's Maleficent did by way of it's lead character being as charismatic, but it continues with a story that is helping to bring to light issues that exist in the world today and promote the idea of inclusion as a way for us all to have a happy ever after.

7/10

Maleficent (2014)

 

Year: 2014
Running Time: 97 minutes
Director: Robert Stromberg
Writers: Linda Woolverton (screenplay), Charles Perrault (based on the story "La Belle au bois dormant" by), Jacob and Wilhelm Grimm (based on the story "Little Briar Rose" by), Joe Rinaldi, Winston Hibler, Erdman Penner, Bill Peet, Ted Sears , Ralph Wright and Milt Banta (based on the motion picture and screenplay "Sleeping Beauty" by)
Cast: Angelina Jolie, Sharlto Copley, Elle Fanning, Sam Riley, Imelda Staunton, Lesley Manville, Juno Temple, Brenton Thwaites

Maleficent is the unexpected tale of the infamous Disney villain. While it is not the dark or suspenseful film it could have been, it does tailor more towards the family audience that Disney traditionally caters for. The film is absolutely glorious in terms of it's production design, but it's true force lies with Angelina Jolie. Jolie is absolutely perfect in the title role and gives the film unsuspected depth. While the film is not particularly powerful, it is Angelina Jolie who provides all the power it needs.

When we first meet Maleficent (Angelina Jolie), she is s beautiful and adventurous fairy who lives in the moors outside the kingdom's castle. King Henry (Kenneth Cranham) wants to take the moors by force with his army, but Maleficent forms her own army from the creatures of the moors. It is her first love that betrays her in order to win the king's approval and the crown on his death, and Maleficent becomes cold and vengeful. When King Stefan (Sharlto Copley) becomes a father, Maleficent curses the child that she should fall into a sleep like death on her 16th birthday and the only way to wake her is with true love's kiss. As the years go by, Maleficent keeps close watch on Aurora (Elle Fanning) as she grows into a beautiful girl full of life and finds that there in an unexpected bond growing between the two of them.

Maleficent could have been a much darker and more powerful film if director Robert Stromberg had wanted it to be. Disney's Sleeping Beauty is a timeless classic and is loved by all, adults and children alike. While Maleficent may not be the classic which Sleeping Beauty is, it does attempt to appeal to the wider audience in the same way that the Disney animation does. It is true that Maleficent does have the potential to be a much darker film than what it is, especially considering it is dealing with one of the most evil and terrifying Disney villains to ever grace the screen. However, if it was to be a scarier experience, then it would be neglecting it's younger audience. Many may argue that as it is a film about a villain, it has the right to be terrifying and that the filmmakers shouldn't hold back on this for the sake of upsetting the unsuspecting children who go to see it. However, one must remember that Maleficent is a Disney film and Disney has always been about the family film. There are some scenes in the film, particularly those featuring the fairies, which come across as very light and silly, but these are the parts which children will find entertaining. Yet then there are scenes in which Maleficent unleashes her fury which children may find frightening, so the film does balance itself out in order to reach as large an audience as it possibly can.

Although Maleficent is assumed to be a retelling of the 1959 Sleeping Beauty as told from the viewpoint of the villain, there are several differences between this film and the original. The first half of the film is true to the original story, yet the second half is where the change-up takes place. The changes work well to achieve the type of film which Maleficent strives to be and at the end of the day it is a different version of the original story of Sleeping Beauty. Maleficent is more of a fairy tale and has more fantasy elements than the original film, as it comes with a great deal more mythical creatures which all live in the moors with Maleficent.

Robert Stromberg makes his directorial debut with Maleficent. His career up until now has primarily been in production design and visual effects, which shows in a huge way in this film. The production design for Maleficent is breathtaking. In particular, the construction of the moors are superb and the visual effects for the night shots are beautiful. The CGI to create the creatures of the moors and for Maleficent's shape-shifting servant, Diaval (Sam Riley) is incredibly lifelike and extremely impressive. The film is atmospheric, though not in an overpowering way. There is a great deal of beauty in the film, even when the moors are being shown as reflective of Maleficent's dark moods.

While the film itself may not be overly powerful, it is Angelina Jolie's performance which makes up for this. Jolie is absolutely brilliant as the misunderstood villain, as she completely embodies the character and makes her her own. Jolie is perfectly cast in this film, as a lesser actor would not have been to create such an enigmatic character who can be terrifying, but also endearing. In the pivotal scene in the castle when the curse is placed on baby Aurora, Maleficent is truly very scary. Her voice and villainous laugh are nightmare inducing. Yet, there is a surprising amount of depth to her character and she surprises everyone with the amount of emotion she evokes, particularly when she is faced with the sleeping Aurora. It is Jolie's performance which truly makes the film. She is absolutely superb.

The role of Aurora doesn't call for much, but Elle Fanning still does well as the princess. There is not a lot of substance to the role and not much of a character for Fanning to really sink her teeth into, but there is no denying she physically fits the role. The princess is supposed to be beautiful and always happy, and this comes across so naturally in Fanning. Her smile is completely genuine and lights up the screen. The scene where she meets Prince Phillip (played by Brenton Thwaites) for the first time is incredibly sweet and does not feel corny, the way it easily could have. Sharlto Copley does far better as the obsessed, angry king than he does as the quivering servant to his processor. He is far more convincing when there is a much more interesting character to play. 

Maleficent may be a little too easy a watch for many people, but achieves what Disney more than often sets out to do and that is to create a film for the whole family. Angelina Jolie gives a performance unlike any other she has previously taken one, and makes Maleficent a greater film for it.

7/10

Kung Fu Panda 2

Kung Fu Panda 2

Year:  2011

Director: Jennifer Yuh

Cast: Jack Black, Angelina Jolie, Dustin Hoffman, Gary Oldman, Seth Rogan, Lucy Liu

In My Own Words

                Actors must love animation roles. Sure, the obvious reason for loving them is that it provides an easier alternative to their usual on screen acting by only have to act using your voice rather than having to link it up with believable facial expressions and having to worry about where you are standing in relation to your co-stars. The reason I think animation roles are great for actors is because it gives them a great comeback when critics say “(insert name here) plays the same role all the time” and “ Such and Such isn’t a very versatile actor”. What a great way to prove them wrong! Provide the voice for an animated animal on the big screen! That will always provide a “different” role for you on the big screen!

                For example, Jack Black. Someone says “Jack, you are playing too many of the same roles. You always seem to be playing the guy who no one, including themselves takes seriously. You need to branch out to other roles”.

                Black says “Okay. Well, my next role will be about another underdog who no one takes seriously, but this time I will be a….PANDA!” (this isn’t actually a quote from Mr Black, this is just theoretical).

                I’m sure it’s not the versatility that critics are after, but at least it is fun for the actors, and it is a good comeback if someone says you play the same role all the time. “Oh yeah? I play the same role all the time? Well, when was the last time I played an aardvark? When have any of my roles resembled that of a big nosed creature on it four legs obsessed with eating ants?”

                These are my own words and here is my review.

Review

                “The sequel is never as good as the original”.

                This is most probably what the majority of people would have been thinking about Kung Fu Panda 2, and they would have had good reason to as it is not often that a sequel comes anywhere near the quality of the original (The Godfather II  a major exception). However, it is a pleasant surprise to find that Kung Fu Panda 2 is just as good as the original, if not better. The animation is brilliant, script funny and it appeals to all ages.

                Po the Dragon Warrior panda (Jack Black) is back with his Furious Five team of kung fu warriors. When he finds out that the famous warrior, Thundering Rhino has been killed in Gongmen City  by the evil peacock, Lord Shen (Gary Oldman) and his pack of wolves, he and the Furious Five set off to free the city from Lord Shen’s evil ways. Before leaving the Valley of Peace, Po was a “shocking” discovery that he is adopted and that his noodle cooking goose (he is actually a goose, not a silly person, although some may object) father, Mr Ping is not really his father. Po has reason to believe that Lord Shen knows who he really is and where he came from. To Po, this awesome mission is now personal.

                Animation in cinema has come a long way since the first animated feature length film, Snow White And The Seven Dwarves in 1937. The quality of the visuals in Kung Fu Panda 2 are very impressive. The action scenes are almost up to the standard of those which you would see in a non-animated action film. It’s not just the action scenes that make you forget that you are watching an animation, there are several nature visuals which you could easily mistake as being that of photography.

 On the other hand, there are then some scenes which resemble a video game, such as when Po is running through the streets of Gongmen City. This isn’t a bad thing, as this video game likeness makes the film a great deal of fun.

                Kung Fu Panda 2 doesn’t just rely on its visuals, it is also accompanied by a very funny script. It has a very sarcastic and random sense of humour to it with some very funny scenes and dialogue. The ending is a bit frustrating however. Although, you can understand why the film makers made it that way.

                The best performances in animation films are those who can disguise their voice to the point where you really can’t guess who’s voice it is you are hearing. Jack Black is the main voice and you can tell he has a lot of fun with the role. It is perfectly suited towards Po. Angelina Jolie is extremely controlled as Tigress and Dustin Hoffman, quite the peaceful master. It is Gary Oldman who does the best job. He tackles new territory as the voice of Shen and is completely disguised in the character. That’s the way it should be when an actor supplies their voice to a film, there should be a sense of becoming someone you’re not, even if it is just by using a different voice to your own.

                Kung Fu Panda 2 is a sequel out of the ordinary. Funnier than the first film and more suspenseful than many non-animated films. A great film for the holidays for families and adults alike.

7/10

The Tourist

The Tourist
Year: 2010
Director: Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck
Cast: Johnny Depp, Angelina Jolie, Paul Bettany, Timothy Dalton

In My Own Words The combination of Johnny Depp and Angelina Jolie is a film makers dream. Two of the biggest movie stars on the planet and two of my personal favourite actors. Johnny Depp is just likable in every role he has been in the past few years. Even in "The Libertine" where one of his first lines is "You are not going to like me". He failed at that because I still found him likable. He's not afraid to take risks, I think he is more afraid of taking on a role people might consider "normal". He has been nominated for 3 Oscars, but has yet to take home one. I would love to see him win one, but what will it take? He's been nominated for"Pirates Of The Carribean: The Curse Of The Black Pearl", "Finding Neverland" and "Sweeny Todd: The Demon Barber Of Fleet Street". All amazing roles completely out of the ordinary yet no golden statue. What does he have to do?!

Then there is Angelina. The actress who has show-stopping beauty, but is sometimes more popular for what she does off screen than on screen. Her past romances, kissing siblings and being known as a "home wrecker" in the tabloids overshadow how truly amazing she is an an actress. She has been nominated for two Academy Awards and took home the big one in 1999 for "Girl, Interrupted". I think she is brilliant, regardless of what she does in her private life. After all, what is true about her so-called private life that we read in the celebrity gossip magazines?

I've already established that Depp and Jolie are amazing actors, but do they work together? These are my own words and here is my review.

Review
Everything about "The Tourist" points towards a winning combination. It stars Johnny Depp and Angelina Jolie who are two of the biggest movie stars in the world at the moment, has an Oscar winning director in Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck and it's set in a beautiful city like Venice. It seems like nothing could go wrong, or could it? "The Tourist" was always going to do well at the box office no matter what happenned in the film. It is one of those films which some people are going to love and others are going to find ridiculous. "The Tourist" is an action thriller which borders on comedy. Unfortunately, the comedy aspect makes it hard to take the film seriously when you feel like you should be taking it seriously. Frank Tupelo (Johnny Depp) is a maths teacher minding his own business on a train trip to Venice when a beautiful, mysterious English woman, Elise (Angelina Jolie) sits next to him. Little does he know, he is part of a plan of Elise's elusive love, Alexander Pearce to detour the authorities and make them think that Frank is actually him.

Set against the amazing backdrop of Venice, "The Tourist" seems to be a very confused film. It is not quite sure what it is. It could have been a serious film and it seems like that is what the film makers would have wanted, but with Johnny Depp involved it doesn't come across that way. Not to say that Johnny Depp can't do serious roles because he definately can, but his character of Frank is quite comedic. On the other hand, it is not as funny as it should be to qualify as a comedy. This confusion makes the film seem a bit messy, although it does play out perfectly and runs smoothly on the screen. Visually it is an amazing film to watch. Henckel von Donnersmarck has pieced the film together beautifully and the cinematography, editing and visuals are amazing. Scriptwise, it is a good story and completely unpredictable. Everytime you think you know what is going on, something will happen to change your thoughts. It is one of those films you will walk away from and the more you think about it, the more everything will start to make sense. However, it is the scrip that provides the comedy moments which creates the confusion of the film.

Both Johnny Depp and Angelina Jolie are stars, there is no doubt about that. Johnny Depp is able to show so much emotion in just his facial expressions and in his eyes. He is able to make the audience feel great pity for him at the beginning of the film. The character of Frank feels much like the Inchabod Crane who Depp played in "Sleepy Hollow". Jolie shines on the screen, the camera just adores her. Depp and Jolie visually look good on the screen together, but there isn't a great deal of chemistry between the two. Maybe they were afraid of creating too much chemistry between the two in case that started creating rumours.

If you go into "The Tourist" thinking you will see a drama, you will be disappointed. If you think it is going to be a comedy, you will also be disappointed. If you think it is a psychological action film, you may not be so disappointed. If you think it is just going to be just a good piece of entertainment and something which is visually beautiful to watch, you will enjoy the film. Visually it is amazing and beautifully directed with beautiful people, but it is just confused about what it is and what it is trying achieve.
6/10

Salt

Salt
Year: 2010
Director: Phillip Noyce
Cast: Angelina Jolie, Liev Schreiber, Chiwetel Ejiofor

In My Own Words
Lets talk teaser posters and trailers. When I say teasers, that’s exactly what they are. They don’t reveal anything about the movie, or if they do, they only give you very little to work off. Not that it is a bad thing to let everyone know before the movie comes out what it is about because the majority of people want to know what they are getting themself into, but teasers create an air of excitement about the movie. I bring this up in this review because that is very much our first exposure to “Salt” was. The first poster released was a close up of Angelina Jolie’s face with the tagline “Who Is Salt?” What did this poster tell us about the movie? Besides the fact that Jolie is in it, nothing. Love her or hate her, there is no denying that Jolie has an amazing amount of star power. This is the first movie she has done since the birth of her twins, Knox and Vivienne and it is as though she never left. She is still box office magic whether people know what the movie is about or not.

Of course this tactic doesn’t work if a big star isn’t in it or if it isn’t a Disney movie. Disney is great at teasing. Let’s use “Up” as a case study. The poster and trailer for it reveal not much more than it is a movie about a man who lives in a house with balloons attached to it and his young friend and dog. The movie could go in any direction from there. “Inception” is also a great example of teasing. I would’ve given an award to anyone who could tell me what “Inception” was about after watching the first trailer released. It gave nothing away, but everyone was intrigued because there was Leonardo DiCaprio, it was directed by “The Dark Knight” director Christopher Nolan and there were some amazing special effects. I love the idea of teasers. They make the movie watching experience just that bit more exciting even before you step into cinema. Terrific marketing .

These are my own words and here is my review.

Review
“Who Is Salt?” The perfect tagline and the question that bugs you for 100 minutes through “Salt” and will for days after you have seen it. It is so refreshing to see a smart action film, one that combines great special effects, a smart script and a tough female lead. It is rare that an action film will challenge you so psychologically and rely solely on special effects and bomb blasts to move the film along and keep the audience entertained. Not to say that these aspects of the film aren’t entertaining or hurt the film, because they certainly do not. Evelyn Salt. She’s a CIA agent who is blissfully married to an arachnologist. Or is she who the strange Russian man who has turned himself into the CIA says she is, a Russian spy who is on a mission to kill the Russian president?

There is not much more you can say about “Salt’s” plot without giving away too much about the film. It is brilliantly written and exceptionally well directed by Phillip Noyce. It is far more mentally challenging than one would expect it to be based on the plot summary. It is not a lazy film by all means and far from a mindless action film. Throughout the film, it is a struggle to see where the film is going as it is completely unpredictable, another sign of great writing and directing. The cinematography is very well done with some great special effects and action shots throughout the film. For once, an action film that is not based on an old TV show, old movie or a comic book. It stands alone as a great story in itself. It is almost as though writer Kurt Wimmer, took a politics and decided to throw some action into the equation.

The Noyce and Angelina Jolie combination proves to be a winning combination, as it did now over 10 years ago in “The Bone Collector”. She is perfectly cast as Evelyn Salt. Not only does she cover all bases that a female action star should, she also shows her true acting ability. Everyone knows Jolie is a great actor, she has shown her versatility in many of her films and this is just another one of those films. She goes between two extremes in this film and does brilliantly at all times. She creates a great deal of mystery and the film would be nowhere near as successful as what it is without her. It is interesting that this film was originally written with a male as the lead, and that male lead was to be played by Tom Cruise. When he pulled out, Jolie stepped in and the film was rewritten with a female lead. It’s hard to see how the film would have been as good with a male lead, and having Tom Cruise as the lead would have been too much of a flashback to “The Firm”. Schreiber is as good as he can be in his role as Salt’s business partner, Ted Winter, but is better in some parts than others. Chiwetel Ejiofor is very good as Peabody, changing the way the audience sees him throughout the film.

Although Jolie is Salt and is the star of the film, she is not the only part of this film that makes “Salt” a winner. It is extremely clever and very well made. It is not only action fans or Angelina fans that will enjoy this film. Although a mentally strenuous film to watch at times, it is completely refreshing and a tribute to Noyce and to Jolie.
8/10