By this point, we all know that there is a good and a bad way to make a children's movie. There is Wall-E (2008), and there is Boss Baby (2017). Pixar (generally) gets it right, and Illumination can hit or miss. You need to strike a balance. You want to be cute but not juvenile, funny but not slap-stick, and silly while also mature. It can be a difficult balance to get exactly right, with many films leaning too far one way or the other. When creating a film to appeal to children, you must, almost mandatorily, appeal to their parents as well, who are paying for the tickets, buying the popcorn, and driving their child to the movie theater. Maleficent seems to balance on this line in a lackadaisical fashion.
Now, this raises a further question: Is Maleficent, in fact, a children's movie? The story itself is obviously much older, going all the way back to the 1300s from Giambattista Basile, who surely didn't intend it to be consumed exclusively by children (hence the casual mentions of sleep-assault (though perhaps that's what children listened to in the 1300s, who am I to say)). The 1959 version has it's elements of mild horror, but overall it would be suitable for most kids, as won't wrack the brains of any adults. The 2014 version, told from the antagonists perspective, maintains that style, and with the PG rating and lack of any blood or curse words, you wouldn't be wrong to take your niece and nephew to see it on the big screen. In my view, this movie appeals largely to children, thus making it a kids movie.
So, where does it go wrong? Let's start with the plot line, and the main problem. Unless you've been under a rock for the past 700 years, no spoiler tags should be necessary. The back-stabbing king tricks Maleficent, steals her wings and is rewarded with the throne. Maleficent gets her revenge by cursing his first born, whereupon the lovely young Aurora falls into an unbreakable coma on her 16th birthday, only to be undone by the True Love's Kiss™. In the original story, and in the 1959 animation, this is a problem. In this movie (this is the part where the real spoilers begin), it may as well have not happened at all. It was infuriating to watch the build up of the past 70 minutes culminate in the most basic of triviality. Aurora predictably pricks her finger and falls into her deep sleep, and is there for maybe one hour? Two tops? What was the point? Shortly after falling into her sleep, she is awakened, not by a lovely prince this time, but by the kiss of Maleficent, who has now begun to love Aurora as her own daughter after secretly taking care of her in the magical forest.
This reversal of the narrative delivers us two cliches that are as pandering as you can be. Firstly, the person who caused the problem in the first place is the one to solve the problem (see Megamind (2010), Moana (2016), Frozen (2013)). Secondly, perhaps you would call it a reverse-cliche, the true love comes not from a romantic partner, but from familial bonds (again, see Frozen). I guess Disney felt it was their duty to try to disrupt the hegemony of handsome princes by using the same exact major plot point in movies just 6 months apart from one another.
These are the types of plot points that children do not care about, or do not understand, but that parents pick up on and leaves them scratching their heads. Of course, their are all the parents who are happy enough to just make their kids smile and leave the theater with neither an opinion nor a memory of what they just watched, but if apathy is the best we can hope for from the adult audience then we aren't really trying very hard. Everyone knows the story of Sleeping Beauty, and everyone knows that the deep-sleep is coming, and to just have some hand-waving to make it disappear makes the whole movie leading up to it seem pointless. This, along with some other rather glaring plot holes and a generally predictable journey makes the story unengaging and boring.
The acting is another thing that we need to grapple with here. If one-dimensionality is flat and boring, then the other side of the spectrum must be four-dimensionality, taking it too far. This movie has both. On one side we have Aurora (played by Elle Fanning) who might as well be a mannequin with how much she added to the plot, and the three dim-witted pixies, Flittle, Knotgrass and Thistlewit (played by Lesley Manville, Imelda Staunton, and Juno Temple respectively) who are our three-stooges providing us with banal slap-stick comedy. On the other side is Maleficent (played by Angelina Jolie) and Stefan (played by Sharlto Copley) who provide sometimes convincing performances that go totally off the rails in times of heated emotional moments. Something about the way Jolie screams in furious anger makes me laugh more than it does make me afraid.
This movie has every element that will make a film look good on the surface. But we already knew we were going to get that. It's a Disney film, and Disney always knows how to make some acceptable, if not wonderful just with their costume design, animation and scoring. When you release ten films in a calendar year, obviously not every one of them is going to blow you out of the water, and the producers are likely more than happy when a middling film receives a small amount of press acclaim but triples its budget in the box office. And so I once again leave this film thinking, was that it? I yearn for something more because I know what is possible. For every Maleficent, there is Pirates of the Carribean or Toy Story that hits you on all the fronts and is a magical journey for those of any age.
I can appreciate when a director and writer choose to take a different approach. Having a film from the point of view of the antagonist wasn't easy until recently (especially with a children's film). And shying away from the frivolous and expected love angle is better than constantly trying to drive home the cliche. However, there is a right way to do it that can leave the audience with something to remember instead of something that is simply inoffensive and easy. I'm not saying I have the magic formula. Perhaps no one does (except Steven Spielberg of course). I haven't seen the sequel yet, it's next on my list now that it's out on Blu-Ray. I don't have high hopes, but I am always happy to have my preconceptions overturned. For now I'll comfort myself with some Jack Sparrow and Mike Wazowski.
Now, this raises a further question: Is Maleficent, in fact, a children's movie? The story itself is obviously much older, going all the way back to the 1300s from Giambattista Basile, who surely didn't intend it to be consumed exclusively by children (hence the casual mentions of sleep-assault (though perhaps that's what children listened to in the 1300s, who am I to say)). The 1959 version has it's elements of mild horror, but overall it would be suitable for most kids, as won't wrack the brains of any adults. The 2014 version, told from the antagonists perspective, maintains that style, and with the PG rating and lack of any blood or curse words, you wouldn't be wrong to take your niece and nephew to see it on the big screen. In my view, this movie appeals largely to children, thus making it a kids movie.
So, where does it go wrong? Let's start with the plot line, and the main problem. Unless you've been under a rock for the past 700 years, no spoiler tags should be necessary. The back-stabbing king tricks Maleficent, steals her wings and is rewarded with the throne. Maleficent gets her revenge by cursing his first born, whereupon the lovely young Aurora falls into an unbreakable coma on her 16th birthday, only to be undone by the True Love's Kiss™. In the original story, and in the 1959 animation, this is a problem. In this movie (this is the part where the real spoilers begin), it may as well have not happened at all. It was infuriating to watch the build up of the past 70 minutes culminate in the most basic of triviality. Aurora predictably pricks her finger and falls into her deep sleep, and is there for maybe one hour? Two tops? What was the point? Shortly after falling into her sleep, she is awakened, not by a lovely prince this time, but by the kiss of Maleficent, who has now begun to love Aurora as her own daughter after secretly taking care of her in the magical forest.
This reversal of the narrative delivers us two cliches that are as pandering as you can be. Firstly, the person who caused the problem in the first place is the one to solve the problem (see Megamind (2010), Moana (2016), Frozen (2013)). Secondly, perhaps you would call it a reverse-cliche, the true love comes not from a romantic partner, but from familial bonds (again, see Frozen). I guess Disney felt it was their duty to try to disrupt the hegemony of handsome princes by using the same exact major plot point in movies just 6 months apart from one another.
These are the types of plot points that children do not care about, or do not understand, but that parents pick up on and leaves them scratching their heads. Of course, their are all the parents who are happy enough to just make their kids smile and leave the theater with neither an opinion nor a memory of what they just watched, but if apathy is the best we can hope for from the adult audience then we aren't really trying very hard. Everyone knows the story of Sleeping Beauty, and everyone knows that the deep-sleep is coming, and to just have some hand-waving to make it disappear makes the whole movie leading up to it seem pointless. This, along with some other rather glaring plot holes and a generally predictable journey makes the story unengaging and boring.
The acting is another thing that we need to grapple with here. If one-dimensionality is flat and boring, then the other side of the spectrum must be four-dimensionality, taking it too far. This movie has both. On one side we have Aurora (played by Elle Fanning) who might as well be a mannequin with how much she added to the plot, and the three dim-witted pixies, Flittle, Knotgrass and Thistlewit (played by Lesley Manville, Imelda Staunton, and Juno Temple respectively) who are our three-stooges providing us with banal slap-stick comedy. On the other side is Maleficent (played by Angelina Jolie) and Stefan (played by Sharlto Copley) who provide sometimes convincing performances that go totally off the rails in times of heated emotional moments. Something about the way Jolie screams in furious anger makes me laugh more than it does make me afraid.
This movie has every element that will make a film look good on the surface. But we already knew we were going to get that. It's a Disney film, and Disney always knows how to make some acceptable, if not wonderful just with their costume design, animation and scoring. When you release ten films in a calendar year, obviously not every one of them is going to blow you out of the water, and the producers are likely more than happy when a middling film receives a small amount of press acclaim but triples its budget in the box office. And so I once again leave this film thinking, was that it? I yearn for something more because I know what is possible. For every Maleficent, there is Pirates of the Carribean or Toy Story that hits you on all the fronts and is a magical journey for those of any age.
I can appreciate when a director and writer choose to take a different approach. Having a film from the point of view of the antagonist wasn't easy until recently (especially with a children's film). And shying away from the frivolous and expected love angle is better than constantly trying to drive home the cliche. However, there is a right way to do it that can leave the audience with something to remember instead of something that is simply inoffensive and easy. I'm not saying I have the magic formula. Perhaps no one does (except Steven Spielberg of course). I haven't seen the sequel yet, it's next on my list now that it's out on Blu-Ray. I don't have high hopes, but I am always happy to have my preconceptions overturned. For now I'll comfort myself with some Jack Sparrow and Mike Wazowski.