‘Maleficent’ is an imperfect retelling

Maleficent (Angela Jolie) is portrayed in a different light in this film. (Photo courtesy of Disney)

I went into Disney’s “Maleficent” with mixed emotions.

On the one hand, I thought this was an ingenious idea to focus on the villain of a classic. If this film succeeds, there could be a whole new series: Ursula, Cruella, Hook, and Jafar, just to name a few.

On the other hand, however, what if this film is disappointing? All the potential lost because Disney did not see this idea for what it ultimate is: a great way to market the same characters for many years to come. (Oh wait, they already do that with the theme parks!)

After seeing “Maleficent,” I concluded that Disney successfully succeeded and failed. The filmmakers created a movie which was lacking in many ways, and yet it has enough strengths to launch a villain franchise.

First, here is what I did not like about the film. The budget has been reported to be $200 million, but I am not sure I saw that onscreen. Perhaps Angelina Jolie got an extra large paycheck for her title role, and she was quite good, as was Elle Fanning.

My issue is with the special effects, not all of them but about half. The creatures that live in the moor all looked far too animated. The tree people were not horrible, but whenever the swamp dwellers appeared I found myself wishing that those beings had stayed in development a little bit longer.

I also did not care for the scenes of Maleficent flying. Much like the recent “Spider-Man” film, these swooping and soaring moments happened so fast that everything was blurred and disappointing.

Then there is the closing scene that looked like it was shot in the 70s or 80s, when studios did not have the magic of CGI as they do today. Look over Prince Phillip’s shoulder in the final moments and it looks more like an episode of television’s “Once Upon a Time” than the last glimpse of a big summer blockbuster.

Beyond the issues with visual effects, my other problem with the film is that the story moved very slowly in the midsection of the film. I found myself wondering if children would be bored during these less compelling scenes. These were not necessarily weak moments, but if I am questioning the pace, then the film has not captivated me.

Alas, I would be remiss if I did not reveal what I liked a great deal about the film. Jolie is terrific, as is Fanning. I also liked the three fairies and the actresses who played them. Among the three is Imelda Staunton, who has done great work before playing Dolores Umbridge in the “Harry Potter” series and the title role in “Vera Drake” that earned her an Oscar nomination.

Beyond these performances, I especially enjoyed all the references to the source material. (I assume the primary source material for this film was the 1959 Disney animated feature “Sleeping Beauty.”) Make no mistake, this film alters that story in enormous ways, but most of the changes are quite agreeable and often times fun.

Some of the changes in the screenplay are to transform the film into something new, while others are just taking small details from the original and altering them in humorous or playful ways.

The hesitation I had was only with pacing. As the story moved forward, especially the final third, I was completely engaged, and enthusiastic with what the filmmakers had done with the classic fairy tale.

So there is my mixed review. “Maleficent” is not the best “big” film of the summer. I like “X-Men 2” and “Godzilla” better. However, there is enough good here for anyone familiar with the story, to overlook the flaws.

If you are looking for a fairy tale in the midst of the summer superheroes and monsters (though there are a few monsters in “Maleficent” too), you could do worse.