Since the release of Tim Burton’s “Alice in Wonderland” in 2010, Disney has pursued a trend of reimagining its classic films for modern audiences. In 2014, the studio released “Maleficent,” a remake of “Sleeping Beauty” which takes the classic tale and puts a spin on it by telling it from the eponymous villain’s perspective. With a sequel, known as “Maleficent: Mistress of Evil,” later being announced, the first thing that came to mind was the “Wonderland” sequel, “Alice Through the Looking Glass,” a film which proved to be woefully unnecessary and messily written. Like this film, “Mistress of Evil” ultimately turned out the same way and did little to plead a case for its own existence.
The film depicts the dark fairy Maleficent (Angelina Jolie, “Kung Fu Panda 3”) as she prepares for a war between humans and fairies waged by the wicked Queen Ingrith (Michelle Pfeiffer, “Ant-Man and the Wasp”). Characters returning to the film include Maleficent’s adoptive daughter, Princess Aurora (Elle Fanning, “A Rainy Day in New York”) and the raven-turned-human, Diaval (Sam Riley, “Pride and Prejudice and Zombies”).
Some of the new faces in the film, primarily Pfeiffer and Harris Dickinson (“The Darkest Minds”), taking over for Brenton Thwaites (“Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales”) as Prince Phillip, fail to impress with their uninspired acting, with Dickinson specifically coming off as wooden and emotionless. Even Jolie herself feels absent in the film, while her character is only minimally altered or improved since the first film. A minor brightspot among the film’s characters is Conall (Chiwetel Ejiofor, “The Lion King”), a mentor to Maleficent who slightly elevates the film by creating mildly emotional and meaningful moments.
Like “Alice Through the Looking Glass,” “Mistress of Evil” has the disadvantage of following a film which was based off of another work. As such, there is little left to cover in a second film, for the story is essentially concluded by the end of the first film, thus rendering a sequel to be unnecessary. As a consequence of this notion, the film simply suffers from a lack of substance, thus resulting in a generic, unmemorable story to be the final product. Despite the efforts of the cast and crew involved, the film felt dead on arrival, though it contained small elements which displayed glimmers of imagination.
Though it possesses little in terms of story, the film still triumphs in terms of its special effects and imagery. Like the rest of the Disney remakes, the film impresses with its display of CGI imagery which allows for beautiful, imaginative scenery and characters to be presented to audiences. For some, the film may also invoke certain feelings of nostalgia for those who grew up on Disney films, with its fairy tale exterior and themes of magic being somewhat reminiscent of them.
Though it may not be the best example of how the Mouse House may successfully execute a remake, “Maleficent: Mistress of Evil” certainly raises the question of how good of an idea it is to be creating sequels for its remakes. With films such as “The Jungle Book” already having been greenlit for another installment, one can only wonder how far the studio will go until a fatigue from these sequels eventually sets in.
Image via Walt Disney Studios via YouTube
