Review: ‘Sleeping Beauty’ Mangled by Malignant ‘Maleficent’

By May 30, 2014
  78

Hey, kids! How would you like to see a new version of Disney’s Sleeping Beauty that isn’t animated and doesn’t make any sense? Hmm? You wouldn’t like that at all? Then why did we spend $200 million to make one?! You kids never appreciate anything.

Maleficent retells the Disney version of the classic fairy tale from the point of view of the villain, the horned witch-fairy who cursed baby Aurora to die via spinning wheel by the end of her 16th birthday. Now, you may be wondering: how can Maleficent be reformed into a sympathetic character without contradicting the story we already know? The answer is that she can’t. So Maleficent, written by studio stalwart Linda Woolverton (Beauty and the Beast, 2010’s Alice in Wonderland), changes the story to make the revisions work, and in the process loses everything that made it logical and coherent.

In this version, young Maleficent (played by Isobelle Molloy) is a happy fairy living among other fantastical creatures in the moors adjacent to a human kingdom. She befriends a boy named Stefan (Michael Higgins) and they fall in love; later, when they have grown up to be Angelina Jolie and Sharlto Copley, Stefan breaks her heart and cuts off her wings while she’s asleep, in a scene that is not at all uncomfortably rapey, nope.

Having thus explained why Maleficent hates King Stefan and might want to curse his baby, the film then proceeds to dismantle everything. The king sends baby Aurora to live in a cottage with three small, irritating pixies named Flittle (Lesley Manville), Knotgrass (Imelda Staunton), and Thistletwit (Juno Temple). In the original version, this was to hide the kid from Maleficent. In this version, Maleficent knows where they are, and in fact hangs around in the area and becomes Aurora’s playmate, somehow without the pixies’ knowledge.

Why Aurora is not allowed to know her true identity or that her three “aunts” have magic powers is not explained. Why she left the castle at all is not explained, in fact, if it wasn’t to keep her hidden from Maleficent.

Meanwhile, an increasingly insane King Stefan (portrayed with embarrassing hamminess by Copley) keeps sending his armies out to destroy Maleficent, but they can never find her, I guess because she’s always over at Aurora’s house.

Maleficent 2

Years later, when Maleficent has a change of heart about the whole curse thing, she finds it’s too late. The spell cannot be undone, even by her. That means the movie gets to have it both ways: Aurora (played as a teen by Elle Fanning) can still fall into her deep sleep, but now we don’t blame Maleficent for it. She tried to fix it! It’s all Fate’s fault now. Villain redeemed.

This shiny, lumpy mess of a movie, directed by first-timer Robert Stromberg, looks incredibly expensive yet feels like it was slapped together. It rushes quickly through its nonsensical plot, yet somehow seems drawn-out and overlong, too. Details clash. Maleficent can’t fly without wings, but she can work all sorts of other magic, including making other people fly. Despite her amazing powers, she incapacitates a guard by hitting him in the head with a club. We’re told at the beginning that the fairies and humans rarely enter one another’s jurisdictions, and then the entire film is full of disregard for that rule. And so on.

The three pixies, the handsome prince (Brenton Thwaites), and Maleficent’s raven-man companion (Sam Riley) are useless, none of them serving any purpose in the story. It really is all about Maleficent — who, it should be said, is brought to life vividly by the perfectly cast Angelina Jolie. It’s a nice touch that many of her lines in the christening/cursing scene are straight from the 1959 cartoon, but it’s a pity this new Maleficent doesn’t jibe with that one in any other respect.

The following two tabs change content below.
Eric D. Snider
Eric has been a film critic since 1999, and a beard wearer since 2008. He holds a degree in journalism and used to work in "the newspaper industry," back when that was a thing.
  • Yeesh. Sounds awful. Definitely skipping this one.

    • Michele Lynn ツ

      It was amazing!!!!! Don’t listen to the pathetic critics

    • Roger

      Why do you rely on other peoples reviews. Why don’t you go see it anyway and then make up your mind. But it looks like your mind is already made up so why bother.

      • BeeDub

        That’s what critics are for – to let you know if something (i.e., a movie) is worth spending your (supposedly) hard-earned cash on. A discerning, critically-thinking consumer of films will think twice before rushing out to see every single movie with a flashy trailer.

        • Roger

          So, if a critic says a movie is great and you go see it, and it’s shit, what happens then? Briliant thinking.. Many movies came out with great reviews and I went and saw them and guess what they were shit. Thats why I do not listen to critics. Who are these critics? To make their opinion so valid. so much they have to sway someones opinion.

          • Charby

            Eh, if you and a specific critic tend to agree, it might be a good way to gauge if you will like a movie. Most people don’t have an unlimited amount of cash for movies so you pretty much have to have a plan for how you decide which movies you will spend money on and which ones you won’t that is more detailed/logical than, “go see it anyway”.

            (Of course, if you really DO see every movie ever made before deciding whether or not you might want to see it, then that’s pretty impressive and I respect that, but it wouldn’t be my approach.)

          • Roger

            But here is the catch. How can you agree or disagree with a critic by not seeing said movie? By what he writes? Some critics gave Godzilla a bad review because they stated ” You see Godzilla the last 20 minutes of the film.” Guess what, that statement was a lie!! I never mentioned about seeing every movie. I do not see every movie. If it does not appeal to you, thats fine, don’t see it. We all know what great movies critics can make, just do a google search, to see how they thought they could do it better.

          • Charby

            I think you misunderstand what I’m saying. Let’s say that you see a lot of movies right. And then you discover this film critic who saw a lot of the same movies that you did. The ones that you liked, he also like; the ones that you didn’t really care for, he also didn’t care for. Do you *necessarily have* to see every other movie in the world? If you want, you could just use the movie critic’s input to help you decide which movies you see and which ones you don’t.

            You don’t necessarily have to even take the critic’s word for their overall opinion either. If the movie critic describes the movie as a nonlinear, James Joycean odyssey rich with symbolism and abstraction, you might be able to decide whether or not you are interested in learning more based on how much you like movies like that.

          • Roger

            I do understand what you are saying. If a critic likes the same movies as you like, that is a big difference, that shows you have something in common movie wise and with the critics taste. Even then That film critic may be wrong and you either missed out on a great movie or wasted your money on a bad one. I personally do not FOLLOW what others say. family, friends, or critics. If I have a personal opinion on past directors, or genre, then that is my opinion and not others telling me what to watch or not watch. For example I have seen 2 of the fast and furious movies to realize that those movies are so over the top and stupid that I will never see another again. If someone else likes them, thats great. But i do not expect to have some one follow my advice to avoid it. Believe me I have had several instances where I was told to avoid such a such movie. Did I listen nope. We can agree to disagree. With the internet and social media in play now more than ever,it is becoming overly redundant with people being like sheep and relying on others to make up their mind.

          • Charby

            Fair enough. I think that you will find that most people synthesize their opinions on a lot of topics based on their personal experience and information they have gathered from external sources. It’s hard to completely block out external influences and even people who think that they have managed it often find that some of their own prejudices are influenced partially, subconsciously, by things that they have heard.

          • TheEthicalMan

            You realize this person, “Roger,” is probably a paid shill, right? Internet commenting is a core service offered by PR firms these days.

            Ironically given it’s the reviewer’s most significant complaint about the film, there is simply no logic to this person’s participation here unless “Roger” has some kind of personal stake in the success of the film. Why does s/he care whether someone takes a critic’s recommendation or not? Why would following the advice of a critic such as this, who cares about very rational things like plot and character and offers cogent, detailed reasons for his opinion, inspire such outrage from “Roger”?

          • Roger

            I am a paid shill, oh that is funny. I care because in this day and age no one can think for themselves. I hear this all the time ” I am not going to see that movie I heard it sucked.” really?? or vice versa ” I heard its great so I AM going to see it. “You are letting someone make up your mind for you. If you see it and don’t like it, so be it. Even Kevin Smith from spoilers says this ” Do not pay attention to what we say, make up your own damn mind.

          • bet0001970

            Tell you what Roger…I’m not a critic. But I saw the movie and it blew. Everything this critic said is correct. It has problems on top problems. And I’m pretty easy on movies. However, you can’t take the most evil villain in film history (remember, she targeted a BABY and sentenced it to death) and make her “sympathetic”. It can’t be done. And it shouldn’t be done. Because then the most evil villain ever, is no longer a villain. She’s a victim.

            That’s the main reason this movie sucked. Because there is nothing in the world that explains why someone who is a sociopath and targets a baby does what they do. Oh wait, there is. They’re just evil. But I guess they already did that one in the first film.

            God I loved that movie.

          • Roger

            Well there ya go, you happened to agree with the critic after you watched it, which was my point. Thank you for going to see it and making up your own mind. I myself have not seen it yet so I can not make a consenus about it, but I am going to see it either way. Others I have talked to love it, while others did not. Hence my point on making up your own mind. i just went and saw a million ways to die in the west. critics are blasting it and it’s not doing very well at the box office. But I enjoyed it. I loved Gravity, but my best friend hated it.Sooo, the only way you could really know if you like a movie or dislike a movie is by watching or renting or just waiting until it comes on cable.

          • Raygirl

            Well, there are no regrets because you can always see it on Netflix or DVD. Again, there are usually signs that a movie is garbage. When I see majority of good critics with no bad ones, then the movie must be good. If the movie has mixed reviews, don’t waste money. If I had listened to some of the reviews of critics, I would have never paid money to see Gigli years ago. Probably the worst day of my life, next to being unemployed for a year.

          • Roger

            Once again tastes are subjective. After earth was blasted by the media, I really enjoyed it. Avatar was praised, I saw it as a pochonatas rip off. I was trying to figure out why it was so groundbreaking.

          • Raygirl

            But at least by reading what the critics say you can get some clarity on what the some of the movie is like and discern whether you would like it. If you spend money on a movie you know NOTHING about, then that’s like going into someone’s house that you don’t know much about. Its better to know something than know nothing. Reviews are usually there to review the movie so that you can see what elements to expect of the movie. BTW Disney’s Pocahontas was a good movie. 😛

          • Roger

            Not always. Thats why they make trailers ( granted some are not an accurate depictions, so you have to read the directors intention not a critic) some critics have an agenda against certain actors or even directors. for example a lot of critics blasted “a thousand ways to die in the west” Claiming it was a vain project with seth mcfarlane. That is not a review that is an attack. How easy we forget when dances with wolves came out, which starred kevin coster ( being vain was never mentioned). i watch trailers and if it interests me i go see it. I agree pocahontas was a good movie, but avatar was not (in my opinion) Critics raved about it though. Critics blasted “rock horror picture show,donna darko, even scarface, those movies were hits based on audience approval not critics. I am going to see interstellar this weekend and guess what I did not read one review by a critic, as I want to go in with a open mind. If you feel you must listen to critics go ahead, thats just not my philosophy.

          • Raygirl

            Most times if majority of critics say the movie is GREAT (which rarely happens) the movie must be great. But when there are mixed reviews such as in the case with Maleficent, don’t go see it.

          • Roger

            All I am saying is make up your own mind, and stop listening to other people, we are not sheep. Everyone raved about Guardians of the galaxy, a fun movie but not as great as critics said it was. What you like in movies is subjective. I hated hurt locker,crash and many others ( and those got an academy award for best picture)

  • Michele Lynn ツ

    I JUST saw it in 3D!! The critics are complete idiots!!! This most certainly has a storyline and the special effects are fantastic!!! I want to see it again and everyone applauded after it was over!

    • menotyou64

      I saw it in 3D too!! And it just made this steaming pile reek even more!! But most moviegoers nowadays are nothing but a herd of knuckle-dragging, mouthbreathing imbeciles that require nothing more than some shiny lights and a storyline that any semi-intelligent third grader could crank out!!

      • Yvette54

        You really shouldn’t talk about yourself like that.

      • AMEN!!!!

    • Nick24

      Wow, yeah let’s call anyone who disagrees with our opinion on a (bad) movie an idiot. How mature and tolerant of you.

    • PollyKatz

      Do you have some sort of personal stake in this movie? Why call the writer of this column “pathetic” and an “idiot” for doing his job? This movie currently has a 52% on the rottentomatoes.com “tomato-meter” so apparently quite a few critics agree with Mr. Snider. No matter how many exclamation points you use.

  • Kim

    It was disgusting. I spent my childhood watching that movie and loving the story. Beyond that I feared the villain. I wanted to see a story about the greatest villain Disney has to offer not a bleeding heart misunderstood victim. And don’t even get me started on the fairies or the fact that Phillip’s kiss didn’t wake Aurora.
    Go ahead and butcher my childhood, I thought in the theater when I realized my feminist friend, who won’t shut up about Frozen being soooo progressive, (she was thrilled that Phillip didn’t save the girl by the way) wouldn’t let me leave, at least I’ll finally get to see her turn into that fantastic dragon.
    Oh wait…
    The movie was a classic Disney lover’s nightmare and a veritable disaster.

    • BeeDub

      Wait… she doesn’t even turn into a dragon?!? SCREW this movie.

      • Oatmeal

        She turns her servant/mild love interest into a dragon.

    • instead of trying to talk about how they “butchered” your childhood,you should thank them because they weren’t faithful to the original story, where Maleficent doesnt even exist and Aurora is being constantly raped by the prince while she is in comma state,if the movie were like that then it would have actually butchered your childhood.
      the movie was pretty great,not awesome,it had alot of mistakes, but i definetly enjoyed it,all villains need a backstory,and this one was way more believable then the Sleeping Beauty (disney’s princesses were my childhood too,and that movie is my least favorite from them,even tho it was my favorite when i was 3).
      the movie talks about a fairy that cursed the baby of his exboyfriend because she was in need of revenge (if you had wings and all of a sudden someone you love take them from you just to be a leader of a kingdom,wouldn’t you feel the same?), and then regrets it, i think that was really good,it sure teaches you more stuff then the Disney’s classic does.
      and the fact that what saved Aurora’s was Maleficent kiss in the forehead,instead of the kiss of someone you just met teach you alot of stuff,the same lesson that Frozen gives you,tho….

      • bet0001970

        I hate to burst your bubble, but anyone that would target a baby is probably a sociopath and not capable of having this type of “redemptive” story. So this movie and backstory is utterly unrealistic. It is far more realistic that Maleficent would continue her evil pursuits until she was stopped.

        Sorry. But that’s real life. Not a fairy tale.

        • i wasn’t living in a bubble, and i didn’t say it was realistic,neither.
          i DID say it was more believable then the Sleeping Beauty (and it was), someone that go after a baby is a sociopath,like you said, but everyone in need of revenge can become really horrible people, even killers, and i think that’s what the movie tried to say, but in a simple and very unrealistic way, that’s what i meant to say.
          and yeah, Maleficent is a fairy tale, not real life

      • Raygirl

        Oh sure…I mean we can always find the fact that her name is MALEFICIENT. Isn’t she supposed to be good? Why is her name Maleficent? Look up the definition of Maleficent. Then we’ll talk. The movie was a bust. Maleficent wasn’t clever or strong. Just a weak puppy. I don’t mind a backstory…so long that the backstory does not destroy the personality of the character. It could have been a story of Maleficent being an outcast among the fairies. This also would have explained why her name is such a cruel name as Maleficent. Instead, they make a tragic love story. Mistakes? The whole movie was a mistake. Believable? I find it hard to believe that a good fairy is called Maleficent at all. Its only believable to you because som many women love romantic dramas…but it made Maleficent look like a naive idiot. There hasn’t been a decent live action villain since Glenn Close portrayal of Cruella Deville. If this was Jafar it would have never ended up like this. They always butcher the female villains. Why don’t they just start making original stories without rehashing on old Disney tales and twisting them up the point its messy?

    • DisneyFan74

      WOW. I’m so glad I read this review. Another feminist Disney movie? Count me out. Frozen was bad enough for me. I guess I’m not watching Maleficent. Hahahaha Disney’s efforts in reversing its reputation of true love’s kiss are just sad. Hmm… cynicism in fairy tales? Just what we need. As a classic Disney lover, I’m totally with you, Kim!

      1) Prince Phillip is my FAVORITE Disney prince, but here, I guess he’s just another character used by feminists to shove their message down our throats.

      2) Maleficent DOESN’T turn into a dragon? WHAT??? So I’m guessing there’s no intense battle between Prince Phillip and Maleficent either, huh? Wonderful.

      3) I just read the summary for ‘Maleficent’ because watching the movie seems like a freaking waste of my time. WHY ON EARTH IS KING STEFAN THE VILLAIN? He was infatuated with Maleficent and only married Queen Leah/Leila to take over the kingdom?!?! WHAT?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! WHAT HAS DISNEY COME TO?! THIS MOVIE IS AN INSULT TO THE ORIGINAL FAIRY TALE.

      4) What’s up with trying to blur the line between good and evil in Disney movies these days? (Yes, Frozen, I’m looking at you too.)

      “Of all the stirring legends of the triumph of good over evil, none has ever been so inspirational to me as Sleeping Beauty.” – Walt Disney

      I have a feeling that Walt Disney is rolling in his grave.

      • bet0001970

        There was one redeeming part in the whole movie. The christening/curse. And it was great. Jolie played it perfectly. It was the only time in the film that Maleficent actually seemed evil. But then it was over and I had to watch the rest of this pile of dog poo.

        • Ruth Lynn

          Hahah I was going to watch Maleficent too. I’m so glad I read these comments!
          @bet0001970 Maleficent is only evil for that scene? I’m guessing that was the only part in the movie that followed the original story. What a shame. One of Disney’s best villains reduced to this. If anyone can portray evil well, it’s Angelina Jolie, so why make her play the hero?

          • CascadeWvera1

            Hello again.

  • JR

    I understand where this reviewer is coming from, but I think that Snider’s key objections are contestable.

    For example (spoiler alert!):

    -Aurora *was* in hiding from Maleficent; the film states this, but also states that Maleficent was easily able to find her. That this could happen without anyone’s knowledge is not explained by the film, but it wasn’t that difficult for me to suspend my disbelief.

    -I, too, wondered why the titular character couldn’t make herself fly. However, I think it’s implied that her flightlessness is due to the betrayal rather than the loss of the wings itself. It was her soul that he stole, and this is why he was haunted and ultimately destroyed by his wrongdoing.

    -She isn’t simply redeemed by her wrongdoing; after all, as the film’s closing monologue states, she’s both a hero and a villain. This retelling is certainly a refreshingly nuanced portrayal of human nature when compared to the dichotomous characters of the Brother’s Grimm. She made a mistake and had a difficult time overcoming it, which is generally how things go in the real world.

    Yes, it was a little sappy, and the storytelling was less than spectacular. But c’mon– Angelina as an evil fairy? Can’t go wrong.

    • Oatmeal

      I also wondered why she couldn’t just grow her wings back with magic or something, but, even if she could and did, it wouldn’t have mattered much. The point of the wings being taken wasn’t her loss of flight, but rather that she was betrayed by the only one she had given herself to.

      I would have loved to see a movie solely about Sleeping Beauty told mostly from the villain’s perspective. The film isn’t trying to do that. On it’s own as a film about love, betrayal, and magic, this film isn’t that bad, but likely the greatest fault of the movie was making about Maleficent, a character most known and loved for being completely, thoroughly evil and then making it into a story about redemption.

      The trailers for the movie seemed to hide that fact though. Maybe we should just start letting the marketing department do the story writing. They always seem to know what brings people to these otherwise meh films.

  • Todaysfate

    There should have been NO dragon at all if it wasn’t her turning into it. All that did was drive the point home that they took the most iconic thing about Maleficent and basically deleted it. And people are mad about Han Solo shorting first? Superman killing general Zod. A mostly BLUE Optimus Prime? I really liked this movie. I like the fairy tale, rated PG aspect. We need more of that for our kids. But NO DRAGON is almost unforgivable. Why? Just why? I can see in order for the events to occur how they did, she couldn’t be the dragon, but the movie was short. She could have turned into the dragon at some other point in the movie. Maybe when she was fighting off the kings army near the beginning. Jolie was an executive producer. This had to partly be her choice.

    • Manny Godinez

      She didn’t turn into a dragon because this is a PG film trying to deliver a message to the children of today, and todays society is not the same as it was in 1959. Why would the protagonist in the movie who could grant transformation to anyone be the dragon herself. When in reality, she was Aurora’s “Guardian Angel” who just happened to lose her wings. The return of her wings was redemption and just imagine how afraid aurora would’ve been to see her guardian angel turning into an ugly BEAST. The dragon form would’ve made her easier to defeat then her just getting her wings back and just kicking ASS! The dragon is still there, but only there to Aid her! Remember its a PG movie meant for KIDS. If anyones to blame, blame the parents these days who want to send a positive message to their children.

      • Todaysfate

        You talk as if children have not seen “Sleeping Beauty”. A rated G film. They’ve also seen Pete’s Dragon. And you have to wonder why a powerful fairy who has the power to grant transformation to “anyone” didn’t just turn the king and all is men into rabbits and waltz into the castle to get her wings back 16 years earlier. Or did the crow she had snooping around the castle for those 16 years fail to see the wings in all that time? Seriously doubt that Aurora would have been horrified by the site of maleficent turning into a Dragon, with all the other ugly creatures running around, particularly the tree monsters that look more like demons from a number of R rated films. And yeah …. we cant have the lady turn into a dragon, but its okay for her to turn her MAN SLAVE into one. What a positive message. There were a number of ways to make her turn into a dragon at various other points in the film. Heck … they could have made it a dream sequence and that would have been good enough. But to have some other dragon in the movie at all is just sloppy. Who is to say that in the original sleeping beauty universe Maleficent wasn’t just a dragon … but maybe THE ONLY Dragon. After all…. that’s why she has those horns. Or are you just being sarcastic?

  • Manny Godinez

    this is a shit review, just your opinion dude. just remember its a KIDS movie. a complete retelling of a story through a new set of eyes. In no way comparing it to the original. It also has a feminist aspect which I can appreciate, even though I am a guy. True love does not mean it has to be a man. It can be love from anyone! The rule about entering jurisdictions by all accounts is accurate because it does RARELY happen. Just because you see it happen throughout the film does not mean it ALWAYS happens. The time span from the beginning of the movie to the end was about 20-25 years. There is only a handful of scenes where interaction among the magical life and the human one occur. By that logic, RARELY is accurate. Thumbs down to your review. Movie was a 4/5!

    • Raygirl

      I just wish it was retold differently. Maleficent was so weak in this film. I missed her cleverness and herstrength and I think Jolie could have delivered that magnificently. Hardly is this movie feminist. More like a misandrinist movie. The movie downplayed all of the men and made the women look like victims. I’m so sick of women being portrayed as victims in movies, especially our female villains. They would have never done that to Jafar. They always ruin what makes us females inspiring. Malfeicent was always one of my favorite Disney villains. The last Disney Feminist movie was Mulan.

      Also why is her name Maleficent in the movie when she’s supposed to be good? Maleficent means evil! lol A plot hole that could’ve been filled had they had a decent story.

  • Didaskalos

    I don’t understand why people hold the original film in such high regard. It was universally panned by critics, and suffered from abysmal dialogue, a weak plot with numerous holes, and essentially non-existent character development. It was, and still is, atrocious. When was the last time anyone moaning about how it lets down the original actually watched it? Sure, the animation is great, but the rest of the film is just saccharine flavoured puke. However disappointing Maleficent might be, I find it extremely doubtful that it is somehow even worse than the original.

    • bet0001970

      Speak for yourself. I loved that movie.

      • Didaskalos

        As an adult? Or as a little kid? Like I said, when was the last time you actually watched it? It’s great for children, I’ll admit. But as an adult, with a very critical eye, it’s hard to overlook all the glaring flaws. The only thing the film has going for it are the aesthetics and some nice music. And however well done those elements are, they can’t make up for the fact that in so many crucial areas the film is very weak.

        • Hey BUCKWHEAT!

          The original movie is fantastic and does a pretty good job of narrating what is a very simple tale, while at the same time gives pictures to Tchaikovski’s amazing masterpiece. Meanwhile this film is an unoriginal turd made by people that hate men, children, and classic Disney movies. The feminist revisionism and socialist propaganda in this movie is so crude that the only people liking this mess do so for politic reasons. Watching this movie turns your kids into moronic zombies like the ones that plague Tumblr and that are mocked everyday in the reddit “TumblrInAction”.

    • Maleficent 2014 is another movie that tries to make us sympathize
      with people that truly deserve death, another movie that tries to justify the
      actions of foul creatures like Maleficent by making them more human. While
      making a villain more human and relatable does have its positives and benefits,
      there is a downside to it as well. The downside is that it can produce
      tolerance of evil in us. Tolerance is poison. Were it not for tolerance of
      evil, this country and this world would not be in the horrendous shape they
      are. Media today is conditioning us into no longer being able to distinguish
      what true evil is. Those who are evil, however begrudged they are by the past
      and their vulnerability, are still evil because of their ways. However a
      monster becomes a monster, in the end, it is still a monster. The worst, most
      heinous people imaginable are being portrayed in ways that can make us love
      them, when they are clearly the ones we should be rooting against. The less able
      we are to distinguish true evil in our minds, the less we will be able to
      distinguish it in life, and the less able we are to distinguish true evil in
      life, the more we will abuse and misuse one another and wonder why in the end.

  • Eeshazor

    This film was WAY better than I was expecting it to be. If you are readily familiar with the original film, than this film adds a magnificent twist and creates an untold story that we all wanted to hear/see. Yes, it followed the original film on some parts of the storyline, and deviated on others, but it was overall GREAT.

    You mention that they do not explain why Stefan gave her to the fairies… did you see the first movie? There was really no reason to explain that. Anyone who is coming to see a film about the evil fairy from the original film should have watched the original film.

    In the original film, no one knows why Maleficent is so evil, and this story brings us to that point. Due to certain plot twists, it makes sense that Maleficent knows where Aurora is during the film. They are showing the softer side of Maleficent, and needed to be able to build on that – and it worked magnificently for a happy ending.

    Aurora was not told of her identity by the fairies because it was their means to hide her from her truth, and Maleficent didn’t tell her for obvious reasons.

    You just sound like a grump. GO SEE THIS MOVIE, PEOPLE! It’s great!!!

    • Here we have another movie that tries to make us sympathize
      with people that truly deserve death, another movie that tries to justify the
      actions of foul creatures like Maleficent by making them more human. While
      making a villain more human and relatable does have its positives and benefits,
      there is a downside to it as well. The downside is that it can produce
      tolerance of evil in us. Tolerance is poison. Were it not for tolerance of
      evil, this country and this world would not be in the horrendous shape they
      are. Media today is conditioning us into no longer being able to distinguish
      what true evil is. Those who are evil, however begrudged they are by the past
      and their vulnerability, are still evil because of their ways. However a
      monster becomes a monster, in the end, it is still a monster. The worst, most
      heinous people imaginable are being portrayed in ways that can make us love
      them, when they are clearly the ones we should be rooting against. The less able
      we are to distinguish true evil in our minds, the less we will be able to
      distinguish it in life, and the less able we are to distinguish true evil in
      life, the more we will abuse and misuse one another and wonder why in the end.

    • Raygirl

      Then explain why her name is Maleficent (which means evil) if she’s supposed to be good? A plot hole that could have been filled had this been a decent story. I’ve seen the movie. It was hot garbage. Why must all of our Female villains be victimized like love sick puppies? It was the Great and Powerful Oz all over again. I don’t mind backstories and retellings….if they are interesting and not cliche. I prefer the story idea of Maleficent being an outcast among the fairies and thus becomes “evil” in order to prove that she is just as powerful as the other fairies…then she realizes that her being evil only defeats the purpose, and in the end uses her powers to save the entire Kingdom. Now that would have been a good story. And it would have still retained Maleficent’s great personality from the original story. This kind of story would have also explained why as a baby she was called Maleficent. when she was born her own mother felt she looked like a devil and thus gave her the cruel name Maleficent. See? This movie could have been so much more interesting. But noooo…..yet another female villain turns evil over a broken heart….just like the 1930s portrayal of “evil” women. What kind of progressive movie is this?

  • Ryonn San

    This one definitely makes more sense to me than the original.
    Come on… a lady just doing nothing but sleeping can get a true love kiss from an unknown prince??
    Gimme a break.. and a cookie

    • Crayven

      Oh and she can get it from the very person who CURSED HER?
      Give me two breaks !

      What a load of BULL !

      • Jonah Scher

        WALLLLLLLH4444444444444444444XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX,.,….

  • Crayven

    Alright i have seen.
    It is feminist propaganda of the LOWEST level.
    I don’t even know where to begin.

    (SPOILER ALERT )

    ==================================
    Maleficent having her wings cut – because of course power of a bunch of peasants > loving a super powered super beautiful magical being, right? WRONG – MORONS !
    Why did the “kingdom of men” ( to further emphasize the fact it is MEN ) is attacking the WOMAN ruled Moors.
    The moors looks like Eden, the kingdom looks like a normal dark age town.
    And the narrators is careful to tell us how “corrupt and EVIL it is” – well no large anvils thrown here i guess…

    Moving on we get to that raven who complains of being turned into a MAN of all things…eeewwwww…i know right?
    Such filthy creatures…dear god…
    Better be a worm ( actual quote from the movie ). Very nice.

    Then we get to the part of the cursing.Initially in the ORIGINAL story maleficent curses the princess to DIE but since we can’t make our feminist icon look bad, we’ll ignore the overriding THIRD gift ( which never comes ever by the way – unlike in the story proper ) and instead we get “sleep”.
    King Stephen is portrayed as a total tool also – what did you expect he is a MAN after all.
    Prince Phillip, oh boy…where to even begin.

    He is a fucking doormat. A perfect “nice guy” but since we know nice guys are only there to TAKE ADVANTAGE OF WOMEN ( right ? ) he is shoved aside and just floated like a comical rag-doll around by the big M.
    He is supposed to kiss the princess and wake her up – like in the story.
    And he does…but surprise it doesn’t work. because he is a MAN, and we all know a MAN can never truly love a woman, right?
    Who wakes her up?
    Why the very being that cursed her – but hey NOW she is “reformed” so it’s ok. ( no lesbian propaganda here at all, nope nope nope )
    The HATRED and LOATHING for male characters in this movie almost made me throw up even before the first half.

    What a WASTE of $200 million !

    Save your money unless you’re so brain dead that you can’t recognize propaganda when you see it.

    • Jonah Scher

      u mad bro?

      • Crayven

        Go to bed, son.
        That joke is decades old and not even funny anymore.

        • Jonah Scher

          yeah u mad

          • Jonah Scher

            That joke is decades old and not even funny anymore…and so are you.

          • Jonah Scher

            your posts=troll.

          • Crayven

            I am mad…and you’re an imbecile.
            So? Are we done saying the obvious?

          • Jonah Scher

            i = troll
            u = king of troll
            i love you dear leader

    • Ian Mugford

      I didn’t know men were so oppressed in our society; it must have been so hard for you growing up with such a burden. Thanks for opening my eyes to this heinous piece of fiction that’s being used to subliminally further lower our place in society and allow women to cement their stranglehold of power that they’ve had on us for centuries. Male power!

      • Crayven

        First of all deny that what i said is untrue in the movie..i dare you!
        2nd spare me the white power remarks i just described the movie.

        If you are too brainwashed it’s not ny fault.

        • Ian Mugford

          Last time I thank anyone on the internet.

          • Crayven

            What?

    • lexlibris8

      You are right. It is feminist garbage in which any man who acts on his own accord is evil. Why the feminists feel they have to do this to a classic fairy tale is beyond me. This is not gender equality or equity, it is misandry.

  • CSmith

    It was excellent and it is a MOVIE so why all of the negativity??!!! Yes there are differences between this and Disney’s original “Sleeping Beauty” but it really doesn’t matter… they are both great films! My family and I all thoroughly enjoyed it and there was applause at the end of the film because others enjoyed it as well.

    • Hey BUCKWHEAT!

      The negativity comes because we understand WHY there are differences between this movie and the original one, and the reasons behind the changes are beyond disgusting. These are not innocent changes, and the message behind the movie is not a positive one.

  • Guest

    im pretty sure we didnt watch the same movie, and your critique is purposefully negative (great critique if this is actually your purpose), other than that. Gone are the days were one can watch a movie and derive enjoyment without some want to be academic trying to “break it down” according to their rather limited world view.

  • Guest

    im pretty sure we didnt watch the same movie, and your critique is purposefully negative (great critique if this is actually your purpose). Gone are the days were one can watch a movie and derive enjoyment without some want to be academic trying to “break it down” according to their rather limited world view. Oh and to everyone advising us that they are skipping this movie, thanks for sharing, perhaps let us know what you had for breakfast too.

    • Raygirl

      eggs and bacon.

  • Citrus

    im pretty sure we didnt watch the same movie, and your critique is purposefully negative (great critique if this is actually your purpose). Gone are the days where one can watch a movie and derive enjoyment without some want to be academic trying to “break it down” according to their rather limited world view. Oh and to everyone advising us that they are skipping this movie, thanks for sharing, perhaps let us know what you had for breakfast too.

    • Raygirl

      I wanted a cool Maleficent, not a drag. Why is her name even Maleficent (which means evil)? Why did this movie not explain this. I was so interested in knowing the backstory of Maleficent and this movie did not deliver. All it did was twist everything up to appeal to fans of Degressi and Korean dramas…

  • poor_humanity

    not all true loves can be express by a kiss.
    so wake up from your past and get up for tomorrow

    😀

    • Raygirl

      It didn’t have to have tragic love story either though. In the 1930s all the female villains were evil because someone broke their heart. If we’re supposedly in the future, why are they still falling in this stereotypical female backstories? I would have preferred a story about Maleficent vs the good fairies, and how Maleficent was an outcast. This could have least explained why someone who is supposed to be good would have the name Maleficent which means EVIL! I guess Disney knows how dumb some people are. As long it puts money in their pockets. But they won’t get another dime out of me. This generation of movies sucks. Obsessed with pushing agendas rather than actually making good stories.