DVDizzy Forum

I'm gonna give this movie a chance. I most likely won't see it opening weekend and will probably going during the week when it's only $4 to get into see it.

Super Aurora wrote:Saw the trailer. Looks like shit. another movie I'll skip.

Yup looks awful and cheesy.

disneyprincess11 wrote:^^PLEASE PLEASE let him be right Because yeah, the trailer was awesome

I hope he's right, too. I hope this movie will bring some justice. Mostly because of my love to "Sleeping Beauty". Yes, I know this isn't a retelling, but it would have been nice if it captured some of the vibe from the original.

I really dislike the whole "little fairies/elves" look the movie has...Why must every fantasy movie world nowadays look the same? (Oz, Burton's Wonderland, Neverland, Snow white and the Huntsman...)...It's just so generic and bland.

Also those horns aren't scary at all

I think that the movie is going to be a huge anti climax after all the build up! The scene with Maleficent conjuring up the Forest of Thorns looked like conjuror at a party with a bit of artificial fire instead of an all powerful Disney Villainess!

The original animated Maleficent is not going to be equalled and another loss from Sleeping Beauty is Tchaikovsky's splendid score adapted by George Bruns which gave another dimension to the already splendid animation!

I think Angelina Jolie looks stunning as Maleficent (both in the teaser poster and the trailer). She even sounds like the original, and the laugh at the end of the trailer is also awesome. Like all users here, I think the visuals look pretty dull, but I think (and hope) that maybe the CGI effects aren't ready yet, and they're still working on them, and the final film will look much better. Fingers crossed. Anyway, I'll certainly see this in theaters. I'm a huge Angelina fan, and I think she was born to play this role. (don't hate me, lol )

Also, here's a high resolution textless version of the teaser poster.

I think this is going to be a different beast from the 1959 movie and that's okay. I hope they develop Aurora, because as much as I like Sleeping Beauty, I find her character to be the weakest element.

Yeah it's funny how they made a movie expanding Maleficent's character when Aurora needed the most work.



Ew. The fairies look like fish and the land looks like Avatar.

Wow I really have a different opinion than most of you because I thought the trailer was great!!! It was like it went from suck to cool, because it built up to the most awesome parts. The "fairy world" if that's what it is looks too much like Stonehenge and yes, has awful mermaid-looking fairies. Elle Fanning doing an English accent doesn't sound good or fitting. She should have sounded like the movie Aurora (i.e. proper princess but with the actress's natural accent), and the animated film apparently takes place in medieval France. Her hair and costume do not look either like the film or pretty. But the mountains of spinning wheels, the finger about to touch a spindle, and the room where Aurora sleeps are great. And then we have miss Angelina as Maleficent, and boy is that good. The lines "I am not afraid" and "Then you'll be afraid" are creepy and Angelina gets Maleficent's aura down pat, right down to the best cackle to end a trailer ever. The only malady to Maleficent herself is that fur collar. Okay maybe you're cold Maleficent but why can't you look good at the same time? Maybe there's nothing else they could do, it's sort of a good idea and sort of works... I don't think the CGI looks bad either, I wonder why so many people think it does.

So this will be very different from the animated film. Because of how awesome a lot of things look, I think I won't mind it. It looks like it will keep enough of the original story. But despite being different from the animated film, Aurora's hair and dress really should take a hint from Maleficent's costume and look something like the iconic ones. The curl Aurora had and her collared blue princess dress are some of the best design elements of the movie! And if you're going to make it different at least make it good!

As Sleeping Beauty fans and especially Maleficent fans, I would think any one of those would still be at least a little excited to see the animated film come to life at all! As for myself, despite how some things may turn out bad, I am very excited for this movie!!!

In defense of Elle's accent, you know the original Disney movie (most likely) took place in a European country and Aurora didn't sound that much European, right?

thedisneyspirit wrote:I really dislike the whole "little fairies/elves" look the movie has...Why must every fantasy movie world nowadays look the same? (Oz, Burton's Wonderland, Neverland, Snow white and the Huntsman...)...It's just so generic and bland.

Agreed with the latter. It was cute at first, but after a while it got boring.

Lady Cluck wrote:Yeah it's funny how they made a movie expanding Maleficent's character when Aurora needed the most work.

True but Maleficent has the bigger fanbase, a movie of Aurora wouldn't interest many Disney fans, maybe a few, but not as much as old Maley.

thedisneyspirit wrote:I really dislike the whole "little fairies/elves" look the movie has...Why must every fantasy movie world nowadays look the same? (Oz, Burton's Wonderland, Neverland, Snow white and the Huntsman...)...It's just so generic and bland.

Now that you mention it.... yeah...

Not too sure what to make of this. About Ellie Fanning, I thought she as good in Ginger and Rosa but yeah I don't think she's a good fit for Aurora. In fact, I would have picked Saoirse Ronan instead. I mean, there is a bit more of a resemblance.

I have to admit, I was a little disappointed by that trailer. I tried to view it blind, pretending that I knew nothing of the (fingers crossed that it isn't) peculiar plot.

I get it was supposed to have mystery surrounding Maleficent, but it was way too tilted to Aurora with a jarring accent. It would be lovely to have had some reference to the Classic Disney film in her clothing / hair, as Maleficent so obviously has, but her whole attire / hair / makeup was blah.

And this may just be me, but I am so tired now of 'fantasy epics' - it doesn't take my breath away anymore - we all know they are CGI figments of our imagination, and Angelina is standing in front of a green screen etc … I just wish there was something … I don't know … more real about these films sometimes. Obviously I know Faries can't be done in any other way, but maybe having stop motion ? Or just something to give it a different look. I know that technology has moved on, but there is something magical about a real set, with real props and real contraptions being built, you know ?

It isn't a fantasy film, but Cleopatra (1963) is my case in point - all REAL extras, real sets, a real 'entrance into Rome' …. do any of you know what I mean ? Or have I lost the plot slightly (it has been known to happen )

Anyway, I was a left a little flat by the teaser as I wanted more Maleficent.

atlanticaunderthesea wrote:And this may just be me, but I am so tired now of 'fantasy epics' - it doesn't take my breath away anymore - we all know they are CGI figments of our imagination, and Angelina is standing in front of a green screen etc … I just wish there was something … I don't know … more real about these films sometimes. Obviously I know Faries can't be done in any other way, but maybe having stop motion ? Or just something to give it a different look. I know that technology has moved on, but there is something magical about a real set, with real props and real contraptions being built, you know ?

Oh, how I wish you'd say the same thing about 'Once Upon a Time' and its special effects...

atlanticaunderthesea wrote:It isn't a fantasy film, but Cleopatra (1963) is my case in point - all REAL extras, real sets, a real 'entrance into Rome' …. do any of you know what I mean ? Or have I lost the plot slightly (it has been known to happen )

Wasn't it one of the most expensive films ever made? At this point, I don't think Walt Disney Pictures would take such a risk... Or any other studio, really.

'Once' doesn't have the budget of a Walt Disney Features production.

There were a million things wrong with Cleopatra and it's budget, of course there was. But look at any other older epic films, all with real people and real sets. That is my point Old Fish Tale.

I agree with a lot of what you said atlantica!

DisneyJedi wrote:In defense of Elle's accent, you know the original Disney movie (most likely) took place in a European country and Aurora didn't sound that much European, right?

But at least what they did do, a proper princess accent with no particular country's accent, worked better.

British accents are often the default "European" accents in American movies. It doesn't make sense, but it happens a lot.

Kraken Guard wrote:
I do not want the original Maleficent being forgotten, and replaced by Angelina Jolie...

Why would you say that? I don't think she'll be forgotten. The majority of Disney fans say that she's their favorite Disney villain, so I really don't think you need to worry about that.