A COMPLETE UNKNOWN Review

As with Johnny Cash prior to James Mangold's 2005 film, Walk the Line, I had no close affiliation with or personal connection to Bob Dylan prior to seeing Mangold's latest musical biopic, A Complete Unknown. After seeing Walk the Line I wanted to not only consume as much of Cash's music as I could but learn as much about he and June Carter's life and the time around which the movie was based as well as what happened after. All of this to say, the question of whether A Complete Unknown would be successful or not was then going to naturally rest upon how invested I became in the life and music of Dylan post-screening. Maybe it’s because I had more time on my hands as an eighteen-year-old in 2005, but while I certainly enjoyed Mangold’s adaptation of Elijah Wald’s “Dylan Goes Electric!” book - admire it even for many of its choices - I don’t know that I feel as compelled to go down the long and winding road that is both Dylan’s biography and discography. Or maybe it is simply that Cash had a more charismatic personality and was therefore easier to be drawn to as is exemplified by a scene-stealing Boyd Holbrook in this film. Dylan is of course a more enigmatic figure, and Mangold seems to have understood this and that his approach to the respective films made about each of these men would need to be as wildly different as the men themselves.

It is notable in this genre that A Complete Unknown features neither of Dylan’s parents in any capacity - roles typically utilized in the first act to not only propel our aspiring protagonist out of their comfort zone, but who continue to serve as motivation to remain as disconnected from the life they knew as a child and on becoming as famous as they need to be in order to have earned themselves their own biopic. There is no such device in A Complete Unknown, the first sign Mangold is breaking from a tradition he helped instate and the first indicator he is catering his storytelling to his subject even as his filmmaking remains the handsome, sturdy, and reliable type that looks to modestly enlighten and wholly entertain while offending only those who've already claimed I'm Not There as the only necessary Dylan feature. It is the understanding of this objective that helps define Mangold's successes (and some of his shortcomings) here, as his job is not to necessarily demystify but capture the essence of this mysterious and often difficult individual so that a new generation might come to understand why Dylan became so important to the young, noisy activists of the sixties as well as to remind that same generation that "there was a time when the old songs were new."

MALEFICENT: MISTRESS OF EVIL Review

For a movie that primes its audience to experience a tale of villainy and "pure evil" as incarnated by the title character of Maleficent (Angelina Jolie returning), Maleficent: Mistress of Evil largely doesn't fulfill its promise as the character is a mistress in the sense she's in a position of authority or control, but never does she wield these positions in ways one would exclusively associate with or consider to be "evil". Misunderstood, sure, but evil? Nah. Like the 2014 original, this sequel is more telling the audience a story we were unaware of concerning the character with the intention of ultimately altering our opinion of her and gaining a newfound sympathy for the character as her representation in the 1959 Disney animated classic was apparently a by-product of those circumstances and not "the whole story"; a reputation built off a single perspective of not only an isolated incident, but one with some justification as far as Maleficent's emotions were concerned even if her actions never could be. While that 2014 film was more or less restricted by the original tale of Sleeping Beauty (we've seen the iconic cursing of the baby moment in live action, so let's move on) this second chapter in Maleficent's story breaks free of those constraints and pushes the narrative past Aurora's (Elle Fanning, also returning) sixteenth birthday and on into adulthood where she is now set to wed the re-cast Prince Philip (Harris Dickinson instead of Brenton Thwaites) as they start a life of their own together whereas Maleficent had now inadvertently become something of a mother figure to this young woman she originally cursed and has therefore only recently come to feel as if she's gained the genuine love of what she might describe as a family. Jolie's Maleficent exudes this gracefulness as embodied through the strong presence of Jolie herself as she is not only a warrior and commander, but a woman who is complex in her deep, emotional feelings that the film demonstrates are also possible for someone of such strong nature to possess. It is this characterization and the breaking of such long-standing archetypes that truly allows this sequel to outshine not only its predecessor, but the majority of these live-action Disney re-makes or re-tellings. Director Joachim Rønning (Kon-Tiki, Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales) takes over from Robert Stromberg and brings with him an aesthetic less reliant on big, CGI spectacle (though there is still plenty of this) and a visual prowess more interested in broadening the scope of the world the first film only hinted at. At the same time, Linda Woolverton's screenplay brings together a trifecta of female characters that serve as the heart and soul of the themes of the narrative coalescing in a sequel that not only surpasses the quality of the original (which, admittedly-was not a high bar) by doing everything that original wanted to do, only better.

Teaser Trailer for MALEFICENT: MISTRESS OF EVIL Starring Angelina Jolie

First of all, it will have been over five years since the first Maleficent was released by the time this oddly scheduled sequel arrives in theaters. Was anyone clamoring for this? Doubt it, but the more pressing question might be did anyone really care for the first one? I mean is there a large enough pocket of the population who were eleven in 2014 that are now sixteen and are just beside themselves with the fact they're finally getting a Maleficent sequel? For one reason or another, I just don't tend to believe that to be the case. And yet, here we are as this Halloween season Angelina Jolie along with much of the original cast (which feels surprising) return to stir up a little more trouble in their fantasy land for, as the slowed-down version of the popular song tells us in the trailer, this is the "season of the with." With a screenplay from Linda Woolverton (which would typically be encouraging given her involvement in that golden age of 90's Disney animation, but has become tainted by the fact she also wrote the predecessor to this as well as Alice Through the Looking Glass) the Mouse House took one-half of the Kon Tiki team in Joachim Rønning that they picked up to direct that fifth Pirates movie a few years back and slapped him on this CG-fueled project next with hopes that even if this follow-up doesn't necessarily perform as well as the original it will at least make its budget back and then some as well as having something of a kinder critical reception a la Dead Men Tell No Tales. To this point, that first Maleficent film did bank $758 million worldwide ($241 domestic) on a $180 million budget, so assuming they dropped the budget slightly on this one they should be in fine hands to make a couple extra bucks this fall. Still, even if this unnecessary and unwarranted sequel completely bombs it's not like it will be anything more than a blip on Disney's financial report in a year that also features three Marvel movies, a Star Wars film (and the end of the current saga at that!), the "live-action" The Lion King, and Toy Story 4. Come what may, Maleficent: Mistress of Evil also stars Michelle Pfeiffer, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Sam Riley, Harris Dickinson, Ed Skrein, Imelda Staunton, Juno Temple, Lesley Manville, and opens on October 18th, 2019.

LEAP! Review

There is nothing particularly memorable about Leap! an animated film being released by The Weinstein Co. that was originally titled Ballerina when it premiered in France and the United Kingdom last winter. That said, there is nothing particularly offensive about it either. Rather, Leap! is a sincere attempt to re-visit and reiterate age old lessons to the younger generations that continue to be born and require reassurance that they too can accomplish their dreams with hard work and dedication. That is essentially what Leap! comes to be as it sells the underdog story of a young girl who overcomes obstacles such as being an orphan in order to accomplish her dreams of becoming a ballet dancer. The film earns some credibility and points for uniqueness by taking the chance of placing itself in a period setting for no other reason than writer/directors Éric Summer and Éric Warinwhich wanted to which would seem to inherently be a reason for youngsters to disengage, but alas the movie chugs along not missing a beat despite the fact parents who have seen any movie ever will be able to guess the beats Leap! will seemingly follow. This never becomes an issue though, as the film sets its audience up to accept this then revels in the setting allowing it to influence the different approaches the movie is able to illustrate in regards to our two protagonists key passions. Félicie (Elle Fanning) with her dancing and Victor (Dane DeHaan) who is an inventor with an affinity for devices that might help us to one day fly. All of this endears us to the two of them immediately as not only are they orphaned and living in the midst of the late-1880's, but despite as much they have hopes and dreams and are bound to find a way out of their situation no matter how difficult Luteau (Mel Brooks), the groundskeeper at the orphanage, fights to keep them in line. The groundwork is laid early for what the viewer can expect as far as narrative goes as well as for how Summer and Warinwhich will handle the craft of this type of storytelling that relies on such unsurprising, but well-intentioned clichés. What Leap! has in its back pocket is that none of these obvious or typically telling factors corrupt the ever-glowing optimism that it holds and delivers through to its predictable, but appropriately cheery conclusion.

THE BEGUILED Review

When it comes to Sofia Coppola I tend to be indifferent; both towards viewing her films and, when I do see them, in my response to them. Granted, I need to re-visit many of her works that were released and that I saw when I was likely too young to comprehend what they were aiming for or even discussing, but even as I've grown, expanded my pool of cinematic knowledge, and have been very much excited to see her newer releases a la The Bling Ring (which, admittedly, is likely her worst effort) I was disappointed by the lack of any real vision, any signature voice in her films. That changes with The Beguiled. The Beguiled has made me more anxious to go back and experience The Virgin Suicides and Lost in Translation again while prompting me to finally make an effort to see Marie Antoinette and Somewhere. The Beguiled is a game-changer of sorts because it brings Coppola onto a plane where she is not only indulging in the type of cinema she finds comfort in creating, but because it simultaneously provides a large entertainment factor. It's deliciously enjoyable in a way that feels fresh to this work specifically. Though I haven't the authority to compare and contrast Coppola's features with one another for, as I've mentioned, some I haven't seen at all and others I haven't seen in quite some time, but by a general gut feeling The Beguiled feels like the kind of jump-start Coppola's career needed to once again find inspiration. Everything about the film creates a sense of restraint around what is a boiling pot of truths and temptations just waiting to be acted upon. Coppola creates this potboiler effect by capturing the musky air of 1864 in visuals that elicit the season's soft southern sunlight and the lack of any bulbs whatsoever. Candlelight provides the majority of our illumination here and it is the glow, the aura of these yellow-tinged flames that underscore that air of courtesy that is all too often rendered just that by the bluntness with which our characters interact with one another. A gorgeous interpretation of the way in which people can read others based on their circumstance and furthermore, a fascinating study on the ways in which you sometimes can't-the true motivations of one or several never revealing themselves leaving any action taken to be forever contemplated. A million ideas about currently relevant social issues could make their way into one's interpretation of The Beguiled, but the truth of the matter is that it is very simply a smoldering tale of intuition and war.

20TH CENTURY WOMEN Review

Time is fleeting. This is a phrase heard countless times throughout our youth and throughout our life as a reminder to cherish the days we're living in as they'll be gone before we realize it. What we never realize though, is just how fleeting such times are when we're actually in them. The young man at the center of 20th Century Women, Jamie (Lucas Jade Zumann), was born in 1964 with the film opening in 1979. This makes Jamie a young fifteen as made even more apparent by his clear skin and boyish features that render him still a child in our minds rather than the adult he would have us believe he is becoming. My own father was born in 1964 and I can't say I've ever considered what the world looked like at the time of his most formative years. Hell, I don't know that I ever even realized it was the fall of 1980 when he turned sixteen-with only six years to go until he married my mother on the cusp of his twenty-second birthday. Sure, I've heard him tell stories of the things he did as a young boy with his older brother and neighborhood friends, but never did I take a minute to step back and look at the bigger picture; really consider the world they were living in at that time. With 20th Century Women writer/director Mike Mills (Beginners) explores these small, fleeting moments in time and reflects on what made what is presumed to be his mother, his mother. This isn't simply presented by the circumstances of her life, but by the circumstances of the time in which she was born. This is a fascinating way of perceiving things, but can also be rather dangerous considering the infinite possibilities one can imagine were they to consider who they or someone they know/love might have been were they born in a different time. This framing of lives through fleeting moments with the added perception of where each of the individuals chronicled came from and where they're going reveals a lot of truths, but mostly it works best by affirming what we don't always have enough time to acknowledge-that happiness comes most naturally when we're not actively trying to chase it.

LIVE BY NIGHT Review

The problem with Live by Night is that it is both too much and never enough. Ben Affleck, who has proved himself a strong storyteller in his screenwriting and directing skills, certainly has a fine ambition in his latest effort, but it simply never seems to pan out the way he originally imagined it. This is to the point that Live by Night is as big, extravagant, and sexy a gangster drama as one could hope to get made in the studio system today and yet the story is nowhere near as compelling as it should be to make the amount of effort put into the costumes, production design, and other period details matter. The question on my mind as the film came to its one too many endings-none of which are satisfactory, I might add-was, "how did this happen?" How did a filmmaker such as Affleck, with a story he himself adapted from a Dennis Lehane novel (Gone, Baby, Gone, Mystic River, Shutter Island, The Drop), in this time period, and with a star-studded cast that features stand-out performances from the likes of Chris Messina and Elle Fanning end up sinking as quickly as a dead body attached to a boulder in a river? There is seemingly never a clear answer as to how so many promising parts can come together to form a subpar whole, but with Live by Night the majority of as much seems to fall on the script never knowing exactly what type of story it wants to tell and as a result, the momentum of the pacing never finding its footing well enough to keep viewers invested. There is always more material in a novel than a two hour movie can handle and it seems rather than relay what was more or less the same story the source material was telling through the prism of a single perspective or theme that Affleck instead attempted to cram in as much of Lehane's novel as he could resulting in the film feeling more than overstuffed while still leaving the viewer hungry for more. When talking of adapting a book for the screen director David Fincher said, "The book is many things. You have to choose which aspect you want to make a movie from." It seems Affleck might have learned a thing or two from his Gone Girl director as this lack of a singular viewpoint is exactly what Live by Night is missing; delivering so many characters, ideas, and plot strands it's hard to care about any of them.

First Trailer for Ben Affleck's LIVE BY NIGHT

In the wake of the fall movie season kicking off this week with the release of the Warner Bros. Sully it seems the production company has gone into full media blitz mode with the remainder of their fall slate that contains many of their likely awards contenders. We already caught a glimpse of the WB's Christmas week release on Wednesday with Collateral Beauty and now we have our first look at Ben Affleck's directorial follow-up to his Best Picture-winning Argo. It's been four years since Affleck directed a film and in the interim has worked with Terrence Malick, David Fincher, and Zack Snyder who likely have contributed to what growth we might see in Affleck's fourth feature. Given the actor, writer, director, and producer has been enamored with the DC extended cinematic universe as of late with more being made about the pre-production of his solo Batman film (which will be his fifth directorial venture) than that of his upcoming turn in Gavin O'Connor's The Accountant which drops in theaters in just over a month it's nice to finally see a glimpse of what Affleck has been up to behind the camera as I'm in the middle of reading the Dennis Lehane novel on which Live By Night is based. Set in the prohibition era Affleck plays Joe Coughlin, the youngest son of a prominent Boston police captain who has long since turned his back on his strict and proper upbringing for a career in the pay of the city's most fearsome mobsters. Honestly, I love the look and the tone this trailer conveys and even the soundtrack featuring Hozier's "Arsonist's Lullabye," works. Affleck enlisted legendary director of photography Robert Richardson (The Aviator, The Hateful Eight) and the particular aesthetic shines through here as visually the film looks as thrilling as the story should be. While I was worried that the film would for some reason end up getting dumped amidst the early spring crowd WB seems to have confidence in the film as they've scheduled it in the same slot as The Revenant last year with a limited qualifying run in December. Here's hoping they're right. Live By Night also stars Zoe Saldana, Elle Fanning, Sienna Miller, Brendan Gleeson, Scott Eastwood, Chris Cooper, Titus Welliver, Anthony Michael Hall, Chris Messina, and opens on January 13, 2017.

THE NEON DEMON Review

Though Nicolas Winding Refn is hardly a household name his films have come to feel like certain kinds of events. It is in the aura he has created around himself and his ambitions that his movies now feel like these mythic, untouchable experiences that take us into a usually weird and demented world that is largely metaphorical for the one the rest of us exist in. With what is his tenth feature film the director has made his first film with a female lead as he's chosen to explore his inner sixteen year-old girl. In his mind, if he were a girl that is, Refn would seem to want to exist in the world of high fashion and be a fashion model as The Neon Demon takes us through the age old tale of the young, pretty southern girl who travels to Los Angeles to make her dreams of becoming a star come true. This is an interesting choice as Refn adopts a rather straightforward narrative for this film while still remaining experimental through the visual design and the way he integrates interesting visual approaches to convey many of the tropes of such a story. Set in this world of supermodels, pretentious designers, and even more pretentious photographers everything about the film feels elitist-the world should belong to the beautiful. The substance matters little if the surface isn't beautiful enough to stop you in the first place. Ruled over by the few chosen gatekeepers of taste we willingly follow our protagonist despite knowing, that in Refn's hands, there is no way this ends well. What Refn is actually attempting to say (if anything) with the film is anyone's guess as it's clear he means for his works to elicit multiple interpretations, but given the more linear structure and straightforward fashion in which the film has been edited it would appear Refn wants us to believe he is discussing one thing while slyly delivering something else. These intentions don't really come forward until the third act though, when the sleight of hand turns into full on spectacle with the film simultaneously becoming less effective as a result. The slow paced, meditative quality of the first two acts that analyzes the ins and outs of the modeling and fashion industries through the innocent eyes of sixteen year-old Jesse (Elle Fanning) is abruptly disposed of in favor of slasher movie conventions thus making the strong build-up and examination of such a world feel short-changed by the abrupt action that concludes the film. Refn somehow still manages slight poignancy, but with not as unique a perception as he initially sets up.

First Trailers for Nicolas Winding Refn‘s THE NEON DEMON

Nicolas Winding Refn is an interesting filmmaker, he's a guy who doesn't fit into any genre or category and yet he fits perfectly into the niche he's carved for himself. Drive catapulted the guy from general obscurity to the hero of many a film school wannabe's. Though he's made Bronson with an unknown Tom Hardy (you should check it out if you haven't) and Valhalla Rising with Mads Mikkelsen (I should probably check that out) prior, it wasn't until Drive with Ryan Gosling that his name was on the map. Follwing up that wild success with a completely bewildering work like Only God Forgives the director let us all know just how far he was willing to go to capture what he imagined in the purest form possible. I still don't know that I understand what he was going for with that film and I've admittedly had no desire whatsoever to return to it, but the fact he has crafted a new piece of cinema is reason to be excited enough. With The Neon Demon Refn replaces his typical male lead with that of Elle Fanning who plays an aspiring model who moves to Los Angeles, her youth and vitality eventually devoured by a group of beauty-obsessed women who will take any means necessary to get what she has. If that sounds right up Refn's alley you'd seemingly be correct as the visuals presented in this quick, 90-second clip compliment that story and world with a very specific tone and style. I'm on the edge of how much I should necessarily anticipate this given my reaction to Only God Forgives, but like I said before, it's a Refn film and for that I will certainly be viewing the movie regardless of its critical/commercial reception. The Neon Demon also stars Christina Hendricks, Jena Malone, Bella Heathcote, Keanu Reeves, and opens in June.

TRUMBO Review

Dalton Trumbo is no doubt an interesting figure and a perfect case of someone whom it would be worthwhile to make a Hollywood biopic about. Maybe it's simply that director Jay Roach, who has mostly worked in broad comedy while mixing in politics lately with the likes of Game Change and The Campaign, doesn't know what else to do as a director, but his latest effort that profiles the rogue screenwriter feels all too complacent to accurately depict the radical and rebel ways of Mr. Trumbo. In short, this is a by the numbers biopic that tells us what happened, why it happened, and how the titular character lived out the rest of his days with the obligatory pre-credit note cards. That isn't to say the history isn't interesting or that there aren't good or intriguing moments throughout, but more that Roach does nothing with these moments to make them feel as vital or illuminating as they likely were for these people in the context of their actual lives. More than that, the biggest downfall of the film for me personally is that of the same mistake many biopics about musicians make in that they never explore what makes the artist want or need to create. To this effect, Trumbo never delves into its protagonist's writing process. Now, I understand that this film is not exclusively about the life of Dalton Trumbo, but more specifically the decade long fight he put up that saw him blacklisted and sent to prison due to his political beliefs. Still, this man was largely known as the biggest and best screenwriter working at the time his political entanglements began and is a large factor in how he fought back-managing to win two Academy awards in a time when everyone in the industry shunned him. Writing was not just a part of who this man was, it was who he was and to essentially skim over this opportunity to explain not just that he was a good and prolific writer, but how he came to be this way and how he remained inspired is one that is missed in exchange for little more than hitting the cliff notes of who this man was and how he dealt with the biggest trial of his life. Trumbo is by no means a bad movie; it has a number of good to great performances and due simply to the nature of the story it is endlessly fascinating, but this particular representation is little more than average given all it had to work with.

THE BOXTROLLS Review

In some ways Laika studios is becoming the indie animation factory where alternative childrens films go to flourish and are received with almost guaranteed better reception than anything the likes of Dreamworks, Disney or even Pixar puts out at this point. Don't get me wrong, those studios still make more money and get more attention and of course don't put out bad products (How to Train Your Dragon 2 and Frozen were critical successes as much as they were commercially and the upcoming Inside Out looks insanely ambitious),but at this point critics turn to Laika for something a little off the beaten path, something not so conventional in the realm of animation and typically, they are handsomely rewarded by the stop-motion studio. This kind of elitist, pedigreed status may already be hurting the studio though as with only its third feature out I came away feeling rather indifferent about the whole experience. This may be due to the fact my expectations were rather high given I really enjoyed, dare I say loved, Paranorman and thought it to be an exercise in both nostalgia and expert craftsmanship that resulted in a thoroughly entertaining and weighted film. The techniques used to bring the characters and worlds to life typically serve only to enhance the tone and intended darkness of the stories being told while keeping the overall facade light as if all a masquerade for the children with deeper meaning behind the mask for their parents. This works to a certain extent with our titular characters in Laika's latest film, but never do we find the connection to our human surrogate that we did to Norman whilst on his quest to prove he could rid his town of its age old curse. This lack of connection is odd because both characters are essentially outcasts, people who don't integrate into society seamlessly and thus require and adventure for some type of initiation and acceptance to be felt. In The Boxtrolls our surrogate is a young boy adopted into a society believed to be monsters based on appearance alone (is it easy to see what the moral of the story will be yet?). Eggs (Isaac Hempstead Wright), as he is so lovingly referred, is both charming and naturally intuitive given his strange predicament and his plight is at least endearing if not all that interesting while the biggest let down overall is that this is just what you expect it to be and little more.

MALEFICENT Review

Who exactly was this movie intended for? I couldn't help but to keep asking myself this as Maleficent played out, unsure of what it wanted to be, completely torn between two drastically different tones. There was naturally something interesting about this different approach to the current trend of re-telling classic fairy tales in live action form and casting Angelina Jolie as the titular villain guaranteed nothing short of a fair amount of interest but the final result we've been delivered is nothing but a badgering of the original Disney animated film that proves trying something different is truly hard to accept if it isn't done right. While it is easy to give credit to the machine that is Disney for at least attempting to think outside the box rather than simply bringing the same story to the screen with real-live people (though it looks like 90% of the film is CG anyway) Maleficent is actually less innovative than Tarsem Singh's 2012 take on the Snow White tale. At least that movie had a different rhythm to get in tune with while here we get exactly what we expect and even a little less depending what age group you belong to. So, it was a strong idea with factors that lent themselves towards what could have been an interesting execution yet what we have as the final product is anything but substantial and a film trying to be so many different things it ends up failing on all levels. This brings us back around to the question of who might this movie actually be targeted at? There were certainly a lot of children at the screening I attended, mainly young girls, and throughout you could hear them giggling at the intended bits of comic relief and gasping as Jolie re-created the famous scene in which Maleficent casts her spell on the young princess. To those reactions I began to wonder what I might have thought of this had I seen it as a child. Would it have been one of those my parents might have bought when it came out on VHS and I re-watched over and over? The only equivalent I came up with was Stephen Sommers 1994 adaptation of The Jungle Book that also came from Disney. It was very much a children's film while playing on the darker tones of the Rudyard Kipling story and that is what first-time director Robert Stromberg (yes, they entrusted this summer tentpole to a first-time director) seems intent on doing here as well, but his over-reliance on special effects and muddled screenplay do nothing but disservice what vision he might have had.

Teaser Trailer for Disney's MALEFICENT

The first trailer for next summers live action adaptation of the Sleeping Beauty story told from the perspective of its antagonist has premiered and it truly is nothing more than a teaser. Starring Angelina Jolie in the titular role of Maleficent, a young woman who grows from the pure-hearted creature she once was to the evil witch we perceive her to be in the story of Aurora. Speaking of Aurora, we get more of a look at her in the form of Elle Fanning here than we do at Jolie in Maleficant garb, but that is all well and good as I can appreciate a promotional campaign that knows how to restrain itself. Given that the film doesn't open until next year I assume this teaser has been timed to coincide with the release of Frozen around Thanksgiving. It is a bit of an odd pair as this certainly seems to be a bit of a darker tale than Oz the Great and Powerful but much more in line with Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland. Robert Stromberg is directing the film and actually served as production designer on both of the aforementioned films so expect this to all look very familiar. I'm interested to see this turns out though because I'm optimistic there is an interesting story to tell here and actors at the caliber of Jolie, Sharlto Copley, and Imedla Staunton wouldn't sign up for something that was an almost guaranteed blockbuster if they didn't see something worth investing in. Otherwise, the trailer itself actually looks fairly interesting and will at least get peoples attention with the promise of bringing one of Disney's most popular tales to extravagant real-life and Disney is really hoping this pays off as they already have live-action versions of both Cinderella and Cruella (why?) in the pipeline. Maleficent also stars Sam Riley, Juno Temple, Leslie Manville, Brenton Thwaites, Miranda Richardson and opens on May 30, 2014.