Movie Review: Maleficent

Or: How did you fail me? Let me count the ways.

Before I start, I should state I'm going to be spoiling pretty much the entire movie in this review. Because when I'm frustrated with a movie (or excited with one, let's be honest) I can get a bit carried away in my discussion of the topic. (Indeed, after this movie, I actually went and spoiled an old Hitchcock movie for a friend because I got caught up in my rant on disappointing movies. Hint: if you ever want to watch the movie "Suspicion", don't get me started on how I feel about that movie and how of all the movies I've seen, it was the one that let me down the most because it was *GREAT* until about the last 5 minutes and then it RUINED EVERYTHING because of STUPID STUDIO EXECS and wasn't Hitchcock's fault at all, he had a brilliant ending planned but nooooooooo. Can't have THAT. Mumble mumble spoilers mumble mumble.)

So. Don't read on if you haven't seen the movie unless you don't mind spoilers.

Now. Maleficent.

I was extremely excited by this movie (which is part of the reason I feel so let down now). The trailer looked great; I *adored* the single "Once Upon a Dream" that was released from the teaser; I have a strong partiality towards fairy tales redone, and those retold from the villains point of view are usually a lot of fun (Wicked, for example, is great fun. And things like the 100 Kingdoms books. Or Ella Enchanted.) So I went in with high expectations. Indeed, prior to seeing the movie, I made a point of re-watching the original Sleeping Beauty (which I also love, but hadn't seen in ages -- it's a gorgeous movie! They don't do animation like that anymore - hand painted backgrounds with incredible detail, drawn stills based on live models....) and listening to Tchaikovsky's original Sleeping Beauty ballet (on which the original movies score is based -- "Once Upon a Dream" is based on a waltz in it, for example.)

First off: technical stuff. The score was disappointing, especially as the first thing that drew me to the movie was the gorgeous creepy take on "Once Upon A Dream." Alas, that song appeared only in the final credits. I didn't notice any other references to the original scoring during the movie, and the scoring that was there was just... I want to say standard modernish fantasy music with heavy inspiration from Harry Potter that was neither creepy, moving, or in any way special or memorable. And while we're going with look and feel, the CG was not great. The moors were supposed to be a realm of magic and wonder, they certainly could have tried to make them a bit more impressive. The original art from the 1959 movie is so beautiful -- this was... not so much.

Now for the main issue: the plot. The plot did not know what it was doing.  It starts off decently enough: there is a kingdom where all the humans live, and a separate realm for all the fae creatures. A young Maleficent falls for a young Stefan (an ambitious and curious child) but they grow apart as they age. However, when Stefan finds out he could succeed as king if he kills Maleficent, he uses their former connection to establish trust, drugs her, and -- while he can't bring himself to kill her -- cuts off her wings to bring home as a trophy, to prove he has what it takes to rule and as a promise that he'll try and take over the fairy realm, like the current king wants. Which is a *terrible* and *horrifying* thing, but completely reasonable as a premise (and as the review here states, is a thing that while children might be shocked by this betrayal, adults, unfortunately, won't be.) So far, so good. However, this is where things start going wrong.

This movie *could* have gone the "she's protecting her realm from invaders" route. Or the "misunderstood and not actually doing anything that evil" route. Or even the "gradually starts making choices that lead her down a darker and darker path until she's completely corrupted" route. But no. Instead, rejected, mutilated, and heartbroken, she does a complete 180, takes over the fairy realm and instantly establishes herself as an evil and terrifying queen (modifying and darkening the landscape around her), and, of course, curses Stefan's firstborn child to die. [Now, a minor note here: in the first scene of the movie, it establishes that the moor where the fae live does not need a ruler and everyone lives in harmony! As she grows, Maleficent graduates to a protector of that realm (being the strongest fairy) but as soon as she gets betrayed, she immediately seizes power and none of the others put up any fuss about this. And at the end, when things are supposedly back to their happy state at the end, she randomly declares that Aurora is going to be joint queen of that realm and the human kingdom! Huzzah! Yeah... does not compute.]

This brings us to the three 'good' fairies. I do not know WHAT was up with them. I think they were supposed to be comic relief? The fact that they showed up at all to the christening was a little odd, considering the fact humans tried to invade the moor and Stefan mutilated their realms protector. Are they just traitors to their species? I was prepared to snicker despairingly that the gifts from the fairies were beauty and a lovely voice -- clearly the most important things for a young lady to have! However, they swapped the second fairy's gift to "She'll NEVER be UNHAPPY or BLUE." What the hell??? That's a TERRIBLE GIFT. You will never be able to feel unhappiness. You have no control over your emotions! Plus, it didn't even WORK - I was wondering if Aurora was going to go through the movie in a state of clueless bliss because of it, but, while certainly clueless, she definitely had some moments where she was less than thrilled. And then the three fairies take charge of the baby and decide to do so without magic and are hopelessly terrible at it and it's a wonder the poor kid doesn't die.

Except it's not a wonder, apparently. After Maleficent curses the baby, she finds it right away, and instead of letting the three neglectful fairies do her work for her, or just taking care of things there and then, she decides to protect the child and follow her around as she grows up. She naturally grows to care for her (though I can't say I grew overly fond of Aurora) and eventually even tries to lift the curse (but fails). Aurora mistakes her for her fairy godmother and decides she wants to live in the fairy realm with her as they grow to care for each other. However, once Aurora finds out that Maleficent cursed her, she doesn't even give the woman she had JUST said she loved and wanted to live with forever and take care of her and be happy with a chance to explain, or ANYTHING. Nope, she just runs off, straight into the arms of her father. Her father, who has just been growing more obsessed about finding and killing off Maleficent as the years go by, even ignoring the death of his wife, the Queen who did not even merit a name (though according to IMDB she had one - Leila. It didn't ever came up in the actual movie, though.) He barely looks at her, and just sends her off to a tower while he prepares to try and kill Maleficent when she approaches.

I won't go through the entire climax. Maleficent decides to make sure that Aurora gets cured on her own, gets into the castle, Aurora awakens (see my positive notes, below) and as they go downstairs, Stefan attacks and there is a big fight. Stefan gets what is coming to him, dying a predictably Disney death by falling to his doom after Maleficent spares him, thus negating all responsibility on anybodies part. The ending is abrupt and saccharine and doesn't really track very well at all. In general people's motivations aren't well explored or understandable, and while I understand if you want to make this movie about Maleficent and make her the 'good guy' you have to make changes to the story, you can still make the other side more complex and interesting, and you can still try and make people behave in ways that make sense for *them* instead of doing things all over the map.

On the plus side: Angelina Jolie was magnificent. She was working with poor source material, but she *worked* it, and looked dead on as Maleficent. When she was on screen, my eyes were glued to her. Definitely the highlight - she was creepy, wounded, and lovely, even when I was let down her actions, she was still brilliant doing them. Whoever designed her look also deserves props - she could alternate between beautiful and terrifying while keeping all the same features - her horns made her look gorgeous in the right context!  I also liked that it was Maleficent that added the "true loves kiss" thing to the curse as a mocking note to Stefan, who supposedly give her a 'true loves kiss' when they were younger. She also got to use her awesome opening lines from the 1959 movie, and delivered them perfectly.

Additionally, I was quite pleased by the fact that Prince Phillip was understandably -- but considering how things usually go in movies, unusually -- reticent about kissing a girl he'd just met the once while she was sound asleep and thus completely out of it. And then it didn't WORK because you don't get true love after one conversation with a person. Seriously. Thank goodness for smashing THAT sort of trope. They handled the manifestation of the dragon well (though I wish it was closer to the original movie design) and they didn't suddenly hand Maleficent shapeshifting powers, they did it in a logical manner by giving that to the shapeshifting crow. The fact that they made the thicket around the castle a nest of cold-iron thorns was pretty cute, though easily circumvented. Indeed, I really appreciated that they made it clear that, like in the lore, fairies are weak against cold iron.  I also appreciated some of the small touches referencing the original movie: the cottage design looked like the cottage; the castle looked like the castle; the abandoned ruin which makes her headquarters in the original looked spot on.

So. To sum up. Disappointing CG, design, and score. Plot is patchy, doesn't track well, and doesn't create a new and interesting story from the original. The reason why people do certain things and make various choices is completely incomprehensible at times, inconsistent at others. It really doesn't say anything new. I would say that the ads were quite misleading, in fact - don't go in expecting Wicked. Nothing is all bad, there are some highlights, but overall, not worth it.

(Huh. Both my movie reviews in this blog were movies I felt strongly disappointed by (the other being the Hobbit). I should try and remember to review a movie I actually like at some point.)

"The Hobbit" Review: here there be spoilers!

WARNING: THIS POST IS FULL OF SPOILERS FOR "THE HOBBIT: AN UNEXPECTED JOURNEY"

When I was in the third grade, I received a beautifully illustrated copy of "the Hobbit" from a great aunt. It was probably my first exposure to an "adult" book - sure, it was a fantasy, and often thought of as a children's adventure book; but it had complex themes, characters had moral ambiguities, and not everyone was guaranteed to live through the tale. It was a wonderful book, and I still treasure my copy of it. When I was older, I went on to read, and also love, the Lord of the Rings books, like so many others do. And when the trilogy came out, I was enchanted once again. Sure, they left out some things; and played fast and loose with a couple plot threads; and added in a couple extra little plot lines here and there: but overall, those changes didn't change the fundamental elements of the story.

So, when I heard that Peter Jackson was making "the Hobbit" into a movie, I was thrilled! Another great book, so, sure, why couldn't it be a good movie as well? I was rather surprised to hear it was being split up into not two, but THREE movies, but still had high hopes. I expected, of course, that they would "pad" things out a bit (though I don't really see why movies have to be 2.5 hours long these days - nothing wrong with a perfectly solid, tight movie at 95 minutes or so!). But I can deal with a little padding if it's done well. So, when another person in my department suggested going to the midnight showing for the premiere, I lept at the chance. I happily reread the text of "the Hobbit," and for good measure, re-watched the extended editions of the LotR trilogy last weekend. You may guess where this is leading: unfortunately, when I left the theater, I was sadly disappointed.

It felt like they couldn't decide between making it an sweeping epic prequel to Lord of the Rings, or a comic action-adventure story. They removed dramatic tension, and put humor in places which are supposed to be scary and creepy. They added full subplots that were never seen in any part of the Hobbit, Lord of the Rings, Silmarillion, or the varying appendices.

One of the things I wasn't as wild about in the Lord of the Rings movies was the characterization of Gimli (son of Gloin), as a comic-relief type character. Dwarves are a proud old race - short and stout, to be sure, and they have their comic moments as well - but proud, dignified. "The Hobbit" has 13 dwarves. Thorin Oakenshield actually fits the proud dwarf thing very well, and it goes into his backstory quite a bit (and then some, but we'll get to that). However, despite the length of the film, unless a dwarf is directly interacting with Thorin, or they're fighting... you don't get much characterization of the other dwarves except as funny/silly in the background.

Now... as far as the story. They open the film describing the desolation of the town of Dale and the  way that the dwarves were thrown out of the mountain, then have a bit of a framing device with old Bilbo working on his book the day of the party (via the opening of LotR), with a cameo by Frodo. Not how I would have chosen to present it (over campfire or in a darkened room, like in the book!), but fine.  It shows the elves refusing to help, which explains why Thorin is so reluctant to go to them now. Fine.

But then it adds a whole subplot about how, when trying to take back the mines of Moria, Thorin faces a giant orc, who 1) swears to wipe out his family's line; 2) does so except for Thorin; 3) gets his arm chopped off by Thorin; and 4) is currently HUNTING for Thorin for revenge for the arm, and to fulfill his oath. He rides a giant albino warg. So... throughout the story, we get these random orcs popping up, hunting Thorin and the dwarves, and a great big climatic fight scene underneath the trees in which the dwarves are supposed to be hiding. The goblins under-the-mountain take the dwarves not to devour, but to deliver to this orc, who has placed a bounty on them. You remember the awesome portrayals of the Uruk-hai in LotR? They're ugly, they're nasty, they're primal, they are guttural. The Great Goblin, on the other hand is now a fat, comical figure with terrible dialogue and who doesn't SOUND goblin-y. I just am NOT frightened of this goblin - even the CGI is.. bleh! (A random aside: I found it amusing that they made sure that the line of ponies that the dwarves and Bilbo rode were NOT presumed eaten by the goblins - instead they were scared off in an earlier confrontation with the wargs.)

Similarly: Riddles in the Dark. Oh, I was so looking forward to seeing Gollum again. And this scene is GREAT for his character - he's creepy, scary, but still oddly pitiful in his isolation. At least... that's how it's written in the book. Here - they again exchanged tension for humor, unsuccessfully. I was SO disappointed by this scene, I just... ugh. No.

And finally, Bilbo himself. I realize this first movie was supposed to be about him finding his place in the group, and his footing, as he starts off living in his very comfortable hobbit life. However, the book has some hints early on about where his spirit and thirst for adventure originate, and he starts showing at least some talent pretty early on, in his skill moving through the forest silently and easily. He is NOT, however, used as a hostage by the trolls, causing them to all be easily captured. Nor does he repeatedly fall down cliffs and whatnot and keep needing help to that extent. Nor does he literally DECIDE TO TURN BACK and leave the party when things get rough. There is a big subplot in the film about Thorin doubting the skills of Bilbo, and as much as I love Martin Freeman, I was definitely doubting him myself - and not in a good "oh, character development" way. And the turnaround - Bilbo risking his life to tackle an orc off of Thorin - that's... not really what Bilbo's character is about, now, is it? He's NOT a hobbit of great deeds, and action, and fighting. He's the hobbit who will later give up his share of treasure in exchange for peace. He'll fight if he has to, and to save his friends, but that's not how he proves himself in this story - it's NOT the tale of how Bilbo Baggins becomes an action hero.

Not everything was bad, of course - honestly, I had fun watching the movie and will go and see the next two. Considering we all knew they'd be incorporating some things about Sauron (who is only referenced in the book as a 'necromancer in the south'), and adding Galadriel and expanding the role of Elrond a bit, in order to make it fit with Lord of the Rings more, I think they did that part quite well (ignoring the overly silly portrayal of the brown wizard Radagast, which was quite overdone). Ian McKellen was wonderful as Gandalf, and had some great stuff. Good fight scenes. I love Martin Freeman, he makes a very good Bilbo and also has some very good moments. The way that Bilbo sees the world when he has the ring on is also done just right - the right mix of what Frodo sees in the LotR movies, without the pressing eye of Sauron. The songs that they included, especially "Misty Mountain", were great. And it was, of course, lovely to look at (I saw it in 2D, not 3D high-res, but yes, gorgeous). But since I had such high expectations, these items got overshadowed when I watched the film through.

I think it comes down to one thing. "The Lord of the Rings" is so much story, that you have to cut it down to make three movies out of it; and when details get added, dropped, or changed, well, the bulk of those movies are still true enough to the books that it doesn't matter as much. "The Hobbit" is a very different tale, and it needs - and deserves - to be treated that way. Less complicated and fewer plot-threads, but a lot of heart running through that simple story. Telling it over three movies stretches it too thin, and the content you add to fill it up just... isn't Tolkien, and it's obvious.