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.

Teaser Trailer for PADDINGTON 2

I was late to the party when it came to 2015's Paddington, an adaptation of the children's literature character as created by Michael Bond in 1958, that received glowing reviews and seemed to amass loving fans all over the world while remaining rather distant here in the States. Of course, I could have a misconception of how much attention the film received this side of the sea, but I don't know that I do. Paddington simply didn't seem to play in as many theaters and was certainly released much later stateside than it was in the UK. The run was so limited, in fact, I remember distinctly not being able to catch it during it's theatrical run, but instead buying it out of good faith on Blu-Ray and hoping for the best. I wasn't disappointed as the film was more or less what I expected: extremely pleasant and extremely cute. Director Paul King, who also helped pen the screenplays for both the original and the sequel, was able to craft a tender tale that seemingly captured the heart of the children's books it was based on while appealing to modern audiences all the same. Honestly, with all the positive word of mouth around the film I couldn't wait to see it and by the time I finally did I couldn't help but to agree with the fact it was a delightful piece of work; nothing especially exceptional by any means, but the best kind of example for the type of movie it was intended to be. With a budget of $55 million and a worldwide gross of over $265 million it seemed a no-brainer Studio Canal and its partners, including The Weinstein Company's Dimension division, would want another film in the series. And so, here we are, as Paddington 2 will continue to follow the adventures of the titular bear (again voiced by Ben Whishaw) this time having him face off against a thief who has stolen a book that is quite special to our Paddington. This first-look teaser doesn't give away too much by way of story, but it does feature plenty of shots of the newcomers to the cast including Hugh Grant, Brendan Gleeson, and Jim Broadbent. Hugh Bonneville, Sally Hawkins, Imelda Staunton, Peter Capaldi and Julie Walters all return as well with Paddington 2 set to open on January 12th, 2018.

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.

THE PIRATES: BAND OF MISFITS Review

I have an odd relationship with stop motion animation. I am not particularly attracted to the style of animation and am never very interested to see the films when prompted by their trailers. Whenever I manage to end up seeing one though, I'm usually pretty glad I did. From the beginning I have been rather skeptical of "The Pirates! Band of Misfits" due to the lack of a tired premise. Not a year after the tired fourth entry in the "Pirates of the Caribbean" franchise it seemed the testy premise of adventures on the high seas might be out of commission for a while. Instead, what the always reliable Aardman studios has produced here is not exactly a laugh out loud comedy, but is instead a sly little satire on the ways of old Victorian England. It makes keen observations about pirates and their interesting ways with plenty of blink and you'll miss them asides. I was neither hugely entertained or bored with the movie. It is indeed a very British kind of humor that brands the film, which is great as I enjoy that dry wit, but despite the intriguing charisma of the characters there doesn't always feel like enough substance to the story to really warrant a full length feature. I say that and immediately feel bad though, because it really is a delightful little film and breezes by at a brief 88 minutes. There is a stellar voice cast here and the young audience that crowded the theater seemed to enjoy it immensely despite it being somewhat unconventional to their usual 3D fare. It isn't a film the youngins will want to rely on for adequate history lessons, and it isn't something they might even want to re-visit, but in the moment it is exciting and charming.

Queen Victoria (Imelda Staunton) is a formidable threat.

What I was most concerned with going in was, as I said earlier, the premise. After the writers of that Johnny Depp franchise seemed to exhaust every possible plot related to pirates I wondered first and foremost where this movie was going to take me. The film centers itself around its idiotic if not slightly charming and simply named Pirate Captain. With Hugh Grant doing his best surly growl mixed with that upper crest English accent, he makes the Pirate Captain a lovable simpleton. He (mis)guides a crew of interesting characters that in no manner resemble the classic pirate archetypes we have grown familiar with. I loved that they each had simple descriptive names such as The Pirate with Gout (as played up by the great Brendan Gleeson) and The Pirate with a Scarf (the soon to be Bilbo Baggins but who I will always identify as the British Jim). Anton Yelchin gets in a few laughs as The Albino Pirate and in a great running gag Ashley Jensen, a pro at voice work who you might have seen on Chlesea Lately, is the Surprisingly Curvaceous Pirate. The ragtag bunch is on a quest to help their fearless leader win the coveted Pirate of the Year award that he has had a long standing losing streak with. Naturally, the prize is claimed by the pirate who steals the most gold, and though he is dedicated to his craft, The Pirate Captain is not the most skilled or intimidating enforcer.

The Pirate Captain (Hugh Grant) and his rag tag crew.

Sounds like pretty standard fare so far huh? Yea, that's what I was thinking until the writers threw a pleasant little twist into the mix. The pirate gang, while in the process of hijacking ships and looking for "booty", come across Charles Darwin ( David Tennant).  Darwin sheds light on the fact The Pirate Captain's faithful companion Polly the parrot is not a parrot at all, but the rare dodo bird that could be the answer to his untold riches problem. This leads them through a rather interesting game of double crossing and lies as Darwin wants the praise for his find and the Captain wants his rewards. They run across the pirate-hating Queen Victoria (the wonderfully evil Imelda Staunton) who becomes more of a central focus than her first impression gave, but at least adds depth to the shallow outline of what I thought we would be served. Clearly there would need to be more than I expected, but I guess what I'm really saying is that the experience of "Pirates!" was not the light endeavor I anticipated but in fact turned out to be a rather great investment that in the end was hugely enjoyable. It's weird because I still don't think the movie overall was as exceptional as some likely will, but it was at least a fun and clever written piece. It has a distinctive style that the target audience will probably find engaging as it mixes the stop motion and computer animation, but it also carries that British wit that will help keep the parents in the crowd awake and chuckling.

Darwin's faithful companion seems to be the
most intelligent character around.

As I watched the beautiful, hand-made creations move flawlessly from scene to scene that initial hesitation to embrace the style of animation seemed to fade. I was now seemingly on the other end of the spectrum where I almost appreciated the fact the makers had made such an investment in telling this story that I wanted to applaud it more. It even seemed to give the whole movie a more personal tone, a more human effort. We weren't simply watching characters that animators had constructed inside a digital world while sitting behind a computer, but instead were seeing a hands-on, detailed piece that came from the skills they inherently possessed. That is not to say computer animation doesn't take time (its incredibly detailed work) or doesn't require talent, but this is talent of a different kind. When applied to this medium, while not the most popular at the moment, it still lends a different kind of gut reaction from the audience watching. This is a labor of love and that is what is most evident about "Pirates! Band of Misfits". There is always the supporting characters voiced by more familiar names like Jeremy Piven and Salma Hayek (even Al Roker shows up as The Pirate who Likes Sunsets and Kittens) but it is the charm of watching these blob-like characters set against the digitized settings lurch through the film while providing great farce. I could never have seen this film and my life would be no different for it, but even though I can shrug it off doesn't mean it's horrible. It's here and it's probably the best option you have if you're looking for good, family entertainment this weekend.

THE PIRATES: BAND OF MISFITS Review

I have an odd relationship with stop motion animation. I am not particularly attracted to the style of animation and am never very interested to see the films when prompted by their trailers. Whenever I manage to end up seeing one though, I'm usually pretty glad I did. From the beginning I have been rather skeptical of "The Pirates! Band of Misfits" due to the lack of a tired premise. Not a year after the tired fourth entry in the "Pirates of the Caribbean" franchise it seemed the testy premise of adventures on the high seas might be out of commission for a while. Instead, what the always reliable Aardman studios has produced here is not exactly a laugh out loud comedy, but is instead a sly little satire on the ways of old Victorian England. It makes keen observations about pirates and their interesting ways with plenty of blink and you'll miss them asides. I was neither hugely entertained or bored with the movie. It is indeed a very British kind of humor that brands the film, which is great as I enjoy that dry wit, but despite the intriguing charisma of the characters there doesn't always feel like enough substance to the story to really warrant a full length feature. I say that and immediately feel bad though, because it really is a delightful little film and breezes by at a brief 88 minutes. There is a stellar voice cast here and the young audience that crowded the theater seemed to enjoy it immensely despite it being somewhat unconventional to their usual 3D fare. It isn't a film the youngins will want to rely on for adequate history lessons, and it isn't something they might even want to re-visit, but in the moment it is exciting and charming.