Maleficent

Maleficent Flawed but Still Entertaining.

By Kristin Battestella

Wonder gal Angelina Jolie returned to cinema screens for the 2014 Disney hit Maleficent. Though marred in its mix of youth marketing and bleak fantasy, the tale here remains a charming good time.

Once a happy fairy protector of The Moors, the angry Maleficent (Jolie) threatens the nearby kingdom of former friend King Stefan (Sharlto Copley) and curses his newborn daughter to eternal sleep by pricking her finger on a spinning wheel on her sixteenth birthday. Raised in seclusion by the bumbling fairies Knotgrass (Imelda Staunton), Thistlewit (Juno Temple), and Flittle (Lesley Manville), the Princess Aurora (Elle Fanning) grows curious about The Moors and soon strikes up an unusual friendship with Maleficent – who Aurora views as her fairy godmother. Does Maleficent want to revoke her curse upon the princess? Can she or will the battle with King Stefan destroy his kingdom and The Moors?

Though most of the previews spent their time showing Maleficent’s live action recreation of Disney’s 1959 cartoon classic, the first half hour here is new back story with a pleasing mythos of fairies living in The Moors beside the real world, iron’s fairy burning properties, and star crossed romance between humans and magical folk. As expected, Maleficent starts out juvenile with the introduction of the titular young fairy but grows up quickly thanks to some scary tree monsters. Several elements here are really not for kids – especially a very upsetting and symbolic wing cutting that will be tough for some young ones to comprehend. The absent narrator does create a pleasant story telling aspect, but seemingly critical drama concerning the ambitious King Stefan is merely told in this shoehorned 90 minutes. Debut director Robert Stromberg (designer for Avatar and Oz the Great and Powerful) is obviously a visualist and not quite a storyteller, for the expected curse comes too soon in a film that’s supposed to be about Maleficent and not Aurora – she knows were the baby is all along, but goes back and forth in her vengeance in haphazard, rewritten, and excised plot from longtime Disney writer Linda Woolverton (The Lion King).

Purely whimsical fairy fan service moments trump the potential for serious character development, and Maleficent never decides if it’s the grim story behind Sleeping Beauty or an excuse for a live action spectacle. Maleficent laughs and plays tricks one moment before waging fiery, thorny war the next, unevenly mashing the two themes while speedy soap opera rapid aging syndrome scenes gloss over how a lot of elements don’t make much sense. Who and where traversings are unclear as the narration comes and goes and fresh motifs or any and all of Maleficent’s cool powers are forgotten or contrived as needed. Maybe kids can enjoy the pointless mystical special effects stringing Maleficent together, but this seemingly abridged retelling should have chosen to be all youth merriment or total sentimental sophistication. There are some fine visuals and charming characters here, but Disney settled for mass delight instead of a truly complete fairy tale. With this kind of pedigree, performance, and talent, it’s not unreasonable for mature audiences to expect a story well told. 

Fortunately, Maleficent is an alluring Vader that we love to hate, hate to love, and love to see come round good again, and Oscar winner Angelina Jolie’s (Girl, Interrupted) fun performance anchors the picture and forgives any faulty foundations. Although we never get an explanation of how her name could still be Maleficent even when she was a good and happy fairy child, a jilting and betrayal makes this revised fairy protector immediately sympathetic rather than villainous. The off screen clipping of her wings is certainly traumatizing and symbolic in many ways with well done strength and weakness from Jolie. The simple but touching creation of her staff and her isolated, destroyed abode provide menace whilst hiding her pain. Though bemusing, the superb transformation of Sam Riley (Brighton Rock) as her crow Diaval also provides companionship and an emotional sounding board. Maleficent has always been my favorite Disney villain, for she neither sings nor plays at humor and stupidity. Maybe she overreacts to not getting an invitation in the cartoon edition, but in Maleficent, we know the horrible reason why. It’s simply gleeful to see Jolie recite the same lines from the original with live action perfection and chew on the conflicting possibilities– her entrances, dark costuming, and chiseled design are simply delish. Yes, the uneven writing and direction hampers what should have been a steady hour and a half of character journey. Some developments were clearly not so well though out beyond the Disney textbook happy. The back and forth change of heart from scene to scene cuts the enraged layers off at the knees and at times makes Maleficent feel like a cliché woman scorned. Why does this skilled trickster needlessly bide her time and wage war while being charmed by a child? Maleficent isn’t all bad or totally pure yet most of the frightful, grey complexity feels left on the cutting room floor. Thankfully, Jolie captures both her previously macabre style and good-hearted maternal ways as Maleficent. If she truly is exiting her acting career, Maleficent sends her out on a show stopping high note.  

Though largely pleasant in her innocence as Aurora, Elle Fanning (We Bought a Zoo) is also slightly annoying in her bright and bushy excitement over her so-called fairy godmother Maleficent. Due to the piecemeal dialogue, magical narration, and time jumps snippets, we don’t get a chance to fully know Aurora, and no real motivations seems to dictate her hanging with Maleficent and the whole fairy gang. The audience can’t appreciate her parental revelation or cursly betrayals because the haste to the spinning wheel never gives us time to digest her side of the tale. Granted, Maleficent is about Maleficent, but the pricking of the finger was more suspenseful and dramatic in the 1959 animation and Aurora has very little weight as a catalyst supporting part. The writers feel stuck with the character and she isn’t treated as anything that special – even to Maleficent half of the time. Is she the daughter that Maleficent should have had with King Stefan? Groundbreaking potential here is either vaguely tacked on or missed completely – again thanks to the over reliance on slow motion pans, zooms, and battles over conversation.  

Wonderfully absentminded fairies turned clueless old ladies Imelda Staunton (Harry Potter), Juno Temple (Atonement), and Lesley Manville (Another Year) should have been the only amusing, whimsical, comedy relief in Maleficent. Unfortunately, it feels like Knotgrass, Thistlewit, and Flittle are barely there, shoehorned in to be upset about Aurora eventually leaving or unhappy at their sacrificing in a forested hovel as needed. Outside of a few brief scenes, we never really see either displeasure – Maleficent seems to cut away almost as if fanciful song and dance numbers have been excised after the fact. A film named after the misunderstood anti-hero should not feel like it is about to burst into song. Likewise, further dimension from Sharlto Copley (District 9) as King Stefan seems diminished in the editing room – another opportunity for a superior character reversal wasted in Maleficent. Stefan grows deservedly crazy over his cruel ambitions, and without Disney at the helm, this corrupt king could have been shaped into a superb villain equal to Maleficent in full on, historical creepy fashion ala Snow White: A Tale of Terror. Adding to the male inferiority is Brenton Thwaites (Gods of Egypt) as a rather dorky and I dare say unnecessary Prince Philip. Sam Riley’s Diaval ingenius should have been fully realized instead, but most of the support seems to be written as if serviceable would suffice. Maleficent is without a doubt Jolie’s vehicle to carry, but with the right polish, the ready and waiting ensemble could have done much more to define the film.

Maleficent is of course overly steeped in computer imagery. It’s supposed to look awe inspiring – and some of the world is unique to the Sleeping Beauty designs – but the majority of the visual effects look like every other standard CGI treatment we now all but continuously see in most blockbusters. Magic trees defending against anonymous knight armies make for tough to see blurry action and a lot of in your face messy. Thankfully, picturesque flying scenery, mystical smoke, magic thorns, and flame effects accent the naturally designed Moors and medieval castle works. It’s a little frustrating that even would be plain scenes of nothing more than people talking have an obvious fantasy patina and airbrushed saturation to them, but princessy costumes and hennins make for more tangible, recognizable storybook aspects alongside golden cottages and winterscapes. The green glow of Maleficent’s powers also illume Jolie’s face in several scenes and create a beautiful and intimidating harkening to the cartoon vintage. If nothing else, Maleficent is a colorful picture that still has a cool dragon and a superb update of “Once Upon a Dream” from Lana Del Rey. However, I do wish the movie had used the new rendition’s sense of stalker brood as a Tchaikovsky anchor or humming familiarity to unify the picture instead of just sticking the single over the end credits.

Naturally, the rental blu-ray of Maleficent is ridiculously laden with Disney in your face complete with internationally designed menus for mass distribution and abundant previews of every Disney property imaginable. What the heck will Disney call their releases once Diamond and Platinum are insufficient? Fortunately, the features seem to be intact with almost a half hour of behind the scenes and a handful of deleted scenes that should have remained within Maleficent to clarify character circumstances. Today, however, this small sampling of add ons doesn’t feel like enough, and ironically, Maleficent appears to have clipped its own wings in telling a fully realized tale from the villainous side  in favor of the tried and true Disney quest for maximum money making mainstream safety. Did it succeed in rolling in global dough? Of course. Maleficent didn’t have to be super dark and scary, but it should have been more defined in what it wanted to do – haters may be scratching their heads over some of the direct to video caliber prequel haphazards here. I may be biased as it is my favorite and Maleficent is fun and fanciful with laughing moments for the kids and adult tolerability – but ultimately, the 1959 classic feels like a more satisfying tale. Will there be a two hour Director’s Cut of Maleficent any time soon?

There are some scares and violence in Maleficent that might upset little ones, but I don’t think it is worthy of the “dark fantasy” label it has received. Intriguing character strides and mythos changes remain too sunshiny, but fans of the cast, fantasy audiences, and fanciful ladies of all ages can overlook the uneven writing and directing flaws thanks to good to be bad twists and delightful performances.

Summer Split Decisions

Summer Split Decisions

By Kristin Battestella

Some films you love without a doubt after numerous viewings.  Other shows you can’t get past the first fifteen minutes.  Unfortunately, what’s a viewer to do when torn between a movie’s good and ills?  Here are a few films both young and old on which I simply can’t decide!

The Bone Collector – Only Denzel Washington (Glory, Training Day) could deliver so fine a performance from a hospital bed.  The wonderful supporting cast- including Ed O’Neill (Married with Children), Queen Latifah (Chicago), and Luis Guzman (Carlito’s Way) - is great.  The spooky and grisly crimes from Jeffery Deaver’s source novel are intense.  Director Philip Noyce’s (Patriot Games) claustrophobic and dark camera angles juxtapose perfectly with the neat, upscale, and high tech remote technology.  Now then, I like Angelina Jolie (Girl Interrupted, Tomb Raider) I really do, especially in some of her earlier work such as this- but I don’t like her here.  She does well as a protégé cop with something to prove, but it’s as if Angie and Denzel are in too different movies.  Both have talent indeed, and they might even have chemistry should they work together again, but the pair is just too flat here.  You have to watch this one twice-once for the Denzel angle, and once for the Jolie feel. 

Highlander: Endgame – It’s the stuff of a Highlander fan’s dream: Connor MacLeod and Duncan MacLeod in one movie!  Despite the alternate establishments in the 92-98 television series, 2000’s Endgame has a decent enough storyline and plot to keep things plausible-unlike the useless 2007 sequel Highlander: The Source.  Bruce Payne (Passenger 57) and his villains are cool enough, main chick Lisa Barbusica (Bridget Jones’ Diary) is likeable, and of course, our immortals Christopher Lambert (Mortal Kombat) and Adrian Paul (Tracker) are wonderful.  However, something just isn’t right with Endgame.  I want to like it, honestly I do; but some of the more complex, multipart storylines of the series are better.  It also seems like no matter how hard they try- especially with alternate versions and special DVD cuts- all these movie sequels just aren’t as good as the original.  Completists will eat this one up, but casual fans are better off with the 1986 debut film or the series.  As it turns out, Connor and Duncan together is too good to be true.  After all, ‘There can be only one!’

The Legend of Hell House – Many consider this 1973 haunt fest a serious horror classic.  No doubt about it, the scares, kinky innuendo, terrifying house, psycho psychics, and ghostly dynamics are all here in fine form.  The filming and music is of its time yet still creepily shocking and askew today-maybe more so thanks to the now period looking styles.  Roddy McDowall (Planet of the Apes), Pamela Franklin (The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie), Clive Revill (Avanti!), and Gayle Hunnicutt (Dallas) are gothic perfection, too. Unfortunately, the weak, too tame and simply dumb ending here undoes all of author Richard Matheson’s legwork- it just isn’t as juicy as his source novel.  Of course, if made today, there would be so much sex, gore, twists, turns, and herky jerky bad camera work that no concept or story would make it in the film.  I know, I know, beggars can’t be choosers.

Public Enemies (2009) – I love Depression era music, movies, and styles; and once upon a time, I really liked Christian Bale.  Ergo then, one would assume I’d be in heaven with this gangster flick starring Bale (The Dark Knight) as FBI man Melvin Purvis and Johnny Depp (Pirates of the Caribbean) as bad boy John Dillinger.  Unfortunately, I didn’t even make it to the end here.  Halfway thru, I stopped caring if the 45-year-old Depp as 31-year-old Dillinger was misunderstood, and Bale was more boring than badass.  The costumes looked great, and the Chicago scenery was wonderful, but there wasn’t enough period tunes to really set the mood.  Too many liberties are taken, and Channing Tatum (G. I. Joe: Rise of Cobra) as Pretty Boy Floyd is only in Public Enemies for five minutes tops-what the big deal with him anyway?  I do, however, wish there had been more of David Wenham (Lord of the Rings) as Harry Pierpont.  The fine ensemble cast is lost amid the obviousness of Depp and Bale.  Pity. Now, it may be old, low budget, and not have nearly as many stars playing cops and robbers; but I actually prefer the 1996 Public Enemies with Theresa Russell as Ma Barker to this flashy caper.  Okay so Dan Cortese (Veronica’s Closet) is Melvin Purvis in that one.  Bale doesn’t really step it up, here, though, does he?  What’s next, Russell Crowe as Al Capone?

The Screaming Skull – I wanted to like this 1958 creeper, but the only risqué things here are some bullet bras and flimsy nightgowns.  There is an audience for this type of hokey old scare, but this one could have been a lot more serious or scary than the final result.  Instead, we resort to Rebecca imitations and the usual, cliché horror staples with lots of screaming and obvious double twists.  The music is also way too absurd and banshee-like, more like the stylings of a Halloween CD than a score.  Maybe I was just expecting too much?  I’m not surprised Mystery Science Theater 3000 had its hands on this one.

The Silver Chalice – Paul Newman is one of my favorite classic leading men.  I simply adore his staples The Hustler and Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid as well as some of his smaller pictures like The Young Philadelphians, The Long Hot Summer, and my favorite Hud.  However, one might not know of the longstanding Newman clout that is to come by taking in his debut here.  The semi-biblical production values are similar to other epics of the day, but director Victor Saville (I was a Spy) went for some sort of abstract or stage like designs that just look too SCA or half dressed theatre rehearsal to be a big movie.  The story, delivery, and dialogue also come across as slow and a little too hokey- especially in dealing with the apocryphal magician Simon Magus. The wonderful Jack Palance (Shane, City Slickers) has nothing but ham to do here.  I’m also not a big fan of Virginia Mayo (Captain Horatio Hornblower), having yet to been impressed with her in every show in which I’ve seen her.  Still, I suppose ladies who love the young and pretty Newman can fast forward through the faulty here-even if the man himself disowned this one!  

Twists of Terror – I stumbled upon this 1996 anthology film on cable several times and still can’t decide if I like it or not.  Some of the vignettes are well written, paced and developed fine, and have solid acting from Jennifer Rubin (The Crush) and Nick Mancuso (Mob Stories).  However, the twists come a little too early or are fairly predictable, and the paranoid scenario of crazy host Joseph Ziegler (Black Harbour) introducing us to each tale is just stupid.  For being a saucy cable film, I’d also expect more than the generic sex and gore-but then again, some of the ‘what you don’t see’ is done a-okay.  Am I torn or is this one that bipolar?

When in Rome (2010) – Despite a very likeable cast- including Kristen Bell (Veronica Mars), Jon Heder (Napoleon Dynamite), Anjelica Huston (The Addams Family), and Danny DeVito (Taxi)- I simply found nothing funny in the 2010 romantic European comedy.  Okay, there was one scene when the itty bitty car fit inside an elevator.  That was it!  I wanted to like the titular Italian charms, but the premise just falls too flat, leaving the cast with nothing much to do.  It almost feels as if director Mark Steven Johnson (Daredevil) and writers David Diamond and David Weissman (The Family Man) are knocking off this overdone Judd Apatow wave- but this one is gonna be for chicks! Supposedly the leading man, Josh Duhamel (Las Vegas) also seems like just another dude in the frat crop.  Sigh.

Actually, it seems my distaste for a few of these is more evident than I thought!  

Beowulf (s)

A Tale of Two Beowulfs

By Kristin Battestella

 Who hasn’t tried his hand at an adaptation of the epic ode Beowulf?  From Star Trek: Voyager’s ‘Heroes and Demons’ to 1999’s out there sci-fi Beowulf starring Christopher Lambert, this ancient tale is never far from our consciousness.  Such was the case when I viewed both Gerard Butler’s 2005 Beowulf & Grendel and the 2007 motion capture feat Beowulf.

We know the story well enough.  Danish King Hrothgar, his wife Weaththeow, and his Heorot Mead Hall are plagued by repeated attacks from the monster Grendel.  Old friend from Geatland Beowulf arrives with his heroic reputation preceding him.  After defeating Grendel by cutting off his arm, Beowulf also kills Grendel’s vengeful mother and then a dragon. Eventually Beowulf also becomes a king himself.

 

Although not as horrendous as the Sci-Fi Channel 2007 original Grendel starring Ben Cross and Marina Sirtis, both Butler’s Icelandic production and Robert Zemeckis’ mocap piece leave much to be desired.  Director Sturla Gunnarsson filmed his Beowulf & Grendel on location in Iceland with an all star cast, including 300 star Gerard Butler as Beowulf and Stellan Skarsgard (Mamma Mia!) as Hrothgar.

 This international cast and beautiful locations add a touch of authenticity to Beowulf & Grendel.  The story from Andrew Rai Berzins is close enough to the original poem, minus bookends about Grendel’s father and child.  Here Grendel and his mother are merely creepy, deformed oafish sea people.  The film, unfortunately takes a turn for the worst when people speak.  F bombs mixed with modern speech and old speaketh like make for some ridiculous exposition.  The battle scenes, although small scale, are done well.  If only the costumes didn’t look like this year’s Halloween clearance swords and chain mail.  Everyone is so damn dirty and beyond the main cast you can’t tell who the heck is who.

For some reason, modern folks need to add sex and juiciness to perfectly good stories, and Beowulf & Grendel suffers greatly from this. I could forgive the bad script and poor costumes if it weren’t for the silly and laughable Grendel raping the needlessly there hot witch Selma (Sarah Polley, Road to Avonlea). As if this weren’t weird enough, when Selma tells all this to Beowulf, he mounts her, too.  This creepy yet somehow humorous sequence of events is still stuck in my head. 

 Giving me the giggles for similar reasons is the 2007 motion captured Beowulf, starring Ray Winstone, Anthony Hopkins, Robin Wright Penn, and Angelina Jolie.  At first I must say the look of this film is stunning; an entire film made through motion capture computer technology.  Lovely actor performances and actions put into a computer then tweaked to our visual hearts’ delights.  It’s a technological feat and I imagine a bit scary for actors who could theoretically be replaced onscreen.  The DVD is full of behind the scenes features giving us the how-to treats. Unfortunately, director Robert Zemeckis (The Polar Express) and writers Neil Gaiman (Stardust) and Roger Avery (Pulp Fiction) put this stylized production above their cast and story. 

The music, dialogue, and all star talent give Beowulf a serious feel beyond its cartoonish look.  It’s nudity is funny, too. Yes, Beowulf’s nude fight with Grendel is more in keeping with the anonymous source material, but do we really need to see a computer generated man’s ass?  I viewed the director’s cut, which supposedly had a few more naughty lines, and I love that good ale tune the Geats sing, but once Grendel enters the picture, things go south. 

Beowulf makes the effort of giving Grendel and his mother’s dialogue an Old English flavor, but the sympathy and baby like treatment of Grendel takes away from the action and art of the character-and even then, the action is so over the top that we are again reminded this is computer animation.  No human can move so suave as Beowulf!  

 

 Speaking of suave, the previews and trailers for Beowulf focused heavily on Angelina Jolie’s saucy portrayal of Grendel’s mother.  One, this is very misleading considering the amount of time she is actually in the film, and two, Jolie herself went on record saying she disliked the way her performance was manipulated as such.  I could forgive all this if her role didn’t make this film more stupid than it already was.  Somehow the dragon Beowulf bags later is his son by the golden lizard-fish nymp Jolie? This great epic that has stood for twelve centuries ends packed with over the top father-son reflection and adulterous regret.  What’s with all the bestiality, anyway?

I also feel very bad for Ray Winstone (Henry VIII, King Arthur) and his literally wizard behind the curtain performance of Beowulf. Of his talent there is no doubt, but the mocap wizards took the real life hearty and hefty stature of Winstone and redrew him as a pretty, blonde, buff sculpture of hotness.  My Dad doesn’t like to know how movies are made, so when I turned the DVD over to him for a viewing (another person deceived by the previews), every time Beowulf appeared onscreen, my Dad asked, “Are you sure that isn’t Sean Bean?”

If only the best of both Beowulf & Grendel  and Beowulf  could be realized in one epic film.  Hey, keep all the great talent and give us the flair and color of Beowulf and place it in the authentic Iceland of Beowulf & Grendel. Cut the sex and monstrosity of the Grendel family and make our heroes look heroic instead of butcher their being there and I’m all set. 

  It’s strange to say, but all these Beowulf productions I’ve named dropped and yet I’d recommend none of them.  Each have their moments, but I don’t think anyone would rush out to buy the book after seeing either of these recent films. Even Antonio Banderas’ The 13^th Warrior takes pieces of Beowulf, but this mishmash also can’t touch the spirit of the poem.  We’ve had all these Lord of the Rings imitations in recent years (In The Name of The King with such a similar title and the near identical DVD cover of Blood of Beasts) why can’t someone make a proper retelling of Beowulf? (And my beloved King Arthur while you’re at it.)  Anyone who’s been forced to read the poem in school knows how difficult it is to adapt the rather plain, nondescript but no less likeable story.  So what if we don’t know what kind of monster Grendel is or who his father was. Why can’t someone tell the story like it is and add some umph?  It doesn’t matter how long winded a rendition they make, someday I just want to see a damn good movie version of Beowulf.  Look what happened when both Mel Gibson and Kenneth Branagh gave their love to Hamlet.  

Aficionados of Beowulf, teachers, and scholars might enjoy a viewing of any or all and discussing, but neither Beowulf & Grendel nor the 2007 Beowulf lend any justice to this timeless story.  Hope, however, springs eternal.  

 

 

ETA:  As you may have noticed, I've added some screen captures of Beowulf & Grendel, as I picked it up at a Buy 3 Get One Free sale, hehe. 

 

(The Hound versus Leonidas - who would win?)