Maleficent: Mistress of Evil

More sluggish than entertaining, for me anyway. I enjoyed the first film, but <em>'Maleficent: Mistress of Evil'</em> is one I never really got into. The whole premise surrounding Angelina Jolie's character is uninteresting, not helped by a lack of serious rationale for why characters, other than Maleficent, are acting the way they are; namely Michelle Pfeiffer's Queen Ingrith. At best, it's lame motivation. Jolie remains the star, while Elle Fanning is solid enough. Pfeiffer isn't as enjoyable as she should be, mainly due to the aforementioned, but still produces a good display. Chiwetel Ejiofor is a terrific addition to the cast, but I can't honestly say I'll remember his performance here - which is a shame. Warwick Davis is, slightly, underused too. Also, how strange to see former professional footballer John Carew on the cast; albeit in a minor role. The effects are, pleasingly, an upgrade at least; they all look great. I hold no ill feelings towards this, I just wish it was greater.

A lot better then the first. This one had a lot more action and some epic battles. Easily the best out of the series.

In the best tradition of Disney, this film has a rousing score and looks stunning; but just like the recent rehash of "the Lion King" is entirely an example of style over substance. Maleficent is meant to be evil - like Venger from "Dungeons and Dragons". Instead we get a sugary, goody-goody with all the venom of a water snake. Robert Lindsay, Chiwitel Ejiofor and Harris Dickinson fail to make any impression at all leaving Michelle Pfeiffer to reprise her role from "Stardust" and try to salvage something - anything - from a very weak storyline. It seems uncertain as to whom this film is actually for - but if it is meant to be for children, then it has no business being two hours long.