“If you don’t have anything nice to say,” my mother said to me many times as I was growing, “don’t say anything at all.” Of course, she didn’t know I’d someday review movies, and would sometimes have to say things that were not at all nice.
Take, for example, “Maleficent,” Disney’s live action retelling of “Sleeping Beauty.” Starring Angelina Jolie in the titular role, “Maleficent” is a visually lavish adventure centered not on the heroine of the classic story but its villain.
Or, rather, its ostensible villain, for in this version, Maleficent has had her nails clipped: instead of being irrepressibly evil, she’s merely a jilted lover with an axe to grind; and instead of being primarily the source of a bitter curse on Sleeping Beauty, she winds up being a loving surrogate mother to the girl.
If I were to heed my mother’s advice and say only nice things, I’d mention how the changes to the story make Maleficent a sympathetic, but still powerful, character. I’d also discuss the clever twist on “true love’s kiss,” and point out how “Maleficent” continues the trend at Disney to eschew the archaic archetypes of its past (a handsome prince saving a virginal young lady from an evil, older woman) and present liberalized, feminist friendly fairytales. While these changes don’t necessarily make the story of “Sleeping Beauty” better, they are more in line with modern thinking, and are clever in how they use the same source material to make a different point.
I’d also talk about Jolie’s performance, using words like “captivating,” “resplendent,” and “haunting.” She’s a powerful presence on the screen, whether she’s mourning the loss of her wings, angrily casting the infamous spell, or fighting a king’s army. Simply put, Jolie is pitch perfect in the role, both in terms of her skills as an actor and her physical attributes. The highest compliment an actor can be paid is for viewers to be unable to imagine anyone else playing his or her part, and that’s the case here.
I’d say nice things about the visuals as well, which are, for the most part, gorgeous. Each frame of the movie would be at home hung on a wall. From the knotty trees that protect the magical kingdom, to the dragon fighting for its life in a throne room, to the epic shots of a valley of fairies – shots so deep and wide and filled with detail, you can’t help but be drawn into the world – there’s plenty of eye candy on display.
But then I’d regretfully stray from my mother’s advice, and mention how the direction by Robert Stromberg is awkward in places, and is likely to blame for a few clunky scenes. While most of the film was solidly assembled, at least one scene was so poorly stitched together, you could feel tension in the theater. Some of the creature animation is surprisingly fake, too.
But then I’d feel my mother’s unapproving gaze, and retreat to say “Maleficent” is worth seeing, especially if you’re looking for a good family film. I think my mom would be okay with me saying part of the movie might be too scary for young children, and that the film isn’t worth seeing in 3D, as many scenes take place at night or in dark rooms, rendering the 3D pointless.
When it comes to the second film I’m reviewing this week - “A Million Ways to Die in the West” - I’m going to follow my mother’s advice, and say nothing at all.
Next week: “Edge of Tomorrow.” Until then, listen to your mother.
“Maleficent” is rated PG for fantasy action and violence, including frightening images. Three stars out of four. “A Million Ways to Die in the West” is rated R for strong crude and sexual content, language, violence, and drug material. Essentially, it’s the cinematic equivalent of a steaming pile of donkey dung. Actually, that’s an insult to donkey dung. I regret seeing it. (Sorry, mom.)