Maleficent: Mistress of Evil

Tonight, I watched “Maleficent: Mistress of Evil,” which came out two months ago, and it was a sequel that was superfluous. Do you want to know what I mean? Here’s your answer:

After not being in movies for four years, Angelina Jolie comes back by reprising the main role in the Maleficent sequel “Mistress of Evil,” the continuation of the Sleeping Beauty derivative that tries to tell the original story’s villain in a more difficult, understanding way.

(The over-sweet syrupy) Aurora, reprised by Elle Fanning, is now queen of the Moors, the delighted farm populated by magic creatures, while Maleficent is the woodland’s protector. After Prince Phillip (Harris Dickinson) proposes to the formerly sleeping beauty, a very judgmental Maleficent unwillingly agrees to join her goddaughter to a dinner invited by her future in-laws, welcoming King John (Robert Lindsay) and devious Queen Ingrith (Michelle Pfeiffer). As foretold, an argument starts, which ends with a split between Aurora and Maleficent. The latter leaves suddenly and finding out her heritage as one of the last Dark Fae, a powerful race forced into solitude because of human cruelty.

As war continues, the fate of the lands and its population is at stake. Sameen Amer said in her review, “But even at the most (seemingly) crucial of turns, there is an odd absence of suspense. The repercussions of what should be significant developments – including battle and bloodshed – seem lost on the film’s writers. The fantasy’s building blocks are all fairly standard and formulaic; the drama is oddly vacant. Potentially interesting ideas are thrown into the storyline but then not fully developed; the Dark Fae arc, for instance, raises more questions than it answers.”

The writing and character building are the movie’s main weaknesses. Fanning’s Aurora is beautiful but boring, and completely unsuccessful as a queen and the Three Good Fairies (Imelda Staunton, Juno Temple and Lesley Manville) and completely annoying.

Amer noted, “Pfeiffer’s Queen Ingrid is a caricature of an evil queen who seems to have been created simply to make the titular protagonist seem noble in comparison. Jolie’s Maleficent is often side-lined in her own movie. The actresses’ performances, though, are the film’s highlights. Jolie shines in her first live-action role since 2015 (she did lend her voice to Tigress in the third Kung Fu Panda adventure in 2016, but has not been in front of the camera since By The Sea), and it’s to Pfeiffer’s credit that her one-dimensional character seems marginally intriguing.”

Amer continued, “Disney’s fairy tale revisits, retellings, and reimagining(s) may be financially rewarding for the company, but they hardly deliver a rewarding cinematic experience to the audience.” Even if “Maleficent: Mistress of Evil” may be a little better from Disney’s recent number of atrocious remakes, it’s far from the company’s best.

I’m sorry, but it seems like so much was thrown into the movie that it was so hard to figure out what was going on. Were they trying to make this “Lord of the Rings,” because they can’t! It was such a convoluted movie that it looked like madness. Was there really a need for a sequel to this movie? If you didn’t like the first one, you won’t like this one, it’s worse. However, if you found some enjoyment in the first movie, I don’t think you’ll like this one at all. Don’t give into the madness and see this sequel. I didn’t like the idea and I don’t think it was needed. Just stop Disney with these live action remakes. Now you’re going to make sequels to the remakes? Why? Come out with original ideas again!

Alright everyone, thank you for joining in on all my reviews this past year, I’ll see you all next year. Have a great end to 2019.