Maleficent Movie Review

As was so well known, 5-year-old Aurora, Jolie's real-life daughter, is played by Vivienne Jolie-Pitt, a sweet little girl whose appearance matches Aurora's character perfectly, and which I accept. I am ready to say that she was one of the best. Those few five-year-olds who aren't afraid of Jolie in her Maleficent costume. The three clumsy goblins who raise Aurora still do so in the story, but unlike in the cartoon, Maleficent is aware of his concern for Aurora from the start and watches her as she grows up. But over the years spent in the woods, Aurora becomes a charming teenage girl (Elle Fanning) who calls Maleficent her fairy godmother.

Under the care of three fairies, who are at best unworthy aunts, a single girl in need of a mother figure, and she finds it in Maleficent. The warmth she can give is cooled by the realization that she was the one who long ago denounced a covenant of their love. This, of course, is unbearable and fuels a fire in Maleficent that he clearly hadn't heard of until the middle of the decade before the last film. This turn of events brings the long-sleeping Maleficent back to life; He is a warrior at heart.

Finally, the forest kingdom regained its former glory and beauty. Aurora mentioned that she was "what they called Sleeping Beauty" and that she was crowned as Queen of the United Human and the Fairy Queen Kingdom, and Philip was by her side. , Maleficent is content with the way the world is developing now and embraces the wings of return. Directed by longtime visual effects executive Robert Stromberg, Marlene Pheasant reimagines 1959's "Sleeping Beauty" as the long-horned cursing princess Aurora Fairy from Angelina Jolie's point of view. Marlene Fissen explores the untold story of Disney's most famous villain from the classic Sleeping Beauty, and the elements of her betrayal eventually turn her pure heart to stone.

Now a despised and cropped woman, Maleficent sculpts a magical staff from a branch, wears a black helmet, and seeks revenge on Stephen's newborn daughter, Aurora. In 2014, Maleficent received an original film, which remade the animated film not so much as to completely change the narrative, so that Maleficent was the main character who saved Princess Aurora from her evil father and incompetent fairies.

Robert Stromberg, the first-time director of Beauty and the Beast writer Linda Wolverton, gives a very clever overview of The Sleeping Beauty but is baffled when he tries to create a coherent emotional portrait. The arc, and its landmark from the 1959 animated original, seem more humble than inspiring. The first part of the film unfolds as a prologue detailing the story leading up to Sleeping Beauty and the personification of the fairy known as Maleficent. Despite her excellent acting, which would undoubtedly be one of her best, the second half of the film, a retelling of the classic story from Sleeping Beauty, was the best. But the full story of "The Disdainful Woman" explains what can turn Maleficent into evil, even if she has the same determination as Sleeping Beauty.

Maleficent suggests that Disney's 1959 version of the events in Sleeping Beauty was a group of slanderers who defame the fairy simply because she had strong willpower, goatee horns, and a desire to put a baby into a coma. ... this is not the story of how one woman became angry, as it is constantly repeated that Maleficent is essentially good and will not harm the child - minutes after the child is sentenced to death, she will kill him. feeds, while Aurora's fairy godmother does not... they are worried. The problem is that it is over-compensated, and Aurora and Philip are practically the main characters in the second half of the film, and Maleficent hardly appears. In general, Maleficent has nothing to do (thanks to the brilliant performance of Jolie and her subject).

There are certainly those who disagree with a more sympathetic approach to a character who has for many years been considered a villain, and no doubt it is the story that ultimately holds this film back, Maleficent doing a good job of it. does. I'm working to balance what you know about Maleficent while simultaneously creating a more complex and entertaining character. If you're an Angelina Jolie fan, you're likely to be amazed by Maleficent, an incomplete film, but a film that allows the actress to nail one of the most memorable performances of all time and possibly spawn a character. gives. and performance, prestigious work that will last for many years. Maleficent wasn't the best film at all, but just the talent was enough to keep you entertained for 90 minutes.

However, even as a family film, Maleficent can take more risks with both its story and its central character. There are many reasons to explore, however, and Maleficent is often more like a montage series than an actual movie. While the story at its 97 minutes is easy enough to follow, there is no reason to be concerned.

For example, only in the middle of the movie, Maleficent make its first line, which is so unnatural it seems like a mistake at first. From time to time, attempts are made to sly self-awareness—"This isn't a fairy tale," warns Ingrid, the naive Queen of the Aurora—but the film is hard enough for adults to work through. Not there.

There are signs of a metaphor; Creatures known as black fairies with horns and wings like maleficent were marginalized and banished from society. Many critics and commentators have argued that one of the film's opening scenes, in which Stephen takes Maleficent and removes feathers from his unconscious body, is a metaphor.

I almost got the impression that Stromberg wanted the movie to be PG-13, but was limited by the fact that it was a re-imagining of a Disney cartoon. Jolie was able to use the character of Maleficent as the basis for her lack of brutal honesty in a regular PG-13 film. Jolie is perfect for the real Maleficent, but she is given a costume, not a role.

When Jolie allows her fangs to truly reveal themselves, as in an almost verbatim recreation of Maleficent's first scene from the original Disney, she removes the paint from the walls. For most of the first hour, she, more or less quietly, allows Pfeiffer to dominate as the drama's true villain, and Fanning transforms from a shy innocent girl to a young woman longing for adulthood and marriage. You can't deny that Jolie is a good choice to play a spoiled protective angel who recovers as a surrogate mother again, the special effects are great, and the three ghosts have a good sense of humor. There are reliefs, but Fanning is too naive and innocent to me, the rewrite of the story is not as fun and predictable, I prefer the original 1958 cartoon, but this is a very funny fantasy movie.