Exodus: Gods and Kings (2014)

Well, it is Christmas time so I guess bringing out a film based on a tale from the Bible is the right thing to do. And after we followed the story of the Ark earlier this year, we now follow Moses and the Hebrews...in a film where virtually no-one is of the same ethnicity of the characters they're playing. Yeah the whole, "whitewashing" thing. In all honesty, it doesn't really bother me, but that's mainly because I'm used to it. Jake Gyllenhaal in 'Prince of Persia', Gerard Butler in '300', Sean Connery in 'Highlander' where, instead of playing a Scottish block, he's playing an Egyptian. I don't think it's right, don't get me wrong.

Ridley Scott said that the film basically wouldn't have been made because it wouldn't have been financed. No-one would have financed a film starring some unknown. Which fair enough, one or two (or three) big names to grab peoples attention. Though when he was quoted as saying "I can't mount a film of this budget...and say that my lead actor is Mohammad so-and-so from such-and-such" it sounds like he didn't even bother looking in the first place. I mean, Idris Elba? Chiwetel Ejiofor? I can actually see Chiwetel Ejiofor doing a great job as Ramesses II.

Anyway. Course if you want a more...in depth look into the race issue, you can look at this.

So here, we follow a prince called Moses (Christian Bale) and his adoptive brother Ramesses (Joel Edgerton...who, I'm sorry, but looks really...really...hmm...I'm gonna go with plastic). Moses finds the treatment of the Hebrew slaves deplorable, but soon finds himself exiled when it is discovered he's of Hebrew descent. Moses however returns after meeting God (Isaac Andrews, and I actually don't agree with the idea that God is represented by a child) in order to free his people.

There may or may not be spoilers. It's kind of hard to know what to say about a story that's literally as old as the Bible. Because it's in the Bible.

I might as well get the acting out of the way. It's...good I suppose.  I didn't really...I'm actually finding it hard to think of anything to say about this. It just felt like the characters were plodding along, I didn't feel any emotion from them. Sigourney Weaver, Ben Kingsley, um...I'm sure other people were in it, they weren't in it long enough for me to care. Bale is the focus point, but I can't really see any difference between his performance in this and 'The Dark Knight' series.

I suppose it's more how the characters are written. And how the plot was written. You see, Ridley Scott (the director in case you didn't know) decided to look for scientific methods for the plagues and God and the Parting of the Red Sea. Now, this actually bothered me more than I thought it would. That and Bale saying that Moses was "schizophrenic" and "barbaric". I can see why, the whole "there's a scientific explanation for everything" thing. But...why?

That's the thing I don't get by trying to explain everything as science...in a bible story. You're supposed to be telling a story about God, not trying to debunk it. The film even has a scientist character who explains to Ramesses/the audience why science can be used here, which really doesn't work since the Ancient Egyptians were a pretty religious race. Oh yeah, they had great scientific advances like paper (papyrus), irrigation system, medical procedures, heck, their building methods were very advanced. But do you know how many deities they had? Anubis, Seth (or Set), Osiris, Horus, Sekhmet, Ra, Amun, Sobek, Isis, and Thoth...and those are just the common ones you hear about. Heck, some combine! Like Amun-Ra!

And then, of course, there's God, who the film is portraying as a possible hallucination. One of the most famous stories from the bible, and you're saying it was some madman's fantasy. And yet, after saying that most (if not all) of the plagues were a multipler effect caused by...well, the first plague (which actually seems more implausible than a supernatural force being behind it), and yet the likelihood of all these things, as well as an unexplained plague of darkness, and a tidal wave, all happening around the same time, it's just too much of a coincidence. Then, with the scientific method, God's plagues are also targeting the Hebrews, which makes sense in a realistic world, but not when God is suppose to be using Moses to free the Hebrews because they're suffering. That's when you have to wonder if Scott is going down the scientific route or the religious route. Though I'm sure Scott intentionally left that open for the audience to decide for themselves.

As mentioned earlier there's also the way how the characters are portrayed. I've mentioned God was portrayed as a kid earlier, and I don't agree with that, basically because God then comes off as a child having a tantrum (which, in one scene, he actually does), as well as irritating rather than all-powerful. Like 'The Prince of Egypt', 'Exodus' should have focused on the relationship between Moses and Ramesses, that's what made 'The Prince of Egypt' successful; we get to see the human side of Ramesses a lot more clearly. However in 'Exodus' Ramesses, and his relationship with Moses, feels underdeveloped so we don't care about it.

Moses meanwhile, I can certainly see why Bale called him a barbarian. He kills four people for vaguely defined reasons while not giving a single care in the world, and terrorises a city. And that's BEFORE the plagues arrive. In fact, because of one scene involving Ramesses after a certain plague, I sympathise more with him than I do Moses. With Moses, the lines between freedom fighter and terrorist definitely get muddled.

Other characters are virtually footnotes and not really worth talking about. So, actually it shouldn't really matter that the characters are portrayed by white people because they barely register as characters and more like furniture. Sigourney Weaver, drastically underused. I actually keep forgetting Ben Kingsley is in this. In fact, with the exception of Moses and Ramesses, you will forget everybody's names. That is a promise. There is one scene where Moses and Ramesses are talking, then three other characters come in, you have no idea who they are, their roles are mentioned once, and then are never seen again.

So on top of all that, you'd never guess the story feels lacking. Seriously there's a huge battle in the first ten minutes that was so boring. I haven't felt this bored watching action scenes since the last Resident Evil film. Then this film jumps around the place, making this film feel rushed, despite being over two hours. And then, along with the "trying to find scientific reasons" thing, this film feels quite modern at times. This includes Ramesses saying he won't free the slaves because it's economically impossible. Then again, the film also has horse mounted archers...four hundred years early. But there are some fantastic shots of the scenery and the plagues.

So yeah, if you want to see a film which has spectacular imagery and/or you're a big Ridley Scott fan, then this is your film. But, for the most part, it's just underwhelming, and that's the biggest shame about this film. Oh it probably still would have been bad, but it would have been enjoyable at least. Everything feels lacking, from the acting to the action to the story, so it feels like a chore just to get invested in the film. Just, just stick to watching 'The Prince of Egypt'.

Nativity 3: Dude, Where's my Donkey?! (2014)

It's still the season to be jolly, so what better time than for a Nativity film? Now, admittedly I am at a disadvantage with this franchise because I haven't seen the first two films, but from what I understood none of the characters from the previous films were in the third installment, so I figured I was alright.

The St. Bernadette's School (a fictional school set in what I would like to call my second home Coventry, there's a brief glimpse of the West Orchards shopping centre) is up for an Ofsted inspection, so the headteacher Mrs Keen (Celia Imrie) brings in "super teacher" Mr Shepard (Martin Clunes), who is set to be married to a woman named Sophie (Catherine Tate) on Christmas Eve. However after Mr Poppy's (Marc Wootton) donkey kicks Mr Shepard in the head, he loses his memory. It's up to Mr Poppy and the school's kids to get Mr Shepard to New York for his wedding. And in order to do this, they enter a flash mob competition, hosted by Mr Shepard's love rival, Bradley Finch (Adam Garcia)

I probably would have missed the film entirely, primarily because I hadn't seen the first two films, but after hearing that the film was "like a John Lewis Christmas ad directed by Satan", well, I just had to go and see it. And, in all honesty, I didn't think it was that bad. Sure the kids...acting, was off-putting, I didn't see anything truly wrong with it.

Then it got to the thirty minute mark.

Before I truly go into this, I want to say one thing. Which will go onto a rant. I cannot recall a film (at this time) that I have hated more. I absolutely detested this film and, like Mr Bradshaw at the Guardian suggested, some kind of evil force was behind this film's creation. I must admit, the thirty minute mark I mentioned a moment ago is an estimate. In this one hour and forty minute film, I spent too long thinking "when is this going to end?". I have never thought that a Christmas film, of all things, would cause me to hate life, to end up being a Grinch. I was literally the first person to leave the screening of this film today. The second the credits came up, I was out of my seat and made my way down the aisle to the exit. Like Mr Robbie Collin said in the Telegraph, I did think about finding a donkey in the head to make me forget what I just watched. Mainly because that's the easiest remark to think of. Instead I stocked up my fridge with alcohol and am planning on drinking myself into a mild coma tonight in order to forget what I saw.

Onto the review now right?

Firstly, I mentioned in the first paragraph that, as far as I was aware going into the film, no returning characters from the previous films were coming back. I am wrong. Mr Poppy is a recurring character in the Nativity films, with Wootton playing him in all three films. I. I have never wanted a character to die as much as Mr Poppy. I wanted him to die more than Joffrey from Game of Thrones/A Song of Ice and Fire. I want you to think about that for a moment.

That is a bit of an extreme view, I know, I admit it is. But my hatred for this character knows no bounds. This character is obnoxious, arrogant, and (probably the most dangerous aspect of the three) unknowing. This character is not aware of the consequences of his actions, and that is dangerous when this film is primarily aimed at kids. Ignoring the fact that this character for no reason brings a donkey to school (I'll come back to the donkey in a moment), while I am not a medically qualified individual (the closest training I've had is that of a fire warden at a past job), if a character gets kicked in the head by a donkey (or falls out of a tree, as Mr Poppy believes) and is unconscious as a result, I don't think violently shaking the individual is the best thing to do. I also have serious doubts about the qualifications of the doctor who WAS shown in the film. On top of that, Mr Poppy commits MULTIPLE felonies, including showing how lax airport security is at Birmingham International.

The donkey, the...sub-title character. Okay I lied, Mr Poppy does bring in the donkey for a reason. This donkey, can "sing and dance", and Mr Poppy believes this will allow the school to win a flash mob competition, which will subsequently allow the school to pass its Ofsted inspection. This actually raises a few things. One, why is Ofsted doing an inspection so close to Christmas? Two, why are the KIDS still at school? Does this school not do Christmas holidays? The events of this film take place only a COUPLE OF DAYS before Christmas Day, including Christmas Eve. Three, the headteacher Mrs Keen does NOT authorise this, so surely the school will fail because Mr Poppy has effectively KIDNAPPED these kids and the school has NOT noticed?

And then, when the donkey goes "missing", while Mr Poppy does ask about it a couple of times, there is NO urgency shown in trying to find it. Of course, this film also does other huge cock ups. Firstly, the planet earth has different time zones. The gap between the United Kingdom and the United States (the New York side anyway), is five hours, I think. There is one scene where Mr Shepard, in Coventry, England, talks to Sophie, in New York, New York, where (while a time is not given) it is most likely the morning in England, so it should be night time in the United States. Then, there is one scene where it is obviously quite late in London. I walk home from work, it gets dark just after half four, in which case, WHY ARE THERE STILL KIDS IN SCHOOL? Do these kids not have families?!

Alright, okay, that last paragraph was mostly small bits that just really bug me. Let's move on. The story feels strained, all over the place, underwhelming, and incredibly childish. You can argue that, yes, the main audience is children. I can call bullshit on that. The best Christmas films appeal to both children AND adults. 'Elf' did that. 'The Muppet Christmas Carol' did that. Oh yeah, kids will love this film. It won't teach them anything useful (in fact it'll teach them how to lie, steal, and how to pelt someone with balls just for doing their job), but they'll love it.

The whole flash mob concept feels dated (not as dated as spoofing the title of a film fourteen years old), as well as forced upon us. Which it actually is, seeing as how they're only doing it to get themselves, primarily Shepard, to New York, which is stupid since, as he's getting married, he should ALREADY HAVE A PLANE TICKET. Whenever the flash mob idea comes on screen, it is poorly delivered, where it looks like it was pieced together at the last minute (and no, apart from one scene where they reference The Voice, we don't see the characters rehearse their routine at all).

The kids, the kids are hit and miss. The kids used are local, or I believe they are anyway. Fourteen of the kids are from a Midlands group called the ReAct Kids Agency, and director Debbie Isitt's daughter, Sydney Isitt, is also in the film. Now, I can respect her for doing this, giving young local kids a chance to act in a proper film. However, just because they're kids, does not mean we should give them a free ride. While they can show some good skills, most of the time they say their lines like they're reading them off a card off screen, which is actually reinforced when they DO look off screen. The choreography looks like it was rehearsed but made up on the spot as well, and all of the singing, not just from the kids but the adults as well, feels awkward.

Lauren Hobbs (who plays...Lauren) is a prime example. Yes, she can...can be...tolerable, BUT, most of the time it feels like she's being rammed down our throats. Maybe it's because of the way she has been written, like how she seems to know/care a lot about a group of other kids, who she has NEVER MET BEFORE. There was also a point where she cries at her dad (Shepard) about why he couldn't remember anything, at which point I wanted to shout "Because he has fucking amnesia you stupid cow! Jesus Christ!". But at the same time, she is portraying a kid whose dad can't remember her (amnesia that only works whenever the film wants it to, as well as only being fixed if you "believe". It also gives someone the ability to know how a steam engine operates), and she does do these bits very well. I suppose it would have been better if it was just the one kid we stuck with, but this film throws an entire classroom at us. Throwing that many inexperienced kids at us is not a good thing.

The adults acting, for the most part, is not any better than the kids. Catherine Tate is the greatest crime in this film, not because of her acting though. I am, admittedly, not a fan of Tate's. I hated her character as Donna Noble from 'Doctor Who' and overall hated 'The Catherine Tate Show', but I know what Catherine Tate is capable of. Saying she is underused in this is an understatement, she might as well be window dressing.

Marc Wootton, I cannot stress enough how much I hated Mr Poppy, but I cannot say he was entirely bad in this, he can raise a chuckle here and there. Celia Imrie and Adam Garcia provide the best acting in this because they keep up the consistency, Imrie is only a bit character though who is actually the only character in the film to not like Mr Poppy. And the reasons why are perfectly valid. Garcia meanwhile plays a great panto villain that suits the film perfectly. Whether that was intentional or not, I don't know. Clunes though seems to think that pretending to have amnesia gives him an excuse not to bother with any effort.

Oh, and I almost forgot about this. I keep forgetting that this is a Christmas film. Christmas virtually plays no part in this, it's just a convenient time of year to put "wish" and "believe" into it. Shepard forgetting all about Christmas is easily brushed over. Which is odd because Christmas is shoved down our throats in this film, and yet the gritty nature of 'Get Santa' feels more Christmassy.

Is there any point in me trying to write a conclusion? I've already expressed my hatred for this film. I know, I'll try and...somehow balance it all out. Kids will definitely enjoy it, they're the only ones who find continuous fart jokes funny, but adults will struggle to get pass the inept comedy, the all over the place script, the lame characters, and the forced songs. Okay that's not balancing it out but I'm struggling to find any good things about this. The film is just horrendous, detestable, and not one I would recommend any time soon. The only reason why I haven't insulted this film any more is because I've used up my insults earlier and the alcohol is kicking in.

Get Santa (2014)

Merry Christmas everyone! First of all apologies for no video for 'Return to House on Haunted Hill' yet. I was planning to do it, as well as a Christmas special but because of...stuff and...and things, I just haven't found time to do either. So right now my plan is to bring 'Return to House on Haunted Hill' in January. Although I have done a crossover review with Movie Vault 666.

So for now, here's my review of 'Get Santa', directed by Christopher Smith (not that Chris Smith), and, this is basically his first family film since he previously did the subway horror 'Creep', black comedy 'Severance', paradox inducing 'Triangle', plague drama 'Black Death', and the historical 'Labyrinth' TV series.

But anyway, on with the review. It is, of course, Christmas time, and London wakes up on day to find reindeer walking about. Tom (Kit Connor) meanwhile finds Santa Claus (Jim Broadbent) in his family's shed. Santa crashed while testing his new sleigh, and if he doesn't get back to his workshop, Christmas is cancelled. Things don't get any better when Santa gets arrested, so Tom enlists his newly paroled father Steve (Rafe Spall) for help.

The main problem with this film is that it doesn't feel Christmasy, which, after seeing Christopher Smith's resume, does make sense, since his films tend to be more dark and gritty than anything else, and this film feels gritty. For what is supposed to be a family comedy, there aren't really that many funny bits in it. Oh there's some funny bits, just not enough of them. I will commend this film for not using any "elf and safety" jokes, but I will condemn it for using "reindeer communicate through farts" jokes, which comes off as a really weak gag.

But at the same time it does work for this film as well, I mean, you could Christmas has lost some spark, it is more for the kids. But one of the key things this films tries to do is to teach people, primarily grown ups, to rediscover the Christmas magic, that it hasn't been taken over by consumerism, it's all about family, being together, love. But the film doesn't really focus on that, it's more an afterthought, it's in the background waving its arms trying to grab your attention.

Don't get me wrong though, there are some bits where the film does that Christmas magic brilliantly, primarily when Santa reminds the adult characters of their childhood Christmas moments. The film does start off a bit....eh though, with some dialogue feeling forced, mostly from Kit Connor but seeing as how this is his first film you can forgive him. That and he does improve greatly as the film goes on.

Jim Broadbent, a.k.a that guy you recognise but can never remember his name, does a really good performance as St Nick, though I will never figure out why Santa is shown as having little understanding of how the world actually works, despite being around for so long (at one point he says he's been around for over a thousand years). The main scene showing this is when he confuses Sally (Warwick Davis) as an elf, who later...dresses as an elf. Davis himself gives a good performance as well, though he doesn't really have enough screen time to shine. Rafe Spall meanwhile, well, I felt he gave a great performance, but at the same time it felt he was being held back, limited by his role.

It is basically a marmite film. Kids will definitely enjoy it, but for the adults, well, it's watchable, It's not going to be one of those Christmas classics like 'Elf' or 'It's a Wonderful Life', but it is an alright film. As mentioned the only real problem is how the film doesn't feel like a Christmas film, and how this comedy isn't really that funny. But those are the only real problems as the acting and the odd brilliant scene makes the film pretty enjoyable.

The Haunting of Bates Hotel (2012)

Happy Halloween ladies and gentlemen!

It's that time of year when the ghosts, ghouls, and other monsters of the night walk amongst us. And it's time for this year's Halloween special.

I hope you enjoy

House on Haunted Hill (1999)

Yes I am very aware that I haven't done anything on here for a while and that I have a huge backlog to clear. I am focusing on a Halloween episode though but hopefully this will tie you over for now.

Also, as I haven't done one of these for a while, please forgive me for any ring rust

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHrpnxgHdTY&feature=youtu.be

Sx_Tape (2014)

It seems like an appropriate time doesn't it? I mean, Cameron Diaz and Jason Segel's new film 'Sex Tape' is coming out soon (in the UK), Tulisa Contostavlos was involved in a sex tape recently, and heck, yesterday naked photos were leaked/hacked from numerous celebrities including Jennifer Lawrence. Speaking of which, I don't like what has happened to her. At all. You'd think I would, I think Miss Lawrence is one of the most beautiful, funny, and smart women on the planet. These leaked images, not just of her but of all the other people who have had their private photos effectively stolen and published without their consent, is a despicable act and a violation of their civil rights, an act that should not be tolerated.

With that out of the way let's look at 'Sx_Tape'. And I absolutely refuse to call this film sex tape, the name of this film is "S X underscore Tape".

Here we find Jill (Caitlyn Folley) and Adam (Ian Duncan), a couple who are EXTREME risk takers. Jill though is also an artist while Adam is a filmmaker who wants to make a film about Jill. He jokes about doing a sex tape to get her art noticed (hey all you struggling artists, THIS is how you succeed in life!), which eventually leads to them filming a sex tape in an abandoned hospital. Because why the fuck not? Of course the hospital is not completely abandoned. There's a supernatural presence who our characters royally piss off. Which is understandable, I'd be pretty angry if some random couple broke into my home just to have sex.

And if these two had watched 'Paranormal Incident 2' they'd have known that the building was haunted. No, seriously

Here's the shot of the building in 'Sx_tape'

And here it is in 'Paranormal Incident 2'. IT'S THE SAME FUCKING BUILDING! Most people, you know, they go "oh I recognise that actor/actress, I saw him/her in this film", not me, oh no no, I go "hey, I recognise that building, I saw that in this piece of shit!".

I in all honesty don't know where to start with this. I should probably start off with, "I hate it". There's no going round the mulberry bush, no need to try and obscure it until the end, this film is pure and utter garbage. I didn't even realise until the filming of the 'Within the Woods' review (which is done and will be out shortly) how much I hated it when I held up the filming to show them bits of the film and complain about it.

And one of the major problems is the characters, I don't care about them. Hell, the two major characters who we pretty spend the entire film with we learn virtually nothing about them. These characters are so unsympathetic, so annoying, so self-absorbed, so downright unlikable, that you they don't even register as a footnote in this film. You watch them bounce around the screen and feel nothing for them. You don't hope they die, you don't hope they live, you watch them and don't care where the journey ends. The two leads spend the first thirty odd minutes wandering around, and then two minor characters show up, the new girl Ellie (Diana Garcia) who is so unmemorable I had to look up her name, and Bobby (Chris Coy) who, actually I'll take back what I said earlier, you will hate this guy.

Oh and of course this film is about a sex tape, so it's the perfect excuse for the lead bimbo girl to get her boobs out. At one point she is stark naked. We only see her from behind, but she is facing a window with a street underneath, but you still get plenty of ass and breast shots with Caitlyn Folley. What does all this nudity do for the film you may ask? Absolutely nothing! It just means there's about five times more boobs then a normal horror film would have! The whole sex tape premise could have been taken out, and we'd just be left with another 'Grave Encounters' or another 'Paranormal Incident', heck in a way we still have that!

And now we come onto the ghost (Julie Marcus), the one and only ghost in this film. Who, actually now that I think about it, is onscreen for about five minutes. AND ISN'T SCARY. In fact, I don't actually recall this film doing any scares, at all. If you look on the wikipedia article on this, you will see it say that it says the ghost "systematically terrorises them". This is NOT what happens. The characters slowly approach her and she disappears. The characters go down the corridor, she runs off, she is not terrorising the characters, she is literally RUNNING AWAY.

The acting....the acting...oh God I think I just found a positive. I can't actually think of anything bad to say about the acting, probably because my hatred was at everything else. That being said, I can't say anyone really stands out, no particular individual comes to mind when thinking who was the...best. Apart from Miss Folley, but that's mainly because she's the main focus of the film, the camera is in her face for a majority of the film.

Back to a negative, there's little to no effects in this film. Which is understandable for a low budget venture. These normally come into effect whenever the ghost affects the camera, which include turning the screen green and the odd bit static. I suppose in all fairness they did alright on a low budget, but at the same time nothing new has been brought to the screen.

I just realised I haven't really gone into depth about the story, but then again do I need to? Let's film a sex tape in an abandoned hospital, how is that ever a good idea? Let's spend the beginning of this film NOT making you care about the characters. And even when things are actually up and running, there's still a feeling that nothing is really happening, for the most part this film just involves pandering around. And also, for whatever reason, this building that has been in disrepair for goodness knows how long, still has power and water. When a film is supposed to look into the sexual abuse of female patients in institutions and fails to make any sense, something has gone wrong.

So. In case you didn't quite get it, I hate this movie. This movie is a blight on the film industry. For one positive you find, there's about ten negatives to swamp it and make it disappear. I cannot fathom why a writer would create characters so unlikable, or design a story to be so dull. If you want to waste part of your life watching a film where the only highlight is recognising a God damn building from another film, this is the movie for you.

Maleficent (2014)

So, we all know how popular Wicked is. The tale of the Wizard of Oz from the perspective of the villain; the Wicked Witch of the West. It showed that there's always two sides to every tale, that a villain may not be as evil as we thought they were, it makes us think about what the villain's motivation is and, in some ways, actually helps film makers develop them better. It's all well and good having a guy destroying a city, but films like 'Chronicle' and Starkid's 'Twisted' show us why a villain does what he or she does the things they do, and in some cases even root for them. But how do you do that to a villain like Maleficent? Heck I didn't even realise she was a fairy until I saw this film and looked her up on wikipedia.

But anyway, once upon a time, Maleficent (Angelina Jolie) the fairy fell in love with a human called Stefan (Sharlto Copley), who in the end betrayed her by...mutilating her body by stealing her wings in order to be king. Filled with rage and hatred, Maleficent curses Stefan's daughter Aurora (Elle Fanning), but Aurora might be the only one to help Maleficent find her former self.

In all honesty the film does start off slow. It's showing the background of Maleficent, yeah I can understand that. But the problem is that the actress playing a young Maleficent and the actor playing a young Stefan weren't that great. Then again it might have been them doing the best they can with a pretty meh script and meh effects (I'll come back to this). Even when we see Angelina Jolie she struggles to cope until she turns into her vengeful self. And I have to say it was when Jolie started acting more like the Maleficent we all knew that I remembered why I used to like her acting.

The story really does pick up when Maleficent's wings are stolen, which is actually a metaphor for rape. Yes it is. It really is a great tale about how revenge and hatred and consume someone so much they lose themselves, without thinking of the consequences. You see how Maleficent's new frightening demeanor now makes the creatures she once protected fear her. In fact it's the relationship between Maleficent and Aurora which truly makes this film, how they develop one another; though Aurora develops Maleficent more than the other way round.

The effects, are hit and miss really, admittedly they were more hit than miss. Oh there are some truly spectacular visuals, in particular the Moors and Maleficent's wings are just beautiful to look at, and Diaval's (Sam Riley) shapeshifting and the different species of creatures look great, but there are other bits which are iffy. The three pixies Knotgrass (Imelda Staunton), Thistlewit (Juno Temple), and Flittle (Lesley Manville) just look weird when small, the battle scenes don't look right (for some of it anyway), and the thorn wall looks fake. But for the most part the effects are quite good.

The acting is actually like how I described the film; it's not really there at first but once it gets going it's very well done. I already mentioned Jolie's performance, but it's quite similar for Copley as well who struggled at first but then pulled off a great performance; though I feel his performance in District 9 was far superior. Fanning gave a great portrayal throughout as Aurora, but I think Riley gave a...what's the word I'm looking for? I think Riley gave a performance which may have gone unnoticed and didn't get the credit it deserved, he did a really good job as Maleficent's servant.


Really the only major weakness is the script which can be lacking in many areas. But overall, it's actually better than what I thought it would be. It's several hours after I saw it, and I want to see it again. The film starts off slow and wavers towards the end, but it's the middle part that saves it with the relationship between Maleficent and Aurora. The acting is great overall, the effects are spectacular in areas but meh in others, the odd laugh here and there as well, it is a great portrayal of Sleeping Beauty from the villain's point of view.