![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
drwexThe second Malificent movie does a good job of filling out the world story and letting Angelia Jolie show her range and chops. Michelle Pfieffer struggles against an incoherently written part but she's good at what she does. Generally, if you liked the first one you'll like this one and should see it. Starting with this one might be harder. (3/5 stars for getting the job done with nothing truly great.)
Spoilers below for both this and the first movie.
Sequels come in a variety of forms. There are sequels that are basically "more of the same" with some serial numbers filed off - these mostly appear to be trying to milk the audience's love of the original, and add nothing. Other sequels take the property and go in new directions, almost like a new story set in the same universe. Then there are sequels, like this one, that flesh out the world and try to answer "and then what happens".
In the first movie, Malificent simply _was_. The story revolved around exploring her as a multi-dimensional character, not simply a cut-out figure of evil. It was, essentially, a classic fairy tale told from a different point of view, with an unexpected angle. Fairy tales often end with the generic "and then they lived happily ever after," all conflict and tension resolved.
In M:MoE we see that not all tensions have been resolved. "Beastie" (Elle Fanning's Aurora) is still a human put in charge of a fairy kingdom adjacent to a suspicious and hostile human kingdom. And she's going to marry its prince, which by all rights ought to unite the two, except that the Queen (Pfeiffer) doesn't want them to. Because... Reasons.
This is the movie's weakest point. Queen Ingrith is a villainy villain, full of treachery and nasty murderous plots. The movie is PG, so we can't just say "she's a racist bitch" and be done with it. Instead, the movie gives us a mish-mash of justifications. It's to protect her kingdom. It's for her son. It's because she blames fairies for her brother's death. It's to take over the vacant throne that Aurora has abandoned and build her empire. Pfeiffer does her level best with what she's given but when you flat-out show someone engaging in genocide you really owe some level of coherent explanation to the audience.
The plus side of the film largely belongs to Jolie, whose character goes through a series of emotionally impactful events. She doesn't so much mature through the film as become more nuanced. When the movie suddenly drops in "oh, and here's an origin story we didn't even vaguely hint at for 1.5 films" ... well, I kind of half-raised one eyebrow, but rolled with it.
That is made easier by Chiwetel Ejiofor, who (as Conall), delivers the necessary exposition and then personal heroics to drive the story forward. He's intense and charismatic and the script nicely sets up his moment of self-sacrifice to cue Malificent to what she later has to do.
Finally, a nod to Elle Fanning for continuing the recent tradition of self-rescuing princesses. At least twice I expected some man to pop up and save her, but no she just makes do with what she's got.
I still think Disney controls too much of our entertainment lives and that they could ruin a wet dream. Fortunately, they seem not to have done that here.
Spoilers below for both this and the first movie.
Sequels come in a variety of forms. There are sequels that are basically "more of the same" with some serial numbers filed off - these mostly appear to be trying to milk the audience's love of the original, and add nothing. Other sequels take the property and go in new directions, almost like a new story set in the same universe. Then there are sequels, like this one, that flesh out the world and try to answer "and then what happens".
In the first movie, Malificent simply _was_. The story revolved around exploring her as a multi-dimensional character, not simply a cut-out figure of evil. It was, essentially, a classic fairy tale told from a different point of view, with an unexpected angle. Fairy tales often end with the generic "and then they lived happily ever after," all conflict and tension resolved.
In M:MoE we see that not all tensions have been resolved. "Beastie" (Elle Fanning's Aurora) is still a human put in charge of a fairy kingdom adjacent to a suspicious and hostile human kingdom. And she's going to marry its prince, which by all rights ought to unite the two, except that the Queen (Pfeiffer) doesn't want them to. Because... Reasons.
This is the movie's weakest point. Queen Ingrith is a villainy villain, full of treachery and nasty murderous plots. The movie is PG, so we can't just say "she's a racist bitch" and be done with it. Instead, the movie gives us a mish-mash of justifications. It's to protect her kingdom. It's for her son. It's because she blames fairies for her brother's death. It's to take over the vacant throne that Aurora has abandoned and build her empire. Pfeiffer does her level best with what she's given but when you flat-out show someone engaging in genocide you really owe some level of coherent explanation to the audience.
The plus side of the film largely belongs to Jolie, whose character goes through a series of emotionally impactful events. She doesn't so much mature through the film as become more nuanced. When the movie suddenly drops in "oh, and here's an origin story we didn't even vaguely hint at for 1.5 films" ... well, I kind of half-raised one eyebrow, but rolled with it.
That is made easier by Chiwetel Ejiofor, who (as Conall), delivers the necessary exposition and then personal heroics to drive the story forward. He's intense and charismatic and the script nicely sets up his moment of self-sacrifice to cue Malificent to what she later has to do.
Finally, a nod to Elle Fanning for continuing the recent tradition of self-rescuing princesses. At least twice I expected some man to pop up and save her, but no she just makes do with what she's got.
I still think Disney controls too much of our entertainment lives and that they could ruin a wet dream. Fortunately, they seem not to have done that here.
no subject
Date: 2019-10-23 02:49 pm (UTC)I'm such a fan of Ejiofor.
no subject
Date: 2019-10-23 02:52 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2019-10-23 04:29 pm (UTC)I don't see why, honestly. PG movies are great for having characters that are mean just because they're mean. So are folktales.
no subject
Date: 2019-10-23 05:24 pm (UTC)It's pretty obviously a role-swap in that the evil-named person, who dresses all in black, is actually pretty good (if temperamental) whereas the queen in white is the actually evil one.
no subject
Date: 2019-10-23 05:26 pm (UTC)Ah. That is annoying. I hate when stories don't trust their audiences.
no subject
Date: 2019-10-31 06:28 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2019-11-03 12:15 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2019-11-03 03:49 pm (UTC)