A Review Of Maleficent By Ashley Wyman

The 2014 motion picture film Maleficent has been widely praised, as well as harshly critiqued, in Ashley Wyman’s article, Maleficent (2014). Maleficent was seen as “…the most evil Disney villain for over 50 years…” until this movie appeared, reducing a villain to a woman who acted out of revenge (weebly.com). Even though the actors portrayed their characters very well, the original storyline and purpose of showing the backstory of a villain was lost in poor visual effects, new driving forces, and twisted morals.

I agree with many of the critiques that the author has mentioned, but specifically the contradicting storyline, and the maternal relationship between Maleficent and Aurora. The film has a very contradicting storyline, especially since it is based off the original film, Sleeping Beauty. When the author is explaining this, she goes into great detail about Maleficent’s magic and what she is capable of. Her magic astounds the audience in the original film, yet in the 2014 film,

Her powers were clearly left undefined… In Sleeping Beauty, she could transport herself to another place in a matter of seconds, shoot lightning from her staff, and transform into another form other than her own, a dragon for instance.

But she didn’t do any of that in this movie… (weebly.com).

Maleficent and Aurora also have a unique relationship that is different from anything that Disney has done before. Maleficent’s maternal impulses towards Aurora strengthen as the movie progresses. The audience doesn’t fully comprehend this until the end of the movie, where Maleficent saves Aurora with true love’s kiss. Their relationship differs completely from what Disney has done in the past, “which replaces the age old solution of a man being the one delivering the kiss of true love…”

(weebly.com).

Apart from the many critiques that I agree with, I disagree with the author’s claims of ineffective visual effects and CGI garbage. Even though the author argues that simple camera shots signify a lack of creative filmmaking, I completely disagree, seeing that the director incorporates many different angles and shots that give the film detail and perspective (weebly.com). For example, at the end of the movie, Aurora is crowned Queen of the Moors and takes the hand of one of the tree warriors. During this moment, the camera is filming from higher up, giving the audience a sense of how tall the tree warriors actually are. The author also argues that many CGI action scenes were very unconvincing, and that Disney wasted an opportunity to further enhance their animation (weebly.com). I disagree with this factor, especially because a great amount of detail was shown in these scenes that captured the audience’s full attention. While the action scenes were kept short and sweet, the detail was phenomenal – the large, burly tree warriors charging the human army on giant warthogs; large number of men in the king’s army that seems small against Maleficent’s army; and the enormous woodland snake-like creature that tore up the ground while defending the Moors.