Almost five and a half years ago - on May 28, 2014 - the premiere of the first Maleficent took place in Los Angeles. Fantasy with Angelina Jolie and El Fanning in the lead roles did not make a splash (like many Disney production projects of the last decade), but at least it pleasantly surprised professionals and ordinary viewers with a rich visual range, a great acting and an unexpected ending for someone (many lost their vigilance and did not have time to predict who would bestow Aurora with a “kiss of true love”). These wonderful features allowed the tape with a budget of $ 180 to show, again, if not outstanding, then a good result at the box office: more than $ 750 million worldwide. True, a lot of “Malificent” and scolded: in particular, for a weak scenario and not even a feminist - man-hating message.
In 2015, it became known that Maleficent would acquire a sequel, and a year later Disney announced the return of Jolie to the role of a fairy. The material was shot in 2018, and on October 16, 2019, the picture was officially released.
To everyone’s surprise, the film Maleficent: Lady of Darkness turned out to be much worse than her predecessor - despite the fact that the brilliant Michelle Pfeiffer joined the cast of the film, Brenton Thwaites was replaced by the much more convincing Harris Dickinson as all the central actors in good faith. completed their work, and the scriptwriters prepared (this time a really unexpected) plot twist.
Caution spoilers!
In the story, the bewitched Aurora rules the kingdom of the Swamps and does not know grief. But one day, Prince Philip offers her a hand and heart. Aurora, contrary to Maleficent’s wishes, accepts the prince’s offer and, accompanied by her godmother, goes to meet his parents. Unfortunately, Philippe's mother (Pfeiffer) is an evil woman obsessed with the idea of exterminating all the inhabitants of the swamps - including Maleficent. For the rest of the time, the heroine Pfeiffer will methodically go to her goal, and the heroine Jolie will reflect on whether it is right to destroy humanity due to the behavior of one bad queen, or it will be superfluous.
As the author of The Hollywood Reporter Todd McCarthy notes, the sequel turned out to be 21 minutes longer than the first part, and there is no obvious reason for this, either creative or commercial. But the tape seemed to bring together all the possible clichés inherent in works of this kind.
- © Shot from the film “Maleficent: Lady of Darkness” (2019)
“It’s hard to find a modern film that would be even more crammed with time-tested commercial“ elements ”: here is a cute princess, her charming gentleman, and bizarre little elves who scurry around and patronize them, and the aforementioned calculating queen, and and finally, a servant ready to serve those who stand above her, or to arrange a holiday at the click of a finger, ”McCarthy believes.
Stamps, according to critics, are not the only thing in abundance in the picture. Interestingly, this time the reviewers did not like the attention of filmmakers to detail in principle: supposedly in this way the imagination of the artists does not allow the imagination of the audience to roam.
“The impression is that a small army of artists from the auxiliary staff of the film crew approached the creation of every magic butterfly and every eyelet on clothes with such care that it leaves us no opportunity for imagination. Then all that remains is to smear the frantically overloaded soundtrack of Jeff Zanelli over all this and get a picture that produces a depressing impression, ”summarizes Peter Debrews from Variety.
"Malificent" and before something reminiscent of Cameron "Avatar." However, in the sequel, the parallels became much more obvious: the similarities between Pandora and the fairies' secret hideout, in which Jolie finds herself, were probably noticed by most viewers who watched both films. Reviewers did not fail to mention this.
“She meets dark fairies - this is such a community of outcasts, with its whole atmosphere clearly resembling James Cameron's Avatar,” recounts the plot to The Independent film critic Clariss Lockrey.
Peter Bradshaw of The Guardian, like his other colleagues, noticed in the new Maleficent the resemblance to Marvel's projects. But it lies, obviously, no longer in the visual component, but in the dynamics of the narrative.
“The main trouble of the film is that it, as if under the influence of some kind of narrative entropy, gradually disintegrates, advancing to the final battle. In this, it is like many parts of the Marvel Cinema Universe, ”explains Bradshaw.
- © Shot from the film “Maleficent: Lady of Darkness” (2019)
According to him, in this regard, Maleficent will disappoint the viewer - despite the fact that both Jolie and Fanning sincerely tried to extend it.
The attempts of the actresses were unsuccessful for one simple reason: Clarisse Locrie rightly notes that the development of the characters was sacrificed in the name of overly diligent construction of the image of the world in which they live, as well as a bloated battle scene with a heap of computer graphics.
“In the end, the talents of Pfeiffer and Jolie were wasted,” the critic laments. “The first Maleficent may be a witty and original rethinking of the battered plot, but its sequel is more like some kind of frivolous fantasy.”
The author of the Bloody-disgusting web portal, William Bibbiani, has the opposite opinion about the merits of the first Maleficent, but confirms that the second part is much weaker.
“The film didn’t come out of the first part of Maleficent, but at least she is supposed to get extra points for her courage. But the sequel, called "Maleficent: The Lady of Darkness", would not hurt to send for revision. This film is absurd in the scenario plan, emotionally insincere, and with Angelina Jolie, who is always magnificent, he doesn’t seem to know what to do, ”Bibbiani emphasized.
At the time of publication of the article, the rating of the sequel to Rotten Tomatoes was almost equal to the rating of the original film (50% and 53% freshness, respectively). But, probably, these figures should not be fully trusted: the aggregator considered some predominantly negative reviews as positive.