Maleficent

What makes a work of art?
Is it the motif, the way the colours blend to create the illusion of light?

Perhaps it is the story behind the painting, what the artist was trying to tell the observers.

What makes a true work of art is ultimately in the eye of the beholder, what you find shallow and ugly might mezmerise and intrigue someone else.


In the case of Maleficent, artistry definitley outweighed story. While the photography and music blended perfectly with the beautiful scenery, the story rarely made me care. It just wasn't told good enough. This could be blamed on the script itself, but since this is merely a re-imagening of a classic and very loved tale, it's failiure to capture my attention lies in the hands of first time director Robert Stromberg.

Having previously mainly worked with visual effects on such movies as Pans labyrinth and Pirates of the carribbean: At worlds end, it becomes clear that he is much more interested in the visual rather than the cerebral.

The first 20 minutes are amazing. We get to see the magical world of Maleficent in all its glory and it might be one of the most beautiful movies I have ever seen.
As soon as the story kicks into gear though, the movie becomes slow, boring and highly derivative. Some scenes goes on way too long and it almost borders on the ridiculous.
The moral of the story is revealed very early on but The spin on the original story works good and it even managed to make me tear up at one point. The pacing is way off though and, for what sometimes felt like an eternity, I sat there wondering when the story would pick itself up again.
The second act is close to completely unnecessary. We get the same scene of Maleficent watching over baby Aurora again and again. There is some plot development but the movie, even at just under 100 minutes, is in need some serious trimming.

The actors doesn't help either. While most of them do a good enough job, especially Elle Fanning who brings a perfect youthful innocence to the role of Aurora, Stromberg forgets to restrain the actors when the script calls for it. This is very evident in the scenes with Sharlto copley who constantly overdoes it as the mad king Stefan.
His acting is all over the place and his scottish accent is horrible, it was funny in that one scene in The A-team but it doesn't work for an entire movie. He can be a brilliant actor (District 9)
but he needs a director who can show him the way to perfection, especially when he plays the bad guy.

Angelina Jolie is good as the titular Maleficent. She plays a very different role than what we are used to see her in, and most of the time it works. There are a few scenes where the acting is close to laughable but the good outweighs the bad. She is the center of attention for most of the film and is the only character who is given any sort of emotional depth. It would seem almost impossible to convincingly turn one of cinemas most evil villains into a hero, but Jolie manages to pull it off better than I thought most other actors could. On the visual side she definitely brings it, she is both hideous and beautiful at the same time, and manages to portray both the hero and the villain in the same character.

What it all boils down to is this, Maleficent is a beautiful piece of cinema. The camerawork and visual effects creates some of the most stunning pictures I have ever seen, but the direction, writing and to some degree the acting work against the beauty and turns it into something mundane.


In the end it's all just pretty pictures. Very, very pretty pictures...