Maleficent review (2014, Fantasy/Thriller/Family, Robert Stromberg)

The original classic Sleeping Beauty had a more compact, and because of it, easily digestible feel. Dark, foreboding, enchanting, and frankly quite neat, the 65 year old original had long-since earned its status as one of the greatest Disney classics.

Then a couple people with no original ideas of their own looked at that classic, thought it should be revitalized and maybe even twisted around because why the hell not, and ended up making this movie. Is it horrendous? No, not really. But it's just so inconsequential that that is my main problem with this film.

I have to get it out of the way right at the get-go: one of the very few saving graces for this film is in Angelina Jolie's performance. Throughout her entire run on-screen, she pretty much steals the show. And while she nails the deceptively malevolent vibe of the character down to a 'T' (you'll understand why I said 'deceptively' soon), just about everything else about this movie nearly brings her performance down to the level of ambitious, yet failed fan-fiction schlock that rips off just about every work of fantasy in history.

The special effects, as expected by the man who worked on James Cameron's Avatar, are solidly done. But anything that isn't directly involved in the narrative, such as the many spells employed by our title character herself, doesn't even matter in the first place. The effort that went into designing those effects could have been put to better use, but instead they serve to dazzle the audience like Fiddler's Green from George Romero's Land of the Dead used fireworks to distract zombies. In fact, you pretty much have to be a zombie to even appreciate this film at all, because as mentioned, there's a lot of fluff, very pretty fluff at that, but that's still useless and pretty fluff. Likewise, the cinematography is good as well, at least in appearance, but that's pretty much all I can say about it.

Like most movies over the past decade or more, this film somehow lacks a memorable soundtrack. Compare this travesty to the more heartfelt (and arguably just as dark) original which utilized some of its soundtrack to spotlight the plotline (in other words, sing-song, just like what you get in so many other Disney films throughout its history). This lack of a soundtrack that even adds anything of substance serves as another nail in the coffin as to just how soulless this film is.

Aside from Jolie, who, as mentioned, steals the show pretty much all the time she appears on screen, nobody really does anything of note. Some characters, and thus the performances of those portraying them, even got outright neutered in this live-action re-imagining of Disney's classic. The three fairies Flora, Fauna and Merryweather all became unfunny Three Stooges spoofs, whereas in the original they were vastly essential to the plot. In this film they are stupid, obnoxious, and ditzy, ending up being negligent regarding Aurora's very well-being. In the original, they raised her with love and care, protecting them at all times, most certainly living up to the trust that her father gave to them in the first place.

The prince, who originally was the ace, the means of breaking the curse that the title character set on Aurora, ends up being absolutely irrelevant in this film. He's an outright red herring, serving as a means for the filmmakers to smack you, the audience, over the head with the ludicrously lame twist. In the original, he was the one who broke Aurora out of her death-like sleep; here, he kisses her, and nothing happens because for the sake of the movie, he and Aurora never really had any lasting contact let alone any chance to form such feelings. Well, Aurora seemed to feel something after their first and only true encounter, but that might have just been her loneliness dissipating for a bit. So who is the one who'd deliver true love's kiss? Well, none other than Maleficent. See where this is all going?

Sharlto Copley, previously seen in sleeper hits such as District 9 and the decent follow-up Elysium, doesn't really fit into this film. He's a solid actor and all, but he's above his role and he inadvertently hurts his own performance just being there. Plus it felt like a cruel cop-out to suddenly thrust the antagonist role onto him, considering his position in the story, just for the rather silly twist.

There's a battle scene that plays out when Maleficent has grown into, well, Angelina Jolie, whom takes it upon herself to protect the Moors from a king that never seemed to care about the place until this point of the film. It's actually quite brief, so you won't get anything of the caliber seen in the second & third Lord of the Rings film entries. Tree & rock monsters enter the fray, including a serpent of sorts, and Maleficent herself shows superhuman strength with the flapping of her wings alone. The king is knocked on the ground, Maleficent tells him off, and that's that. Later he's seen dying, or something, so he seeks vengeance in the form of a volunteer, and that's where Maleficent's downfall (which is downplayed in this film, as per the twist I mentioned previously) is set in motion.

Some later scenes look very Avatar-esque. One of them has Aurora, assumed to be sixteen-years old, basking in the fantastical glory of the Moors, interacting with the various creatures within as if she were their goddess. They take to her so quickly it seems because she's so happy and whatever, whereas Maleficent is kind of the opposite. Now, all of this would have meant something had the film been faithful to the original storyline, but it ends up falling flat. Maleficent lost her will to do good in the world, at least in the original, whereas here she just seems to have a long-lasting hissy fit. The one thing this film has on the original tale is that the tragedy that sets her downfall in motion is actually quite tragic, based entirely on betrayal rather than being excluded from a gathering of sorts like in the original fable. Had it been a faithful, albeit still updated take on the old tale, there would have actually been an interplay at hand, people would have had a reason to care about these spectacles showcasing Aurora's synergy with the wonders of the Moors, and Maleficent wouldn't end up so...tame. All considering the reason she is sent on a downward spiral in the first place:

She loses her wings to Stefan, Copley's character in the film.

Now that development, something that had the film not tapered off toward the end, would have endeared it, seemed like a great way to not only show why Maleficent would lose her good ways, but to also make the audience feel a bit of sympathy for her. How was she to know that Stefan would choose to steal her wings, even if he had good intentions in doing so? Some filmgoers might not even recognize the reasons for his sacrifice, as it is something you need to pay attention to to understand, but it's very much there. However, when the final battle is raging, Aurora finds Mal's wings locked up and, alive & moving on their own. It makes little sense but bare with me here: she then proceeds to smash the wing's prison, and they fly themselves to Maleficent while she battles Stefan's knights and attach themselves to where they originally were. The "what-the-fuck"-ery on display here is so huge because it ruins a lot of what could have made this flick more likeable.

One particular reason it ruins the film for me, and has seemingly so for others, is because of the question, "why didn't her wings do this before, such as while Stefan was riding them to the kingdom, with little to restrain them from flying back to Maleficent?" And another question arises after you've watched her conjure all manner of spells throughout the duration of the movie; "If Maleficent has all of these cool powers, then why oh why can't she grow a new pair of wings, or fly in some magical way?" In fact, in one scene where Stefan's knights are trying to barge their way into the Moors, well after Maleficent has closed it off in anticipation, Maleficent holds the group of knights back with, amongst other spells, the ability to make them fly into the air. Well, they don't of their volition, but if she could do that then what the fuck stopped her from granting herself something like flight, without wings?

But somehow the film is (supposed to be) better than it should be because the narrator knows the truth about Maleficent, because she is Aurora. If this revelation prior to the last slide of the film was supposed to shock people, then I'm not one of them. Given that the narrator seems to play no role in the film for more than half of its run, and only served to provide conniving expository dialogue whenever she was heard, the reveal that we were listening to Aurora all along suffers from what most of this film does: it falls flat.

C-

The Good:

+ Angelina Jolie was made for this role.

+ Some nice, if mostly unoriginal fantasy spectacles to be seen.

+ Arbitrary battle scene for those who like arbitrary battle scenes.

The Bad:

- No one else can match Angelina Jolie.

- Many important and interesting plot points & characters were neutered for whatever reason (such as the huge importance the three faeries played in the original).

- That twist...

- Arbitrary battle scene, not for those who dislike arbitrary battle scenes or for those who feel they don't need to be in every damn movie, especially those of fantasy.

- Prince Phillip doesn't need to be here, given the twist, and the utter lack of character development How a 60-plus animated film got this right is beyond me.

- The Kingdom disposes of all known knitting wheels and sets fire to them. Somehow, after about sixteen years, they're still there, waiting for Aurora to touch them.

- Nothing special about the casting choices.

- You might actually feel bad for Stefan dying. I mean, he was driven a bit crazy by the hyperbolic reaction to his well-intended betrayal that Maleficent was exhibiting. Let's see: severing the wings of the one you considered a good friend to guarantee her safety even though you never end up admitting this to her, versus Maleficent cursing your only daughter to prick her finger on a knitting wheel to fall into a death-like sleep forever. Yeah I would side with Stefan on this one.

-  Maleficent does not turn into a dragon.

- Very unoriginal and steals a lot from many other fantasy stories & films. Avatar & The Lord of the Rings come to mind.

A Pre-Viewing, Pre-Release Reaction to RoboCop (2014)

To drive the points I've made below home, I'll provide two of the main trailers for the film here. The release date of this film is wide in theatres & IMAX and on February 14, 2014:

RoboCop (2014) Trailer 1 (from the "MOVIES Coming Soon" channel):

RoboCop (2014) Trailer 2 (from the "Machinima" channel):

From what is portrayed in the trailers, the film misses the point of the original completely, which was both a multifaceted satire and a decent sci-fi film in its own right. There was a substantive reason for all of the violence and silly occurrences of the original, which was to lampoon the culture which created it in the first place. The themes were strong, such as what it is to be a man, and what it is to be a human being. It also heavily featured run-down sets because it portrayed a stunningly downtrodden near-future Detroit, and took place partially in poor neighborhoods, abandoned factories often taken over by powerful criminals, and the characters themselves were superficially human. It also spoke out against what corporate power can do to a community, by portraying OmniCorp as a rather villainous company willing to level a vast chunk of the city that was under-represented, highly-neglected, and overly exploited because of the desperation of the poor.

Hell, when it comes to the main character, (in the original film) Alex Murphy's brutal slaying in the line of duty managed to invoke a degree of sympathy because of just how over-the-top his death was. Instead of that, we see Alex Murphy getting injured from an explosion...in his driveway. It is a totally safe, unimaginative, totally spontaneous incident that flies in the face of the impact that death of Murphy produced from the 1987 classic. While one can safely assume the remake retains the following aspect, the original showed that Alex Murphy was a good, by-the-books cop willing to perform his duties to the teeth, and he got slaughtered for it in such a horrific fashion that you eagerly awaited justice to be exacted on the villains. Even more significant is that the man he was charged with bringing down had ties to the very same corporation that would revive him as the first RoboCop, which had the possibility of cementing his role not as a law enforcer out to protect the greater good, but to serve the whims of OmniCorp. In the end, he defied that, even being nearly destroyed and incapacitated when trying to stand up to the machinations of the company. He, managing to recover some ounce of humanity, intended in the end to stand by principles rather than by profit (indeed, his police force manages to operate solely because they negotiated a paying contract with OmniCorp, nullifying their ability to stand up to their benefactor's corruption and eventual tyranny), bringing down the corrupt power structure that both created him and sought to destroy him.

In this film (based on the trailers at least), characters appear to be clean and have lost the sad & rundown feel of the original (now, good luck feeling anything for anybody in this film); everyone knows exactly what they're doing it appears, whereas the original showed that they had some troubles getting the RoboCop project fully underway; backdrops look rather sanitized and have seemingly lost the nuanced appeal of the original (run-down and rather sad, as said above); it downplays the themes present in the original; there is no satire to be found (such as the rather ingenious commercials to be seen in the original film and its somewhat inferior sequel); the CGI behooves the new film of the visceral, raw nature of flesh melded with machine that managed to cement the original as a landmark entry amongst special FX titans; and Murphy's death in the remake could not possibly illicit a modicum of sympathy for him, let alone any real reaction given how generic and safe it is. I'm sure there are more problems that nobody will possibly see upon release, but at the same time it very well may have its strengths as well.

It just won't measure up to the 1987 classic, and even the somewhat inferior sequel. As Peter Weller said of the remake, (paraphrasing) it won't be able to do it (in comparison to the original).

With all this said & done, I will see this film come Valentine's Day, 2014. But as damned as I am for saying this, I know for sure that this film will end up a mediocre exercise in tedium, safely-played cinematic scope, and theme-deprived science fiction. Indeed, one of the major themes of the original wherein corporate greed & power is portrayed negatively, appears to have been reversed in a sense here and flat-out downplayed. But most importantly of all, how will the "remembering what it is to be a man, and a human" theme hold up in the remake? Will it eschew grandiose narrative and underlying thematic scope for sheer action and fall victim to executive meddling? We'll all see for ourselves on release day.

On the bright side I guess, it does have Samuel L. Jackson in it, so it's gotta be good, right?

The Thing Review (2011)(SPOILERS)

There's little imagination to be found here. While it didn't have the huge shoes to fill that a sequel would, it didn't serve much justice as a prequel, either. The audience of the Carpenter original didn't need to be brought up to speed as to the creature's origins; it was established right at the beginning sequence. This review is only intended for others who have watched the film, because it has spoilers.

I had a problem with the in-your-face nature of how the Thing went about its practices. Most daunting was how it was so illogical; it attacked people often when they were surrounded by others, even when armed with weapons it must have realized at a point could kill it in a painful, hot way. It wasn't subtle, it didn't 'scan' the area for vantage points or hiding spots in case it screws up its assimilation attempts (in Carpenter's film, the dog thing goes about the camp, finding out the layout of the place, and listens in on the crew members and finds out how it can go about its activities).

The beginning of the film was better than the ending, even though the ending is
spot-on, faithful to how the canonical sequel began (the man with the slit throat, the split-face corpse, the bloodied axe embedded into the wall, and the block of ice with a large opening are all present). Indeed, the beginning of the film, all 20 or so minutes of it, gives a feeling of some mystery, like, "what is this thing? Where is it from?" However, that is thrown out the window the moment it literally leaps into action and begins its assault on the crew members without a care in the world what happens. Surely the creature would be as weary of foreign lifeforms as the humans are (except for the Sanders character, who was unbelievably naive and should I say, stupid); why would it choose to throw itself into possible danger like that? Oh, that's right, the writers of the film wouldn't have a movie if they gave it more of a dimension than what it ended up having, because they had little imagination.

The characters were virtually card-board cutouts, most of them soulless or lacking of any depth to make them interesting. There was some paranoia development between the characters, I'll give the film this merit, but it didn't have the same feel as the sequel. Plus, why bother being paranoid about people when for little reason, the Thing assimilates someone completely random with no indication as to why, where, or how the person became a victim. I did like this film's own take on the identity test, which relied on, get this, tooth fillings. There actually was some logic to be found in this little plot device, as when it tried to assimilate a person (unsuccessfully I might add), it rejected a metal leg plate during the process because it was inorganic. That's a simple AND clever plot device and it is a plus for the film. However, this is one of the elements of the film that gives it the classification of "remake", seeing as it borrowed many elements from Carpenter's film, as if the design team of the film had nothing else to go on.

Atmosphere is a helpful way to give a film identity, and this film doesn't disappoint, for the most part. It doesn't help that the creature takes no liberties, doesn't seem to hatch any effective plan to take people over, and that even when it goes about its business, there's always people right there to burn it to death. There is a lot of tension during these moments, but the film is chock full of them that it doesn't allow for much ambiance, any breaks from action, which in Carpenter's film were used to great effect thanks to Morricone's stunning soundtrack. While I forgot the name of the person responsible for this film's soundtrack, it was rather forgettable other than the remix of "Humanity" heard at the end sequence, which sounded too much like the original anyway.

CGI was heavily used in this film. It didn't bother me, though, because I've come to accept this method of film effects (except for some cases. 'Deep Blue Sea', I'm looking at you!). Frankly, they were well done, but they didn't have the visceral feel that Rob Bottin's creations from the Carpenter film had. Indeed, many of the mutations were unoriginal or uninspired; Bottin had things like flesh flowers, a huge set of dinosaur-like teeth inside of one's chest, massive deformed-looking claws, a huge skull of what looked like a huge and mean looking dog, and many other things. This Thing almost always had a set of octopus jaws in the chest of the host, and crab-like claws. That's about all that I could say of it because the creature design was decent at best.

In closing, this is a decent film, but it doesn't add anything new to The Thing canon. There was little imagination, it made way too many nods to the Carpenter original, and character development and interaction was, in most cases, nonexistent. And the creature, while still as scary as ever because of its shape-shifting abilities and the way it mutates, is made one-dimensional and somewhat boring. Paranoia is still there, but there's nothing else to speak of. I guess the only real upside to this film is that it'll expose this canon to more people, and might invigorate some interest in it to generate a possible sequel. However, because of the ambiguous nature of the ending of Carpenter's film, it'll be hard to fill such shoes.

C+

+ Does have some faith to the Carpenter film

+ Retains some of the paranoia you'd think people would feel in such a situation

+ CGI is not bad, but it isn't spectacular, either

+ The beginning gives some sense of wonderment 

- Doesn't try anything really new, but does have some twists

- Too many nods to the original

- Monster behavior, and the situations where it attacks, are illogical

- Forgettable soundtrack and the atmosphere is almost nullified by the constant action

- Not as scary as it is gory and intense. In that case, it is more of a sci-fi thriller than a sci-fi horror film.

Additional note: Congrats on the clever identity test method, guys.