A Visually Stunning but Script-Wise Weak and Half-Baked Reimagining of “Sleeping Beauty”

In the realm of magical creatures, a young fairy named Maleficent befriends a boy named Stefan from the neighboring human kingdom. Years pass, and their friendship blossoms into love. However, after more years, the grown-up Stefan (Sharlto Copley) betrays Maleficent (Angelina Jolie). He drugs her, cuts off her wings, and presents them to his king to prove he has slain the most powerful fairy who prevents humans from conquering the magical lands. In gratitude for this “feat,” the king, gravely wounded in battle with Maleficent, makes Stefan his successor. Upon learning this, the offended and humiliated fairy plots revenge. On the christening day of Princess Aurora, Stefan’s newborn daughter, Maleficent appears at the castle and places an unbreakable curse on the baby, set to come true on Aurora’s 16th birthday…

According to “Maleficent” producer Joe Roth, they wouldn’t have made the film if Angelina Jolie had refused to play the title role.

“Sleeping Beauty” holds a peculiar place in the Disney canon. On one hand, the 1959 film is considered one of the most beautiful and expressively animated classic Western cartoons, and American girls adore dressing up in Aurora’s simple yet elegant princess dresses. On the other hand, this fairy tale, while classic, has a clumsy and primitive plot by 20th-century standards, and the titular heroine still holds the record for the least amount of time a formal protagonist spends on screen (being the “sleeping beauty,” Aurora is quickly removed from the action).

The legendary Rick Baker, a seven-time Oscar winner in his category, was responsible for Maleficent’s prosthetic makeup.

Therefore, when it was announced that Linda Woolverton, the screenwriter of “Beauty and the Beast” and the recent “Alice in Wonderland,” had rewritten the tale for Disney in a more woman-respectful way, it didn’t seem sacrilegious. It’s one thing to reinterpret a masterpiece, and another to refine “Beauty,” which didn’t fare too well at the box office and nearly buried Disney Studios. So why not try to look at this story from Maleficent’s point of view – the fairy who, in the original, appears as a literal spawn of hell?

Now, however, it’s abundantly clear that this was a bad idea. Perhaps another screenwriter could have improved “Beauty,” but Woolverton worsened it. And significantly so. The dramaturgically clumsy but internally logical fairy tale in her hands has turned into a collection of absurd inconsistencies.

Take, for example, the curse that causes all the fuss. What does a powerful, offended woman do? She retaliates quickly and against the offender. But what does Maleficent do? She devises a spell that strikes the newborn girl with a 16-year delay. This is not the act of an offended woman, but of a malicious sociopath, for whom the offense is merely an excuse to unleash anger and display sadism. The classic Maleficent was exactly like that, but the new Maleficent is completely different! She is kind, caring, and gentle. Can you imagine the Bride in “Kill Bill” attacking Viper’s daughter? But Jolie’s Maleficent is not a hired killer, but a virtuous fairy. Such a heroine could have crippled Stefan (legs for wings – “an eye for an eye”). But curse his daughter? Never.

The newly minted king, however, behaves even more absurdly. Where would you hide a little girl from a forest fairy who cannot touch steel? Obviously, in the steel tower of the royal castle, closer to the guards in armor and further from the forest creatures. Stefan, on the other hand, sends the little girl to live in the forest (!) with her fairy godmothers (!!!), who are formally Maleficent’s subjects. Even if they are the fairy “fifth column,” firmly standing on the side of the humans who are trying to conquer their country, Stefan is clearly not that trusting. Moreover, Woolverton’s fairy godmothers are powerless and useless, and the king has no reason to believe that they can hide the girl from Maleficent or take care of her.

And so on, and so forth. One could write a treatise on the blunders of “Maleficent.” And every time, it’s clear where these blunders come from – the screenwriter tries to preserve as many events from the cartoon as possible and give them new meaning. And she fails time and time again, because “Sleeping Beauty” is a children’s tale, and the meaning is on the surface, and another meaning does not combine with these events. Woolverton might as well be making beef stroganoff out of potatoes and a frying pan.

What Else Is Wrong with the Film?

It’s easier to say what’s good about it. Robert Stromberg is a two-time Oscar winner for art direction (“Avatar” and “Alice in Wonderland”), and “Maleficent” turned out stylish and beautiful, with many spectacular shots. Jolie is also magnificent in the title role – as much as possible within the framework of a weak script. She, as they say, was born to play the sinister fairy with black horns and a golden heart, and some of her scenes alone almost pay for the cost of tickets.

On the other hand, Elle Fanning doesn’t quite cut it as “beauty” (Kristen Stewart had far more reason to be invited to play Snow White), and Sharlto Copley appears as a pathetic villain, unworthy of Maleficent’s love and hatred. In general, of all the men in the film, only Sam Riley from “Control” seems to be in his place. But his character – a raven-werewolf serving Maleficent – spends almost the entire film in animal form, and his performance cannot save the film. As, however, it cannot ruin it – Woolverton coped with this task without outside help.