Follow TV Tropes
She isn't worthy of the dragon.
Oh my. At the very least this looks very entertaining and visually spectacular.
The queen actually just might turn out much more of a badass than the king.
Also, there are more kinds of Maleficent...which seem like tacked on.
Went to see this today. I was pretty "eh" about the first film, but I actually liked this one way more than I thought I would.
Assorted thoughts, with spoilers:
Edited by Tuckerscreator on Oct 27th 2019 at 12:38:17 PM
Yeah, I like this way more than the first film.
Fundamentally it is not botching the specific Disney Cinderella story (yes, make the three fairies ineffectual morons, that's a smart move) and actually tries to make its own thing. I can't say it's all that good, but it does try to tell its own story and the fae culture's relationship with the human world is made a lot more interesting. The Dark Fae themselves are visually spectacular, but they seem to be thriving just fine on that island and the movie ignores the utter massacre they suffered when up against the super iron.
I also usually cringe at the "Woke Disney" stuff (proto-feminism in a historically contextualized 17th century France!) but I actually kind of liked how they mention the castle of King Stephan was "given back to the people" because it didn't feel like a throwaway moment that contributes nothing to the character arc. Instead it is given a lot of emphasis on Aurora's reaction to being asked about her other castle, and revealing that she has very little personal investment in the kingdom that was her natural birthright.
Saw it with my dad today because he wanted to see a movie and little else was playing. Had the whole large theater to ourselves.
It was... not as bad as the first one. But I wouldn't say it's good either. The sets are stunning as are the costumes. But the concepts and execution are very mixed to the point that the script feels like a very rough first draft. Its bad in different ways. Where the first was maligned in concept; "Let's take our badass wickedest villain and give her her own film... and make her straight up good and "misunderstood", defeating all the appeal the character had in the first place!", this one feels bad in that it doesn't seem sure of itself, feels half-baked in several places, and just doesn't know what to say.
One last thing, and I don't want to drone on because I feel bad this is already a lengthy post, but I can't unsee it and I'm realizing how often it occurs but I'm getting really, really, really fucking sick of how often Disney (and others) rely on the Good King/Prince/Billionaire/Politician to come in and solve all the problems. House being foreclosed on because you couldn't make payments and the bank is run by a douchebag? No problem, the bank was really being hijacked by one evil person and here's a rich Billionaire to absolve all the problems! Have an army causing genocide against any entire group of people and are perfectly aware of the horrible plan that they're committing? Easy! Here's a Good Prince who just tells them all to lower their weapons and there's no future problems!
Look... I know this is ultimately Disney we're talking about, but they're clearly trying to talk about some pretty loaded subjects sometimes and then clean them all up with a MAKES IT EASY that might as well be a Deus Ex Machina. It's just flat out lazy. It's tired. And most importantly, it's boring.
Saw the sequel, wish I hadn't. Should have read the reviews first! I thought Maleficent was turning evil, immediately realized she wasn't and may have just developed an aversion to Disney after Toy Story 4 left a good taste in my mouth.
The friend I went to see it with loved it, she thought the special effects were great, and I'm glad one of us was having fun because they failed to impress me the second time around.
You know how the first movie had wimpy antagonists who could only challenge the lead when the plot said so? This is the opposite, where the villains are simply too competent to defeat, so they make arbitrary mistakes that give the protagonists a chance to win after flawlessly pulling off contrived Batman gambits that had numerous more ways to fail. With a little help from continuity issues and a no way consistent magic system to help things along.
It'd have been really nice to see the victims triumph on their own merits. A couple showed some creativity and daring, but in the end the Esoteric Happy Ending bordered on Deus ex Machina (there was a little foreshadowing but that in of itself was un forshadowed Clash of the Titans level Crossover Cosmology). Or maybe if the villains failed due to established character flaws, exploitable weaknesses, their victims being less predictable with their means... this conflict was more one sided than The Last Jedi.
The acting was good enough, I'll give it that. If only the plot or at least the actions scenes could have lived up to it.
Honestly I enjoyed the Malifecent films more than the live action adaptations probably because they're doing their own thing. God I hated Aladdin and I honestly am dreading how Mulan will end up.
For me, it's almost the opposite. Granted Aladdin is the only live action adaptation I've seen, or at least can remember seeing after 101 Dalmatians. But in my estimation, live action Aladdin was no worse than animated Aladdin, no better admittedly, but it was still a good movie.
The second Maleficent was just full of plot contrivances that did not even have satisfactory pay offs with a sprinkling of Trailers Always Lie. If Maleficent isn't turning evil, fine! Market her as an avenging hero or whatnot, try to sell people on that! But they really aren't going to save people on it because they can't even get "avenging hero" right. She should have been dead to rights at least three time before the borderline deus ex machina. Maybe it's just me but I think the heavy hitter of the arc shouldn't be impotent more than twice without thorough justification. And then her "great power", prior to the borderline deus ex machina, is an informed ability anyway. She's shiny and throws adults around, that will surely trump an entire species defended by armies wielding your weakness!
Yeah, in the first movie we did see she can in fact murder entire iron clad armies, but all those superpowers are suddenly absent, and iron hurts her more now. Where before being covered in an iron net underneath several dozen ironclad men stabbing her with iron spears was not enough to stop her from magically roasting them to cinders(seriously, she got dizzy and had a little trouble staying awake), suddenly a simple musket ball or iron tipped crossbow bolt can put her down for days...if these were industrial firearms I'd buy it, maybe, but as is I'm just seeing continuity error after retcon after plot hole.
As said, the acting was fine, but a lot of characters either didn't mesh with what was previously shown of them or just didn't make sense from the start.
The entire concept of Dark Fey. There are fairies beyond the forested hills, that was a given. Some of them are like Maleficent, fine. They literally have the ability to survive anywhere but have been reduced to a single colony because humans have iron? You don't know how the world works! These humans don't have anything as good as a steam engine and are not unified in any common cause, definitely not the cause of Fey hunting. There should still be Dark Fey nests all around the world! Or at least more to the story than humans finding iron. These fools can fly at hundreds of mile per hour for hundreds of miles without getting tired! And they can magically farm as they see fit! Forget how hard they'd be to wipe out, why wouldn't humans keep them around for help with plagues and famine?
All the same, that same friend didn't like Aladdin too much. She thought it wasn't true enough to 1001 Nights. You're not the only one who prefers the Maleficent films. I'd like to think I'd be more forgiving if the ad campaign wasn't so misleading.
Community Showcase More
How well does it match the trope?