After reading this I’m thoroughly disppointed in the fact that you keep pointing out that there are major differences to the “original.” This movie is not intended to be a “prequel” to the 1959 ANIMATED Sleeping Beauty. This is intended to be the telling of Maleficent in a live action sequence. It is to be it’s own story. Yes, there are going to be similarities only because it’s derived from the same fairy tale, however this is about Maleficent, not Aurora. They want you to feel sympathetic for her, because as every villain has, she has a back story that tells why she is the way she is. They are bringing it to light to make us understand why she chose the path of being evil. I’m very excited to see this movie and fully do not expect the darkness that you also keep speaking of, because frankly the trailers aren’t that dark either. I also hope they do more movies about villains. Especially ones like the Evil Queen!!
You have basically reiterated what I wrote above. My point in making comparisons to “Sleeping Beauty” was to show exactly what you said – this is its own story.
But there is absolutely no reason comparisons to Disney’s classic film shouldn’t be made. Don’t forget that Maleficent was created FOR the 1959 movie. Yes, the the original fairy tale had a wicked fairy godmother, but she was not Maleficent. This new film uses that iconic name from the Disney movie, so it’s reasonable for fans of that classic film to go in expecting an expanded version of the same character’s story.
It doesn’t matter if it is animated or live action. A film is a film. “Animation” is not a genre but a medium. Maleficent was created in the ’50s as an evil villain, pure and simple. But now Disney has given that character a much, MUCH softer side, which surely is disappointing to those who want to see a villain shine.
I have to agree with you Ricky, as a fan of Maleficent I was looking forward to seeing an evil Maleficent I don’t mind seeing a softer side of her, but I still expect her to die at the end for cursing Aurora and imprisoning Prince Philip…. However they make the movie I’m still looking forward to seeing it.
I will continue to stand by my statement and add this… Hands down one of the BEST movies I’ve seen in a while. And more importantly my husband said, “we all know how big a fan I am of Pirates and this blew if out of the water. Hands down best Disney movie to date.”
All villains are going to have a softer side at some point. Showing that in them and especially when the movie is named after the villain you are going to see that softer side. They clearly want you to feel empathy/sympathy for her to be on her “side” in the movie. “Animation” is a genre.
Sorry to get off topic, Ricky. But Jessica, Animation is a medium it is not a genre.
Genre – a category of artistic, musical, or literary composition characterized by a particular style, form, or content.
Here are some examples of genres and titles under that genre. I tried my best to stay away from Disney Movies. And not all of them are Family friendly either.
* Western is a genre. (Spirit: Stallion of the Cimarron, The Man from Button Willow)
* Horror is a genre (Wicked City, Dead Space: Downfall)
* Science Fiction\Fantasy is a genre (Heavy Metal, Wizards, The Hobbit)
* Drama is a genre (American Pop, Barefoot Gen, Watership Down)
* Period or historical piece is a genre. (Barefoot Gen, Victorian Romance Emma, Mushishi)
Comedy is a genre, a very broad genre with so many to choose from. But it’s a genre none the less.
Now ANIME is a genre as that is a type or style of animation. But, Animation on a whole is a MEDIUM.
From the way this article is presented you aren’t making comparisons to show that it is its own story. It sounds like you are putting the movie down for being too far different but still sharing similarities to the 50’s classic.
Not to be harsh, but it’s obvious you don’t really know what you’re talking about, Jessica. Having watched the movie last night, I can tell you that Ricky nailed it with this article. Every point he makes is valid and leads to exactly what he said in his comment reply to you; that it was intended to be it’s own story.
Yes, hardcore villain fans will probably be upset, but overall, it was a good way to show that even villains have a backstory.
I actually really enjoyed the film. I went into it expecting more of a “events from a different point of view” type of film and was surprised that it was essentially a retelling of the story. Yes, it had some cheesiness to it and yes, the film flew by but to me it felt like a real version and had the pacing of one of their animated films. I think because the film looks dark, is titled/about a “villain”, and the fact that Maleficent just looks evil, Disney is already fighting an uphill battle to get some families into the theatre to see this. I was pleasantly surprised to see how family friendly “Maleficent” actually was. There will be people that are not happy that its not a darker film, but I enjoyed it. It does have some annoying parts. Aurora has this goofy smile that she sports in almost single scene shes in. You’ll know it when you see it. I also thought that Phillip was kind of dopey. He looked like he belongs in One Direction or something and just felt out of place.
I thought the look of The Moors was fantastic. If they had marketed this more or if by some crazy chance this does really really well, they could easily turn Avatar Land into something Moors related. I think it would be great to run with the forever long idea of turning Animal Kingdom into a dark park at night with Maleficent as the central figure. After seeing this film, it just feels like it would make much more sense and Disney related than Avatar. The film even has an element of trying to protect The Moors from harm and caring for the creatures that live there. Hello, Animal Kingdom ideology?
I had a feeling they would take the route Rob Zombie took when he redid Halloween – try to make a reason for someone to be evil. Just let the villans be evil, that’s most of their appeal after all!
(Spoilers)
I actually kinda liked the movie and all of it twists. I didnt really expect it would be the exact same events told from a different perspective, but i wished they would’ve added more similarities to the 50’s classic. The true loves kiss had a twist and it sent out a sly message that love at first sight doesnt exist. The only thing i really didnt like about the movie is that they could have emphasized on Aurora’s and Phillip’s relationship more, even though i know this was Maleficient’s movie.
(Spoilers)
I actually kinda liked the movie and all of it twists. I didnt really expect it would be the exact same events told from a different perspective, but i wished they would’ve added more similarities to the 50’s classic. The true loves kiss had a twist and it sent out a sly message that love at first sight doesnt exist. The only thing i really didnt like about the movie is that they could have emphasized on Aurora’s and Phillip’s relationship more, even though i know this was Maleficent’s movie.
I have to say, the film was incredible. However I was disappointed that they twisted the end to contradict the ending to the original ‘Sleeping Beauty’. Prince Philip slays the dragon and Maleficent dies. However, **spoiler alert**
They ended it that Maleficent and Aurora live happily ever after in the woods. In my opinion, they should have made sure that this matched the original ending… As a huge Disney fan I was very excited for this film but I did have a feeling they would ruin something… I don’t think they should change an ending to a classic tale just to keep this story alive.
C’mon, people! This is NOT a just a retelling seen from the another perspective. This is a complete BIZARRO WORLD change. What was good is now bad and what was bad is now good. Sorry, but to revise to this extent is to basically call Walt Disney out; it’s surprising his own company would upend the magic that he created; seems like people with an agenda decided to turn this into feminist claptrap.
I loved the movie and everyone is entitled to share their own opinion. I too had the expectation on seeing Maleficent as the villain. Now that the movie is out, I can view both movies in a different perspective. In watching Maleficent you are seeing her side of the story. In watching Sleeping Beauty you are see the story being told by a storyteller, etc. It kind of gives you the feeling (at least for me) that a story has been told and how much has the story changed as it has been passed down from one person to another. It’s up to you whose side of the story you would like to believe or choose like more. That is how I was able to enjoy the movie and not make a comparison.
For me the two movies are politically wonderfully distinct. Maleficent is the story of the overly rigid masculine cutting off its own access to the feminine and the terrible costs of that. It’s a mirror of our culture right now — cut off from earth, focused on war, and power-over. Stephan’s cutting off of M’s wings is a metaphorical rape, and her response when she wakens shows all the agony, and later the revenge that such abuse engenders. Slowly, M re-falls in love with her own young, innocent self, and it’s her return to that softness that returns her to life and love, and opens up the world — beginning with Aurora, and shifting to the whole of the queendom. In Jolie’s movie, Sleeping Beauty is not awakened with the fantasy projection-style kiss from a boy, but by a loving, grief-filled acknowledgement of a long-developing relationship in which there has been much wrong and a slowly growing, healing right.
Comments for Review: “Maleficent” Twists Disney’s “Sleeping Beauty” Villain Into Sympathetic Star, Reworking Classic Story With Surprises
Jessica
After reading this I’m thoroughly disppointed in the fact that you keep pointing out that there are major differences to the “original.” This movie is not intended to be a “prequel” to the 1959 ANIMATED Sleeping Beauty. This is intended to be the telling of Maleficent in a live action sequence. It is to be it’s own story. Yes, there are going to be similarities only because it’s derived from the same fairy tale, however this is about Maleficent, not Aurora. They want you to feel sympathetic for her, because as every villain has, she has a back story that tells why she is the way she is. They are bringing it to light to make us understand why she chose the path of being evil. I’m very excited to see this movie and fully do not expect the darkness that you also keep speaking of, because frankly the trailers aren’t that dark either. I also hope they do more movies about villains. Especially ones like the Evil Queen!!
Ricky Brigante
You have basically reiterated what I wrote above. My point in making comparisons to “Sleeping Beauty” was to show exactly what you said – this is its own story.
But there is absolutely no reason comparisons to Disney’s classic film shouldn’t be made. Don’t forget that Maleficent was created FOR the 1959 movie. Yes, the the original fairy tale had a wicked fairy godmother, but she was not Maleficent. This new film uses that iconic name from the Disney movie, so it’s reasonable for fans of that classic film to go in expecting an expanded version of the same character’s story.
It doesn’t matter if it is animated or live action. A film is a film. “Animation” is not a genre but a medium. Maleficent was created in the ’50s as an evil villain, pure and simple. But now Disney has given that character a much, MUCH softer side, which surely is disappointing to those who want to see a villain shine.
Bill Kellenberger
I have to agree with you Ricky, as a fan of Maleficent I was looking forward to seeing an evil Maleficent I don’t mind seeing a softer side of her, but I still expect her to die at the end for cursing Aurora and imprisoning Prince Philip…. However they make the movie I’m still looking forward to seeing it.
Jessica
I will continue to stand by my statement and add this… Hands down one of the BEST movies I’ve seen in a while. And more importantly my husband said, “we all know how big a fan I am of Pirates and this blew if out of the water. Hands down best Disney movie to date.”
Jessica
All villains are going to have a softer side at some point. Showing that in them and especially when the movie is named after the villain you are going to see that softer side. They clearly want you to feel empathy/sympathy for her to be on her “side” in the movie. “Animation” is a genre.
Robert T
Sorry to get off topic, Ricky. But Jessica, Animation is a medium it is not a genre.
Genre – a category of artistic, musical, or literary composition characterized by a particular style, form, or content.
Here are some examples of genres and titles under that genre. I tried my best to stay away from Disney Movies. And not all of them are Family friendly either.
* Western is a genre. (Spirit: Stallion of the Cimarron, The Man from Button Willow)
* Horror is a genre (Wicked City, Dead Space: Downfall)
* Science Fiction\Fantasy is a genre (Heavy Metal, Wizards, The Hobbit)
* Drama is a genre (American Pop, Barefoot Gen, Watership Down)
* Period or historical piece is a genre. (Barefoot Gen, Victorian Romance Emma, Mushishi)
Comedy is a genre, a very broad genre with so many to choose from. But it’s a genre none the less.
Now ANIME is a genre as that is a type or style of animation. But, Animation on a whole is a MEDIUM.
Jessica
From the way this article is presented you aren’t making comparisons to show that it is its own story. It sounds like you are putting the movie down for being too far different but still sharing similarities to the 50’s classic.
Cameron
Not to be harsh, but it’s obvious you don’t really know what you’re talking about, Jessica. Having watched the movie last night, I can tell you that Ricky nailed it with this article. Every point he makes is valid and leads to exactly what he said in his comment reply to you; that it was intended to be it’s own story.
Yes, hardcore villain fans will probably be upset, but overall, it was a good way to show that even villains have a backstory.
P.S. Animation is a medium, not a genre.
William
I actually really enjoyed the film. I went into it expecting more of a “events from a different point of view” type of film and was surprised that it was essentially a retelling of the story. Yes, it had some cheesiness to it and yes, the film flew by but to me it felt like a real version and had the pacing of one of their animated films. I think because the film looks dark, is titled/about a “villain”, and the fact that Maleficent just looks evil, Disney is already fighting an uphill battle to get some families into the theatre to see this. I was pleasantly surprised to see how family friendly “Maleficent” actually was. There will be people that are not happy that its not a darker film, but I enjoyed it. It does have some annoying parts. Aurora has this goofy smile that she sports in almost single scene shes in. You’ll know it when you see it. I also thought that Phillip was kind of dopey. He looked like he belongs in One Direction or something and just felt out of place.
I thought the look of The Moors was fantastic. If they had marketed this more or if by some crazy chance this does really really well, they could easily turn Avatar Land into something Moors related. I think it would be great to run with the forever long idea of turning Animal Kingdom into a dark park at night with Maleficent as the central figure. After seeing this film, it just feels like it would make much more sense and Disney related than Avatar. The film even has an element of trying to protect The Moors from harm and caring for the creatures that live there. Hello, Animal Kingdom ideology?
Gretchen Camp
I had a feeling they would take the route Rob Zombie took when he redid Halloween – try to make a reason for someone to be evil. Just let the villans be evil, that’s most of their appeal after all!
Jeremy K
Ok Ricky, If you had the option would you go IMAX 3d, 3d or just normal movie screen?
Camerin
(Spoilers)
I actually kinda liked the movie and all of it twists. I didnt really expect it would be the exact same events told from a different perspective, but i wished they would’ve added more similarities to the 50’s classic. The true loves kiss had a twist and it sent out a sly message that love at first sight doesnt exist. The only thing i really didnt like about the movie is that they could have emphasized on Aurora’s and Phillip’s relationship more, even though i know this was Maleficient’s movie.
Cammie
(Spoilers)
I actually kinda liked the movie and all of it twists. I didnt really expect it would be the exact same events told from a different perspective, but i wished they would’ve added more similarities to the 50’s classic. The true loves kiss had a twist and it sent out a sly message that love at first sight doesnt exist. The only thing i really didnt like about the movie is that they could have emphasized on Aurora’s and Phillip’s relationship more, even though i know this was Maleficent’s movie.
Xoch
Does malificent die in the end? Does the film have the same ending as the old version
Jade
I have to say, the film was incredible. However I was disappointed that they twisted the end to contradict the ending to the original ‘Sleeping Beauty’. Prince Philip slays the dragon and Maleficent dies. However, **spoiler alert**
They ended it that Maleficent and Aurora live happily ever after in the woods. In my opinion, they should have made sure that this matched the original ending… As a huge Disney fan I was very excited for this film but I did have a feeling they would ruin something… I don’t think they should change an ending to a classic tale just to keep this story alive.
Joce
I can’t wait to see this movie soon! Looking forward to it! 🙂
mark
C’mon, people! This is NOT a just a retelling seen from the another perspective. This is a complete BIZARRO WORLD change. What was good is now bad and what was bad is now good. Sorry, but to revise to this extent is to basically call Walt Disney out; it’s surprising his own company would upend the magic that he created; seems like people with an agenda decided to turn this into feminist claptrap.
Menehune
I loved the movie and everyone is entitled to share their own opinion. I too had the expectation on seeing Maleficent as the villain. Now that the movie is out, I can view both movies in a different perspective. In watching Maleficent you are seeing her side of the story. In watching Sleeping Beauty you are see the story being told by a storyteller, etc. It kind of gives you the feeling (at least for me) that a story has been told and how much has the story changed as it has been passed down from one person to another. It’s up to you whose side of the story you would like to believe or choose like more. That is how I was able to enjoy the movie and not make a comparison.
carolyn
For me the two movies are politically wonderfully distinct. Maleficent is the story of the overly rigid masculine cutting off its own access to the feminine and the terrible costs of that. It’s a mirror of our culture right now — cut off from earth, focused on war, and power-over. Stephan’s cutting off of M’s wings is a metaphorical rape, and her response when she wakens shows all the agony, and later the revenge that such abuse engenders. Slowly, M re-falls in love with her own young, innocent self, and it’s her return to that softness that returns her to life and love, and opens up the world — beginning with Aurora, and shifting to the whole of the queendom. In Jolie’s movie, Sleeping Beauty is not awakened with the fantasy projection-style kiss from a boy, but by a loving, grief-filled acknowledgement of a long-developing relationship in which there has been much wrong and a slowly growing, healing right.
Comments are closed.