October 16, 2019kino and TV shows
Review of the film "Malefisent. The Lord of Darkness ". A fairy tale that can be missed
"Malefisent" I went out in 2014, raised more than 750 million dollars – and thereby laid the foundation for the conveyor of remakes. Following a retelling in a new way "Sleeping beauty" We received "Cinderella" , "Beauty and the monster" , "Dambo" , "Aladdin" And "King Leo" , And soon they will come out "Mulan" And "Lady and tramp". Well, somewhere on the horizon, in addition, loom "Mermaid" , "Snow White" , And there are numbers to them ..
However, with the retelling of classic cartoons in Disney, they decided not to limit themselves. Five years after the original, the screens released "Malefisent: Lady of Darkness" , which continued the story of an evil sorceress, which turned out to be not so angry. And if it seemed to you that this story did not need a sequel, you were right.
In the first film, we never saw the wedding of Princess Aurora and Prince Philip: after all, a couple was barely familiar, and fairy tales about love to the coffin at first glance went out of fashion. However, by the beginning of the sequel, young heroes managed to recognize each other better, so Philip still makes Aurora an offer, and she joyfully accepts him.
Malefisenta is not enthusiastic that the beloved admission daughter will have to be given to a person. The former evil sorceress had relations with them, and recently, people have also gone to dissolve dirty rumors about her and steal the inhabitants of the swamps for experiments. In addition, the guardian of the forest will have the worst test – acquaintance with the parents of the groom. And if Philip's father cordially accepts the bride of his son, then the prince’s mother, Queen Ingrid performed by Michelle Pfaiffer, meets Aurora with alarmed. And her horned adoptive mother is even more wary ..
According to trailers, it might seem like the scriptwriters would be pierced by Malefysent with a daughter so that the return of the sorceress to the dark side does not seem exclusively a whim of studio bosses. Fortunately, the heroine (alas, the prefix “anti-” is still inappropriate) behaves quite adequately, and her actions fit well into the familiar image, without causing distrust or rejection.
Angelina Jolie is still magnificent in this role. Her dark lord at the same time frightening and fragile, violent and vulnerable; She is the embodiment of the wild element, which is alien to the understanding of people, and at the same time – a loving mother with a big heart, which is easy to injure. In one of the trailers, Jolie admitted that Maleficent is her alter ego, and she willingly believe.
El Fanning is still charming in the role of Aurora, which in the sequel is trying to seal corsets and enclose palace ceremonies in the cage (then a test for a girl used to running barefoot and with flowers in loose hair). Aurora is unbearably closely closely in castle chambers and elaborate brocade dresses; This can be seen long before the heroine begins to complain aloud, which is facilitated by the excellent work of costumers and artist-artist. Decorations of the human castle, where everything is subordinated to order, conformism and royal will, contrasts strikingly with the magical world of fairies, with the free beauty of the witchcraft forest, in which freedom and harmony reign.
As for the rest of the cast, then Michelle Pfeefer is always nice to see, although she got the role not the most interesting. The other stars, including Nameld Stoneon and Warwick Davis, simply have nowhere to prove themselves: the scriptwriters were too lazy to write intelligently even the main antagonist, what can we say about secondary characters. In addition, the motivation of the characters from the stage to the stage sometimes changes dramatically, and the causal relationship of their actions manages to trace far from always.
The problem is that the creators did not decide whether they want to make a children's fairy tale or epic fantasy. As a result, the picture hung somewhere between the two genres-and withstand the balance so that the “Lord of Darkness” would please both adults and little spectators, the scriptwriters did not work out.
On the one hand https://slots-muse-casino.co.uk/, a full -scale war unfolds on the screen, where the villains start genocide and arrange traps in the best traditions of a red wedding. On the other hand, behind this is the queen (quit, this is not a spoiler), which is angry simply because evil. Closer to the end, they will even tell us a classic story about her difficult childhood, but this does not really help to deepen the image. Supply to match the antagonist and servants: they should look colorful, but came out caricatured.
It would seem that in a situation where the “bad guys” do not have a bit to themselves, the audience sympathies should by default go to the “good”. But in addition to people and swamp fairies, the third side of the conflict was introduced into history: winged dark elves, Rasu Malefisents, and among them there are also enough colorful characters who are very crowded in a two -hour timing. Heroes do not have time to really open up, as they are already sent to the battle – and, in theory, the viewer must worry about them, because in this story they die with ends, without wonderful resurrectings … But how to worry about those about whom you really do not know anything?
As a result, it remains to watch as some guys on whom you, in general, spit, kill others, on which, in general, do not care. Not the most exciting pastime. At the end, the picture even cuts off a serious drama, almost embroidering a tear … And then it cancel it with the same miraculous resurrection that she successfully avoided before. And it looks like a piano in the bushes, somehow disguised as an original garden composition.
For fantasy, released in 2019, this is simply unacceptable: all mass culture has long passed from stories about the black and white confrontation of good and evil to display shades of gray. And for a children's fairy tale, this is a bad tone – especially after Astrid Lindgren, who wrote in the last century in the last century "Mio, my myo" And "Ronya, daughter of the robber". Although one must pay tribute to the film: even here the defense of the capital from a flying enemy was organized better than in the last season "Games of Thrones".
The most sad thing is that at one time “Malefisent” pleased many with the broken tradition of Disney cartoons about princesses, namely, a sugary wedding in the final. Five years later, the creators realized and decided to correct the missed, adding genre templates to the sequel. Apparently, the deafening financial success of the “beauty and monsters” confirmed that the stamps not only work, but also bring more money than attempts to bring something fresh and original to the classical formula.
"The Lord of Darkness" is by no means a bad movie. It looks nice, for sure children will like it, there are many bright and cute moments in it that will make you laugh or smile (one scene of a family dinner is worth it, not to mention the touching swamp residents). But this is an unnecessary continuation, which does not develop familiar heroes, but trying to tell something new, does it so hastily and awkwardly, which leaves more questions than answers. Yes, the relationship of Philip and the Aurors came to the logical finale, but with the same success it was possible to write at the end of the first part “And then they got married, and then they lived for a long time and you know what's next”.
But a voluminous and multifaceted story could come out about the inevitability of progress and a clash. Or at least solid fantasy about xenophobia, pacifism and self -sacrifice. But it turned out a naive fairy tale, which even fans of the original can skip without losing anything.