Maleficent: Mistress of Evil

[Jeivar]

Uhhh...

The Rotten Tomatoes audience score for this one is 95%. The IMDB one is 7.0.

So far, so good.

The Metacritic one is 2.4.

Has anyone here seen it, and wants to chime in? What's it like?

I did enjoy the first movie. It may have helped that I never saw the original Disney animated film, and so wasn't invested in the original version of the story.

[Magic_Hat]

This movie looks so bad it actual by comparison makes me excited for the next MCU movie (which is apparently a prequel about Black Widow).

[Jeivar]

This movie looks so bad it actual by comparison makes me excited for the next MCU movie (which is apparently a prequel about Black Widow).

When you say "looks so bad" do you mean the trailers haven't won you over, or that you've actually seen it?

[Magic_Hat]

When you say "looks so bad" do you mean the trailers haven't won you over, or that you've actually seen it?

After the disaster that was live action Beauty and the Beast I took an oath to never again punish my eyes and ears to the entirety of a live action Disney remake. So no, I've only seen trailers.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Jeivar
I did enjoy the first movie. It may have helped that I never saw the original Disney animated film, and so wasn't invested in the original version of the story.

I was fairly meh on the first Maleficent movie, but like you I'm interested in hearing from someone who's actually seen Mistress of Evil. It might well be a sequel that improves on the original, which I'd be willing to risk in the theater.

I didn't bother with Aladdin or Lion King, because I'm not sold on a live-action remake of a perfectly good animated film. But if Mistress of Evil is a new storyline, and if someone who's seen it can recommend it, I'd be willing to give it a shot.

[Mightymosy]

I think Maleficent 1 is one of the best movies I have ever seen, so I am really angsty to see part 2......I just fear a bad sequel might ruin it :-/

[Bartmanhomer]

Today I went to see the movie Maleficent: Mistress Of Evil and I'm going to tell you my thoughts about the movie.

Spoiler: My Thoughts On Maleficent: Mistress Of Evil

Show

Today I went to see Maleficent: Mistress Of Evil and this movie happen to be the sequel of Maleficent. This movie took place five years later Prince Phillip wants to married Princess Aurora. He invited her and Maleficent to the castle to have dinner with Prince Phillip family. The dinner was turn out to be a disaster as Maleficent curse the king. Maleficent escapes and a soldier shot her with iron. Then she fell in the ocean and a dark fey rescued her. The dark fey wants to wages war against humans. Aurora found out that the Queen poison the king. The Dark fey wage war against humans. Aurora told Phillip about the Queen cursed the King. Maleficent appears to stop the Queen. The Queen killed Maleficent. Maleficent resurrected as the black Phoenix. The war ended. Princess Aurora and Prince Phillip were married. The King awoke from the curse. The Queen magical transform into a goat. Maleficent returns home with the dark fey. And that's it. The movie was awesome. I enjoy it. I didn't fall asleep before I drink coffee before the movie. And the movie is Oscar-worthy in my opinion. I'll give this movie 5 out of 5 stars for a perfect movie.

[JadedDM]

I'll likely go and see it on Wednesday, as on Tuesday I'll be seeing Zombieland 2 first.

[Magic_Hat]

I think Maleficent 1 is one of the best movies I have ever seen

That's the funniest thing I've ever heard!

[Mightymosy]

Honestly this movie is doing almost everything right you can do right.
Tell me one thing bad about I, just one :-D

[Maryring]

It reinterprets everyone who was originally good as evil or stupid so the main character of the movie can look good in comparison.

[Razade]

Honestly this movie is doing almost everything right you can do right.
Tell me one thing bad about I, just one :-D

The acting. The CGI. The cliche "The good guys are evil and the evil guys are misunderstood" story that wants to ape Wicked so hard it might as well be in a Primate Exhibit at your local zoo? It's not up to us to prove it's bad. It's up for to you to explain why it's good.

[Mightymosy]

The acting. The CGI. The cliche "The good guys are evil and the evil guys are misunderstood" story that wants to ape Wicked so hard it might as well be in a Primate Exhibit at your local zoo? It's not up to us to prove it's bad. It's up for to you to explain why it's good.

I would say it is up to you to *prove* Angelina Jolie to be a bad actress. Because, her income as, you know, famous Actress, seems to suggest otherwise.

CGI?
Well, name one movie that did a better job showing a chick with wings flying around.
I was very happy with how it was done.

And regarding Good&Evil: that movie does exactly the opposite of what you say.
Consider for one moment the overdone Robin Hood trope. The thief really is a good guy yadda yadda yadda.
Maleficent 1 shows the thief character just as what a thief generally is: an egotist who gives a poop about your feelings.

Yes, the movie is a modern reinterpretation of an old fairy tale, and switches good and evil around.
Sooooo..... what is your point? That reinterpretations are always bad?

Dislike it all you want, for me it's nothing short of a masterpiece.

[Magic_Hat]

Honestly this movie is doing almost everything right you can do right.
Tell me one thing bad about I, just one :-D

It's a soulless remake from a company that has run out of ideas and only craves money that uses so much CGI it might as well be animated. This movie is the cinematic equivalent of a serial killer who only targets professional animators.

[Jeivar]

... why do people always try to convert folks who don't like or dislike the same things they do? It never, ever, ever works.

[Magic_Hat]

... why do people always try to convert folks who don't like or dislike the same things they do?

It's called participating in a conversation, expressing your opinion, and not just jumping on the bandwagon.

It never, ever, ever works.

So what you're saying is these people too stubborn to even listen to any objections?

[Roland St. Jude]

It's called participating in a conversation, expressing your opinion, and not just jumping on the bandwagon....

Sheriff: It also, depending on how it's communicated, has the potential to cross over from critiquing a thing to insulting those to like/dislike it. I'd suggest people on all sides of a given discussion keep in mind our civility standards here.

[Dragonus45]

I thought the first one was bad, but this was a special kind of awful. I honestly didn't think they were going top top the Beauty and the Beast remake or Dumbo any time soon but... wow.

[Bartmanhomer]

I like both movies. Also, everybody has a right to express their opinion.

[Mightymosy]

It's a soulless remake from a company that has run out of ideas and only craves money that uses so much CGI it might as well be animated. This movie is the cinematic equivalent of a serial killer who only targets professional animators.

The contrary, I feel.
Maleficent 1 has *real* characters with agendas and feelings that convince me.
The original has one dimensional cardboard characters. Which I guess is okay for a fairy tale, but still.

So, calling something soulless is really not an argument. Also, cash grab. Which money is Not made to earn cash, I wonder???

So, anyone have any Actual arguments why I should dislike the movie, or just soulless bashing?

[Dragonus45]

So, anyone have any Actual arguments why I should dislike the movie, or just soulless bashing?

Not really, if you liked it I’m not sure why I would try to demand you stop liking if. If it’s your trash it’s your trash. I mean I genuinely enjoyed the Pacific Rim sequel of all things. But make no mistake. This movie was traaaaaash.

[Mightymosy]

Not you but these other guys....

I like quite some trash movies as well, but Maleficent is just not that. That movie I like because it is just that good.
Like I said, I couldn't find anything bad with that movie, and usually I pick apart all sorts of things....

[Razade]

I would say it is up to you to *prove* Angelina Jolie to be a bad actress. Because, her income as, you know, famous Actress, seems to suggest otherwise.

That's...not how proof works. I get that you like the movie, you said it was a flawless masterpiece. You don't have to defend the first one, but you do have to defend the second. It's not on the person going "No, here's why I don't agree with you" to provide proof to counter your claim. Not only that, just because Jolie has made a lot of money doesn't mean she's a good actress. Neither does her level of fame.

Popularity (and by extension income) isn't indicative of skill or talent. It just indicates they're popular.

CGI?
Well, name one movie that did a better job showing a chick with wings flying around.
I was very happy with how it was done.

I don't need a counter to say that something else is bad. Something can just be bad. The CGI in Maleficent was bad. It doesn't matter who did it better or worse or the same.
Glad you were happy with it.

And regarding Good&Evil: that movie does exactly the opposite of what you say.
Consider for one moment the overdone Robin Hood trope. The thief really is a good guy yadda yadda yadda.
Maleficent 1 shows the thief character just as what a thief generally is: an egotist who gives a poop about your feelings.

It literally doesn't. The King, in the original, is shown to be good and Maleficent in the original is evil. In this retelling it's the opposite. If you think that the reverse of expectations isn't a cliche, I'd argue that you need to read more or see more movies.

Yes, the movie is a modern reinterpretation of an old fairy tale, and switches good and evil around.

Oh wait, so now you agree with me? I'm really dang confused. You said I was wrong and then said I was right. Which one is it?

Sooooo..... what is your point? That reinterpretations are always bad?

Nope. Just this one.

Dislike it all you want, for me it's nothing short of a masterpiece.

More power to you.

Not you but these other guys....

I like quite some trash movies as well, but Maleficent is just not that. That movie I like because it is just that good.
Like I said, I couldn't find anything bad with that movie, and usually I pick apart all sorts of things....

These others guys would rather you didn't assign motive to their words that aren't there. I don't care if you think it's a great movie. Saying it's a master-piece is another thing altogether.

[Lemmy]

Angelina Jolie's acting in the first movie was OK... Everything else ranged from mediocre to really bad. So I just skip the sequel and advise everyone to do the same.

The last thing we need is reward Disney for its crappy live-action remakes.

[Delicious Taffy]

Why is everyone calling this a "remake"? It's a sequel to a what-if reimagining of an ancient cartoon movie.

[Willie the Duck]

That's...not how proof works. I get that you like the movie, you said it was a flawless masterpiece. You don't have to defend the first one, but you do have to defend the second.

Let's go a step further and remove the term defend, which implies the default assumption is that the movie is bad. The default assumption is that the movie is neutral. On the other hand, the default assumption is also that peoples' time and money are precious to them, and so the movie has to be better than neutral for them to go see it. So I think the burden of proof is on those that are pro the movie, but not to defend it, but rather to sell it as worthy of people's eyes and wallets.

Now, I have seen both of the live action movies and the animated original. My first take is that the story of the live action movies does not work as part of the same continuity as the animated original (and not just because Phillip kills Maleficent in the original, meaning that actual plot events have changed). The writers of the new movies took too many liberties for it to be the same universe. Which they needed to to make the story work, as 'she's just misunderstood' does not work to explain animated Maleficent. As others have mentioned, it was clearly trying to be the next Wicked and uses the same formula, even where it doesn't work based on differences in the originals. If continuity breakage is a problem for your verisimilitude, then the entire enterprise is not going to work for you (and the quality of the movies, beyond that, probably will be irrelevant).

That said, the first live-action/CGI movie was... fine. It was fine. Jolie and Fanning have genuine chemistry. The padding of the story, outside of the straightforward re-framing of the animated original's was acceptable, if nothing to write home about. Brenton Thwaites's Phillip is perfunctory at best and Sharlto Copley's Stefan is one of the most lackluster performances of what should have been an epic role I've seen in a long time. The movie as a whole was a great 'put butts in the theater' kind of movie that if you are a certain age when it came out probably has the same spot in your heart that flawed-but-enjoyable action-adventure movies from my youth (say, The Last Starfighter or Romancing the Stone) have to me.

This second movie is... not up to the previous. Mostly simply because of the plot (the acting is fine, although when you have Michelle Pfeiffer as your villain, and the only thing you have her do well is look menacing, you are wasting expensive talent). Freed from the constraint of having to follow (with some serious surgery) the animated original's story, they had the opportunity to do something new, imaginative, and amazing. Instead we got the same 'well now you have to meet the new set of royal relatives previously unmentioned, some of which will try to destroy you for their own machinations' plot we've seen in other modern fairy-tale inspired movie sequels. Throw in repeated death fakeouts and a 'power of the phoenix' motifs makes it seem like this was a bunch of other movie screenplays repurposed for this endeavor.

So, final impression: if you loved the 1959 animated version, neither live-action really serves as a winning addition to that canon, but if you don't need them to exist in the same universe, they are 'fine.' If you loved the first live-action, this new one is a lesser sequel, but mostly of the unnecessary and doesn't improve anything style (more in line with Ghostbusters II than Blues Brothers 2000, if those references mean anything).

[Telonius]

I took my daughter and a friend of hers to see it this weekend (5th-graders). My daughter has somehow already absorbed the "sequels are always terrible" theme, and was a bit concerned about that going in. But overall they enjoyed it. They thought the raven guy was funny, recognized Warwick Davis, and commented that it would have been terrifying in 3D. I tend to agree; it was a bit scarier than a lot of other PG movies. In fact this is probably the closest thing I've seen to an "80s PG" movie, that actually got a PG rating, in a very long time. Not quite on the level of Black Cauldron for creepy, but I could see some younger kids coming out of it a little shaky. Some really icky implications of attempted genocide.

Anyway, I enjoyed it. The sets and visuals were beautiful. The villainous plan was apparently hatched by one of Heinz Doofenshmirtz's ancestors (for being overly convoluted). Michelle Pfeiffer was good. Most of the others were somewhere between effective and mediocre. It's a decently good kids movie. Not on the must-watch list, but solid. Personally I would have loved to see the 3D version, but (again) it might be too much for some kids. I'd give it 3/5.

[Devonix]

Why is everyone calling this a "remake"? It's a sequel to a what-if reimagining of an ancient cartoon movie.

Yes, Lion King is a remake, Aladdin is a Remake, Beauty and the Beast is a Remake. Malefacent, and Alice in Wonderland, were Reimaginings, based off of the old cartoons, not remakes of those cartoons. It's one of the reasons that I enjoyed them more.

[Razade]

Let's go a step further and remove the term defend, which implies the default assumption is that the movie is bad. The default assumption is that the movie is neutral. On the other hand, the default assumption is also that peoples' time and money are precious to them, and so the movie has to be better than neutral for them to go see it. So I think the burden of proof is on those that are pro the movie, but not to defend it, but rather to sell it as worthy of people's eyes and wallets.

You're equivocating one usage of the term "defend" with another. The neutral position is that it isn't a masterpiece or that it is. The neutral position is that it's a movie. Mighty is claiming it's a masterpiece. I'm saying I don't believe them for the reasons stated. Let's not remove the term defend because it has a usage outside the one you're using, especially in discussion. You're using it to mean protecting from harm or damage. That's not how it's used in this context. Defend in this context means to speak in favor of, or to justify. Which the positive claim has the onus to do. Mighty has to defend, re: justify, why the movie is a masterpiece. It's not on any of our jobs to prove it isn't, just that their criteria isn't good enough to declare it as such.

That's a really over-debate-y way of looking at it and they don't have to justify why they think it's a masterpiece. But they do if they want to convince anyone here that it is other than just asserting it. I don't really care of Mighty thinks it's a masterpiece, they're allowed to like the movie. But they want to argue that it is against people who don't think it is. So ya know. They can either default, as they have, to "well it's just my opinion" which means we don't really have to take the conversation further. They've shut that down, and that's cool. No one's obligated to a discussion. But they've also indicated they're not being objective. Which is another reason there's no real point in carrying on with them.

[Willie the Duck]

Razade, I'm aware of the difference in usage of "defend," I just don't care. I'm trying to foster a discussion, not shut one down. If you have no desire to hear Mightymosy's case*, that's your call, and your actions will do a great job in convincing them that continuing this discussion is a lost cause. I, OTOH, want to know their reasoning. If you do not want to be part of that process, I will be sure to make sure not to quote you again.
*and, let's be clear, I understand why you might not. {Scrubbed}