Few filmmakers can frame a film with the visionary flair of Oscar winner Robert Stromberg, who worked on the amazing “Pan’s Labyrinth” and “The Hunger Games”. As a result, “Maleficent” (Angelina Jolie’s major comeback since 2010’s “The Tourist”)- a spin on Sleeping Beauty for audiences who really think they need another one- offers sets, costumes and images to make us drool. But what’s inside the frame? Nothing much. The script by Linda Woolverton is a model of paper thin storytelling and a lot of good actors go down with it. Start with Angelina Jolie, who tries hard, too hard as the peaceful fairy who turns into a villain when the love of her life betrays her. Years later, she puts a curse on his baby girl, Aurora. No need to reveal more. You probably know how this ones goes. Elle Fanning plays the older version of Aurora and she gives it her best shot as well. But it’s not enough. You can sense that there’s something missing. But hey just in case you’re wondering why we’re being punished with a series of revisionist fairy tales, the apparent reason is that Hollywood sensed a hit in the making when Tim Burton’s “Alice in Wonderland” was released a few years ago and wound up making a lot of money. That got various Hollywood filmmakers thinking that the audience was eager to see new versions of “Snow White”, “Red Riding Hood” and now “Sleeping Beauty”. Well suck on it Hollywood. I suspect most people went to see “Maleficent” because of Angelina Jolie. But even she can’t save it from being pointless and forgettable.
Categories: 2/4, fantasy, The Twenty-First Century
Agreed with most of what you said. Maleficent was purely a one man army led by Angelina Jolie. (She looked AMAZING btw… i literally just went to see her cheeckbones…) I wrote about it too. Here it is. http://bit.ly/1x6tBIF