Maleficent: Mistress of Evil (2019 Film) Review
Prince Phillip proposes to Queen Aurora, to which she accepts. With their marriage, they plan to bridge the human kingdom of Ulstead and the fairy kingdom of the Moors. Queen Ingris, Phillip's mother, hates the mythical creatures and wants to destroy them for good. While she plots war, Maleficent discovers the last of her kind, who wish to defend themselves against Ingris's threat.
Once again, Angelina Jolie stars as Maleficent, the famed Disney villain. Elle Fanning also returns as Queen Aurora as does Sam Riley as Diaval. This time, Harris Dickinson, replacing Brenton Thwaites from the first film, plays Prince Phillip. Michelle Pfeiffer joins as Queen Ingris, while Chiwetel Ejiofor and Ed Skrein star as Conall and Borra, two main members of Maleficent's remaining kind.
Robert Stromberg, who directed the original "Maleficent," did not return to direct this sequel. In his stead is Joachim Rønning, co-director of "Kon-Tiki" and "Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales." Joe Roth, the first film's producer, co-produced this film with Angelina Jolie and Duncan Henderson. Linda Woolverton, the first film's screenwriter, co-wrote the script with Noah Harpster and Micah Fitzerman-Blue. The script is based, however loosely, on Disney's "Sleeping Beauty" from 1959 and Charles Perrault's La Belle au bois dormant, otherwise known as the Sleeping Beauty source material. Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures distributed "Maleficent: Mistress of Evil."
Overall Thoughts
"Finally! After five years, we're getting a sequel to "Maleficent!" Yes, I'm completely sure someone was saying that when "Maleficent: Mistress of Evil" was announced. Sarcasm aside, it's hard to think why Disney would bother making a sequel. While a financial success, critics generally disliked the first film. Although I thought it was good, like others, I wasn't craving a sequel. Yet here we are.
Unsurprisingly, the most notable element of this sequel is the same as the first film: Angelina Jolie as Maleficent. I think it comes down to perfect casting. Jolie, when in her costumes and make-up, paints exactly the figure that you'd imagine for the live-action adaptation of the classic character. This time around, I had more of an appreciation for her design. Her costumes are sensational and her on-screen presence is palpable. Jolie's acting is solid. The downside to her role is that, unlike the last film, she's often sidelined. Yes, in a movie named after her, Maleficent is sidelined. Honestly, I'm not sure whose movie this is. You'd think it'd be Maleficent's because of the title, but then Aurora's in the spotlight, then Queen Ingris, then Maleficent's fellow fairy folk. In regards to character and tone, the story is unfocused.
For some reason, this film is a hodgepodge of light-hearted fantasy fun and grim horror. "Mistress of Evil" doesn't know what it wants to be. The first film had a similar issue, but not to this extent. One minute, Maleficent's being taught by Aurora and bird/human friend Diaval how to act "normal." You know, how to smile, speak, and so forth. The comedic exchanges are good, if familiar. However, way later on in the climax, where it's most egregious, fairies are perishing, turning to ash, and it comes out of nowhere. Granted, the deaths are still PG, but nevertheless, if you thought "Avengers: Infinity War" was scaring with its characters turning to dust, "Mistress of Evil" is like, "Hold my goat." (Trust me, that statement makes sense once you've seen the film.)
The most out of place character in the film, which ties into the inconsistent tone, is Michelle Pfeiffer's Queen Ingris. She makes the villain in the last film look like Mr. Rodgers. Trust me, she is an evil woman. Notwithstanding, Ingris makes you laugh because she's so deliciously diabolical. Pfeiffer does great work; unfortunately, it comes at a price. Between staging the extermination of mythical creatures, overthrowing her husband, the king, and the attempted murder of her daughter-to-be, Ingris's comeuppance doesn't reflect the severity of her crimes. Not only that, but it robs the character of her dignity. I know the heroes wouldn't outright kill the villain, especially in a film aimed at young children. Still, the result seems beneath the filmmakers.
Elle Fanning and Harris Dickinson are particularly underwhelming as Aurora and Phillip, the couple whose romance we're expected to root for. It didn't help that Phillip was recast between films, so that makes connecting to him challenging. Sam Riley's Diaval was so enjoyably quirky in the first film, so I wished there was more of him here. Although, given that Jolie, the actress playing the title character, got sidelined, I suppose one should grateful for what we got. Chiwetel Ejiofer's often has a likable energy in certain film he's in and that's no different here. I can't recall his character's name of the top of my head, nor his personality, but it's still a decent performance from the actor. Ed Skrein plays the same character he typically plays: a quick-to-violence hothead. It's not bad; it's just not the most original role of his career.
Unsurprisingly, the most notable element of this sequel is the same as the first film: Angelina Jolie as Maleficent. I think it comes down to perfect casting. Jolie, when in her costumes and make-up, paints exactly the figure that you'd imagine for the live-action adaptation of the classic character. This time around, I had more of an appreciation for her design. Her costumes are sensational and her on-screen presence is palpable. Jolie's acting is solid. The downside to her role is that, unlike the last film, she's often sidelined. Yes, in a movie named after her, Maleficent is sidelined. Honestly, I'm not sure whose movie this is. You'd think it'd be Maleficent's because of the title, but then Aurora's in the spotlight, then Queen Ingris, then Maleficent's fellow fairy folk. In regards to character and tone, the story is unfocused.For some reason, this film is a hodgepodge of light-hearted fantasy fun and grim horror. "Mistress of Evil" doesn't know what it wants to be. The first film had a similar issue, but not to this extent. One minute, Maleficent's being taught by Aurora and bird/human friend Diaval how to act "normal." You know, how to smile, speak, and so forth. The comedic exchanges are good, if familiar. However, way later on in the climax, where it's most egregious, fairies are perishing, turning to ash, and it comes out of nowhere. Granted, the deaths are still PG, but nevertheless, if you thought "Avengers: Infinity War" was scaring with its characters turning to dust, "Mistress of Evil" is like, "Hold my goat." (Trust me, that statement makes sense once you've seen the film.)
The most out of place character in the film, which ties into the inconsistent tone, is Michelle Pfeiffer's Queen Ingris. She makes the villain in the last film look like Mr. Rodgers. Trust me, she is an evil woman. Notwithstanding, Ingris makes you laugh because she's so deliciously diabolical. Pfeiffer does great work; unfortunately, it comes at a price. Between staging the extermination of mythical creatures, overthrowing her husband, the king, and the attempted murder of her daughter-to-be, Ingris's comeuppance doesn't reflect the severity of her crimes. Not only that, but it robs the character of her dignity. I know the heroes wouldn't outright kill the villain, especially in a film aimed at young children. Still, the result seems beneath the filmmakers.
Elle Fanning and Harris Dickinson are particularly underwhelming as Aurora and Phillip, the couple whose romance we're expected to root for. It didn't help that Phillip was recast between films, so that makes connecting to him challenging. Sam Riley's Diaval was so enjoyably quirky in the first film, so I wished there was more of him here. Although, given that Jolie, the actress playing the title character, got sidelined, I suppose one should grateful for what we got. Chiwetel Ejiofer's often has a likable energy in certain film he's in and that's no different here. I can't recall his character's name of the top of my head, nor his personality, but it's still a decent performance from the actor. Ed Skrein plays the same character he typically plays: a quick-to-violence hothead. It's not bad; it's just not the most original role of his career.
Rating: ★★½
Conclusion
"Maleficent: Mistress of Evil" won't win over people who weren't fans of the original. For the people who were, however, you may find yourself having a good time at the theater. The acting is good, the production design better, and the message it gives, while not the most original, is executed well. The inconsistent tone and underwhelming action scenes CGI bog the film down. There's also the fact that our heroine is put on the back-burner for some time. I mean, it's not like anyone would expect to see Maleficent in a movie named after her, right?
This has been my review of “Maleficent: Mistress of Evil." I hope you enjoyed it. Have you seen the film? If you have, share your thoughts in the comments below. Should you feel inclined, feel free to recommend a film for me to review next. Thank you for reading, I'm Dallin, your resident film fanatic, and I'll return soon with another review.
Comments
Post a Comment