'Maleficent': Absolutely Malodorous

No movie studio knows when to let a good thing stand on its own, but if any of these powerful entertainment companies have squeezing blood from a stone down to a science, it's the good folks at Disney. Drive off director Edgar Wright from Marvel's long-gestating Ant-Man due to corporate meddling? Certainly! Push for a new episode of Star Wars every other year, and fill the time in-between with spin-offs to overly saturate the market? Absolutely! Whitewash and cleanse free of controversial topics those pesky "based on a true story" flicks, whether they focus on J.B. Bernstein or Walt Disney? Par for the course! So it's really no surprise that the company decided to remake one of their own tales from the vantage point of one of their most celebrated villains. Ironically, Disney's Sleeping Beauty is one of the company's lesser animated films. Yes, it had its basis in the original fairy tale and the variant La Belle au bois dormant by Charles Perrault, but even as a story it doesn't stand up compared to even fare from twenty years ago: the plot is illogical, the dialogue and music are corny, and the "heroine" is a void shell desperately in need of rescue. In fact, Sleeping Beauty's ONLY saving grace is its villain, the great evil fairy Maleficent, whose awe-inspiring presence and unique character design make her one of the greatest all-time animated creations.

... and is STILL a great character.

Naturally, Disney does what it can to screw that up in the first few minutes of Maleficent by giving the audience a painful - EXCRUCIATING - opening sequence, where we see young, totally-not-as-talented-as-Angelina-Jolie actors spit inane dialogue that could have been handled by animated sequences and the in-house narrator (Janet McTeer), who was already doing a fine job of laying out the exposition in a timely and appropriate fashion. Then there's the story, which insists that the future villainess (Angelina Jolie, who hasn't been in a movie since 2010's atrocious The Tourist) is not really evil, but forced into doing wicked things by MAN (in this flick, that word seems to be in reference to the gender, not the species), who seem to want to wage war against the mystical creatures over whom Maleficent rules, for no good reason. Really, none of the character motivations make any sense, as the only reason the kingdom of Man are so malicious and greedy is... because they're so malicious and greedy. There's never any exploration into WHY there's friction between these two next-door nations, as for the most part the magical realm seems quite content to keep to itself. So from moment one, you're already not buying the movie's premise.

Because the hot guy quotient must be filled. There are girls in the audience, after all!

The acting is at least solid across most of the board, though not completely. Jolie, returning to the screen after four years, picked a gem in which to make her return, as she casually and naturally personifies a character that remains powerful after 55 years. And it's not just the make-up, either (normally I don't bother to mention the make-up department, but they did an amazing job with all the characters, and not just the title heroine), as Jolie's charisma and talent do an amazing job, despite not having the best material with which to work. Not too far behind are Elle "not-Dakota" Fanning as Princess Aurora and Sam Riley as Diaval, Maleficent's lackey. Fanning has a much simpler role than Angelina (and it's not much of an improvement over her animated counterpart) but she does her absolute best to give Aurora a personality, which is more than I possibly could have asked. And while Riley falls squarely in the "comedic sidekick" genre, he also has his moments to shine. In fact, the best scenes of the movie often involve Jolie, either by herself or working opposite Fanning and/or Riley, and the trio present some of the film's most human moments. Sadly, good times pretty much end there. Sharlto Copley tries hard but is a disaster, and obviously not a good enough actor to overcome the deficiencies of a script that give him every cliched villain bit in the book. And the buffoonery of Imelda Staunton, Lesley Manville and Juno Temple as the three good fairies gets achingly old after their first appearance, and their smaller, computer generated forms suffer from extreme uncanny valley. Finally, Brenton Thwaites' obligatory appearance as Prince Philip feels unnecessary, most notably because his presence IS unnecessary by the virtues of the plot and the concept, rounding out a simultaneously talented and disappointing cast. Obviously Jolie was always going to be the star of the show, but they could have at least TRIED to surround her with more interesting stories and people.

Now, let's talk about the date rape.

Because seriously, you want to piss her off?

I know I'm not the first or only one who noticed this, but I'm honestly shocked there's not more of an outrage by parents who brought their young daughters to the theaters to see this. At the end of the first act, Maleficent is approached by the grown-up man (Copley) whom she'd fallen in love with in the first five minutes, settles into trusting him, is drugged, and then is violently stripping of her wings, which are not the source of her power but a powerful metaphor nonetheless. And in case you don't get the emphasis, it's nailed home in the following scene, which sees the woman awaken from her drug-induced coma, realize the physical violation that has come upon her, and break down emotionally and physically at the betrayal from someone she thought she could trust. She even has difficulty walking afterwards - to the point where she needs a cane to get around - and if that doesn't bring up flashbacks of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, I don't know what will. And THAT movie was deservedly rated R.

Evil, and big hats. That's all Man seems to be exporting these days.

And the sad part is, I wouldn't even argue that the scene shouldn't be here, as the near-silent performance by Jolie speaks volumes and creates extremely powerful emotions in those who witness it. I am a man and have never been subject to that kind of cruel behavior, nor could I ever truly empathize with that kind of trauma, but my God as a decent human being, I FELT her pain. It is by far the best scene in the whole movie, and while that might seem like faint praise when I finish I assure you it is not. That this scene even exists is both a revelation and a tragedy when you really think about what it represents.Honestly, my chief complaint is that Maleficent isn't a PG-13 movie, as many recent fairy tale adaptations have been, and this kind of scene would have been more appropriate for that audience, rather than the age 6-12 set that this was film was marketed towards. Because of that, this scene feels woefully out of place.

You're not your sister, but you'll do.

Further complicating matters is that after so poignant, so powerful a scene, the film just can't keep up the momentum. Both the script (Julie Woolverton, whose last atrocity was Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland) and direction (first timer Robert Stromberg, an award-winning Art Director) are completely lacking, disappointing when you consider the enormous potential this film had. There are a few decent scenes later on (most of which involve Jolie not just chewing the scenery, but dicing it up with her extra-sharp cheekbones), but the story is just so much of a mess that it derails the whole process every time you think it might just be getting started. However, the relationship between Maleficent and Aurora is given a ton of attention, and for the most part I believe this is one element that the filmmakers got 100% right. In this variation on the tale, Aurora believes the woman who put that curse upon her as a baby (which she knows nothing about, of course) to in fact be her fairy godmother, which goes hand in hand with Maleficent actually raising the child in secret, instead of the aforementioned doltish fairies who have no business caring for the her (again, the logic of Maleficent makes absolutely no sense) and developing feelings of her own towards the young woman whom she soon realizes she no longer holds a grudge against. That relationship (starting with the classic cursing scene in the castle throne room) is the only thing that keeps the movie from being a total train-wreck, but only by a few threads.

So, Robert Zemeckis was in charge of the CGI, right? That's why it's so bad?

The special effects are also shockingly uneven, with some of the more monstrous creature designs feeling so meticulously designed and gorgeous to behold (including a giant man-eating earth worm, tree-people warriors, and the obligatory fire-breathing dragon), while many of the elements take on a cartoonish appearance, most notably the atmospheric effects, but also the more "innocent" of the magical creatures. This also applies to the aforementioned Good Fairies, who never look remotely authentic when they're shrunken down to their smaller forms. The lack of chemistry between these two styles is jarring, and every time it upends the mood of the film, which definitely wants to be dark and brooding but just can't resist going down that comedic path every chance it gets. When you need your visual effects to keep up the spirits of your younger audience members, it helps when they look as though they were cut from the same cloth, something an Oscar winner apparently forgot.

Even at a distance, Angelina owns.

Disney plugged date rape into a family film geared towards young girls. And then they had the audacity to wrap a bad movie around it. Maleficent has its moments, especially when Angelina is deservedly front and center, and at the very least it's a visually appealing - if inconsistently so - couple of hours. But the story makes Snow White and the Huntsman look like Shakespeare in comparison, and doesn't have nearly the talent behind the camera to pull everything together. The story is junk, the motivations are insane, and the morals are all over the place, as there doesn't even seem to be a message behind all this pomp and circumstance. I think Jolie can do no wrong, but even if she gets nominated for an Oscar I don't think that would justify sitting down with your family and checking out this movie. It's easily one of the year's worst, and exists as proof that Disney needs to reign in on its cash-cow business methods. They wrung blood from that stone, but it's a funky shade of puce, and I really don't want any more of it on me.

No Depp, No Pirates

The animated film has really come into its own in recent years. Once an industry dominated by Disney and littered with the refuse of lesser-appealing projects, today the medium looks... remarkably less dominated by Disney. Actually, between DreamWorks Animation, Pixar (okay, it’s owned by Disney, but whatever), Sony Pictures Animation, Studio Gibli and Illumination Entertainment, among others, the world of first-rate film animation is getting much more populated, a boon for the industry. But of all the animation studios out there, only one piques my interest so much to the point that when a new film is released, I make a point of going to see it. Aardman Animation was founded in 1972 as a low-budget animation studio, but most fans know it best for its trilogy of stop-motion films featuring Wallace & Gromit, the absent-minded inventor and his silent canine companion that were released between 1989 and 1995. The series won two Oscars for Best Short Film, and 2005 sequel The Curse of the Were Rabbit was the studio’s first to win the Best Animated Film award at the 78’th Academy Awards. I still have fond memories of seeing The Wrong Trousers on PBS as a child and laughing at the antics of those two characters. Suffice it to say, I’ve generally liked Aardman’s contributions to the medium, whether it be 2000’s Chicken Run or 2011’s Arthur Christmas. The company has managed to combine a solid mix of physical humor with a dry wit, and with the film’s signature animated style, I was more than ready to take in their latest effort, whatever that may be.

You might not be able to afford a better crew... but hope springs eternal.

As it turns out, that film is The Pirates: Band of Misfits. Hugh Grant makes his animated film debut as simply-named Pirate Captain, leader of a band of amateur pirates trying to prove their worth. To that end, the Pirate Captain enters the Pirate of the Year contest, which he has failed to win in over twenty years of competing. The fact is that he is not much of a plunderer, and his repeated failures have caused weariness to settle in. When his crew captures research ship The Beagle, with a young Charles Darwin (David Tennant) aboard, a startling discovery sends the crew to England, and untold riches may turn the race for Pirate of the Year in the Captain‘s favor. Still, he and his crew must avoid the eye of the dread Queen Victoria (Imelda Staunton) and her sheer hatred of pirates; but if all goes well, the crew will be back in the Caribbean, celebrating their victory before anyone knows any better.

Yup, I'm just going to hang out with David Tennant now. Don't wait up.

Unfortunately, as much as I wanted to love Band of Misfits, I can’t help but be disappointed for two reasons. The first was the humor. Sure, the occasional witty line of dialogue is rapier sharp. Sure, the characters are largely designed to be fun to watch in action. So why isn’t this thing funnier? Well, the film really skimps on the physical humor that usually is a trademark of Aardman releases. Many of the potentially hilarious bits are hampered by the fact that they are thrown into an opening montage that doesn’t flow as well as the filmmakers thought it would. Directors Peter Lord (who hasn’t directed a film since 2000’s Chicken Run) and Jeff Newitt were obviously unsure as to what they were prepared to do, as many of their smarter ideas ended up not meaning much. For instance, Ashley Jensen plays a woman who poses as a man to serve as a pirate, complete with ridiculously fake beard. What do they do with that? Nothing. Nothing matters but the main story, and even that wasn’t as well played as the directors intended.

Don't make Queen Victoria angry... you wouldn't like her when she's angry...

Secondly, why do I get the impression that most of the film’s best ideas were stolen from similarly pirate-themed entertainment? While obviously parts were inspired by the extremely popular Pirates of the Caribbean series, I can’t help but see comparisons between Band of Misfits and the Monkey Island video game series. As I’ve expressed here in 2010 and in my Open Letters piece on the subject, I absolutely love the bawdy humor, clever storytelling, and compelling characters of the classic Lucasarts game series. So when I see a clear copycat trying to do many of the same things (and using many of the same ideas), I can’t help but feel as though I’ve been cheated somehow. Granted, this film does have some unique concepts all its own (the Pirate of the Year Award is an excellent idea, making one wonder why Ron Gilbert didn’t think of it), and pirate lore don’t exactly have a whole lot of different tales going for it. Still, I can’t be told that there’s a comically inept pirate convinced of his own superiority in popular entertainment and not think first and immediately of Guybrush Threepwood.

Occasionally there are other characters. RARELY occasionally.

The voice acting at least does its job well, though few of the actors present really do anything to distinguish themselves. Grant, who hasn’t really been relevant since the early 2000’s, proves there is still a career at 52 years of age, and his charming personality is narrowed only by the character’s limitations, and not his own. Tennant is also great, though I bet you likely wouldn’t have recognized him unless I’d told you it was him beforehand. Imelda Staunton is underused, but uses her short time wisely and to great effect. You might recognize some of the others, but Jensen, Anton Yelchin, Martin Freeman and Brendan Gleeson are sadly underutilized as the Pirate Captain’s crew, while Jeremy Piven and Salma Hayek make the most of what they can as his rivals.

Hoping there's a bottle of rum on the other side!

Though a silent monkey does end up providing most of the film’s best moments (and naturally not appearing until the film’s halfway mark), there was simply not enough to like about The Pirates: Band of Misfits. Sometimes when a foreign film fails in America, it’s because they present too much for the normal American film-goer to take in, or is too far removed from the average viewer’s comfort zone. Pirates has the opposite problem, and while it’s still a decent film that you can watch with your kids, it’s certainly not up to the high standards that Aardman has set over the years. There’s still a new Nick Park film on the horizon (Park created Wallace & Gromit), so there’s still hope for the future. As it is, Pirates won’t tickle your funny bone, and for that reason alone you can simply walk away.

Christmas in December

Usually, when I make a morning to visit the theater, I know exactly what I'm going to see, and do so well before I leave my home. Whether I expect to see an amazing film like Drive or a cringe-worthy one like Red Riding Hood, I generally know exactly what type of experience I'm getting myself into. Sometimes I decide this the morning of. Sometimes it's the day before that I officially make plans. And sometimes I plan days in advance as I figure out my schedule. But on this particular day, I suffered a strange occurrence: I had no idea what I actually wanted to watch. As I've seen most of the current film releases by now, there was very little available that I had not yet caught. Three acceptable options were playing at approximately the same time, and so with a shrug I told myself that I would figure it all out once I'd made the actual trip to the theater. Even when I arrived, it was not an easy decision. Should I see The Descendants, the popular adult drama directed by Alexander Payne and starring a used-looking George Clooney? Should I instead partake of My Week with Marilyn, the semi-biopic starring Michelle Williams as the titular movie star and ingenue? Both came highly recommended, but I found myself honestly lacking in interest for serious dramas, and decided to put them aside for the time being. Now, as for Arthur Christmas... well, an animated family film was JUST what my mood called for. With that in mind, I bought my ticket and gaped at the shockingly-empty theater that housed my morning's excursion, wondering what I was in for.

A "one-horse open sleigh" it ain't

Every Christmas Eve, we are told as children that Santa Claus travels around the planet in a reindeer-driven sled, delivering toys to all the boys and girls of the world. Judging if you're naughty or nice, he crawls down your chimney, fills the stockings with goodies and leaves exactly what you wanted under the Christmas tree. Ah, what we believed when we were young, right? Well, what if it really WAS true? How would it be possible? Arthur Christmas answers these questions, introducing to the audience a new, more updated version of Christmas Eve events. Santa Claus (Jim Broadbent) is still in charge, the latest in a long succession of Santa's, acting more as a figurehead while his legion of elf special forces and a giant futuristic air-ship do most of the heavy lifting. The entire operation is practically and efficiently run by his eldest son Steve (Hugh Laurie), who covets his chance to become Santa once his father retires. Santa's dedicated wife (Imelda Staunton) simply can't wait for him to quit so they can spend their twilight years together. His father, the previous Santa Claus (Bill Nighy) is bored with his own retirement and loves to taunt the newfangled methods Steve has introduced to his former position. And then there is Arthur (James McAvoy), Santa's younger son, whose passion for Christmas cannot be denied. However his bumbling, worrisome ways grate on others, and he is out of his element in a world in which Christmas has become so numbers-oriented that children are identified by serial numbers and addresses than names and what is in their heart. When an error occurs and a child is accidentally missed, Arthur's belief in Christmas spirit drives him to, against all odds, deliver this gift so as not to let a little girl think that Santa doesn't care about her.

Is it a puppy? I bet it's a puppy!

It's amazing that the concept itself is presented so soundly. In just the opening ten minutes, Arthur Christmas does all it can to halt any arguments you might have against its feasibility in their tracks. Everything is covered. How Santa avoids detection? Check. Homes without chimneys? Check. Large toy delivery? Check. What Santa needs with all those cookies and glasses of milk? Check. Every detail was planned out and properly answered here, even going so far as to cover what happens when kids wake up at inopportune times. Brilliantly planned down to the last detail and with military precision, there is not a moment in the opening sequence (or for that matter, anywhere in the film) that feels any less magical than when you ran downstairs on Christmas Day.

Obviously they took it literally when I declared this film "the bomb"

Of course, what makes Arthur Christmas truly magical are the characters we meet along the way. Arthur himself is such a perfectly-realized blend of comedic neuroses and good-natured innocence that you forget that he's played by an actor best known for his serious, dramatic roles. James McAvoy impressed me with his ability to mold himself into the part, and his character never gets dull or overly-righteous with the message he carries. I've never heard Hugh Laurie do voice work in an animated film, but just the fact that a skinny, older Brit can pass for a cocksure, buff and brilliant (okay, that part I can believe) young man with his vocal prowess is impressive indeed. Right from the start we can tell that Steve is lacking in the empathy needed to be the next Santa, and yet we can't outright dislike him, as the character refuses to be completely irredeemable. Jim Broadbent plays the elderly Santa extremely well, his pitch-perfect portrayal of a past-his-prime legend who doesn't know when to hang up the hat a well-thought-out fit between his polar opposite sons. Bill Nighy is of course wonderful as Grandsanta, quick to judge the newer implementations used for Christmas while pining for his glory days. Grandsanta's a few ornaments short of a Christmas tree, and Nighy plays up that irreverence as he so often does in comedic roles. Best of the cast though might be Emmy nominee (for her role in the BBC/HBO series Extras) Ashley Jensen as Bryony, an elf obsessed with gift-wrapping who follows Arthur on his quest. Not only is each character great, but the way in which they come together by the film's end (of course they do, it's a family film) feels special, as each family member learns to overcome their mental locks to see the story through to the correct conclusion.

Oof, if that was Santa, I'm glad I never woke up early

And it doesn't hurt that the animation (a joint venture of Aardman Animations and Sony Pictures Animation) is a clear winner in keeping the audience entranced. While not as amazing visually as, say, Rango, Arthur Christmas engages in a more cartoonish look that expresses its comedic elements nicely. When it DOES step up the animation a notch however, its one of the prettiest movies this year. Lately I've been seeing far more competent use of 3D technology in films, especially animated ones. Arthur continues this trend, as the immersion that 3D provides actually serves to draw you in more, as opposed to jarring you with obvious flaws. The great visuals also help the multitude of physical jokes appear more natural, as if they were being performed by live actors instead of being generated on a computer.

Never... Ever... wear that sweater again

In fact, the only real complaint I have about Arthur Christmas is that I was forced to watch a stupid music video featuring Justin Bieber singing what seemed to be a mix of Christmas caroling and Michael Jackson. It was situated before the actual film began, and what would normally be a throwaway in the Special Features options on a DVD release was instead the first instance in memory of being punished for actually showing up to a movie on time. Bad decisions aside, I am more than happy that I decided to make Arthur Christmas my eventual choice for movie mirth on this particular day. Director Sarah Smith knew the tale she wanted to tell, and despite inexperience making feature films this was arguably the best time I've had in a movie theater this year. Arthur Christmas has a wonderful story, exquisite pacing, and more than enough emotion to moisten the lenses of my 3D glasses. You might not guess going in (I certainly didn't), but Arthur Christmas ends up as my #5 Film for 2011. Even if you don't have kids yourself, you've got to go out and see this release, as even as a full-grown adult you will find yourself remembering what made Christmas so special when you were the little one chomping at the bit hoping to catch Santa making his yearly visit. Arthur Christmas makes you want to believe again.