Double Feature: The 'Maleficent' Films

It's time for another Double Feature.

2014's Maleficent and it's sequel 2019's Maleficent: Mistress of Evil are part of a wave of Disney live-action/photo-realistic adaptations based on their classic animated films. While many of these movies are basically one-to-one remakes with maybe a new song or a few extra scenes added to pad the runtime, the Maleficent films are different. Different doesn't necessarily mean they're better but, I think they are more interesting.

The first of the two films, Maleficent, takes the approach of looking at the 'Sleeping Beauty' story but from the villain's point-of-view. Who is Maleficent as a character? Why does she curse the princess? Is she really all that bad? The film is predictable and some of the special effects less than spectacular but, I think it is a decently made and entertaining movie. Plus, I think Angelina Jolie perfectly cast as the title character. 

The sequel on the other hand, is a not as good. The story picks up a few years after the events of the first film and splits the focus between the upcoming marriage of Princess Aurora and Prince Phillip, and a plot about Maleficent meeting a whole race of fairies that are like her (except she's the only one who possesses the powers of the phoenix... It's a bit of a mess). The two movies came out five years apart, so Disney didn't exactly rush out the sequel but, it feels like the script for this one needed more time. 

I don't think either one of these movies will rise to that "Disney Classic" status. Both films did make money but, were also met with mixed reviews. Maleficent has enough that I like about it and I think it is worth watching. However, Maleficent: Mistress of Evil falls just on the other side of that recommendation line for me.  
I'm going to give Maleficent a 3 out of 5 and Maleficent: Mistress of Evil a 2 out of 5.

Age of the Dragons

2011's Age of the Dragons is an adaptation of the classic novel Moby Dick, except the white whale is a dragon. While that is a pretty interesting premise, in my opinion, the film fails to be all that entertaining.The acting is inconsistent, with some of the actors giving pretty wooden performances while others (like Danny Glover) are hamming it up. Visually, this one is a bit of a mixed-bag; The cinematography isn't half bad for a low budget film but the CGI dragons do not look good. I think this had the potential to be a decent movie, but they didn't have the budget to make a big fantasy film and they didn't want to go the Syfy channel, dumb monster-movie route either.

Overall, I don't recommend seeking this one out, but if you're curious and you come across it on TV or find it in a bargain bin, it's a bit boring but not unwatchable. 

1.5 out of 5

Today's Movie: Doctor Strange (2016)

 

The film Doctor Strange is a based on the Marvel Comics character of the same name, and stars Benedict Cumberbatch. The film has only recently come out so for those who have yet to see it, I'll do my best to give a review without spoiling it.

My expectations going in were pretty high, and I felt the film lived up to those expectations.

The plot is very similar in structure to one of my favorite MCU films: Iron Man. Like that movie this features a main character that is brilliant but also quite arrogant. Then, after a tragedy, he sees the error of his ways, and by the end of the film he's a hero. Simple idea but when it's done well make for an enjoyable viewing experience. One of the unfortunate things, as with many MCU movies, the villain wasn't great. However, despite a lackluster villain the movie does have a lot of positives going for it. First off, the film is visually stunning, with a ton of really cool effects. I really liked Benedict Cumberbatch as Dr. Stephen Strange, and I thought they did a solid job of bringing that character to life while also keeping the film moving along at a decent pace. There are some lighthearted moments scattered throughout and most (but not all) of the jokes and quips hit there mark.

Overall, I'm not quite sure where I'd rank this film among the others in the Marvel Cinematic Universe after only one viewing, (a ranking of all the other MCU films can be found by clicking here: http://onlyinthemoviesblog.blogspot.com/2016/10/the-marvel-cinematic-universe.html) but it's a fun, enjoyable film and I definitely recommend going to the theater and checking it out.

I give it a 4.5 out of 5

Have a suggestion for a review?

Leave it in the comments below.

 

A Look Back At The Hellboy Films

‘Hellboy’ and ‘Hellboy II: The Golden Army’ were released in 2004 and 2008 respectively, and are live-action films based on the Dark Horse Comics series created by Mike Mignola. (There are also two animated ‘Hellboy’ movies but I’ll save those for a different day)

For those not familiar with the title character, Hellboy (played in the films by Ron Perlman) is a demon that was discovered as a baby by Allied Troops during WWII and who now works for the Bureau for Paranormal Research and Defense. Joining Hellboy, both in the comics and in the films are Liz Sherman (played by Selma Blair) who has pyrokinesis powers, and Abe Sapien (played by Doug Jones) who is sort of like a telepathic Creature from the Black Lagoon. 

Guillermo del Toro directed and wrote the screenplay for both movies, and he was the perfect filmmaker for the job. Anyone who has read the comics, like myself, will likely be pretty impressed by not only how well the characters were translated to live action but also how well the overall feel of the comics was brought to life. Both films are filled with adventure, comedy, likeable characters, bizarre creatures, and solid action scenes. In addition to all of that, it’s worth discussing just how well a lot of the visual effects were done.

 A combination of makeup, practical effects, puppets, and CGI are all blended really well. A lot of post-2000 films with this much of a fantasy aspect and with so many creatures, could’ve heavily relied on CGI to create nearly all of it. It really adds to the film that Guillermo del Toro decided to use these various methods to put as much in front of the camera as possible, and use CGI much more sparingly than many others would have. By comparison, ‘Fantastic Four’ (2005), ‘X-Men Origins: Wolverine’ (2009), ‘Hulk’ (2003), and ‘Ghost Rider’ (2007) are just some examples of comic book movies that came out around the same time. Those films have visual effects that don’t hold up as well, yet they were made with much larger budgets.

Overall, both are fun, solid movies that I highly recommend. ‘Hellboy II: The Golden Army’ did slightly better with critics and was the more financially successful film but, while really enjoy them both, I am a little higher on the first one.

I give Hellboy a 5 out of 5 -and- Hellboy II a 4.5 out of 5

Have a suggestion for a review?

Leave it in the comments below.