+Raccoon Bro God, every time I heard that actor's voice as King Stephen, I keep thinking he sounds like a Scottish-accented Gollum. I was expecting him to say "My Prrrecious"
+Raccoon Bro , he's South African. He has a South African accent and I think they made him try to sound British. He couldn't pull it off well. He's a good actor if given a suitable role. He wasn't suited to this.
Coming soon "Jafar" Turns out Jafar was a poor "street rat" too! And after being mocked and oppressed all of his life he wanted to make Agrabah a better place, but somewhere along the way he lost sight of what was important. There are no villains in Disney! They're all just misunderstood somehow! But it gets better! It turns out he practically raised Aladdin and tried to instruct him to be himself and not abuse the genie's magic. But the genie is just a bumbling moron who convinces Aladdin he has to lie and be something he's not to win the heart of Princess Jasmine. Can the anti-heroic Jafar somehow save this story that was better the way it was originally told?! Walt Disney Pictures brings you a live action update on a character backstory you never asked for once again as it retconns a popular villain into a misunderstood woobie with JAFAR! Rated PG-13... starring Channing Tatum as Jafar.
While your obviously sarcastic film does sound quite stupid (hopefully intentionally), Channing Tatum as Jafar sounds perfect if they're ever dumb enough to make a live-action Aladdin movie.
+Disappointed Turtle Um wasn't that the original, you know except with Jafar being evil and the Sultan also incompetent. Or am I projecting from the animated series...hmmm....
Remember when villains were cool because they were sinister and evil? I hate how disneys treating villains right now, especially with descendants. I don't want to see different sides of villains or anything where they're made heroes, I like seeing them evil
Brandon Martinez I would love to see the villian background where they stay evil and it connects to the original. like why is Ursula so evil ? there was a reason. all characters got background and isn't born evil
The whole thing was like Angelina Jolie's Self-Insert Possession Sue fanfic. Every scene she's in was set up to make her look alluring and she's never not on screen for longer than 5 minutes. They couldn't even have her turn into a dragon cause that would mean less screen time for her. Besides that I've NEVER seen any other film end the movie with the title and right after that as big as the title the actor's name, besides this one! It's like wanking her own ego. I also hate how it ended with "and that's the real story! :P" Fuck this movie
Nightman221k *Slow clap* Perfectly said!! The narcissism and pomposity surrounding Jolie in this movie is a major turnoff, even if I didn't care about the original story.
Oscar Stainton Exactly. Sleeping Beauty isn't my favorite Disney movie (I still like it but Princess & The Frog, Beauty and the Beast, and Aladdin are my favorite) but it deserves much, much better than to be written off as a "fake story" by a creepy, narcissistic celebrity's vanity project. I think I would've just disliked the Maleficent movie for being an unappealing drag (the movie's pacing screeched to a snails pace when they try to make Maleficent look maternal in the middle and it's bland, forced, and it's not memorable); but the fact that they basically called a Disney classic a fake story just made me despise it more than any misstep Disney's ever made. The original Sleeping Beauty may not have been perfect (mostly with regard to limited characterization of Aurora and Philip); but the animation, character design, music score, and especially the gorgeous painted backgrounds had so much attention to detail and care put into them with artistry that still holds up to this day. It certainly has much more beauty and heart in it than Maleficent did. The people involved in the original deserve better than to have their legacy trashed by a movie with ugly creatures who look like they're Avatar leftovers (blue aliens not airbender) and a fanfiction-y story that only serves to make every character look: bumbling to make Maleficent look smart, evil to make Maleficent to look like a saint, or behave like a prop to point out how much of a martyr she is. It's sycophantic and obnoxious to see how much they want to make her look perfect, she's more St. Niceficent the Mary-Sue Messiah of Sleeping Beauty than the badass, awesome Maleficent the Misteress of All Evil who people know and love.
100% agree with this review. This film tried WAY too much to be like Wicked. Wicked works in so many ways but this film doesn't do anything new or ground-braking, apart from ruining the fairies and Maleficent herself. Which I think the original Sleeping Beauty film, despite having its flaws, is the better film.
+TrevorSpace Animation ikr? they could have done it much better by keeping her evil or at least conflicted. Imagine that: her parents died when she was a baby, they were evil, but the baby was raised by the fairy folk (which makes her name and devilish appearance better explained) and throughout the entire movie she actually wants the girl to die, but her curse that sets her death by the 18th year stops the girl from dying from other elements, at the cost of Maleficent herself. And in the end, she turns to a dragon, fight the prince, and when she dies, she embraces it and be glad the girl was saved. Tell me THAT wouldn't be much better? heck, might even be tear-jerkingly better.
I had high hopes for the film because I thought Disney is *FINALLY* going to make a film about a villain's point of view, and try something new... I thought this would be like Disney's "A Clockwork Orange" , or "Paradise Lost" where we dwelve into a bad guy's psyche... .....but nope.
I hate it when they touch likable villains and turn them into sympathizing characters/antiheroes.There's nothing wrong with liking a fictional villain. It doesn't mean we condone evil, we enjoy it because its escape from reality. Really, did we even need this film?
+MegaSoulhero The effects are great until you remember that they were ripped off from 'Snow White and the Huntsman'. They weren't even that great there either.
+TransformersFanCo328 Who is Caddicarus? I thought the King sounded like a Scottish-accented Gollum. I was expecting him to say "My Precious" (with trilling Rs) at some point.
If they ended the movie where maleficent cursed the baby, it would've been an interesting origin story. It would've been 30 minutes long, but what I got instead insulted my favorite disney movie. She doesn't turn into a dragon. They messed up the greatest part in the classic fairy tale.
the only reason I enjoyed bit of this was how Jolie was such a fitting choice. Her voice was PERFECT, the costume design was spot on and she had that presence, one of the most important factors to make a great villain.
I liked this movie. I didn't think it ruined the character if anything I think it added to it and made her more human, the relationship with the king and him becoming paranoid and vengeful is an interesting element, and I liked the Crow character he was likeable. I will concede that I thought that the fairy godmothers where annoying, that could have used some work and seems like they were just written as childish slapstick humor. Also the CGI could have been better given when this movie came out, but to be honest I didn't care that much.
Mr. Macabre Just one question, are you ever saw the Disney cartoon version of Sleeping Beauty? Because that Maleficient makes this one poop in her pantys.
@@GladstnJones dude, don't lie. if u ever watch 1959 sleeping beauty, you wouldn't think this fanfiction as a different take. they just retcon it. don't u remember at the end they say, jolie movie is the true story of sleeping beauty? pay attention lol, what a disgrace to the forces of evil and basically use all the elements of sleeping beauty and hope people didnt make a difference on which is far superior? what a shameless disrespect to the the original 1959
@@lookbehindyourback6910 I did watch the original, and I love the original. I'm just able to separate the new and old ones in my head and view them as completely separate movies. The original a classic fairy tail and the new one a more modern tragedy. Granted in the four years since I posted that comment I like the remake less but I still appreciate what it did good. However no matter how good Angelina Jolie did in the new portrayal of the character nobody can beat the original Maleficent. I believed that then and I still believe it now.
Not only does this movie ruin one of the best villain's reputation, but it also is a giant bore! Aurora has no character, and you can say in the original she had no character, but at least in that she cried, and had actual emotions. The fairies who were technically the protagonists in the original are degraded to idiot comic reliefs. Don't even get me started on the king :/ It's just not a well thought out movie. I'm all for changing things up every once and while, but making one of the most well known villains, the "Mistress of all evil" jus a misunderstood fairy, it's just so lame and wrong. Heck, her last line in the original movie was "Now shall you deal with me oh prince, and all the powers of HELL!" Yeah, she just sounds so misunderstood there. Maleficent was great because she just seemed like she enjoyed being evil so much! So many villains nowadays are just "misunderstood" or "had a rough past." I like those kinds of villains, but we've lost the truly evil ones.
I think the "loss of truly evil" tropes we get from movie villains these days...or heck all villains these days, is because in reality "evil" is a human characteristic based on actions rather than an entities actual being. There really never is a "truly evil" existence or evil existence out there that wasn't brought into being through a series of misconceptions, or unfortunate events and misunderstandings. You can personify evil for sure, but that's just giving nature to something unnatural. Which is what makes truly evil villains so interesting. The thought of something so inhuman and diabolically evil existing in human shape makes for a great villain. A villain meant to be hated and not sympathized with to some extent is a rarity now. Which is how it should be when you being to humanize characters. Humans can be good and evil based on perspective and circumstance. So they end up bringing stories like this that try to explain why a villain became a villain in the first place. Background is often left out or low in detail in regards to why villains act the way they do since their role in a movie is to serve as opposition for the protagonist(s) and to bring conflict since it adds to the story or is the story. "I'm evil because I am evil incarnate" just doesn't seem "realistic", which is funny considering it's a fictional story and trying to add a realistic element like human nature and nurture aspects impacting future actions is counter-intuitive. The old Maleficent was amazing because she was entirely evil without a shred of humanity to her. It's what made her such an amazing villain. This movie added something to her that no one asked or wanted. It gave her humanity. Human characteristics and emotions that make you "identify" where she is coming from and empathize and sympathize with her circumstance. You aren't supposed to empathize with a villain. The fact that we couldn't empathize with her in the original film is why she worked so well as a villain. Being evil because "she IS", will always read better with audiences than Being evil because "Of This". Did anyone really care why Maleficent acted the way she did in the original? The answer is a resounding NOPE, because she was built up to be hated and defeated because they gave no background to her character other than the first infliction *"I wasn't invited to the party? Screw you guys I'm killing the baby".* That kind of over the top, nonsensical devilish Spite is what makes her the evil wench she is. We don't want to know why she acts the way she does. She's crazy and needed to be put down like the degenerate that she was/ is.
Personally i really do think, that you can create a background story for a villain that explains how they turned evil, without... washing them out as just 'misunderstood'. Actually I think it would have been better if you end up watching a character getting changed by circumstances more and more as they develop into the corrupt, cynical or sadistic villain whilst still keeping a sense of charisma to them. The trick is to make them 'relateable' not 'likeable' that in the end you still know they Have to be stopped. Might have even made the story of Malificent more tragic, if we got... something else, where the developers of this live action remake don't seem to have such a heavy amount of resentment towards the original product too. As Doug said, not only does malificent not feel like malificent anymore but the other characters that were likeable in the original were dumbed down to a insulting level. It is a wasted opportunity... they could have set Malificents backstory way in the past... showed us how she got her powers. How she may have turned out to be so spiteful towards everyone around her, through constant hardship in her learning process of becoming a witch perhabs even... -sigh- But that is just one possibility. Anyone else wanna try come up with a better story that wouldn#t have completely ruined the mystery of the old malificent? x'D
Exactly, I would have loved a backstory if everything turned out the same, but they had to ruin it and maker her the hero. Wicked works because the story evolves around the already existing story and doesn't change anything. This movie is just telling another story with a couple of familiar characters thrown into it.
Gamelover254 My sister had me to invite me to watch that.....and in 10 minutes.....now everything has gotten wrong. The canon changes are so bland and unfaithful to what we grew up. This is the real reason why we rather watch Sleeping Beauty instead. As the song from Once Upon A Dream, they sing like they are bored. Even they knew the film sucked.
Personally, I think we need a healthy balance of both purely evil villains and sympathetic/morally ambiguous antagonists. Trying to write the latter takes just as much skill, imagination, and passion to do it right as the former, yet many people assume if you just have something bad happen to the would-be villain, have the character just wallow in self-pity and blame his actions on it, and/or deny that said character ever did horrible things that you will automatically have a tragic, sympathetic, or misunderstood villain that is cool/hip for modern audiences. I have never seen "Wicked," but one example of a move that took a Satanic-archetype villain and actually did a great job of adding more layers to the character, making him somewhat sympathetic to an extent, and still keeping his villainy intact, IMO, is Francis Ford Coppola's adaptation of "Dracula." These are all the reasons why it worked for me (for the most part) as oppose to "Maleficent," if anyone is interested: The 1992 movie takes the story from Bram Stoker's novel and tries to supplement it with an added prologue for how Dracula becomes a vampire, and an added sub-plot involving the main female lead, Mina Harker. The novel starts out with Dracula working as an ally of the Church to defend the European Christians against the invading Ottomans. Dracula does have a wife whom he cherishes, but he also has one flaw that reveals a dark side he has, even before he becomes a vampire. He is a brutal warlord and is willing to do horrifying things to bring about a good end, like trying to save the land by torturing defeated Turks and displaying their impaled, still living bodies, in order to scare away the more massive enemy army and overcome his insurmountable odds. But once his princess commits suicide, after the Turks secretly deliver false news of his death, the local priests lead him to believe his wife is damned for all eternity. That is when he loses his only anchor, turns his already-existing brutality against the Church, and makes a Satanic deal to become a vampire and seek revenge against God, whom he blames for her death and also believes has callously condemned her to Hell. The one plot point added in the movie adaptation is that Mina, the protagonist's fiancé whom Dracula starts to covet for himself in the book, is revealed to have been Princess Elisabeta reborn. She also starts having all the memories of her past life with Dracula come back to her, which makes her consider viewing Dracula as her first husband and causes the relationship between Mina, Jonathan Harker, and Dracula to become more complicated. In the end, Mina realizes that the loving thing to do is to free Dracula from the Devil's grip by destroying his vampire form, so he can become human again and go to heaven. When Dracula is mortally wounded, there is an additional moment between her and Dracula, where she is able to show compassion and convince him to turn back to God. Although she will now be separated for real from her first husband, she is left to live a happy life with Jonathan, which they also do in the book. The deleted alternate ending especially makes that clear. I think this is why it worked for me. The movie adaptation still keeps almost the entire story from the novel intact, so it feels for the most part like I am really watching the same story play out, just with some additional perspective from Dracula. The movie depicts Dracula turning evil because of both the tragic things that happened to him and his own flaws, so it makes Dracula's actions a little more understandable without acting like Dracula is 100% blameless for going down that path. When Dracula does become the vampire, the movie does not shy away from showing almost all the gruesome things he does in the book (plus more), and Dracula pretty much has all the same powers as he does in the book, so his menace and charisma as a villain is preserved. Jonathan Harker, Abraham Van Helsing, and God himself are still the good guys, so the movie did not try to good the cheap route to try and make Dracula look more compelling just by smearing everyone else (granted, I felt that the Mina and Jonathan Harker relationship was significantly underdeveloped compared to the book, but at least it did not try to go out of its way to insult or vilify them). Giving Dracula that backstory actually plays a role into how the story's themes are explored and illustrated, so it does more than just state, "hey this villain had a rough past, so please don't stay mad at him for too long." One of the many themes from that book is love vs. lust, with Dracula's actions towards Mina representing the latter and Jonathan Harker representing the former. Dracula in the movie has some additional reasons for wanting her that are very emotional, relatable, and sympathetic, but that gives the movie adaptation a greater ability to illustrate how destructive is it to put your own happiness first and harming the other person's wellbeing in the process (like how he first wants her to become a vampire bride for him, so they can live together on Earth forever), even if one believes he is doing it for love. Finally, even though Mina is not Dracula's reborn princess in the novel, she still pitied him and wanted his redemption over damnation. The book delved into the Christian theme of reconciliation/redemption by having him turn back into a human, with a look of peace, before dying. The narrative structure of the book leaves gaps for in the story and/or only drops a few clues, like exactly what else happened in Dracula's past or between him and Mina, potentially inviting the reader to use his/her imagination. So many of the additions in the movie adaptation actually have a basis in the source material and build on these gaps or given character moments. The reason why I think "Maleficent" does not work is that it completely changes the following story, denies many of the horrible things Maleficent did (like cursing Aurora with the intent to only make her sleep, rather than kill her), tries to make Maleficent look better only by making everyone else horribly wicked or pathetically stupid, does not show her doing all the awesome diabolical things we would want to see her do (like turning into a dragon herself and calling upon the powers of Hell), takes away most of her villainous charisma, has her turn back good (not only before even doing anything horrifically evil that comes close to a "moral event horizon," but after the original source material gave no such hint that there was any grain of humanity behind her, that would make her consider disowning the title as "Mistress of all Evil"), and does not find a way to use her new backstory to add much interesting things to the original story.
lol i was in another tab and thought the voice was just Doug making fun of the King's voice then i came back to this tab and realized that was his actual voice x'D
Spotted heart Drawings nobody should be hated for thinking differently and having an opinion. in some situations, it helps to see different points of view and opinions. that's what makes us all unique! 😊
I preferred Maleficent being the dragon. She didn't need a sidekick and she didn't need to be this involved with Aurora. I mean she could have ended up changing her mind without turning 180 from villain to misunderstood mommy.
Maybe after she pricks her finger Maleficent realizes what she’s done and she’s let herself become. Although that wouldn’t explain why she captured the prince and fought him off in the form of a dragon. Maybe some time after that she realizes what she’s done.
+Rachel Wagner What they did to Prince Philip? They didn't do jack shit with him! He was even blander in this movie than he was in the original. On the other hand, what they did to the fairies was unforgivable.
D Vass I thought he was awesome in the original facing off against Maleficent. He fights a dragon and has actual scenes as opposed to say the princes in Cinderella and Snow White. I agree they made him completely bland and did nothing with him in Maleficent but to me that made me mad because I love him in the original. The faeries was unforgivable.
+Rachel Wagner This could be in fact good story if none of sides would be simply evil. If both magical and human world couldn't coexist and both sides would see themselves as evil and oppressive and for a reason. That way someone as dark as Meleficient (what shouldn't be her real name of course) could be still dark and protector of own people in this same time, when princess could be unaware and just learn that they aren't themselves that nice as they think. This could be solved pretty well with clever story about fanaticism and explaining need for compromise, but no.. it created almost new cliche! When new Cinderella have smarter commentary (stepmother reasons) then that mean something!
+Rachel Wagner The part I most hated about it was that they made every other character stupid or evil just to make Maleficent look better in comparison. If they were trying to make Maleficent look good and couldn't do it without making everyone around her worse than her then that's bad writing.
You know what makes Maleficent one of my favorite villains? It's the unknown factor. When we first see her in the original Sleeping Beauty what do we know about her? What are her motivations? We never know, but that doesn't mean she isn't interesting. It's kind of like Heath Ledgers Joker or the Wicked witch of the West; we don't know what their canon history is but they're still so interesting. And the movies that feature them aren't built around their history, they're built around how the main characters react to them. And that's why I love Maleficent, and why this movie sucks ass!
I'll give the movie this: it looks amazing, it's kind of refreshing to see a mother/daughter relationship in a fantasy movie and Angelina Jolie is just perfection as Maleficent. She definitely looks the part and you can tell how much fun she's having with it. The rest of it is just a mess!
Wicked the broadway show works because it fits into the canon of the Wizard of Oz movie. The witch is truly relatable and complex. It also does not pretend she wasn't doing the crazy things in the movie or erase them in an attempt to make her all good. The witch does wind up doing the bad things we see in the movie because she has given up trying to be good due to various tragedies in her life (or arguably the tragedy that is her life). It's complex and beautiful and treats the audience like thinking people. It treats the original movie with respect as well because, as I said earlier, it fits into the movie's canon and doesn't pretty much tell you that you shouldn't like the movie. It was supposed to make you think twice about simply accepting the witch being evil because of Glinda saying that "bad witches are ugly".
I honestly kind of like this film. I try to compartmentalize from the original Sleeping Beauty. It has its problems, I was certainly pissed Maleficent didn't become a dragon, but I did enjoy Maleficent early in the movie a lot. I know its unoriginal and dumping on the one of the best villains Disney has to offer, but I do still enjoy Maleficent mothering Aurora from afar. The scene where she tries to scare baby Aurora through the open window still gets a laugh out of me. I still prefer Maleficent as a villain any day of the week, but I'm a sucker for villain reformations. And Angelina Jolie gets across just that perfect level of sass, bless her. I still don't mind this movie.
you know its not like the fairys weren't complete morons in the original. I mean after 16 years of living in the middle of the woods with no magic or anything, not one or them had figured out how to cook, sew, or bake. maleficent raising her actually kind of makes sense, because I don't know how else aurora could have survived with them.
The thing I hated most was watching the trailer for this movie and Maleficent saying "she'll prick her finger on a spinning wheel and sleep forever!" Like, no. No, Maleficent says the princess will DIE. Merryweather changes it to a deep sleep to try and save the princess. Just... ugh. I haven't even bothered to watch the movie. Everything I've heard pretty much confirms how awful it is
I actually know someone who claims Sleeping Beauty was her fairy tale film yet thinks this movie is incredible. She was telling me how much I would like it, she gives me the film for Christmas, I see it with her, and I've never suffered through a more tiring hour and a half in my life.
My mum really enjoys it without seeing any problems with it... to be fair... my mum doesn't care if a movie is shit, as long as it is sentimental >~> So... watching this with my mum was... awkward... trying to keep my mouth shut not to ruin it for her and yet... at times I just can't help it.
I hated the idea of her being this good-ish character in this film maybe if she was good at the beginning and then unforgivably bad then yeah. But I wanted the Maleficent [whose first part of her name means evil] to be what she is in the original Disney [since that's what they said this was based off of] a Demonic evil fairy who has a army of demons a bird named diablo and can call upon the powers of HELL to turn into a dragon. And put a curse on a infant just cause she didn't get invited to a party. I hated when this film and Once Upon A Time make her this Shakespeare villain. I don't mind those but once in a while you need some to be dark just cause they like to be dark
I think the most insulting thing about this movie is how everyone claims it's feminist. It isn't. A real feminist wouldn't have gone this route, wouldn't have tried to shoe horn a rape metaphor into a friggin' children's film and wouldn't change Maleficent into a "good guy gone bad" or "misunderstood." No, an actual feminist would've maintained the character as we knew her and use logic and reasoning to explain the divide. Couldn't we have her just be a dark person that was once favored by the kingdom but then is outcasted for no reason or, better yet, have her attitudes merely fall out of favor due how society changes on a dime and then have her at odds with the royal family? Hell, this movie shouldn't have even touched upon the part the first movie covered. This should've focused on Maleficent, the kingdom and the relationship between the two, ending right where the first movie takes off; with her bangin' entrance at the party.
+NoirRaven Every time I hear how feminist this film is, I get extremely pissed! This film made the men look bad. That is not feminism. Feminism isn't about making men look bad, its about equality. Also the fairies in this film couldn't do anything, in Sleeping Beauty they were quite capable, so Sleeping Beauty is actually better in female representation than Maleficent. Anyone who claims Maleficent is more feminist than Sleeping Beauty is either an idiot or they haven't seen Sleeping Beauty since they were a kid, I'm sorry if that last sentence was rude, this movie just really pisses me off.
+NoirRaven Actually it fits in pretty well with what universities teach their students about feminism with rape analogues everywhere, especially in children's tales, a patriarchy that puts every female character down/isolates/overpowers them in every way and the victim portrayed by said patriarchy as evil, making the female protagonist/formerly perceived villain a victim of her circumstances who then rises up 'against the man'. I'd say I admire the film for showing a portrayal of victimhood perpetrating more victimhood but at this point I'm sure it was an accident rather than any talent or intention. Sorry to contradict/disagree with you...I just don't agree with this whole "a real feminist" thing, I mean...feminism is feminism, both the good and the bad, some feminists want equality, other feminists want to chop off dicks. Looking away from the negative aspects and trying to claim something as 100% positive in every way and infallible in a human-run system is nothing short of dishonest or ignorant I feel. That's not meant as an insult or grievance against you personally, I just wanted to voice my opinion on the matter of what I do feel is an exaggerated perception that leaves no room for reinforcement or debate if taken to a far enough extreme.
+NoirRaven Side note, the real sleeping beauty story's villain are the King and Queen, the King who violates the KOed SB and the Queen who tries to murder innocent babies and burn SB alive.
Aegis Annnd your point is? Like, how does that justify what Angelina tried to pull here? It doesn't. Not to mention this is _Disney_ we're talking about. They're allowed to fudge on the original because reasons.
*eyes dart around nervously* I, uh, I kinda liked it. Don't hate me, let me explain! Maleficent being pure evil and everything is great, but it never made much sense. She wasn't invited to a party, so she tries to kill off a baby? And not even then, but sixteen years later, specified in her own curse. She sends out her minions and makes herself tired over this. Couldn't she have just turned the parents into pigs instead? I'm just saying, she's more melodramatic and theatrical than unforgiving evil. How else can you explain her cheesy lines? She had to have good cause for a grudge, and the new movie gave a perfect one, even down to the reasoning behind that particular curse and the amendment, true love's kiss, that she herself added. Besides that, 16 years is a hell of a long time to hold a grudge, especially when the victim is innocent of the crime. Maleficent feeling regret just makes sense, even if she was pure evil. Going back to the parents, lets talk about King Stephen. Disney gave him no real emotion in the cartoon. I mean, he had that stupid fight over nothing with his friend, but he seems mostly unaffected by his daughter being raised so far removed from himself. Maybe the live action version of him is over the top, but being driven mad by paranoia makes sense as well. He screwed up royally, and Maleficent is a badass. He shouldn't be calm and eating a feast the day before Aurora's 16th birthday, he should be on his guard and freaking out. I can see why people don't like the newer versions of the three fairies, but I'm biased in that I thought the originals were really annoying. Honestly? I didn't see much difference. Really, think back to the cartoon, and you'll realize they were just as bumbling then as they are now, if slightly more useful where Prince Phillip was concerned. Lastly, there's Aurora. She's bland in both of them, but someone made the point that she had at least cried in the original. Good, I guess. But in the new one, she had gotten angry, and rightfully so. So, yeah. She gets one claim to fame in both of them. I kind of liked the expression on her face when she realized her father was completely nuts, though. Dammit, I'll be honest. I liked how they brought Maleficent back in Kingdom Hearts 2, but as an antihero who actually helped Sora, and I wanted more of that. Being the Mistress of All Evil is...kind of one dimensional and boring, when you think about it. Besides, a new version of something doesn't ruin the original, regardless of what some people seem to think. The Maleficent from back then still holds up, and can be seen independently from this one. I, personally, like this new take on the classic, even if the method isn't original. Call me simple, if you like.
That's fair. :D Though yeh the problem really is that in this new film... The king becomes apeshit mad... just cause... I mean, you could say that in real life people become tempted by power constantly but according to the background story we got in the film, he actually did seem to care alot for the young malificent and yet he does rather quickly decide to accept the kings offer, despite knowing that this implies he has to hurt the ...magical creature person he cares the most for. Aside from that nitpick, i understand what you mean. And I don't dismiss the idea of giving more depth to a villain or make them relateable. I just felt like the film had a large amount of contempt for the former film, turning the three fairies into these insulting idiots or the king into a temper tantrum driven asshole. >_>'
I don't blame you if you like the new version, but allow me to clarify Maleficent's motives in the original for you. Historically speaking, fairies were thought to be of two kinds; nice and helpful (sometimes), or vengeful, petty and mischievous. Obviously, Maleficent was of the latter. In most fairytales, fairies don't really need much of a reason to royally dick over humans. Sometimes they did it just for funsies. You could write a book about the needlessly cruel things fairies did in folklore, like changelings (when a fairy would randomly kidnap a human child and replace it with a creature. If the parents killed the changeling, the fairy would never return the real child. If the parents took care of the creature, which may or may not eat them out of house and home, the fairy MIGHT return the child. Talk about cruel.) The original Maleficent may seem nonsensical and one-dimensional, but she's actually pretty damn accurate to the depiction of fairies at the time.
DCreed013 This topic doesn't come up much, but I'm actually well acquainted with faerie lore and the fact that Maleficent was originally a bad faerie, but that's a catch 22. Those types of faeries are very...loose? Flighty? They would pull whatever cruel trick they wished as soon as possible, not wait 16 years for a punchline. On top of that, they're known to lose focus when things become uninteresting and end up forgetting things entirely. If the story took place in the United Kingdom, where the Seelie Court is, it would be different, but with mostly French roots...I'm over-analyzing. Going that far back, there weren't even faeries in the story. My main point is, Maleficent making herself tired over a curse she in all likelihood would have forgotten about was strange. Since the cartoon never mentioned the fact that she was a faerie, I'm thinking that Disney intended the viewers to see her as a demon of sorts instead, which would've made more sense to me.
ichigoeater That's a good point. Her being a demon in the original movie would explain pretty much everything. You could keep arguing the fairy angle, like saying that because being snubbed at the party was such a huge insult, it left an impression on her. Or that because the baby went missing right after the curse, it was still fresh in her mind and she was upset that she might've been outwitted (correct me if I'm wrong, but I recall that malicious faeries tended to be sore losers). In either case, I don't agree with the new movie about making Maleficent 'more human'. Because demon or fairy, she is definitely NOT human. To me, trying to make her identifiable is like trying to make Jaws the hero of his movie. To pull that off, you'd have to change the entire movie start to finish (like the Maleficent movie had to do). Maleficent is a species that's SUPPOSED to be pure evil, and making her sympathetic just doesn't make sense to me.
If they wanted to do a twist, I say they should have gone all out. Make Maleficent and Aurora have a romantic relationship. At least that would have been something!
Omg, what is up with you people? I don't mean gay support, I mean the kind of gay support that goes beyond the simplicity of being gay and bringing people together regardless of their age. A child and adult? That's sick. That is sick.
How to make great female villains relatable and sympathetic: 1. Show that she was once pure and innocent but an EVIL MAN broke her heart. See she's not all bad some jerk broke heart so that makes it ok because a woman with a broken heart is excused from everything.
This was basically Disney's attempt to make their own version of Wicked, in a sense. And it failed horribly. Wicked actually worked because the Wizard of Oz was already shady to begin with, so making him evil wasn't too much of a stretch. I mean, this is the guy who deceived an entire land and told a shit-ton of lies. With Sleeping Beauty, however, King Stephen isn't evil at all, so making him this power-hungry guy in Maleficent doesn't make any sense. Plus, Maleficent changed up too much of what happened in the original story. Wicked didn't do that. It still had the same ending as the Wizard of Oz: the Wizard flies away on a balloon and Elphaba is gone forever. With Maleficent, the whole ending is changed and it kind of defeats the purpose of the "same story told from a different point of view" plot.
Wicked succeeded where Maleficent succeeded because Wicked didn't completely alter what was good about the story in order to fit the narrative it was trying to tell. It didn't contradict the Wicked Witch's motives for being angry at Dorothy, or slander a character to make Elphaba look better. Maleficent was a frickin' insult to Sleeping Beauty.
I really liked this one though. I don't care if it's been done before, It was done really well. I don't care if the characters had no charisma, they didn't need it to tell the story and portray the emotions that they needed to. Even the king, I felt was written well and did the job he was given well. It wasn't really supposed to be twisted or whatever. It's just another interpretation, and even if you don't like it, they still put in a lot of effort and in my opinion, it still turned out looking good.
to be fair in the original sleeping beauty, maleficent was a fairy. but tbh i loved this movie, it was seeing it in a different perspective. and a lot of villains are having this happen, where we see them not as one dimensional evil characters, but as more developed characters, and personally I like that.
You Know, i had no problem with Maleficent being a fairy until i remembered the line she says as she turns into a dragon in the original. "Now, shall you deal with me, oh Prince, and all the powers of Hell!" Absolutely feel free to correct me if i am wrong, but I do not think an otherwise gentle fairy would be able to wield the "Powers of Hell." Maleficent is a demon of some kind, not a fairy.
I don't know why, but i kind of liked this movie. I didn't see Wicked and I haven't seen Sleeping Beauty in years. The only major gripe I had with this movie was that Maleficent could not turn into a dragon and her little sidekick was the one that did. Anyways, this was a fairly entertaining watch for me.
I liked some parts of this movie, like fantasy, some emotions, some changes...but I really didn't like how King just went crazy just to be a villain...and Maleficent hero basically
This film actually had potential. When I first saw the trailer, I thought it was going to be about Maleficent's backstory and explain why she is the way she is BUT they decided to mess it up quickly by doing an "alternate" Sleeping Beauty story. Sad, because Maleficent is my favorite Disney villain. Also, the King in this movie's transitions from good to bad to insane was all done terribly!
Gonna go off on a bit of a rant with this one. I have the same problems with Maleficent that I do with Man of Steel; it's a film that thinks it's a lot smarter and deeper than it really is. I suppose you could make the argument for both films that they're actively inviting critical thinking in a mainstream film, but the problem is they don't reward it in a substantial way. They honestly come across like an insult to the intelligence. SPOILERS: The conscious decision to compare the loss of Maleficent's wings to rape is effective when played out on screen, but it's undermined by two things: 1. The "abused becomes the abuser" card. I'm all for tragic villains, but this cliché needs to die. This is one of the many, many, many reasons why some victims of the sadly various kinds of abuse are scared to come forward, the fear of being judged and to have that played out in a mainstream film is the last thing these people need.* 2. It's solved so easily. All Maleficent had to do was smash the case and the wings reattach themselves by magic. I know having Aroura do it is a metaphor for her innocence making Maleficent a better person, but if the problem's so easily solved by smashing a glass case, doesn't t that undermine the rape allegory in the first place? And of course the feminism, or rather the sloppy attempts at it. After Beauty and the Beast, I refuse to believe a story where not only do they play the "abused becomes the abuser" card, but the three fairies who were proactive characters in the original are reduced to idiots, the queen is given even less to do and a MALE character turns into a dragon is the best that screenwriter, Linda Woolverton can come up with. Whether or not you agree with feminism, if you're going to put those values in your film, you can't just bring them up and hope no one notices the contradictions. That's lazy. And I gotta be honest, with the possible exceptions of the Christening scene, it's just a boring film overall and it's not so much because Maleficent isn't evil, it's because of how passive she is for most of the film. If they wanted to do the whole "Maleficent is misunderstood" thing, they probably should have took notes from Megamind and Despicable Me; what made them fun to watch is that even though we're rooting for Megamind and Gru to redeem themselves, they still indulge in the cool super-villain tropes that people love: the evil labs, the maniacal laugh, the badass weapons, the theatrics, the costumes, the grand entrances, hell Megamind took it a step further by having AC/DC, Guns n' Roses and Michael Jackson's Bad... at the end when Megamind has redeemed himself. If you want Maleficent to grow to love Aurora, have a moment where she uses her awesome power to protect her, hell, you could make the moment where she turns into a dragon be a "GET AWAY FROM HER YOU BITCH" moment. Boom, done, it didn't take a lot of thought. Bottom line, this movie wastes a lot of its opportunities and as an aspiring writer that annoys me more than anything. *If you have been abused, please find someone who'll help, who won't judge you, trust me, there's always somebody.
I can't stand what Disney's doing with these new movies. When Walt first made Snow White it was this big ground breaking thing because no one had made a full length animated film before and so many people put so much of themselves into so many of their movies. It was Disney's dream to win an academy award for best picture for one of his animated films. And now the studio is REMAKING all its good movies with live actors?? They can't even come up with original plots! And by doing so they're sending this message that movies are inherently improved just by making it not animated. That's completely the opposite of what the studio stood for in the first place! Not to mention it undermines the whole art form the backbone of their company is based on! For what, money? Walt Disney mortgaged his house to make snow white! This sort of behavior is an insult to the founder, to the audience, to the medium, to the stories and to the artists who originally made these masterpieces. I love what Disney stands/stood for so much and to see it shat on this way by some nutless bunch of moneybags is repulsive and disturbing.
Same here. I kind of figured Maleficent was a scorned woman prior to being mistress of all evil but I thought it was something bigger than my boyfriend betrayed me, y'know? Like something like the death of loved one or a betrayal of the boyfriend on a larger scale, like he tried to stop the humans coming to the forest and destroying it but he's only one guy so no one would listen. So Maleficent would take his inability to help as a bigger blow. I don't know. I just wanted a very dark back story, a lot darker than this anyways.
Shashwat Bhushan The original motivation, stupid even for many of us, fits perfectly in a arrogant character like Maleficient. She was so powerful and vain she thinks everyone should respect her, even if you was a king or just and ant. This one is was lame and edgy, just making a cruel backstory for make it more "adult theme".
KH1/CoM yes but not so much KH2 when she is more like a antihero ........... with that being said tho KH2 made her into a better antihero then maleficent XD
I respectfully disagree. I think this is one of the better live action ones, though I have yet to see Jungle Book and am looking forward to Beauty and the Beast. Though I do agree that there were several cringe worthy moments revolving around the three good fairies, I liked the fleshing out of Maleficent. The taking of her wings, her reaction was very much akin to rape and was a very pivotal moment in her personality. And yes, Sleeping Beauty is one of my top three favorite Disney animated movies. I was personally very pleased with it and enjoyed it way more then Cinderella.
Ok so some one missed the point of move the point is that the "good guys" usually are not so good if they have people after their family members and that we our self create our demons and "bad people " have a hart
Here's my big problem with Maleficent. It tried to be Wicked, but forgot the trick that makes Wicked work. It's not the songs, it's not the characters, it's that Wicked is absolutely aware of what happened in the original film. Wicked still had the scenes from the movie, Dorothy crushing Elphebas sister, the throwing the bucket of water on Elphaba, they acknowledge those things happened and worked around them. They let Dorothy see an evil character while we saw what caused that image, we see why Dorothy would be so terrified of this character. Maleficent actively altered the original story so it's no longer a valid reference, hell I want to remind you that the line in Maleficent isn't "She shall prick her finger on the spindle of a spinning wheel and die" like it was in Sleeping Beauty, but "She shall prick her finger on the spindle of a spinning wheel and fall into a deep deep sleep like death". They actively changed the curse (Including removing the part where Maryweather is the one who makes it the true loves kiss thing), they altered the threat and in turn altered everything about Maleficent we originally knew that could've made this story work. This isn't "The other side of the story" this is a completely different story, and a bad one at that
+gojiguyver3 Yes, that was to be my question. However, I think it was a good movie: well directed, well paced, nice CGI (not Gollum level, but nice), and with the best plot twist on true love I've ever seen (actually, the only convincing one). Oh, and BTW, this for me works much beter as one of those alternate reality things.
I want a live-action Sleeping Beauty remake that makes the relationship between Phillip and Aurora (Not much to their characters, but boy, they had some chemistry in their interactions) more meaningful by showing scenes of them-I don't know-actually bonding over something other than their looks and singing voices.
Honestly, when I heard Sharlto Copley's voice in this video, I thought it was Doug doing an impression. I mean, Copley's a great actor, but really hard to cast. I thought he was great in District 9 and Elysium, and he did a good job in the A-Team movie. The only thing is that voice kinda limits his options. It works with the psychotic Kruger, but not someone authoritative like the King here. Also, why did the director think it was a good idea to make him sound like he was gargling stones while delivering his lines?
I didn't like the movie but at least the ending gave me a good laugh. At the end Aurora reveals herself as the narrator by saying: how do I know this?...because I'm the girl they called Sleeping Beauty. Well in this movie she pricks her finger at sunset and is woken up in the very same night by Maleficent. Really? Did your kingdom really begin calling you Sleeping Beauty because you took a nap?
From all the things they could have thought of Maleficent's back-story, this is what they made? I didn't have that great expectations to begin with, but that was disappointing to say the least.
+CRADLE619 My thoughts too. Though it also kinda pissed me off, how- even though he didn't actually kill her- the guy betrays his best friend in the world, just so he could become King and makes no effort whatsoever to try and make amends for it.
Honestly, not a huge fan of this movie, but the scene where she gets her wings cut off totally fucks me up. I thought that was an incredible example of extremely emotional acting. The rest of it isn't great. It's just that particular scene that I think is phenomenal.
The only thing I liked about this movie is the slowed down version of "Once Upon a Dream". Much better than the original version of the song, in my opinion.
It made the trailer very beautiful. Shoo~ The trailer, the song and Maleficient's outfits (not exactly functional with those horns or even story.... but whatev) were the best things about this movie.
It made the trailer very beautiful. Shoo~ The trailer, the song and Maleficient's outfits (not exactly functional with those horns or even story.... but whatev) were the best things about this movie.
I liked this one a little better then Frozen because this at least has some plot to it. Maybe i am just weird but i really wanted to see Elsa go through a deep dark valley where she becomes evil then Anna is the one who has to pull her out and make her good again. That's what we got with Maleficent.
I watched this movie with my mother and little sister. None of us liked it, but I think I was the only one who was actually angry over this movie. I agree with Doug, 100% on this.
"Wow, this is really nice concept art you've drawn here." "Yeah, I have this idea for a fairy tale movie about some fairy girl." "I have a better idea, how about a movie about Maleficent?" "The evil villain from Sleeping Beauty?" "Yeah, but we make her good instead of evil." "But wouldn't that just butcher the classic story, aren't we better off creating a more original one from this artwork?" "Nope, don't care."
One of the things that HT brought up is the fact that they tried to pull a Darth Vader, and like that, sucked. However, with more of a critical eye, you can see what exactly happened to Darth Vader and understand how it's supposed to flow.
It's been so long since I've seen Sleeping Beauty, and there are no words for how much I hate this movie. It's so boring, so dull, so cliched, and such a waste of great talent from everyone involved with it.
I hated how uncreative this movie was, and how it was obviously made to make money. One example is when she's cursing the baby. They use the original Maleficent dialogue line by line with little to no changes. Aside from the visuals, which are very pretty, the movie just seemed lazy with its plot and characters. Basically, this movie sucked.
Why is it suddenly so hip to make all the great villains woobies!? It's especially obnoxious when they go out of their way to retcon their backstories. >:(
You can blame the Wicked novel, and to extent the popularity of the musical, for that. People saw how much money it made and figured they could do something similar. I wasn't a fan of Wicked but the premise was interesting, until it started to rear its ugly head around any movie focusing on a previously fantastic villain.
I think that it comes down to the recent trend with some tragic villains being legitimately well done and people wanting to see more of that, since a lot of them are used to seeing the classic irredeemably evil villain. But when you have a producer or a filmmaker that is lazy and just wants to pander to that fad, they often just have some generic bad thing happen to the villain and claim they made a "fresh villain." Part of what makes characters like Dreamworks' portrayal of Ramses in "Prince of Egypt," Mr Freeze in "Batman: The Animated Series," or Zuko in "Avatar: The Last Airbender" great tragic villains is that they their past/upbringing seamlessly flows into what kind of villains they become, they have other fleshed out character traits and relationships besides angst/betrayal/hate, they are allowed to be partly evil by their own choices too, the narrative does not deny the horrible things they do nor hold back from showing it, and the overall story does something creative with their character arcs and how they end up tying in. I also heard that Wicked still left the character of the Wicked Witch intact so you can then go into the actual Wizard of Oz story and watch it play out the same way. Apparently, the Maleficent movie did not take notes from these other stories.
I think one of the really saddest things about this movie is that this was the very final movie that involved Rick Baker, one of the greatest makeup-effect artists of all time, in the film's production.
When I heard the King's voice in the video, I thought it was Doug making fun of his voice.
Same!
Nathaniel Levesque lmao!! Same here I died laughing when I saw this comment and saw that part of the video too
Same and I saw the movie.
That's 'cause he sounds like Scrooge McDuck if Scrooge McDuck had a cold.
Too bad because that guy’s a great actor but he must’ve hated this role
When the king's voice popped up I thought it was Doug making fun of his voice. Is that actually what he sounds like in that film!?!
+Raccoon Bro Yeah. That actor also starred in a movie called A-team....not good
Yes
+Raccoon Bro God, every time I heard that actor's voice as King Stephen, I keep thinking he sounds like a Scottish-accented Gollum. I was expecting him to say "My Prrrecious"
+Miguel L He starred in District 9 too, I think.
+Raccoon Bro , he's South African. He has a South African accent and I think they made him try to sound British. He couldn't pull it off well. He's a good actor if given a suitable role. He wasn't suited to this.
Coming soon "Jafar" Turns out Jafar was a poor "street rat" too! And after being mocked and oppressed all of his life he wanted to make Agrabah a better place, but somewhere along the way he lost sight of what was important. There are no villains in Disney! They're all just misunderstood somehow!
But it gets better! It turns out he practically raised Aladdin and tried to instruct him to be himself and not abuse the genie's magic. But the genie is just a bumbling moron who convinces Aladdin he has to lie and be something he's not to win the heart of Princess Jasmine. Can the anti-heroic Jafar somehow save this story that was better the way it was originally told?!
Walt Disney Pictures brings you a live action update on a character backstory you never asked for once again as it retconns a popular villain into a misunderstood woobie with JAFAR! Rated PG-13... starring Channing Tatum as Jafar.
While your obviously sarcastic film does sound quite stupid (hopefully intentionally), Channing Tatum as Jafar sounds perfect if they're ever dumb enough to make a live-action Aladdin movie.
Lol
Twisted is actually a good Wicked-style parody of Aladdin.
Rachel DeRosier loved Twisted! Love all StarKid so there's that.
😂😂😂😂😂
Imagine if they did this to other villains. Like Jafar trying to be a good politician for Agrabah, because the Sultan is too incompetent.
+Disappointed Turtle Um wasn't that the original, you know except with Jafar being evil and the Sultan also incompetent. Or am I projecting from the animated series...hmmm....
Exactly
Twisted, the only difference was that was actully good
I think if written well that could actually be very interesting
Disappointed Turtle or worse, they make Dr. Faciler or Ursula honest business men or women. (Or in Ursula's case business squid... woman... thing)
Remember when villains were cool because they were sinister and evil? I hate how disneys treating villains right now, especially with descendants. I don't want to see different sides of villains or anything where they're made heroes, I like seeing them evil
Brandon Martinez I would love to see the villian background where they stay evil and it connects to the original. like why is Ursula so evil ? there was a reason. all characters got background and isn't born evil
Who else here thinks that the movie's premise sounds like a really bad fanfic?
Yeah, thats exactly what I thought when I eventually saw the movie in full. This is why fanfic writers should never write movies!!!
The whole thing was like Angelina Jolie's Self-Insert Possession Sue fanfic. Every scene she's in was set up to make her look alluring and she's never not on screen for longer than 5 minutes. They couldn't even have her turn into a dragon cause that would mean less screen time for her. Besides that I've NEVER seen any other film end the movie with the title and right after that as big as the title the actor's name, besides this one! It's like wanking her own ego. I also hate how it ended with "and that's the real story! :P" Fuck this movie
Nightman221k *Slow clap* Perfectly said!! The narcissism and pomposity surrounding Jolie in this movie is a major turnoff, even if I didn't care about the original story.
Oscar Stainton Exactly. Sleeping Beauty isn't my favorite Disney movie (I still like it but Princess & The Frog, Beauty and the Beast, and Aladdin are my favorite) but it deserves much, much better than to be written off as a "fake story" by a creepy, narcissistic celebrity's vanity project. I think I would've just disliked the Maleficent movie for being an unappealing drag (the movie's pacing screeched to a snails pace when they try to make Maleficent look maternal in the middle and it's bland, forced, and it's not memorable); but the fact that they basically called a Disney classic a fake story just made me despise it more than any misstep Disney's ever made.
The original Sleeping Beauty may not have been perfect (mostly with regard to limited characterization of Aurora and Philip); but the animation, character design, music score, and especially the gorgeous painted backgrounds had so much attention to detail and care put into them with artistry that still holds up to this day. It certainly has much more beauty and heart in it than Maleficent did. The people involved in the original deserve better than to have their legacy trashed by a movie with ugly creatures who look like they're Avatar leftovers (blue aliens not airbender) and a fanfiction-y story that only serves to make every character look: bumbling to make Maleficent look smart, evil to make Maleficent to look like a saint, or behave like a prop to point out how much of a martyr she is. It's sycophantic and obnoxious to see how much they want to make her look perfect, she's more St. Niceficent the Mary-Sue Messiah of Sleeping Beauty than the badass, awesome Maleficent the Misteress of All Evil who people know and love.
Bini Farmer me
100% agree with this review. This film tried WAY too much to be like Wicked. Wicked works in so many ways but this film doesn't do anything new or ground-braking, apart from ruining the fairies and Maleficent herself. Which I think the original Sleeping Beauty film, despite having its flaws, is the better film.
I just now found out that the name "Maleficent" is combo of the words "malevolent" and "magnificent"
In the dictionary it's defined as "causing evil or harm or to be malevolent." it's actually a word not just a name
Oh, it's a real word then? Never mind
Lol yh but what you said makes sense
She should marry a male fairy called Maglevolent
I feel like pointing out that Maleficent means evil. Her parents named their kid Evil.
+TrevorSpace Animation does she even have parents
icecream hero Idk the point is someone named this nice fairy a name which means EVIL.
+TrevorSpace Animation ikr? they could have done it much better by keeping her evil or at least conflicted. Imagine that: her parents died when she was a baby, they were evil, but the baby was raised by the fairy folk (which makes her name and devilish appearance better explained) and throughout the entire movie she actually wants the girl to die, but her curse that sets her death by the 18th year stops the girl from dying from other elements, at the cost of Maleficent herself. And in the end, she turns to a dragon, fight the prince, and when she dies, she embraces it and be glad the girl was saved. Tell me THAT wouldn't be much better? heck, might even be tear-jerkingly better.
MrKlausbaudelaire i still thought it was ok
Well being named settlement/homestead isn't that much better.
I had high hopes for the film because I thought Disney is *FINALLY* going to make a film about a villain's point of view, and try something new...
I thought this would be like Disney's "A Clockwork Orange" , or "Paradise Lost" where we dwelve into a bad guy's psyche...
.....but nope.
that actually sounds really cool. To bad Disney went the other route.
Fanfiction: The Movie.
lol
Funny, I thought that was Batman Vs Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles.
Well, fanfic movies have existed way back. I mean, just look at Space Jam and tell me you don’t see that as a fanfic made into a feature length film.
I hate it when they touch likable villains and turn them into sympathizing characters/antiheroes.There's nothing wrong with liking a fictional villain. It doesn't mean we condone evil, we enjoy it because its escape from reality. Really, did we even need this film?
I liked Wicked though
This movie is such a bad representation of one of the best Disney villains. I'll give it credit though, the effects are amazing.
Dude, the fairies. Nuff said
+MegaSoulhero The effects are great until you remember that they were ripped off from 'Snow White and the Huntsman'. They weren't even that great there either.
+Arron Litchfield I've never seen Snow White and the Huntsman.
That'll be why you thought Maleficents effects were original.
I mostly blame frozen because you could easily tell this movie was inspired from because malficent is basically Elsa now
Since when did Umbridge become a fairy?
I guess a few years in azkaban made her go crazy
Why does the king sound like a Scottish Caddicarus?
+TransformersFanCo328 Saw this comment, and then saw the clip where you hear his voice. Thanks a lot...
Violent Dalmatians 3 flashbacks...
+TransformersFanCo328 FUN FACT: DID YOU KNOW? that this movie is shit
+TransformersFanCo328 Who is Caddicarus? I thought the King sounded like a Scottish-accented Gollum. I was expecting him to say "My Precious" (with trilling Rs) at some point.
harrietamidala1691 He's a British UA-camr who makes game reviews. I'd say check him out.
Doug is so bad at spoilers...
"I won't give away the ending, BUT IT'S JUST LIKE FROZEN'S ENDING!"
In a way it sort of is
Frozen sucks
If they ended the movie where maleficent cursed the baby, it would've been an interesting origin story. It would've been 30 minutes long, but what I got instead insulted my favorite disney movie. She doesn't turn into a dragon. They messed up the greatest part in the classic fairy tale.
the only reason I enjoyed bit of this was how Jolie was such a fitting choice. Her voice was PERFECT, the costume design was spot on and she had that presence, one of the most important factors to make a great villain.
I liked this movie. I didn't think it ruined the character if anything I think it added to it and made her more human, the relationship with the king and him becoming paranoid and vengeful is an interesting element, and I liked the Crow character he was likeable. I will concede that I thought that the fairy godmothers where annoying, that could have used some work and seems like they were just written as childish slapstick humor. Also the CGI could have been better given when this movie came out, but to be honest I didn't care that much.
Mr. Macabre Just one question, are you ever saw the Disney cartoon version of Sleeping Beauty? Because that Maleficient makes this one poop in her pantys.
Nido Hime
yes I have, but this one is a different take. It's not terrible
@@GladstnJones dude, don't lie. if u ever watch 1959 sleeping beauty, you wouldn't think this fanfiction as a different take. they just retcon it. don't u remember at the end they say, jolie movie is the true story of sleeping beauty? pay attention lol, what a disgrace to the forces of evil and basically use all the elements of sleeping beauty and hope people didnt make a difference on which is far superior? what a shameless disrespect to the the original 1959
@@lookbehindyourback6910 I did watch the original, and I love the original. I'm just able to separate the new and old ones in my head and view them as completely separate movies.
The original a classic fairy tail and the new one a more modern tragedy. Granted in the four years since I posted that comment I like the remake less but I still appreciate what it did good.
However no matter how good Angelina Jolie did in the new portrayal of the character nobody can beat the original Maleficent. I believed that then and I still believe it now.
I actually love Jolie as Maleficent....her face and character just seem to fit this baddie so well....plus I loved the story.
I'll be honest, the wings on Malefecint look awesome.
Not only does this movie ruin one of the best villain's reputation, but it also is a giant bore! Aurora has no character, and you can say in the original she had no character, but at least in that she cried, and had actual emotions. The fairies who were technically the protagonists in the original are degraded to idiot comic reliefs. Don't even get me started on the king :/ It's just not a well thought out movie. I'm all for changing things up every once and while, but making one of the most well known villains, the "Mistress of all evil" jus a misunderstood fairy, it's just so lame and wrong. Heck, her last line in the original movie was "Now shall you deal with me oh prince, and all the powers of HELL!" Yeah, she just sounds so misunderstood there. Maleficent was great because she just seemed like she enjoyed being evil so much! So many villains nowadays are just "misunderstood" or "had a rough past." I like those kinds of villains, but we've lost the truly evil ones.
I think the "loss of truly evil" tropes we get from movie villains these days...or heck all villains these days, is because in reality "evil" is a human characteristic based on actions rather than an entities actual being. There really never is a "truly evil" existence or evil existence out there that wasn't brought into being through a series of misconceptions, or unfortunate events and misunderstandings. You can personify evil for sure, but that's just giving nature to something unnatural. Which is what makes truly evil villains so interesting. The thought of something so inhuman and diabolically evil existing in human shape makes for a great villain.
A villain meant to be hated and not sympathized with to some extent is a rarity now. Which is how it should be when you being to humanize characters. Humans can be good and evil based on perspective and circumstance. So they end up bringing stories like this that try to explain why a villain became a villain in the first place. Background is often left out or low in detail in regards to why villains act the way they do since their role in a movie is to serve as opposition for the protagonist(s) and to bring conflict since it adds to the story or is the story. "I'm evil because I am evil incarnate" just doesn't seem "realistic", which is funny considering it's a fictional story and trying to add a realistic element like human nature and nurture aspects impacting future actions is counter-intuitive.
The old Maleficent was amazing because she was entirely evil without a shred of humanity to her. It's what made her such an amazing villain. This movie added something to her that no one asked or wanted. It gave her humanity. Human characteristics and emotions that make you "identify" where she is coming from and empathize and sympathize with her circumstance. You aren't supposed to empathize with a villain. The fact that we couldn't empathize with her in the original film is why she worked so well as a villain. Being evil because "she IS", will always read better with audiences than Being evil because "Of This".
Did anyone really care why Maleficent acted the way she did in the original? The answer is a resounding NOPE, because she was built up to be hated and defeated because they gave no background to her character other than the first infliction *"I wasn't invited to the party? Screw you guys I'm killing the baby".* That kind of over the top, nonsensical devilish Spite is what makes her the evil wench she is. We don't want to know why she acts the way she does. She's crazy and needed to be put down like the degenerate that she was/ is.
Personally i really do think, that you can create a background story for a villain that explains how they turned evil, without... washing them out as just 'misunderstood'. Actually I think it would have been better if you end up watching a character getting changed by circumstances more and more as they develop into the corrupt, cynical or sadistic villain whilst still keeping a sense of charisma to them. The trick is to make them 'relateable' not 'likeable' that in the end you still know they Have to be stopped. Might have even made the story of Malificent more tragic, if we got... something else, where the developers of this live action remake don't seem to have such a heavy amount of resentment towards the original product too.
As Doug said, not only does malificent not feel like malificent anymore but the other characters that were likeable in the original were dumbed down to a insulting level.
It is a wasted opportunity... they could have set Malificents backstory way in the past... showed us how she got her powers. How she may have turned out to be so spiteful towards everyone around her, through constant hardship in her learning process of becoming a witch perhabs even... -sigh- But that is just one possibility. Anyone else wanna try come up with a better story that wouldn#t have completely ruined the mystery of the old malificent? x'D
Exactly, I would have loved a backstory if everything turned out the same, but they had to ruin it and maker her the hero. Wicked works because the story evolves around the already existing story and doesn't change anything. This movie is just telling another story with a couple of familiar characters thrown into it.
Gamelover254 My sister had me to invite me to watch that.....and in 10 minutes.....now everything has gotten wrong. The canon changes are so bland and unfaithful to what we grew up. This is the real reason why we rather watch Sleeping Beauty instead.
As the song from Once Upon A Dream, they sing like they are bored. Even they knew the film sucked.
Personally, I think we need a healthy balance of both purely evil villains and sympathetic/morally ambiguous antagonists. Trying to write the latter takes just as much skill, imagination, and passion to do it right as the former, yet many people assume if you just have something bad happen to the would-be villain, have the character just wallow in self-pity and blame his actions on it, and/or deny that said character ever did horrible things that you will automatically have a tragic, sympathetic, or misunderstood villain that is cool/hip for modern audiences.
I have never seen "Wicked," but one example of a move that took a Satanic-archetype villain and actually did a great job of adding more layers to the character, making him somewhat sympathetic to an extent, and still keeping his villainy intact, IMO, is Francis Ford Coppola's adaptation of "Dracula." These are all the reasons why it worked for me (for the most part) as oppose to "Maleficent," if anyone is interested:
The 1992 movie takes the story from Bram Stoker's novel and tries to supplement it with an added prologue for how Dracula becomes a vampire, and an added sub-plot involving the main female lead, Mina Harker. The novel starts out with Dracula working as an ally of the Church to defend the European Christians against the invading Ottomans. Dracula does have a wife whom he cherishes, but he also has one flaw that reveals a dark side he has, even before he becomes a vampire. He is a brutal warlord and is willing to do horrifying things to bring about a good end, like trying to save the land by torturing defeated Turks and displaying their impaled, still living bodies, in order to scare away the more massive enemy army and overcome his insurmountable odds. But once his princess commits suicide, after the Turks secretly deliver false news of his death, the local priests lead him to believe his wife is damned for all eternity. That is when he loses his only anchor, turns his already-existing brutality against the Church, and makes a Satanic deal to become a vampire and seek revenge against God, whom he blames for her death and also believes has callously condemned her to Hell.
The one plot point added in the movie adaptation is that Mina, the protagonist's fiancé whom Dracula starts to covet for himself in the book, is revealed to have been Princess Elisabeta reborn. She also starts having all the memories of her past life with Dracula come back to her, which makes her consider viewing Dracula as her first husband and causes the relationship between Mina, Jonathan Harker, and Dracula to become more complicated. In the end, Mina realizes that the loving thing to do is to free Dracula from the Devil's grip by destroying his vampire form, so he can become human again and go to heaven. When Dracula is mortally wounded, there is an additional moment between her and Dracula, where she is able to show compassion and convince him to turn back to God. Although she will now be separated for real from her first husband, she is left to live a happy life with Jonathan, which they also do in the book. The deleted alternate ending especially makes that clear.
I think this is why it worked for me. The movie adaptation still keeps almost the entire story from the novel intact, so it feels for the most part like I am really watching the same story play out, just with some additional perspective from Dracula. The movie depicts Dracula turning evil because of both the tragic things that happened to him and his own flaws, so it makes Dracula's actions a little more understandable without acting like Dracula is 100% blameless for going down that path. When Dracula does become the vampire, the movie does not shy away from showing almost all the gruesome things he does in the book (plus more), and Dracula pretty much has all the same powers as he does in the book, so his menace and charisma as a villain is preserved. Jonathan Harker, Abraham Van Helsing, and God himself are still the good guys, so the movie did not try to good the cheap route to try and make Dracula look more compelling just by smearing everyone else (granted, I felt that the Mina and Jonathan Harker relationship was significantly underdeveloped compared to the book, but at least it did not try to go out of its way to insult or vilify them).
Giving Dracula that backstory actually plays a role into how the story's themes are explored and illustrated, so it does more than just state, "hey this villain had a rough past, so please don't stay mad at him for too long." One of the many themes from that book is love vs. lust, with Dracula's actions towards Mina representing the latter and Jonathan Harker representing the former. Dracula in the movie has some additional reasons for wanting her that are very emotional, relatable, and sympathetic, but that gives the movie adaptation a greater ability to illustrate how destructive is it to put your own happiness first and harming the other person's wellbeing in the process (like how he first wants her to become a vampire bride for him, so they can live together on Earth forever), even if one believes he is doing it for love. Finally, even though Mina is not Dracula's reborn princess in the novel, she still pitied him and wanted his redemption over damnation. The book delved into the Christian theme of reconciliation/redemption by having him turn back into a human, with a look of peace, before dying. The narrative structure of the book leaves gaps for in the story and/or only drops a few clues, like exactly what else happened in Dracula's past or between him and Mina, potentially inviting the reader to use his/her imagination. So many of the additions in the movie adaptation actually have a basis in the source material and build on these gaps or given character moments.
The reason why I think "Maleficent" does not work is that it completely changes the following story, denies many of the horrible things Maleficent did (like cursing Aurora with the intent to only make her sleep, rather than kill her), tries to make Maleficent look better only by making everyone else horribly wicked or pathetically stupid, does not show her doing all the awesome diabolical things we would want to see her do (like turning into a dragon herself and calling upon the powers of Hell), takes away most of her villainous charisma, has her turn back good (not only before even doing anything horrifically evil that comes close to a "moral event horizon," but after the original source material gave no such hint that there was any grain of humanity behind her, that would make her consider disowning the title as "Mistress of all Evil"), and does not find a way to use her new backstory to add much interesting things to the original story.
lol i was in another tab and thought the voice was just Doug making fun of the King's voice then i came back to this tab and realized that was his actual voice x'D
I actually kinda like this movie
PLEASE DON"T SEND ME HATE COMMENTS
Spotted Heart fuck you
This is a hate comment.Here is some hate.Have a nice day and please have a pleasant holiday.
Daidai907 fuck your self
Spotted heart Drawings
nobody should be hated for thinking differently and having an opinion. in some situations, it helps to see different points of view and opinions. that's what makes us all unique! 😊
*Sends you hate comments*
I preferred Maleficent being the dragon. She didn't need a sidekick and she didn't need to be this involved with Aurora. I mean she could have ended up changing her mind without turning 180 from villain to misunderstood mommy.
Maybe after she pricks her finger Maleficent realizes what she’s done and she’s let herself become. Although that wouldn’t explain why she captured the prince and fought him off in the form of a dragon. Maybe some time after that she realizes what she’s done.
I hate this movie so much especially what they do to Prince Phillip and the faeries.
+Rachel Wagner What they did to Prince Philip? They didn't do jack shit with him! He was even blander in this movie than he was in the original. On the other hand, what they did to the fairies was unforgivable.
D Vass
I thought he was awesome in the original facing off against Maleficent. He fights a dragon and has actual scenes as opposed to say the princes in Cinderella and Snow White. I agree they made him completely bland and did nothing with him in Maleficent but to me that made me mad because I love him in the original.
The faeries was unforgivable.
+Rachel Wagner
This could be in fact good story if none of sides would be simply evil. If both magical and human world couldn't coexist and both sides would see themselves as evil and oppressive and for a reason. That way someone as dark as Meleficient (what shouldn't be her real name of course) could be still dark and protector of own people in this same time, when princess could be unaware and just learn that they aren't themselves that nice as they think. This could be solved pretty well with clever story about fanaticism and explaining need for compromise, but no.. it created almost new cliche! When new Cinderella have smarter commentary (stepmother reasons) then that mean something!
TheRezro
Well said. I agree!
+Rachel Wagner The part I most hated about it was that they made every other character stupid or evil just to make Maleficent look better in comparison. If they were trying to make Maleficent look good and couldn't do it without making everyone around her worse than her then that's bad writing.
You know what makes Maleficent one of my favorite villains? It's the unknown factor. When we first see her in the original Sleeping Beauty what do we know about her? What are her motivations? We never know, but that doesn't mean she isn't interesting. It's kind of like Heath Ledgers Joker or the Wicked witch of the West; we don't know what their canon history is but they're still so interesting. And the movies that feature them aren't built around their history, they're built around how the main characters react to them. And that's why I love Maleficent, and why this movie sucks ass!
I'll give the movie this: it looks amazing, it's kind of refreshing to see a mother/daughter relationship in a fantasy movie and Angelina Jolie is just perfection as Maleficent. She definitely looks the part and you can tell how much fun she's having with it. The rest of it is just a mess!
Thank God that they didn't ruined the story of Cinderella with the new version .3.
+Rob Bob hi again Benson
Actually they did, and they ruined Beauty and the Beast... and they will ruin Lion King as well.
Wicked the broadway show works because it fits into the canon of the Wizard of Oz movie. The witch is truly relatable and complex. It also does not pretend she wasn't doing the crazy things in the movie or erase them in an attempt to make her all good. The witch does wind up doing the bad things we see in the movie because she has given up trying to be good due to various tragedies in her life (or arguably the tragedy that is her life). It's complex and beautiful and treats the audience like thinking people. It treats the original movie with respect as well because, as I said earlier, it fits into the movie's canon and doesn't pretty much tell you that you shouldn't like the movie. It was supposed to make you think twice about simply accepting the witch being evil because of Glinda saying that "bad witches are ugly".
QFT
I honestly kind of like this film. I try to compartmentalize from the original Sleeping Beauty.
It has its problems, I was certainly pissed Maleficent didn't become a dragon, but I did enjoy Maleficent early in the movie a lot.
I know its unoriginal and dumping on the one of the best villains Disney has to offer, but I do still enjoy Maleficent mothering Aurora from afar. The scene where she tries to scare baby Aurora through the open window still gets a laugh out of me.
I still prefer Maleficent as a villain any day of the week, but I'm a sucker for villain reformations. And Angelina Jolie gets across just that perfect level of sass, bless her.
I still don't mind this movie.
one of my favorite movies
And now he just look at this movie again but now 20 MINUETS LONG
you know its not like the fairys weren't complete morons in the original. I mean after 16 years of living in the middle of the woods with no magic or anything, not one or them had figured out how to cook, sew, or bake. maleficent raising her actually kind of makes sense, because I don't know how else aurora could have survived with them.
The thing I hated most was watching the trailer for this movie and Maleficent saying "she'll prick her finger on a spinning wheel and sleep forever!" Like, no. No, Maleficent says the princess will DIE. Merryweather changes it to a deep sleep to try and save the princess. Just... ugh. I haven't even bothered to watch the movie. Everything I've heard pretty much confirms how awful it is
I actually enjoyed this movie. Along with the original. I actually like how they did it.
I actually know someone who claims Sleeping Beauty was her fairy tale film yet thinks this movie is incredible. She was telling me how much I would like it, she gives me the film for Christmas, I see it with her, and I've never suffered through a more tiring hour and a half in my life.
My mum really enjoys it without seeing any problems with it... to be fair... my mum doesn't care if a movie is shit, as long as it is sentimental >~> So... watching this with my mum was... awkward... trying to keep my mouth shut not to ruin it for her and yet... at times I just can't help it.
I LOVE THIS REVIEW. " You know what? This movie really sucks!"
I love this movie. Fight me.
kick punch hadoken kamehameha kaioken upercut ninja chop beats with bottle..... I kinda liked it too slits throat
Knee of justice, Reverse warlock punch, reverse aerial Falcon punch, shoryuken , finising touch, Star punch and super atomic buster.
I hated it fight me
Liking a movie doesn't make it a good movie.
+Slender Mane hating a movie doesn't make it bad
I hated the idea of her being this good-ish character in this film maybe if she was good at the beginning and then unforgivably bad then yeah. But I wanted the Maleficent [whose first part of her name means evil] to be what she is in the original Disney [since that's what they said this was based off of] a Demonic evil fairy who has a army of demons a bird named diablo and can call upon the powers of HELL to turn into a dragon. And put a curse on a infant just cause she didn't get invited to a party. I hated when this film and Once Upon A Time make her this Shakespeare villain. I don't mind those but once in a while you need some to be dark just cause they like to be dark
Wrote about this movie for my Senior Seminar paper.
how did that go?
Still waiting back on results. Will update post when I get grade back.
What is the idea of this seminar?
It’s been 2 years, how did you do?
I think the most insulting thing about this movie is how everyone claims it's feminist. It isn't. A real feminist wouldn't have gone this route, wouldn't have tried to shoe horn a rape metaphor into a friggin' children's film and wouldn't change Maleficent into a "good guy gone bad" or "misunderstood."
No, an actual feminist would've maintained the character as we knew her and use logic and reasoning to explain the divide. Couldn't we have her just be a dark person that was once favored by the kingdom but then is outcasted for no reason or, better yet, have her attitudes merely fall out of favor due how society changes on a dime and then have her at odds with the royal family?
Hell, this movie shouldn't have even touched upon the part the first movie covered. This should've focused on Maleficent, the kingdom and the relationship between the two, ending right where the first movie takes off; with her bangin' entrance at the party.
+NoirRaven Every time I hear how feminist this film is, I get extremely pissed! This film made the men look bad. That is not feminism. Feminism isn't about making men look bad, its about equality. Also the fairies in this film couldn't do anything, in Sleeping Beauty they were quite capable, so Sleeping Beauty is actually better in female representation than Maleficent. Anyone who claims Maleficent is more feminist than Sleeping Beauty is either an idiot or they haven't seen Sleeping Beauty since they were a kid, I'm sorry if that last sentence was rude, this movie just really pisses me off.
+NoirRaven Yeah, this is not a real "feminist" film. This is stereotypical "feminism" as imagined by Hollywood, not by real life.
+NoirRaven Actually it fits in pretty well with what universities teach their students about feminism with rape analogues everywhere, especially in children's tales, a patriarchy that puts every female character down/isolates/overpowers them in every way and the victim portrayed by said patriarchy as evil, making the female protagonist/formerly perceived villain a victim of her circumstances who then rises up 'against the man'.
I'd say I admire the film for showing a portrayal of victimhood perpetrating more victimhood but at this point I'm sure it was an accident rather than any talent or intention. Sorry to contradict/disagree with you...I just don't agree with this whole "a real feminist" thing, I mean...feminism is feminism, both the good and the bad, some feminists want equality, other feminists want to chop off dicks. Looking away from the negative aspects and trying to claim something as 100% positive in every way and infallible in a human-run system is nothing short of dishonest or ignorant I feel. That's not meant as an insult or grievance against you personally, I just wanted to voice my opinion on the matter of what I do feel is an exaggerated perception that leaves no room for reinforcement or debate if taken to a far enough extreme.
+NoirRaven Side note, the real sleeping beauty story's villain are the King and Queen, the King who violates the KOed SB and the Queen who tries to murder innocent babies and burn SB alive.
Aegis Annnd your point is?
Like, how does that justify what Angelina tried to pull here? It doesn't. Not to mention this is _Disney_ we're talking about. They're allowed to fudge on the original because reasons.
*eyes dart around nervously*
I, uh, I kinda liked it. Don't hate me, let me explain! Maleficent being pure evil and everything is great, but it never made much sense. She wasn't invited to a party, so she tries to kill off a baby? And not even then, but sixteen years later, specified in her own curse. She sends out her minions and makes herself tired over this. Couldn't she have just turned the parents into pigs instead? I'm just saying, she's more melodramatic and theatrical than unforgiving evil. How else can you explain her cheesy lines? She had to have good cause for a grudge, and the new movie gave a perfect one, even down to the reasoning behind that particular curse and the amendment, true love's kiss, that she herself added. Besides that, 16 years is a hell of a long time to hold a grudge, especially when the victim is innocent of the crime. Maleficent feeling regret just makes sense, even if she was pure evil. Going back to the parents, lets talk about King Stephen. Disney gave him no real emotion in the cartoon. I mean, he had that stupid fight over nothing with his friend, but he seems mostly unaffected by his daughter being raised so far removed from himself. Maybe the live action version of him is over the top, but being driven mad by paranoia makes sense as well. He screwed up royally, and Maleficent is a badass. He shouldn't be calm and eating a feast the day before Aurora's 16th birthday, he should be on his guard and freaking out. I can see why people don't like the newer versions of the three fairies, but I'm biased in that I thought the originals were really annoying. Honestly? I didn't see much difference. Really, think back to the cartoon, and you'll realize they were just as bumbling then as they are now, if slightly more useful where Prince Phillip was concerned. Lastly, there's Aurora. She's bland in both of them, but someone made the point that she had at least cried in the original. Good, I guess. But in the new one, she had gotten angry, and rightfully so. So, yeah. She gets one claim to fame in both of them. I kind of liked the expression on her face when she realized her father was completely nuts, though.
Dammit, I'll be honest. I liked how they brought Maleficent back in Kingdom Hearts 2, but as an antihero who actually helped Sora, and I wanted more of that. Being the Mistress of All Evil is...kind of one dimensional and boring, when you think about it. Besides, a new version of something doesn't ruin the original, regardless of what some people seem to think. The Maleficent from back then still holds up, and can be seen independently from this one. I, personally, like this new take on the classic, even if the method isn't original. Call me simple, if you like.
That's fair. :D Though yeh the problem really is that in this new film... The king becomes apeshit mad... just cause... I mean, you could say that in real life people become tempted by power constantly but according to the background story we got in the film, he actually did seem to care alot for the young malificent and yet he does rather quickly decide to accept the kings offer, despite knowing that this implies he has to hurt the ...magical creature person he cares the most for. Aside from that nitpick, i understand what you mean. And I don't dismiss the idea of giving more depth to a villain or make them relateable.
I just felt like the film had a large amount of contempt for the former film, turning the three fairies into these insulting idiots or the king into a temper tantrum driven asshole. >_>'
I don't blame you if you like the new version, but allow me to clarify Maleficent's motives in the original for you. Historically speaking, fairies were thought to be of two kinds; nice and helpful (sometimes), or vengeful, petty and mischievous. Obviously, Maleficent was of the latter. In most fairytales, fairies don't really need much of a reason to royally dick over humans. Sometimes they did it just for funsies. You could write a book about the needlessly cruel things fairies did in folklore, like changelings (when a fairy would randomly kidnap a human child and replace it with a creature. If the parents killed the changeling, the fairy would never return the real child. If the parents took care of the creature, which may or may not eat them out of house and home, the fairy MIGHT return the child. Talk about cruel.)
The original Maleficent may seem nonsensical and one-dimensional, but she's actually pretty damn accurate to the depiction of fairies at the time.
DCreed013 This topic doesn't come up much, but I'm actually well acquainted with faerie lore and the fact that Maleficent was originally a bad faerie, but that's a catch 22. Those types of faeries are very...loose? Flighty? They would pull whatever cruel trick they wished as soon as possible, not wait 16 years for a punchline. On top of that, they're known to lose focus when things become uninteresting and end up forgetting things entirely. If the story took place in the United Kingdom, where the Seelie Court is, it would be different, but with mostly French roots...I'm over-analyzing. Going that far back, there weren't even faeries in the story.
My main point is, Maleficent making herself tired over a curse she in all likelihood would have forgotten about was strange. Since the cartoon never mentioned the fact that she was a faerie, I'm thinking that Disney intended the viewers to see her as a demon of sorts instead, which would've made more sense to me.
ichigoeater That's a good point. Her being a demon in the original movie would explain pretty much everything. You could keep arguing the fairy angle, like saying that because being snubbed at the party was such a huge insult, it left an impression on her. Or that because the baby went missing right after the curse, it was still fresh in her mind and she was upset that she might've been outwitted (correct me if I'm wrong, but I recall that malicious faeries tended to be sore losers).
In either case, I don't agree with the new movie about making Maleficent 'more human'. Because demon or fairy, she is definitely NOT human. To me, trying to make her identifiable is like trying to make Jaws the hero of his movie. To pull that off, you'd have to change the entire movie start to finish (like the Maleficent movie had to do). Maleficent is a species that's SUPPOSED to be pure evil, and making her sympathetic just doesn't make sense to me.
AGREE
4:07 The second I heard the king's voice I burst out laughing. XD
If they wanted to do a twist, I say they should have gone all out. Make Maleficent and Aurora have a romantic relationship. At least that would have been something!
hmmm, yeah that would solve everything
Omg, what is up with you people? I don't mean gay support, I mean the kind of gay support that goes beyond the simplicity of being gay and bringing people together regardless of their age. A child and adult? That's sick. That is sick.
walt disney would have thrown up if he ever saw one of his greatest villians be given the tragic backstory treatment
How to make great female villains relatable and sympathetic:
1. Show that she was once pure and innocent but an EVIL MAN broke her heart.
See she's not all bad some jerk broke heart so that makes it ok because a woman with a broken heart is excused from everything.
Today I learned: if you hated Sleeping Beauty with a fiery passion, you are the target audience of Maleficent.
thank you for telling it like it is, Doug
This was basically Disney's attempt to make their own version of Wicked, in a sense. And it failed horribly. Wicked actually worked because the Wizard of Oz was already shady to begin with, so making him evil wasn't too much of a stretch. I mean, this is the guy who deceived an entire land and told a shit-ton of lies. With Sleeping Beauty, however, King Stephen isn't evil at all, so making him this power-hungry guy in Maleficent doesn't make any sense. Plus, Maleficent changed up too much of what happened in the original story. Wicked didn't do that. It still had the same ending as the Wizard of Oz: the Wizard flies away on a balloon and Elphaba is gone forever. With Maleficent, the whole ending is changed and it kind of defeats the purpose of the "same story told from a different point of view" plot.
Wicked succeeded where Maleficent succeeded because Wicked didn't completely alter what was good about the story in order to fit the narrative it was trying to tell. It didn't contradict the Wicked Witch's motives for being angry at Dorothy, or slander a character to make Elphaba look better. Maleficent was a frickin' insult to Sleeping Beauty.
My thoughts exactly!
I really liked this one though. I don't care if it's been done before, It was done really well. I don't care if the characters had no charisma, they didn't need it to tell the story and portray the emotions that they needed to. Even the king, I felt was written well and did the job he was given well. It wasn't really supposed to be twisted or whatever. It's just another interpretation, and even if you don't like it, they still put in a lot of effort and in my opinion, it still turned out looking good.
Same. The whole thing was predictable but enjoyable.
to be fair in the original sleeping beauty, maleficent was a fairy.
but tbh i loved this movie, it was seeing it in a different perspective. and a lot of villains are having this happen, where we see them not as one dimensional evil characters, but as more developed characters, and personally I like that.
but she's not more developed here, in fact, she's incredibly boring even with the amount of backstory they give her.
You Know, i had no problem with Maleficent being a fairy until i remembered the line she says as she turns into a dragon in the original. "Now, shall you deal with me, oh Prince, and all the powers of Hell!" Absolutely feel free to correct me if i am wrong, but I do not think an otherwise gentle fairy would be able to wield the "Powers of Hell." Maleficent is a demon of some kind, not a fairy.
I don't know why, but i kind of liked this movie. I didn't see Wicked and I haven't seen Sleeping Beauty in years. The only major gripe I had with this movie was that Maleficent could not turn into a dragon and her little sidekick was the one that did. Anyways, this was a fairly entertaining watch for me.
My GOD, Elle Fanning is probably the most beautiful and adorable human being that ever lived.
I'm back here cuz he just did a full review of this as a regular episode
This is the second time I've heard Doug Walker mention OUAT. Could it be that he watches my favorite show?
Malefor666 it's possible.
The worst part is we're getting a sequel this year
This is my favorite movie.
And they made one of the fairies Umbridge!
That... was tough to unsee.
I thought this movie was pretty good.
I liked some parts of this movie, like fantasy, some emotions, some changes...but I really didn't like how King just went crazy just to be a villain...and Maleficent hero basically
This film actually had potential. When I first saw the trailer, I thought it was going to be about Maleficent's backstory and explain why she is the way she is BUT they decided to mess it up quickly by doing an "alternate" Sleeping Beauty story. Sad, because Maleficent is my favorite Disney villain.
Also, the King in this movie's transitions from good to bad to insane was all done terribly!
Gonna go off on a bit of a rant with this one.
I have the same problems with Maleficent that I do with Man of Steel; it's a film that thinks it's a lot smarter and deeper than it really is. I suppose you could make the argument for both films that they're actively inviting critical thinking in a mainstream film, but the problem is they don't reward it in a substantial way. They honestly come across like an insult to the intelligence.
SPOILERS:
The conscious decision to compare the loss of Maleficent's wings to rape is effective when played out on screen, but it's undermined by two things:
1. The "abused becomes the abuser" card. I'm all for tragic villains, but this cliché needs to die. This is one of the many, many, many reasons why some victims of the sadly various kinds of abuse are scared to come forward, the fear of being judged and to have that played out in a mainstream film is the last thing these people need.*
2. It's solved so easily. All Maleficent had to do was smash the case and the wings reattach themselves by magic. I know having Aroura do it is a metaphor for her innocence making Maleficent a better person, but if the problem's so easily solved by smashing a glass case, doesn't t that undermine the rape allegory in the first place?
And of course the feminism, or rather the sloppy attempts at it.
After Beauty and the Beast, I refuse to believe a story where not only do they play the "abused becomes the abuser" card, but the three fairies who were proactive characters in the original are reduced to idiots, the queen is given even less to do and a MALE character turns into a dragon is the best that screenwriter, Linda Woolverton can come up with. Whether or not you agree with feminism, if you're going to put those values in your film, you can't just bring them up and hope no one notices the contradictions. That's lazy.
And I gotta be honest, with the possible exceptions of the Christening scene, it's just a boring film overall and it's not so much because Maleficent isn't evil, it's because of how passive she is for most of the film.
If they wanted to do the whole "Maleficent is misunderstood" thing, they probably should have took notes from Megamind and Despicable Me; what made them fun to watch is that even though we're rooting for Megamind and Gru to redeem themselves, they still indulge in the cool super-villain tropes that people love: the evil labs, the maniacal laugh, the badass weapons, the theatrics, the costumes, the grand entrances, hell Megamind took it a step further by having AC/DC, Guns n' Roses and Michael Jackson's Bad... at the end when Megamind has redeemed himself.
If you want Maleficent to grow to love Aurora, have a moment where she uses her awesome power to protect her, hell, you could make the moment where she turns into a dragon be a "GET AWAY FROM HER YOU BITCH" moment. Boom, done, it didn't take a lot of thought.
Bottom line, this movie wastes a lot of its opportunities and as an aspiring writer that annoys me more than anything.
*If you have been abused, please find someone who'll help, who won't judge you, trust me, there's always somebody.
I loved this movie!
I can't stand what Disney's doing with these new movies. When Walt first made Snow White it was this big ground breaking thing because no one had made a full length animated film before and so many people put so much of themselves into so many of their movies. It was Disney's dream to win an academy award for best picture for one of his animated films. And now the studio is REMAKING all its good movies with live actors?? They can't even come up with original plots! And by doing so they're sending this message that movies are inherently improved just by making it not animated. That's completely the opposite of what the studio stood for in the first place! Not to mention it undermines the whole art form the backbone of their company is based on! For what, money? Walt Disney mortgaged his house to make snow white! This sort of behavior is an insult to the founder, to the audience, to the medium, to the stories and to the artists who originally made these masterpieces. I love what Disney stands/stood for so much and to see it shat on this way by some nutless bunch of moneybags is repulsive and disturbing.
Same here. I kind of figured Maleficent was a scorned woman prior to being mistress of all evil but I thought it was something bigger than my boyfriend betrayed me, y'know? Like something like the death of loved one or a betrayal of the boyfriend on a larger scale, like he tried to stop the humans coming to the forest and destroying it but he's only one guy so no one would listen. So Maleficent would take his inability to help as a bigger blow. I don't know. I just wanted a very dark back story, a lot darker than this anyways.
I'll give the movie credit that it gave Maleficent a stronger motivation to curse Aurora, but at what cost? At what cost?
The trouble with that is, why didn't she just curse THE *$#@*!@ KING!!??? Taking it out on a freaking BABY!?
Shashwat Bhushan The original motivation, stupid even for many of us, fits perfectly in a arrogant character like Maleficient. She was so powerful and vain she thinks everyone should respect her, even if you was a king or just and ant. This one is was lame and edgy, just making a cruel backstory for make it more "adult theme".
And that's why we still have Kingdom hearts and it's version of Maleficient :D
KH1/CoM yes but not so much KH2 when she is more like a antihero ........... with that being said tho KH2 made her into a better antihero then maleficent XD
ZeroTheHeartlessKing Yep haha. But seriously kh1 maleficient was awesome and evil.
She was awesome AND stayed relatively in character in KH. The Maleficent movie was neither.
Nightman221k Yes. That's how to add depth without being EDGY
I respectfully disagree. I think this is one of the better live action ones, though I have yet to see Jungle Book and am looking forward to Beauty and the Beast. Though I do agree that there were several cringe worthy moments revolving around the three good fairies, I liked the fleshing out of Maleficent. The taking of her wings, her reaction was very much akin to rape and was a very pivotal moment in her personality. And yes, Sleeping Beauty is one of my top three favorite Disney animated movies. I was personally very pleased with it and enjoyed it way more then Cinderella.
As someone who loves Sleeping Beauty and puts it in my top 5, this movie huuuuurt me lol
Ok so some one missed the point of move the point is that the "good guys" usually are not so good if they have people after their family members and that we our self create our demons and "bad people " have a hart
Here's my big problem with Maleficent. It tried to be Wicked, but forgot the trick that makes Wicked work. It's not the songs, it's not the characters, it's that Wicked is absolutely aware of what happened in the original film. Wicked still had the scenes from the movie, Dorothy crushing Elphebas sister, the throwing the bucket of water on Elphaba, they acknowledge those things happened and worked around them. They let Dorothy see an evil character while we saw what caused that image, we see why Dorothy would be so terrified of this character. Maleficent actively altered the original story so it's no longer a valid reference, hell I want to remind you that the line in Maleficent isn't "She shall prick her finger on the spindle of a spinning wheel and die" like it was in Sleeping Beauty, but "She shall prick her finger on the spindle of a spinning wheel and fall into a deep deep sleep like death". They actively changed the curse (Including removing the part where Maryweather is the one who makes it the true loves kiss thing), they altered the threat and in turn altered everything about Maleficent we originally knew that could've made this story work. This isn't "The other side of the story" this is a completely different story, and a bad one at that
What a waste of time, money and Angelina Jolie's talent.
+L. T C. What talent?
$700 million. ...poor poor
+gojiguyver3 Sick! Triple Kill! 360! No Scope! BUUUURN!!
XD
+L. T C. Angelina Jolies what?
+gojiguyver3 Yes, that was to be my question. However, I think it was a good movie: well directed, well paced, nice CGI (not Gollum level, but nice), and with the best plot twist on true love I've ever seen (actually, the only convincing one). Oh, and BTW, this for me works much beter as one of those alternate reality things.
I thought it was good on some parts. I really liked how Malificant was good. The original will always be good.
This should have been a live action Sleeping Beauty movie.
I want a live-action Sleeping Beauty remake that makes the relationship between Phillip and Aurora (Not much to their characters, but boy, they had some chemistry in their interactions) more meaningful by showing scenes of them-I don't know-actually bonding over something other than their looks and singing voices.
Honestly, when I heard Sharlto Copley's voice in this video, I thought it was Doug doing an impression. I mean, Copley's a great actor, but really hard to cast. I thought he was great in District 9 and Elysium, and he did a good job in the A-Team movie. The only thing is that voice kinda limits his options. It works with the psychotic Kruger, but not someone authoritative like the King here. Also, why did the director think it was a good idea to make him sound like he was gargling stones while delivering his lines?
I didn't like the movie but at least the ending gave me a good laugh. At the end Aurora reveals herself as the narrator by saying: how do I know this?...because I'm the girl they called Sleeping Beauty. Well in this movie
she pricks her finger at sunset and is woken up in the very same night by Maleficent. Really? Did your kingdom really begin calling you Sleeping Beauty because you took a nap?
From all the things they could have thought of Maleficent's back-story, this is what they made? I didn't have that great expectations to begin with, but that was disappointing to say the least.
yes, the only thing i hated was the 3 fairies. story was meh, but angelina was hot and it looked impressive
+CRADLE619 the fairies are like the 3 stooges lol XD
+CRADLE619 My thoughts too. Though it also kinda pissed me off, how- even though he didn't actually kill her- the guy betrays his best friend in the world, just so he could become King and makes no effort whatsoever to try and make amends for it.
Honestly, not a huge fan of this movie, but the scene where she gets her wings cut off totally fucks me up. I thought that was an incredible example of extremely emotional acting. The rest of it isn't great. It's just that particular scene that I think is phenomenal.
The only thing I liked about this movie is the slowed down version of "Once Upon a Dream". Much better than the original version of the song, in my opinion.
It made the trailer very beautiful. Shoo~ The trailer, the song and Maleficient's outfits (not exactly functional with those horns or even story.... but whatev) were the best things about this movie.
It made the trailer very beautiful. Shoo~ The trailer, the song and Maleficient's outfits (not exactly functional with those horns or even story.... but whatev) were the best things about this movie.
the guy playing the king. such a miscast. xD he was awesome in District 9. A role that really fitted him.
But you got to admit, the Maleficent/Aurora fan ships were interesting.
I liked this one a little better then Frozen because this at least has some plot to it. Maybe i am just weird but i really wanted to see Elsa go through a deep dark valley where she becomes evil then Anna is the one who has to pull her out and make her good again. That's what we got with Maleficent.
I came here because he reviewed it.
My parents NEVER showed me the classic Disney princess movies, so this was the only taste of Sleeping Beauty I got.
I'm sorry. I'm so... so sorry...
MrRacinger322 RIP
I watched this movie with my mother and little sister. None of us liked it, but I think I was the only one who was actually angry over this movie. I agree with Doug, 100% on this.
"Wow, this is really nice concept art you've drawn here."
"Yeah, I have this idea for a fairy tale movie about some fairy girl."
"I have a better idea, how about a movie about Maleficent?"
"The evil villain from Sleeping Beauty?"
"Yeah, but we make her good instead of evil."
"But wouldn't that just butcher the classic story, aren't we better off creating a more original one from this artwork?"
"Nope, don't care."
this would have been better if it were different/new characters
One of the things that HT brought up is the fact that they tried to pull a Darth Vader, and like that, sucked.
However, with more of a critical eye, you can see what exactly happened to Darth Vader and understand how it's supposed to flow.
It's been so long since I've seen Sleeping Beauty, and there are no words for how much I hate this movie. It's so boring, so dull, so cliched, and such a waste of great talent from everyone involved with it.
I honestly thought the King's dialogue was dubbed in by Doug when I first watched this
I hated how uncreative this movie was, and how it was obviously made to make money. One example is when she's cursing the baby. They use the original Maleficent dialogue line by line with little to no changes. Aside from the visuals, which are very pretty, the movie just seemed lazy with its plot and characters.
Basically, this movie sucked.
He approves of once upon a time. My life is complete
this is not a movie this is fan fiction made by a nerd whose father just happened to be a producer.
I never watched wicked or once upon a time, so it was a pretty new idea to me.
Why is it suddenly so hip to make all the great villains woobies!? It's especially obnoxious when they go out of their way to retcon their backstories. >:(
You can blame the Wicked novel, and to extent the popularity of the musical, for that. People saw how much money it made and figured they could do something similar. I wasn't a fan of Wicked but the premise was interesting, until it started to rear its ugly head around any movie focusing on a previously fantastic villain.
I think that it comes down to the recent trend with some tragic villains being legitimately well done and people wanting to see more of that, since a lot of them are used to seeing the classic irredeemably evil villain.
But when you have a producer or a filmmaker that is lazy and just wants to pander to that fad, they often just have some generic bad thing happen to the villain and claim they made a "fresh villain." Part of what makes characters like Dreamworks' portrayal of Ramses in "Prince of Egypt," Mr Freeze in "Batman: The Animated Series," or Zuko in "Avatar: The Last Airbender" great tragic villains is that they their past/upbringing seamlessly flows into what kind of villains they become, they have other fleshed out character traits and relationships besides angst/betrayal/hate, they are allowed to be partly evil by their own choices too, the narrative does not deny the horrible things they do nor hold back from showing it, and the overall story does something creative with their character arcs and how they end up tying in.
I also heard that Wicked still left the character of the Wicked Witch intact so you can then go into the actual Wizard of Oz story and watch it play out the same way. Apparently, the Maleficent movie did not take notes from these other stories.
Woobies?
I think one of the really saddest things about this movie is that this was the very final movie that involved Rick Baker, one of the greatest makeup-effect artists of all time, in the film's production.