Maleficent- Page 3

[dramamama611]

Posted: 6/1/14 at 6:32pm

This was one of the worst films I've seen in recent years.

The story was paper thin. I don't mind the change is focus or even that it takes liberties with where the story goes....it was just so BORING. The script, in written form, could not have more that 20 pages. The pacing was awful, and so was the CGI....I felt like I was watching effects from 10 years ago; clunky and unrealistic. Every character was two dimensional, no one had motivation. If there was another close up of Jolie simply staring, I thought I might scream.

**Possible SPOILER**
This basically had the same "true love's kiss" twist as Frozen -- and it was ten thousand times more effective in Frozen. Even my kids saw it coming a mile away.


In case others' comments weren't enough: SAVE YOUR MONEY!

[ArtMan]

Posted: 6/1/14 at 7:04pm

In just a few days it has made an estimated 70 million, $170 million worldwide (estimated). I wonder what the boxoffice will be when word of mouth spreads. I didn't mind the change of the story. Just the story they presented was a snoozefest. Angelina's real life daughter,(playing the young Aurora) is a cutie.

Updated On: 6/1/14 at 07:04 PM

[candydog2]

Posted: 6/1/14 at 7:53pm

I found the whole thing about her having wings to be bizarre and out of place. They could have chosen a far more logical story, such as her being feared and pursued by the King for her incredible magical powers.

[beautywickedlover]

Posted: 6/1/14 at 10:42pm

MORE SPOILERS









"WHA? So Aurora goes off to live with the woman who just killed her father? I'm all for Disney showing some new type of family unit, but... I admit, how wrongheaded this all sounds makes me kinda wanna see it..."

When Aurora returns to the castle, she hugs her father, but he's not extremely happy to see her. All he tells her is that she looks like her mother. He then locks her in a room. Then, when Stefan tries to kill Maleficent, Aurora does everything she can to help Maleficent and stop her father, "the evil king." Earlier on Stefan's wife gets really sick and dies, but he does not come to be with her when it happens. He just stays where Maleficent's wings are being kept and is focusing on defeating his enemy.



Updated On: 8/8/14 at 10:42 PM

[StageManager2]

Posted: 6/2/14 at 4:12am

But one question: didn't anyone involved even think about her name? That someone they're portraying as basically good has a name that inherently means evil?

I've wondered the same thing. Maleficent is an actual word, and the definition in Merriam-Webster is "working or productive of harm or evil." They should've just renamed her Benevolent, which means "marked by or suggestive of goodwill."

I think this atrocity is akin to when they made Tinker Bell speak in those recent direct-to-DVD movie series. It made her lose her mystique.

[JerseyGirl2]

Posted: 6/2/14 at 7:27am

I have a (very far-reaching according to D2!) possible explanation for her name. Maybe her parents were bubbly fairies with pastel privates and they were expecting a fairy baby that pooped glitter and rainbows. When the very dark, pointy thing with cheekbones that could have performed her own c-section popped out, they assumed she must be the devil. Therefore they named her what they assumed was appropriate. She looked evil, so they assumed she was. Sure, it's a stretch. Whatever. She's a damn fairy with horns. Anything is possible.

[CarlosAlberto]

Posted: 6/2/14 at 7:38am

Thank you JG2 for that much needed laugh.

[D2]

Posted: 6/2/14 at 10:18am

Keep reaching, JG2. Remember, your daughter agrees with me.

[rosscoe(au)]

Posted: 6/4/14 at 9:12am

Its a pity this wasn't made by another studio, Jolie was wonderful.

[Bettyboy72]

Posted: 6/4/14 at 8:41pm

I just saw this-I enjoyed it, but it missed so many opportunities.

It felt like a bait & switch. This was Sleeping Beauty Redux-not Maleficent. If you name the film Maleficent, I expected the script to be flipped-showing what Maleficent was doing between what we know about her. All she did was spy on Aurora-ZZZZZZZZ

I have to say the scene were Jolie appears at the Christening is cinematic gold. Jolie commands that scene and the audience held their breath. Its a shame that the rest of the film didn't match that.

[sabrelady]

Posted: 6/4/14 at 10:42pm

I must say I was glad of the heads up as far as those trios of pixies were concerned. Seriously traitors to their species. AND the utter illogical entrusting them w the raising of the child? I suppose they were to be comic relief but most of the Three Stooges bits they did fell very flat. Whoever said Linda Woolverton should not be allowed near a script again was spot on.
That being said, Angelina Jolie was truly magnificent. Even when she did soften up as she follows the Beastie (OOOO shout out to Pirates of the Caribbean Linda!) She never lost that detached otherworldly essence of the character. Bettyboy is correct- she really commands the christening scene but of course that was one of the scenes almost recreated from the animation. See what can happen when the wurds air gud? Jolie did what she could with other scenes but the pickings were definitely slim.

I will say (credit where it is due) the creation of Diaval as her confidant was an nice bit. The ultimate anthropomorphism as it were!

I have heard complaints about the "fake English accent" Jolie uses. No doubt the Lil' Maleficent(s) do have them but Jolie's hauteur and cold contempt in the christening scene are being expressed thru a very careful clipped almost over enunciation - reminiscent of the original animation.

I agree- when you think what COULD have been done.... sigh.

[Jungle Red]

Posted: 6/5/14 at 12:48am

Woolverton needs to stick with animated films. Beauty and the Beast and The Lion King are two of my favorites.

But Lestat, Alice in Wonderland, and now this dreck? You'd think Disney would know by now.

[AllisonBWW]

Posted: 6/5/14 at 1:17am

It was cheesy, the story thin, but I loved this film. I'm a huge fan of the original, and Jolie's acting was great, even if the material she was working with wasn't up to par. I actually thought the CGI was well done.

Mind you - I saw it in 2D. 3D and Imax gives me a headache.

[StageManager2]

Posted: 6/5/14 at 7:23am

It felt like a bait & switch. This was Sleeping Beauty Redux-not Maleficent. If you name the film Maleficent, I expected the script to be flipped-showing what Maleficent was doing between what we know about her. All she did was spy on Aurora-ZZZZZZZZ

Obviously, it was retitled Maleficent to further cash in on Wicked's popularity. Both "maleficent" and "wicked" mean the same thing.

[darreyl102]

Posted: 6/6/14 at 1:48am

SPOILERS AHEAD--- i felt vey conflicted through the whole film. since basically Birth, i have been a HUGE fan or both Maleficent and her voice- Eleanor Audley. So when i heard this was being made, i was extremely excited. but what i got, was not what i expected. They, in my eyes, de-villianized her and made her into the good guy. in fact, everything she does is justifiable and she is not mean at all. She tries to save Aurora, even watches her all through the princess's live and makes sure she is safe and cared for. they completely ruined the character. Maleficent was pure evil in the original film, and that's why i loved her. she was much too nice and good.
Jolie gives a great performance, but she does not have the power or presence in voice that Eleanor Audley possessed. During the scene in which she casts the spell- her evilness felt really forced. But she was great playing THIS version of Maleficent- a hero. The film does drag on a little and i must say i wasn't thrilled with it. but i am most angry at Disney for making her a Hero. So my question now is will they make Maleficent a hero in Disney themed things from now on- since this is supposed to be the true version of the story.
another thing that i wished they had done was have Mary Costa (The Original Voice of Sleeping Beauty) provided the voice of the Narrator- who was supposed to be older Aurora. The narrator they had was very boring and basic and this was a huge missed opportunity.

Also the three good fairies were completely useless and complete Idiots.

Updated On: 6/6/14 at 01:48 AM

[StageManager2]

Posted: 6/8/14 at 7:53am

Woolverton needs to stick with animated films. Beauty and the Beast and The Lion King are two of my favorites.

Disney's doing a live-action version of Beauty and the Beast to be directed by Bill Condon. I wonder if she'll have a hand in that since she wrote the screenplay for the animated film.

[StageManager2]

Posted: 6/8/14 at 7:53am

Woolverton needs to stick with animated films. Beauty and the Beast and The Lion King are two of my favorites.

Disney's doing a live-action version of Beauty and the Beast to be directed by Bill Condon. I wonder if she'll have a hand in that since she wrote the screenplay for the animated film.

[Borstalboy]

Posted: 6/8/14 at 4:02pm

RAPE CULTURE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Musical Master]

Posted: 6/24/14 at 12:35am

I guess I'm one of the rare ones who have really liked it for what it was. Acting and visuals were great (not to mention that the final battle was insane in a entertaining way) and I thought that Linda Woolverton's writing here was actually a suprising type of good compared to the sleep-inducing travesty that was Alice in Wonderland.

Woolverton is currently working on pitching for a television series she describes as "earthbound" compared to her previous work.

[Showface]

Posted: 6/27/14 at 5:22pm

I LOVED Maleficent! It gives me hope for the upcoming "Cruella" movie. And I also want an "Ursula" film.

[BroadwayBenny]

Posted: 6/27/14 at 6:47pm

It practically writes itself! Updated On: 6/27/14 at 06:47 PM

[StageManager2]

Posted: 6/27/14 at 7:40pm

I LOVED Maleficent! It gives me hope for the upcoming "Cruella" movie. After the

Someone on another forum wrote up a mock synopsis for the proposed Cruella film. After the sh!tty retcon they did with Maleficent, it wouldn't surprise me in the least if this is the route they take.


Cruella de Vil (inexplicably given a name that practically spells out the words Cruel Devil) is a kind-hearted animal rights activist who, among other things, founded PETA and discovered the cure for dog cancer. However, this all changed when one fateful day, her entire family were killed by a pack of wild dalmatians infected with rabies.

After this, Cruella went mad and switched careers, becoming a psychotic fashionista with a penchant for fur, which she uses as a way to seek revenge on the animals she once loved so much.

However, when one of her employees, Anita (along with her husband Roger) - who are both horrible and abusive to their pets - end up with an exceptionally large pack of dalmatian puppies, Cruella's cold heart begins to melt, and she decides she must rescue the poor dears before Anita and Roger can harm them, under the pretence of creating a dalmatian themed fashion line using their fur. Will she succeed in her mission to save the dogs? And in the process, will she make peace with the creatures who massacred her family all those years ago?

(After all, the dogs did have rabies, so technically it wasn't really their fault...)

Find out in "Cruella", coming soon to a theatre near you!

Updated On: 6/27/14 at 07:40 PM