Maleficent (*1/2)

Perhaps I'm being a bit too dramatic to call something like 'Maleficent' offensive, but with the recent string of 'gritty reboot' films floating around out there, you're really going to have to wow me to gain any respect from me. The film, a 'retelling' of the classic Disney film 'Sleeping Beauty,' is told from the point of view of the villain, and perhaps one of cinema's greatest, too. Why I cringe reading that last sentence out loud will perhaps be spelled out in the following review.

Where else can we start from the beginning? If you need a little bit of spoilers, then look no further. Maleficent, a fairy-thing who lives in the land of Moore, is a happy girl-fairy-thing who falls in love with a human, Stephan, who gives her his true loves' kiss. As they grow up, the grow apart, and in order to win the throne from the dying King, Stephan lures Maleficent back and cuts off her wings... Because the King requested her head, but I guess that's good enough. Defiled and broken-hearted, Maleficent turns a crow into a man and then back into a crow, waits several years, then decides to visit Stephan when he has a child. At the christening, she curses the baby with a death-like sleep on her 16th Birthday (even though Disney went all the way with death in the original, go figure) - you know, pricking her finger on a spinning wheel. Those 3 fairies you may remember from the cartoon bring her into the woods to raise her, except Maleficent knows exactly where they live, grows to care for Aurora (the Princess, who calls her her Fairy Godmother), then tries to take back her curse... Then it doesn't work. Then, a 12 year-old Prince we just met, strolls along and tries to awaken her with 'true loves' kiss,' but drat!, it doesn't work. In the end, Maleficent gives her a kiss, wakes her up, gets her wings back, kills the king, then becomes a good person, I guess? I don't know.

Was I rambling? I'm sorry, I was just trying to imitate the pace of the film, horribly edited into small vignettes that fade in and out and never feel like part of a complete plot. There's a narrator who truly talks through the first 35 minutes of the movie (because we couldn't figure out that this little girl is Maleficent without you telling us), only to reveal herself as an older Aurora, the "Sleeping Beauty..." Wow, what a spoiler!!

Perhaps I can ask a few questions that someone could answer, questions that may explain my overall confusion with this film:
1. Why is her name Maleficent if she doesn't start out as a villain?
2. Why is she normal-sized and the other fairies are very fake-looking CGI doll-like things?
3. Why is the land called Moore? Is it just because it kind of sounds old-timey English?
4. If she curses this baby to basically die, why does she ever look out for it? Grow to love it??
5. How did her dead wings survive living in a glass box for 30 years?
6. Why was Maleficent wearing a Catwoman costume (complete with leather Spandex) under her robes this whole time, if not just because she has a major fight scene in the end?
7. Why was this movie made?

To elaborate on the last question a bit, perhaps this is the source of my frustrations. I would think most people consider Maleficent one of Disney's greatest villains. She's suave, coy, alluring, and pure 100% goddamned evil. That's it. There's nothing more to her character, and we don't need anything else. She exists in this world solely to be the antagonist, and it's literally the most bad-ass thing ever. The problem with a movie like this, then, is that it makes the false assumption that a character like this needs sympathy. She doesn't, she really doesn't. Perhaps in a few years they can make an origin story for Amon Goeth in 'Schindler's List,' so at least we can understand his actions....

The movie fails in almost every regard, and like last year's 'Oz: The Great and Powerful,' it's almost amazing how terribly a film can fail in so many aspects. From the small, cheap-looking sets, to the Maleficent costume itself (much more striking and visually amazing in the cartoon, even), everything feels like a dud.

Ultimately, what's the point? Oh, Maleficent is a good person, hurray. This world no longer has a villain, the original film is void, and Disney rakes in millions of dollars all because us innocent audience members wanted to see Angelina Jolie murder some goddamned kids. Instead, we're left with a cold, flat film with no discernible plot or character motivations, and a whole lot of wasted dollars out of my pocket.

(Awards potential: come on, now)

Godzilla (****)

In a time when Hollywood has stepped to the lowest rung of the ladder, when it seems like it could reach no lower for a petty way to make more money, another version of Godzilla making an appearance in cinemas seems like a terrible idea (but then again, I'm touching up a review for Spider-Man, a reboot of a series that only released its last movie 7 years ago...). With the 1998 version still mostly fresh in everyone's mind, it's with great joy that Godzilla stands as a smart Hollywood action flick, with the occasional moment of true movie magic.

The plot, can you believe it, begins in Japan, with the meltdown of a nuclear power plant. Joe Brody (Bryan Cranston, in an all-too short role) is the man who runs it, or seems to at least. His wife (the ever-gorgeous Juliette Binoche) dies in the accident, and their son, Ford (Aaron Taylor-Johnson as the adult) witnesses the destruction first hand. Cut to several years later, when Ford is in the Army and his father is now a nutcase hard-bent on uncovering secret government conspiracies. His claim that the nuclear meltdown was a cover for something else seems like gibberish. That, and his recent studies of echolocation.

Perhaps he's not too far off....

Unlike the most recent incarnation of Godzilla, here he is not the enemy. In fact, he's here to save the world from a couple of monsters so nasty, they're like a mix of a spider, bat, and grasshopper all in one. And they're planning on breeding.

We learn that Godzilla was the reason for most of the nuclear tests in the 1950's - covered up by impending war. His presence goes largely unnoticed, but he rises from the water every so often to "restore balance," AKA kick some monster ass at our expense.

The movie definitely waits for the big reveal of Godzilla, and it pays off. The first moment we see his towering frame on screen - silent and lit by a single red flare, it really makes you want to get up and cheer. The build-up is slow, and perhaps the movie runs a bit long, but our anxiety at seeing a 40-story lizard has never been more rewarding.

And while it's wonderful to see some serious action scenes, how curious is it that we need a 'human' plot at all, one which revolves around Ford and a team of soldiers trying to detonate a nuclear bomb to lure the creatures out of downtown San Fransisco... Is it just me, or do we not really care what happens in that regard? When you see a movie like Godzilla, you're expecting some action. More often than not, though, I found the director cutting away from action just as it was about to begin, only to cut back several minutes later to see the city in complete destruction. Where's the fun in that?

In the filmmakers' defense, there are some truly remarkable fight scenes, and I left the theater generally satisfied (even with the 3D ticket, to boot). For a summer flick, you can definitely do much worse (and with an ending like that, expect to see at least 4 more sequels in the next decade).

(Awards potential: Best Visual Effects, Best Sound Mixing, Best Sound Editing)