“Maleficent: Mistress Of Evil” Non-Spoiler Review!

The eagerly-anticipated sequel to 2014’s blockbuster Maleficent has a slow-paced, sluggish story that rarely, if ever, matches the splendor of beautiful visuals bursting in rainbow hues on the screen. Having strayed so far from the original fairytale that the occasional name-drops of “Sleeping Beauty” are actually jarring, Maleficent: Mistress Of Evil lacks a clear narrative purpose, but makes up for that with stunning beauty, fabulous world building, and the power of Angelina Jolie’s knife-edged cheekbones.

"Maleficent: Mistress Of Evil" Non-Spoiler Review! 1
traileraddict.com

Never underestimate Jolie’s ability to carry a scene, or even an entire movie, with the sheer force of her presence alone. She commands any scene she walks (or flies) into, and her physicality conveys the depths of her emotions far better than any of the rather poorly-written dialogue she is given. She’s still not really the Maleficent that most Disney fans are familiar with, and she’s never likely to be, except in those behind the scenes photos and videos that somehow give off more classic Mal vibes than anything in the actual movie: but what we get from Jolie is just as good – a raven-dark persona with a heart of gold, wielding height, severity, and an impressive wardrobe. In short, she’s the witch-mood, without actually being a witch. Jolie is only rarely able to make much use of the CGI wings her character is burdened with, but does achieve some form of composure when she’s in flight or descending with the force of a small helicopter (on the other hand, her “hovering” scenes leave much to be desired). Nonetheless, she’s still able to do more with them than her co-star Chiwetel Ejiofor, who fights a losing battle with the wings of his troubled Dark Fae character, Conall, for most of the movie. While it’s Conall who carries Maleficent to safety early in the film’s run-time, it’s Maleficent who returns the favor and carries the entire movie in her clawed grip, though she has so little competition until Michelle Pfeiffer’s Ingrith heats up the forges of war, that it’s hardly a surprise.

In the first half of the movie (the weaker half), the script leans heavily on the “romance” between Elle Fanning’s Aurora and Prince Phillip of Ulsted (Harris Dickinson), two of the most boring and frustratingly naive people to ever step foot in a Disney movie. Fanning has her moments, but the role is so underwritten in this movie that she doesn’t get much time to do anything in particular: almost at once, she is forced to neglect her only duties as Queen of the Moors when Phillip proposes to her, and so we never get to see her develop a close relationship with her subjects – as the leader of an entire nation, she fails spectacularly, attempting to have peace for peace’s sake, without considering any of the subtleties involved with aligning oneself with a foreign and possibly hostile power. As for Phillip, he shows up every so often in a loose-fitting shirt to stare dreamily into the camera, as Disney princes so often do: his only concern in the movie is Aurora’s safety, and he too is thwarted so many times, and so dramatically, that he’s an almost laughably pathetic addition to the cast. There is no chemistry whatsoever between the two, who spend almost every scene together talking wistfully about fairy politics – hardly romantic material.

Then, Ingrith gracefully steps onscreen, haughty, cool, calculating and formidable in a pair of diamond-encrusted high heels and a pearlescent gown, and for one brief, shining moment in the faux Camelot constructed for the film, the violent, power-hungry Queen appears to be one of Disney’s best villains in recent history. She handles a loaded crossbow with ease and assurance, goes through extensive costume-changes that showcase her wealth and luxury, keeps a collection of creepy mannequins, and is accompanied by a black cat: a more classic formula for a villain could not be imagined. But it’s the execution of Ingrith’s power-play that causes things to fall apart: while the heartless queen (speaking of heartless, I give it a couple of years before Ingrith shows up in a new iteration of the Kingdom Hearts Disney video game franchise) should have been an easy parallel to the caring mother that is Maleficent, the movie largely misses the mark with Ingrith, never quite using her (admittedly vicious) ambition to the full potential, never quite exploring the depths of her hatred for fairy-kind. She nearly gets there! She has a striking visual style, looking for all the world like the White Queen off a chess-board of death, and an intricate plan to establish total control of the fairy realm. She is certainly an active character, driving much of the plot, and she’s not afraid to get her hands dirty with the blood (or magical dust) of innocents – and yet the film establishes her as so aloof, so high and mighty, that she never actually seems involved in the action she’s causing: not until she’s threatened, and in a place of weakness: and, well, who wants that? She could have made for an incredibly fun villain, one operating from the topmost pinnacle of the impossible heights of her CGI cathedral – but to achieve that, she would need effective servants, loyal to her cause. And the only one who fits the bill is her henchwoman Gerda (Jenn Murray), who is in absentia during the third act due to a sudden fit of musical ecstasy that sees her transform into a crazed, sadistic prodigy of Mozart. The scene in which this happens is one of the most memorable in the entire film, just for the absolute craziness of the scenario, but it does rather undermine Ingrith’s own control over the hearts of her servants (the rest of whom might betray her at the drop of a hat).

"Maleficent: Mistress Of Evil" Non-Spoiler Review! 2
comingsoon.net

But craziness is what keeps Mistress Of Evil aloft for as long as it does, right up until a predictably average ending. Whether we’re watching Gerda tickle the ivories and take down waves of innocent fairies (there’s a surprising amount of death in this movie!), or witnessing the rituals of the Dark Fae with their vast, multi-colored wings and distinctly unique cultures, there’s always something to look at – occasionally so many things at once, such as when Maleficent first soars through the realm of the Dark Fae – that it’s hard for one’s eyes to focus, there’s just so much. In terms of visual spectacle, the film outdoes itself time and time again, culminating in a final battle that is actually surprisingly engaging and emotional, and sees humanity pitted against the Dark Fae in a war for peace.

There’s a lot of stuff going on in Mistress Of Evil, and thus a lot of themes and messages that the story tries to get across, with varying degrees of success. One line of dialogue delivered at the end of the movie attempts to sum everything up by saying that “we’re not defined by where we’re from, but by whom we love”. But in my opinion, no dialogue from the imaginations of scriptwriters Linda Woolverton, Noah Harpster and Micah Fitzerman-Blue can achieve what is already being said countless times throughout the movie, without a single word spoken: that the entire story is focused on the mother/daughter relationship between Maleficent and Aurora. War rages around them, and this time between them, they are parted and reunited, but they endure. And the vividness with which their relationship is realized is a stark contrast to the flimsy connection between Ingrith and her son, which is nothing more than a shapeless concept that goes nowhere: as I previously noted, there was plenty of potential for a parallel there, but the film loses its one and only chance to demonstrate this parallel by not having Ingrith ever try to kill her son or even hinder his actions very effectively, despite how many chances she gets, and how much motivation she would have for doing so: yet it seems like such an obvious choice, in light of what else happens in the movie, that I can’t imagine that it was never discussed.

"Maleficent: Mistress Of Evil" Non-Spoiler Review! 3
popzara.com

One of the most interesting elements of the entire Maleficent franchise is its focus on femininity, and a different kind of strong female character than is usually seen in modern film: the three women at the heart of Mistress Of Evil are diplomats and politicians rather than warriors – even Ingrith, unabashedly a warmonger, only bears arms under dire circumstances; for most of the film, she exercises her power either from behind or atop a throne. Maleficent, meanwhile, moves in the shadows, preferring wars of wit to open conflict: and as for Aurora, she is sunny, optimistic and gentle, ruling with kindness and tender compassion. Yet all three are rightly considered powerful forces in the world they inhabit, as queens and unchallenged guardians of their respective plots of land. And there is one female character (no spoilers!), who has only a small role throughout the film, but a critical part to play in the third act: the culmination of her arc has a ripped-from-the-headlines quality that is at once startling, heartbreaking, and thought-provoking.

With so much progressive, forward-thinking messaging going on, there is one notable instance that stands out to me as either a bad – and unintentional – decision on the filmmakers’ part, or a conscious decision with a third film in mind (a third film that will only happen if Mistress Of Evil takes off at the box-office): and that decision is putting humans in control of fairies. It screams of colonialism every time it gets brought up, and the film outright denounces it, but never actually does anything about it when it’s Aurora, our heroine, doing it. Queen Ingrith has a point when she tells Aurora that there’s more to ruling a kingdom than running around barefoot with flowers in one’s hair – but, well, Ingrith is evil, so obviously Aurora doesn’t actually heed her warning or do anything to remedy the glaring problem. She’s simply not a very effective queen, and she spends probably ten minutes (at most) with her own people – but we’re supposed to trust that she’s the best person for the job because…she left the fairies in the lurch while she went off to plan her wedding? She angered Maleficent and caused her to leave the moors unguarded against human threats? She did basically nothing for the rest of the film? The film never adequately explains why a human should be allowed to rule fairy affairs, and the open hostility from the Dark Fae makes one wonder if everything will really be fine and dandy after Aurora’s marriage to Phillip firmly establishes that more, not less, human interference is on the horizon.

"Maleficent: Mistress Of Evil" Non-Spoiler Review! 4
forbes.com

However, unlike some films, Maleficent: Mistress Of Evil successfully stands on its own, requiring no previous knowledge of the franchise to follow along with its plot and leaving no cliff-hangers or unresolved storylines to torment the viewer afterwards – all in all, this movie is not what I would call necessary viewing, but it is fun, beautiful and spectacular. And it has got Angelina Jolie and Michelle Pfeiffer together onscreen, which is itself worth the price of admission.

Movie Rating: 5.0/10

“Ms. Marvel” Moves Into Pre-Production!

Disney+, the streaming service to end all streaming wars, is only a few weeks from release at this point, and new content is being announced almost daily, from classic films to original miniseries and made-for-TV movies. Unsurprisingly, Marvel Studios has a slew of upcoming projects slated to release on their parent company’s platform regularly throughout the next few years: but, according to new reports, we can expect one of them a lot sooner than previously anticipated.

Ms. Marvel, a recently announced Disney+ miniseries about Marvel’s first Muslim superhero (a teenage girl named Kamala Khan, capable of shape-shifting), has just been drastically fast-tracked, with production now set to begin in April of next year, rather than late fall, as was previously reported. Showrunner Bisha K. Ali and her team are apparently still on the lookout for an actress to play the lead role, but sources suggest that an announcement on that front could come fairly soon.

But while we don’t yet know who’s in talks to play Khan herself, we do have an idea of who could be portraying some of her supporting cast: and both the names in discussion as well as the characters they’re rumored to be playing are…well, surprising to say the least.

So, the thing is, the character of Kamala Khan doesn’t get her unusual powers in the same way that a lot of Marvel heroes have: her origin story doesn’t involve absorbing Tesseract energy from a plane crash or lifting a magical hammer. When she enters the MCU, Khan will become one of the few heroes who was actually born with her superpowers – but don’t jump to conclusions: Khan isn’t a mutant. In fact, she’s an Inhuman, a race of supernaturally enhanced human beings who you’ll probably remember from Agents Of S.H.I.E.L.D. as the group that heroine Daisy Johnson belongs to – the Marvel TV team attempted to craft an Inhumans spinoff series back in 2017, but the show was a flop with audiences and critics, and ended after just one season. But now, with the Marvel TV division officially answering to Kevin Feige, there’s absolutely nothing stopping Feige from using the Inhumans if he chooses – and, apparently, he’s already made up his mind.

The Inhumans will supposedly be recast and will join the MCU proper through the Ms. Marvel series, de-canonizing the failed TV series once and for all. We’ve known for some time that Marvel TV is coming to an end, but this is a final nail in the coffin for the television mini-empire that Jeph Loeb tried to create. Now, few people are probably going to have a problem with the recasting of the Inhumans, since few people liked the casting to begin with, and even fewer actually watched the show – but how would you feel if the MCU chose to recast other characters; for instance, Daisy Johnson, herself a notable Inhuman who could conceivably appear in Ms. Marvel? I know many people are happy, even ecstatic, about the merger between Marvel and Marvel TV, but there are many fans of the TV division who don’t want to see their favorite shows get wiped out of existence, seven seasons of story completely unwritten, characters we’ve grown attached to revamped with new actors and new personalities – you can probably guess that I’m talking about Agents Of S.H.I.E.L.D. here. Thankfully, there are rumors going around that some of the more popular characters won’t be recast, and will be preserved, as much as is possible, during their transition into the MCU – but who counts as a popular character?

Well, not the Inhumans, clearly. Marvel is currently looking for actors to play the royal family of Attilan, with Vin Diesel and Aaron Taylor-Johnson both in talks: both men have roles in the MCU already – Diesel as the voice of Groot, and Taylor-Johnson as Quicksilver, who perished in Avengers: Age Of Ultron. Diesel is probably the more intriguing of the two; while he’s only had a voice role up until now, the character he’s set to play, the Black Bolt, wouldn’t have much occasion to speak at all – since the slightest whisper of his voice has the power to level cities and cause catastrophic ruin. Maybe that’s why Marvel doesn’t have a problem with Diesel filling the role, since general audience members wouldn’t see any connection between the two characters. Taylor-Johnson, on the other hand, is supposedly going to portray Maximus the Mad, the Black Bolt’s villainous brother.

"Ms. Marvel" Moves Into Pre-Production! 5
denofgeek.com

So what do you think of the news that the Inhumans could be rebooted in the MCU, with different actors? What are your opinions on the future of Marvel TV? Share your thoughts in the comments below!

“Bombshell” Trailer Review!

Nicole Kidman, Charlize Theron and Margot Robbie are on fire in the new trailer for Bombshell, which recounts the explosive birth of the MeToo movement out of the wreckage of FOX News founder Roger Ailes’s downfall. And for Kidman and Theron at least, Bombshell could land them some well-deserved Oscar nominations.

The film tackles a difficult subject, with Kidman taking on the role of Gretchen Carlson, the controversial FOX News host who first spoke out about Ailes’ history of sexual harassment – Carlson herself recently revealed that, due to the terms of her settlement with Ailes, she is unable to say much about the upcoming film; but that she thinks it’s “amazing” that projects such as this and the Showtime series The Loudest Voice are continuing the conversation that started in July of 2016 (it’s worth noting that women have been speaking up about these issues long before Carlson, but for whatever reason it was her revelation that sparked a sudden furor in society): but let’s not forget that Carlson has herself made sexist, transphobic, and blatantly racist remarks in the past – and even though she says she doesn’t watch FOX anymore, it’s hard to say whether those were her own opinions or Ailes’. Meanwhile, Charlize Theron is Megyn Kelly, an even more controversial character; Kelly, who came forward with allegations against Ailes not long after Carlson and got into a very public fight with then-Presidential candidate Donald Trump, is not a swell person either – during her time on FOX, she was a divisive and negative influence, and was forced to step down from her brief stint at NBC News after multiple incidents, such as defending racist Halloween costumes and encouraging body-shaming. So any attempt to portray either woman as heroines is inevitably going to court controversy – which may be why Bombshell has invented a third character, a third victim of Ailes’ unwanted advances, this one an entirely fictional young producer named Kayla Pospisil, played by Margot Robbie. While she’s not as prominent in the trailer, I feel certain the movie will make her out to be the emotional core of the complex story.

Regardless, the trailer is stirring and powerful, accompanied by a great song choice (Billie Eilish’s “Bad Guy”) and intentionally walking the line between biting satire and intense drama: there are unsubtle parodies of all of FOX’s most notorious hosts and contributors walking the hallways of this newsroom, including Sean Hannity, Jeanine Pirro and, for whatever reason, Rudy Giuliani. And, of course, there’s Kate McKinnon to provide some of her classic wise-cracks – plus, there’s a brief appearance from D’arcy Carden of The Good Place, who is also a fantastic comedian.

So what do you think of the trailer? Is Bombshell going to be a hard sell with audiences and critics alike, or is it going to earn one of its three leads a Best Actress nomination – or a win? Share your thoughts in the comments below!

Trailer Rating: 9/10

“The Lord Of The Rings” Casts Maxim Baldry!

Last night, we learned that Amazon Prime’s The Lord Of The Rings has added one new actor to its steadily growing cast: the secretive streaming series is a slow burn, and Tolkien fans are beginning to get impatient with the unpredictable trickle of news – or, at least, I am. So far, we’ve got three actors (none of whom have actually been confirmed by Amazon Prime), a filming location and date, a general idea of setting, and a long list of behind-the-scenes crew, including directors, writers, costume designers, consultants, etc. But as for the story that’s going to be told, there are only vague hints and guesses; and, most frustratingly, we still have no actual title – not even a working title – for the series.

The newest member of the cast is supposedly Maxim Baldry, a young English actor best known for his role in the HBO semi-dystopian epic Years And Years. Baldry has also landed a role in the next season of Dr. Who. So he’s not a complete unknown, as first castmember Markella Kavenagh was, but he’s also not a big-name like Will Poulter (and, let’s be frank, Poulter isn’t really a big-name). We don’t have any idea who Baldry is playing, though the original article states his role will be “significant” – that could honestly be anybody, but let’s take a guess as to which Tolkien character he could be portraying on the big screen.

"The Lord Of The Rings" Casts Maxim Baldry! 6
wyldemag.com

Baldry has facial features that immediately scream elf: defined cheekbones, luscious locks, even pointy ears. Based off the clips I could find of him in interviews and onscreen, he is soft-spoken, with a very distinct English accent. There are several Elven characters (that we know of) who he could be playing – Celebrimbor, the craftsman who designed the Rings of Power, is one of my favorite suggestions: Baldry looks like he could bring a sensitivity and coolness to the role. Readers of the books will know that Celebrimbor was an ill-fated but well-intentioned leader who was deceived by the Dark Lord, Sauron.

But that got me thinking: what if – and hear me out – what if Baldry is playing Sauron? Fans of Peter Jackson’s iconic trilogy only know Sauron as an armored giant or a massive floating eyeball, but Tolkien’s novels and unpublished writings lay out a great deal of backstory for the character, who isn’t quite the clear-cut “evil bad guy” that Tolkien’s detractors seem to think he is: in the Second Age, when this series takes place, Sauron is disguised under another name, that of Annatar, and another guise; that of a handsome, charismatic Elven lord. He seduced the Elves to their destruction, tempting them with gifts and good advice: he became a close confidante of Celebrimbor’s, and helped him to forge the Great Rings, before stealing the secrets of the Elf’s craft and designing his own ring, the One Ring. And though he quickly turned to evil to achieve his goals, Sauron did at least try, for a time, to put on a semblance of good intention, and in fact intended to reform Middle-earth and create there a paradise fit to rival the dwelling-place of the Gods: long story short, Tolkien’s Elves originally lived in a beautiful land called Valinor, from which they were mostly banished to Middle-earth by the gods, after a really nasty incident involving a whole bunch of bloodshed and death; then, after the end of the First Age, those Elves were offered the opportunity to repent for their crimes and return to Valinor, or stay in Middle-earth, as outcasts. Those who stayed were obviously not too pleased with the gods, which is why Annatar’s promises were so appealing – he played on their greed and their desire for vengeance, and offered them the chance of a lifetime. Baldry has that endearing charm that one would expect from Annatar/Sauron – not to mention the ability to plausibly pass as an Elf.

Then again, he could be someone entirely different. We have no idea, and we’re not likely to find out for some time yet. So, while we wait, leave your own thoughts, theories and opinions below!