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.

PHANTOM THREAD Review

Phantom Thread, the latest film from auteur Paul Thomas Anderson (Magnolia, There Will be Blood) that once again stars Daniel Day-Lewis (in what may very well be the actor's final on-screen performance, but probably isn't), centers around Day-Lewis's renowned dressmaker, Reynolds Woodcock, and his sister Cyril (Lesley Manville) who are at the center of British fashion in 1950's post-war London as Woodcock designs for royalty, movie stars, heiresses, socialites, debutants and dames alike. The appearance of Alma (Vicky Krieps) in Woodcock's routine then tends to upend every aspect of his life in slow, methodical, and often times even conniving ways. This is an odd movie, but it wouldn't be a Paul Thomas Anderson movie if it wasn't mostly off-kilter and if it didn't go into the numerous layers of meaning and substance coated in what is a seemingly simple and straightforward narrative. This short summary is more or less what the plot of Phantom Thread entails, but Phantom Thread of course concerns itself with more than just the toppling of the structure that is Woodcock's life made relevant by the appearance of Alma, but more it is about the inner-dynamics of a relationship, the give and take that is necessary if even able to bring one's self to compromise in such a way. This is a question the film and Woodcock ponder endlessly as our protagonist is someone who seemingly knows what he wants and what he expects out of himself in his life and by living according to that standard never lets himself down and fulfills each of his expectations. This lifestyle also allows for his focus to lie solely on what he desires and to not be distracted by the passions or interests of another. In essence, Phantom Thread is about that struggle that naturally takes place in all of us that pulls between what society and tradition tell us we should want out of life that can often times be opposed by our more personal desires and ambitions. That is, of course, unless your sole desire in life is to find a mate and pro-create. It is true that often times our ambitions and desires remain a certain degree of selfish in that to solely give them their due would result in a life of satisfaction and maybe even one of great legacy, but one that lacks a certain meaning while fully giving over to what we're naturally pulled to accomplish in life leaves a greater sense of meaning if not as grand a legacy as one might have imagined for themselves. Either way, the meaning is what the individual makes of it and Phantom Thread is the journey of Woodcock having to learn that balance for the first time in his life as Alma is apparently the first in a long line of muses that challenges the meticulous and powerful mentality that Woodcock has effortlessly exuded over those in his life up to this point.

First PHANTOM THREAD Trailer Starring Daniel Day-Lewis

Our first look at the latest from auteur Paul Thomas Anderson has arrived just two months before its debut in theaters and while I'm still not sure exactly what this movie is about or what kind of thematic ground it will cover, as always when it comes to PTA, I'm intrigued. In his latest film, titled Phantom Thread, Anderson once again teams with Daniel Day-Lewis after their previous and award-winning collaboration in There Will Be Blood, to tell a story set in the couture world of 1950's London that follows Day-Lewis' Reynolds Woodcock who is a dress-maker that is commissioned to design for members of high society and the royal family. Per usual, this is a trailer for a film that likely has more going on and more varied purposes than that of whatever a short synopsis might provide. While Inherent Vice was supposedly a crime drama of sorts it obviously turned out to be less conventional and more elusive than anything Anderson had done previously and we're talking about the guy who wrote and directed The Master. While PTA's films are nothing if not divisive they can also prove to be extremely compelling and, if nothing else, should certainly be appreciated for the level of craft that is being operated on. I don't need to know much about what Phantom Thread is about or what themes, ideas, or issues the writer/director might be trying to work through with it; I just need to know that this is an authentic piece of work from a very unique voice in the cinematic landscape that just so happens to feature one of if not the greatest living actor of his generation in what could potentially be his final film role. I didn't even have to see a trailer to convince myself to watch this film, but here we are and the trailer is perfectly acceptable in that it has only piqued my interest further. It seems PTA's more definitive aesthetic style as of late suits this world of 1950's high-fashion rather well and there is a constant air of intrigue around the intentions of Day-Lewis' character and whether or not they seem to be sinister. Where this thing might lead is anyone's guess as the film comes from an original screenplay by PTA, but while the director is allowed to create such staggering works as this too seems to be I'm curious if anyone outside the film critics bubble is anxiously awaiting such a feature. Phantom Thread also stars Lesley Manville, Camilla Rutherford, Vicky Krieps, Richard Graham, Jane Perry, Bern Collaço, Pip Phillips, Ingrid Sophie Schram, Sarah Lamesch, Lujza Richter, and opens on Christmas Day. 

MR. TURNER Review

I don't think anyone would be surprised to find I had little to no knowledge of British painter J.M.W. Turner's life before seeing this film. I approached the latest from director Mike Leigh with something of a curiosity given both Leigh's ability to craft a gorgeous film and more importantly an involving one through his characters personalities. I wondered what might have drawn the director as well as character actor Timothy Spall to the life of this painter more than their frequent collaborations and the opportunity to give Spall a leading role. It seems both the director and his star had little interest or motivation for making the film outside of the fact they simply found the man fascinating and his story worth telling. That said, the fascination doesn't always translate so well to the screen despite the fact it is easy to see why they thought this way. Leigh's film decidedly covers the last quarter century of the great painters life and is more an exploration of the character than anything resembling a plot-driven narrative. For not knowing the man or what to expect from him it was something of a surprise to find the titular character a bit of an asshole. What has earned Turner a place in the history books speaks for themselves and are in no need of a feature film so why bother documenting an unpleasant man? Admittedly, the mad artist is endlessly interesting and so, again, it is easy to see why this was seemingly worth exploring. At nearly two and a half hours, Mr. Turner can be indulgent to the point it somewhat takes on the characteristics of its subject yet it consistently feels as if it's trying to prove why the man and his stories are truly worth your time. This understanding didn't come until after finishing the film because while you're in it you have to believe there is a bigger goal to what you're seeing. As the credits began to roll though it became clear Leigh had no interest in keeping his audience strictly entertained, but moreso offering them an insight they may not otherwise receive and thus the subversive sense a case is being made for Turner's relevance. Maybe this is just my singular view given I had no frame of reference going in, but I can't help but feel in making this case for Turner I took away less than I might have had the film narrowed in and given me a specific story from the subjects life that could make a greater impression for who the overall man actually was.

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.