A Haunted House 2 - Review

Director: Michael Tiddes Writers: Marlon Wayans, Rick Alvarez Studios: Open Road Films, IM Global Octane, Wayans Bros. Entertainment, Baby Way Productions Cast: Marlon Wayans, Jaime Pressly, Essence Atkins, Gabriel Iglesias, Cedric the Entertainer Release Date (UK): 26 June, 2014 Certificate: 18 Runtime: 86 min

About halfway through “A Haunted House 2,” Marlon Wayans, writing in his notepad, ponders aloud to himself, with no irony whatsoever: “When are they gonna stop doing the Scary Movies without the Wayans? They fucking suck.” Having sat through “A Haunted House” and now “A Haunted House 2,” I have to ask Mr. Wayans, how is what you’re doing here any better? The unasked-for sequel to the found-footage horror spoof written by, produced by and starring Wayans, “A Haunted House 2” is just as depressingly puerile and sloppily put together as the first one, if not more so. The targets this time are as follows: “The Conjuring,” “Sinister,” “Paranormal Activity” (again), “The Possession,” “The Devil Inside” (again) and “Insidious,” though they have nothing to worry about; Wayans doesn’t miss his targets so much as slide the arrow up his ass while pulling a silly face and shrieking at the camera.

Watching Wayans’ performance is like watching someone suffer a mental breakdown: his relentless wailing and gurning is as sad as it is irritating, and the fact that he’s put himself front and centre in every single scene leads one to believe that this is some sort of horrifically twisted vanity project for him. Just wait till you get to the scene where he forces a wooden doll to eat out his asshole; it’s like staring into the fucking abyss. I mildly chuckled twice throughout the film: once when Wayans inflates his recently flattened pet dog and it blows down the street like a deflating balloon, the other when Wayans hits a live chicken over the head with a chair. That those are the comedy highlights should tell you a lot. If, at the end of 2014, this isn’t on my “worst films of the year” list, let it be known that I want “Rocket Man” by Elton John played at my funeral.

Rating: 2/10

3 Days to Kill - Review

Director: McG Writers: Luc Besson, Adi Hasak Studios: Relativity Media, EuropaCorp, Wonderland Sound and Vision Cast: Kevin Costner, Hailee Steinfeld, Amber Heard Release Date (UK): 20 June, 2014 Certificate: 15 Runtime: 117 min

If there’s a balance to be found between a gritty action-thriller, a sappy father-daughter drama and a lighthearted crime comedy, “3 Days to Kill” fails to find it -- and then some. This absurdly clumsy spy movie comes from mononymous mega-hack McG, and if you want proof of just how ham-fisted a director he is, look no further than his latest film’s staggeringly muddled tone: one minute we’re watching Kevin Costner’s CIA man with a brain tumour Ethan Renner blowing badguys’ faces off and snapping necks, the next we’re watching a cheery montage of him teaching his estranged teenage daughter (Hailee Steinfeld) how to ride a bicycle (!). To say it's tonally confused would be an understatement: don't get me started on the torture scenes played for laughs or the bit where Steinfeld's character is almost gang-raped in a public bathroom.

French action maestro Luc Besson also produces, and there are echoes of his 2008 hit “Taken” heard throughout: its action hero is, after all, a greying CIA dad who marches through the streets of Paris, taking no names and torturing silly-sounding foreigners, and in amongst the punching and shooting there lies a family conflict. The thing is, “3 Days to Kill” can’t decide if it’s the next “Taken” or a parody of it, with its unfunny comedy scenes sticking out like a broken thumb. On three separate occasions, a tense situation is *hilariously* interrupted by an Icona Pop ringtone blaring from Ethan's pocket. It’s not funny the first time; it’s even less funny the second time; by the third time, you begin to yearn for the good old days when McG was directing the “Charlie’s Angels” movies.

The sole saving grace is Costner, though even he seems confused as to who he’s supposed to be playing: Jason Bourne, Bryan Mills or Disney dad Tim Allen. In a career which includes “Waterworld,” a.k.a. that film where he drank his own piss and had gills on his neck, this just might be Costner’s low point -- for crying out loud, he’s being directed by McG. For an action film, “3 Days to Kill” is nowhere near thrilling enough. For a comedy, it’s nowhere near funny enough. For a McG film, it’s exactly as expected; that is to say, it’s vacuous, empty-headed, boring nonsense.

Rating: 3/10

The Fault in Our Stars - Review

Director: Josh Boone Writers: Scott Neustadter, Michael H. Weber Studios: 20th Century Fox, Temple Hill Entertainment Cast: Shailene Woodley, Ansel Elgort, Nat Wolff, Laura Dern, Sam Trammell, Willem Dafoe Release Date (UK): 19 June, 2014 Certificate: 12A Runtime: 125 min

Lotsa snifflin’. “The Fault in Our Stars,” the new teen-oriented cancer weepy, is, like most teen-oriented cancer weepies, mawkish and manipulative. The difference with this, however, is that unlike most teen-oriented cancer weepies, it earns the right to be mawkish and manipulative. It earns this through the relationship between its central pair of sick (and getting sicker) lovebirds: Hazel (Shailene Woodley) and Gus (Ansel Elgort), two sharp-witted teenagers who meet at a cancer support group in Indianapolis. Hazel has terminal thyroid cancer and walks everywhere with a tube up her nose and an oxygen tank at her side. Gus has osteosarcoma, which is in remission, but it has taken his right leg. Bonding over their sicknesses, they become good friends, then more than friends, even as death approaches their doorsteps.

Like “Marley and Me” (but good), “The Fault in Our Stars” is a film you go into bracing yourself for the emotional sledgehammer. A love story between two cancer patients can end only in tear-soaked tragedy. We know this, so when introduced to Hazel and Gus, some may attempt to resist getting swept away in their doomed romance as a means of self-defense. But resistance is futile: Woodley and Elgort are so good together, and their conversations so enjoyable, and their blossoming romance so engaging and believable, that getting swept away is the only option. Before you know it you’re warming to them, you’re going on an emotional journey with them and you’re falling in love with them. Then the sledgehammer hits, and you’re a blubbering wreck crying on the floor.

Me, I got teary eyed and I was sniffling away, and may have had to blow my nose a couple times. And while yes, the film achieves this partly through the saddest of piano riffs playing in the background, I didn’t feel cheated: the film had allowed me to grow to care about the characters and laugh with them and care about what happened to them in a way that felt natural rather than forced. As far as I’m concerned, the film absolutely earns the right to turn all weepy and sappy towards the end: if you're gonna try and make me cry, first make me care, and “The Fault in Our Stars” did make me care. It’s manipulative, to be sure, almost cruelly so, but it allows us to fall in love with Hazel and Gus in a way that’s anything but.

Rating: 8/10

Devil's Knot - Review

Director: Atom Egoyan Writers: Paul Harris Boardman, Scott Derrickson Studios: Image Entertainment, Worldview Entertainment Cast: Colin Firth, Reese Witherspoon, Mireille Enos, Dane DeHaan, Kevin Durand, Bruce Greenwood, Alessandro Nivola Release Date (UK): 13 June, 2014 Certificate: 15 Runtime: 114 min

“Devil’s Knot” has an astonishing story based in fact, but as a drama it fails to satisfy and it adds little of anything new or worthwhile to an already thoroughly traversed case. Its inspiration is a child murder case from 21 years ago: on May 5, 1993, three eight-year-old boys went missing from their neighbourhood in West Memphis, Arkansas; the next day, their bodies were found in the woods nearby. A month later, three local teenage boys, apparently part of a devil-worshipping cult, were arrested for the murders, though they strongly professed their innocence. In Atom Egoyan’s film, private investigator Ron Lax (Colin Firth, sporting an Arkansas twang), a fictional character, becomes embroiled in the subsequent trial, strongly suspecting that the three accused are in fact innocent.

The case of the West Memphis Three has been widely covered since the trial in 1994, with countless news specials, documentaries and publications made over the years. Famously, there’s the extraordinary, in-depth “Paradise Lost” trilogy, and most recently, Amy Berg made a terrific investigative documentary on the subject called “West of Memphis.” Anyone looking to learn anything new about the case in “Devil’s Knot” is looking in the wrong place. As is anyone looking for an absorbing crime drama akin to “Zodiac:” sadly, the film seems more concerned with the inner workings of the trial rather than the people that surround it. What this really could have done with is a David Fincher type who’d give it a mood, a style, a drive and some insight into the characters; in the hands of Egoyan, it’s like a made-for-TV special airing on a Sunday afternoon. If you’re interested in the topic, do yourself a favour: skip “Devil’s Knot” and watch the riveting “Paradise Lost” instead; it tells the exact same story in much more depth and does so with extraordinary real-life footage.

Rating: 4/10

22 Jump Street - Review

Directors: Phil Lord, Christopher Miller Writers: Michael Bacall, Oren Uziel, Rodney Rothman Studios: Columbia Pictures, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Media Rights Capital, Original Film, Lord Miller Productions Cast: Jonah Hill, Channing Tatum, Peter Stormare, Ice Cube Release Date (UK): June 6, 2014 Certificate: 15 Runtime: 112 min

“Everybody knows the sequel’s never quite as good,” sang Kermit the Frog earlier this year in the rib-ticklingly self-deprecating opening musical number of “Muppets Most Wanted,” a sequel which, as fate would have it, was indeed not quite as good as its fantastic predecessor. It seems Kermit may have sung too soon: “22 Jump Street,” a sequel which shares the same ironically mocking attitude towards the concept of sequels as “Muppets Most Wanted,” is every bit as good as “21 Jump Street,” if not even better. And as anyone who saw Phil Lord and Christopher Miller’s spectacularly funny 2012 action comedy will agree, that’s a damn impressive feat. Matching the first film’s gut-busting laugh-a-minute hit rate as well as its boisterous energy and subversive wit, it’s a more than worthy follow-up to that comedy tour de force, and may well be the greatest comedy sequel of all time.

An affectionate send-up of money-grubbing sequels which is itself a money-grubbing sequel, “22 Jump Street” has stars Jonah Hill and Channing Tatum doing the exact same thing they did in the first movie all over again, but with a slight twist: instead of going undercover as students at a high school, they’re going undercover at a college. And as per the rule of the sequel, everything’s bigger and louder: the opening action set-piece has ridiculously OTT stunts; Ice Cube’s Jump Street headquarters are given a pointlessly expensive refurbishment; in an on-campus chase scene, Hill and Tatum ride around in a giant football helmet on wheels, crashing into every statue and sculpture in sight. There’s even an exotic change of locale for the action-packed, helicopter-dangling final showdown, as Hill and Tatum join party-crazy spring breakers at the sweltering beach of Puerto, Mexico.

Even Hill and Tatum’s bromance is off the charts: cranking it up to 11, Lord and Miller have their central pair's bromantic friendship teetering dangerously close to an all-out love affair. Hill and Tatum are once again a hilarious buddy duo worthy of Riggs and Murtaugh. Tatum was a comedic revelation in “21 Jump Street” and here he’s knocking it out of the park. Case in point: in the improv class scene, he shouts one word, and I was laughing my ass off; then he shouts another and I was laughing even harder. The dude’s a natural. As for Lord and Miller, they’ve had quite a year, with the insurmountably awesome “The LEGO Movie” one of 2014's best cinematic offerings, and this not trailing far behind. They continue to prove that they’re a pair of directors who really understand the art of comedy: their latest is a full-blown blast of hilarity which halfway through had my ribs hurting from all the giggle fits. By the way, make sure you stick through the end credits -- they alone are worth the price of admission.

Rating: 9/10

Oculus - Review

Director: Mike Flanagan Writer: Mike Flanagan, Jeff Howard Studios: Relativity Media, Blumhouse Productions, WWE Studios, Intrepid Pictures Cast: Karen Gillan, Brenton Thwaites, Rory Cochrane, Katee Sackhoff Release Date (UK): 13 June 2014 Certificate: 15 Runtime: 103 min

The secret’s in the editing. “Oculus,” a new horror movie co-written, directed and edited by Mike Flanagan, delivers its frights not through eardrum-shattering jump scares or fountains of gore but through a shimmeringly clever premise and delightfully deceptive editing. The premise: a haunted antique wall mirror corrupts the minds of those that surround it, skewing their perception of reality and driving them murder-crazy. Years after her family was tormented by the mirror and her younger brother Tim was wrongly convicted of murder, auction house worker Kaylie (Scottish actress and former “Dr Who” assistant Karen Gillan, pulling off a stupendous stateside accent) tracks down the antique and takes it back to her old family home. Her aim: document the mirror with the aid of the recently discharged Tim (Brenton Thwaites), unveil its true nature to the rest of the world and end its reign of terror once and for all. What actually happens: not quite that.

It sounds like a simple enough set-up for a horror movie: a brother and sister find themselves once again terrorised by the mysterious household object that terrorised them when they were youngsters. But the really interesting thing about “Oculus” is not necessarily the story; rather, it’s the way the story is told. For starters, Flanagan and co-writer Jeff Howard tell their story by jumping back and forth between two different time periods: the present, where Kaylie and Tim document the mirror, and the past, where young Kaylie and Tim first encounter the mirror’s evil. At first, the two narratives play out side by side: for a couple of scenes we’re in the present, then for the next couple of scenes we’re in the past, then back to the present, and so on. But once the mirror really starts to screw with the heads of older Kaylie and Tim, the line separating past and present becomes more and more blurred. At first haunted by buried memories of family dysfunction and tragedy, Kaylie and Tim begin re-experiencing them too.

And with his film featuring an evil mirror which toys with the characters’ minds, Flanagan doesn’t skimp on toying with viewers’ minds too. Questioned throughout the film is whether or not what we’re watching is real, a hallucination brought on by the mirror or a byproduct of our characters’ possible insanity. Kaylie and Tim are plagued with visions and illusions which confuse, distract and deceive -- the mirror bites back against their attempts to destroy it, and soon enough they’re seeing things which aren’t there and chomping on apples which are a little crunchier than usual (seriously, after watching “Oculus,” you’ll never take a casual bite out of an apple again). It’s a great way to up the ante: the audience doesn’t know who or what to trust, what’s real and what’s unreal, and eventually, what’s past and what’s present -- and Flanagan revels in the chance to pull the rug from under his audience. And of course, the more time Kaylie and Tim spend around the mirror, the more questionable their surroundings become.

It all builds to a sensational climax in which the horrors of before begin to seep into the horrors of now and it’s not long until we can barely tell them apart. Past and present, along with reality and unreality, become seamlessly entangled and begin to interact with each other. It’s a brilliant use of editing in a finale that's skillfully staged and designed by Flanagan: with the two parallel narratives appearing to become one, our two older heroes step into the past, walking in on their cowering younger selves, feeling their fear and seeing what they see. The result of all this brain-boggling rug-pulling is both a finale which is weird, exhilarating and hair-raising, and something particularly peculiar: a horror movie which feels (*gasp*) refreshing.

It’s this which makes “Oculus” one of the most exciting horror movies to come along in a long while: here we have a horror movie that’s different and inventive and keeps you on your toes; here we have a haunted house picture that dares to draw outside the lines and has an imagination all on its own. And while yes, the shock ending can be seen a mile off and the film could do with a boost in the terror department, it’s still a joy to see a horror movie with such ambition and which feels this fresh. Word is this is to be the start of a new horror franchise, like “Saw” or “Paranormal Activity” -- the ending certainly leaves the door open for a sequel. Hopefully the series will maintain the same level of twisting cleverness as this thrilling first entry, lest it turn into... well, “Saw” or “Paranormal Activity.”

Rating: 8/10

A Million Ways to Die in the West - Review

Director: Seth MacFarlane Writers: Seth MacFarlane, Alec Sulkin, Wellesley Wild Studios: Universal Pictures, Media Rights Capital, Fuzzy Door Productions, Bluegrass Films Cast: Seth MacFarlane, Charlize Theron, Amanda Seyfried, Neil Patrick Harris, Giovanni Ribisi, Sarah Silverman, Liam Neeson Release Date (UK): May 30, 2014 Certificate: 15 Runtime: 116 min

“A Million Ways to Die in the West” comes from Seth MacFarlane, the creator of “Family Guy,” an animated show which runs for 22 minutes. Which is funny, because in “A Million Ways to Die in the West,” there’s maybe about 22 minutes of good material. The rest of the film, i.e. the other hour and a half, is filler, and slow-moving filler at that. I find that weird: “Family Guy” is known for being hectic and wild and crazy, yet “A Million Ways to Die in the West” moves along at a snail’s pace. Maybe MacFarlane needs to hire a new editor. Then again, maybe the film feels so slow because those 22 minutes are being stretched far beyond their limitations.

There’s a solid enough gag at the centre of the film: we’re in the wild west, circa 1882, yet everyone talks like it’s the modern day. And with it being the wild west, there are a million things out to kill you, hence the title. MacFarlane plays Albert Stark, a cowardly sheep farmer who, after ducking out of a gun fight, loses his beloved girlfriend Louise (Amanda Seyfried). Charlize Theron plays Anna, the wife of an outlaw, who befriends Albert and helps him get his girlfriend back by teaching him how to shoot like a man. Also in the mix is a well-cast Liam Neeson as Anna’s infamous outlaw husband and Neil Patrick Harris as the mustachioed man who steals Louise away. MacFarlane is smart enough to give Harris his own musical number, which is a fun, catchy highlight (if MacFarlane knows what's good for him he’ll make his next movie a musical and cast Harris in the lead role).

MacFarlane’s last movie was “Ted,” in which he was the voice of a talking, strictly anti-PC teddy bear. With that 2012 hit, “A Million Ways to Die in the West” shares a spectacularly crude sense of humour: there’s enough F-bombs, raunchy sex gags and sheep cocks on display to give the PTC a month’s worth of heart attacks. I don’t mind the crudeness: I did, after all, laugh quite a lot during “Ted.” But being crude is one thing; being crude and not funny is another. I think I chuckled maybe five times during “A Million Ways to Die in the West” and let out one genuine laugh. For a comedy which runs for almost two full hours, “A Million Ways to Die in the West” simply isn’t funny enough; for a film which dares comparison with “Blazing Saddles,” it dies a million deaths.

Rating: 4/10

Cheap Thrills - Review

Director: E.L. Katz Writers: Trent Haaga, David Chirchirillo Studios: Drafthouse Films, New Artists Alliance, Snowfort Pictures Cast: Pat Healy, Sara Paxton, Ethan Embry, David Koechner Release Date (UK): June 6, 2014 Certificate: 15 Runtime: 85 min

“Cheap Thrills” asks the question, “How much would you be willing to degrade yourself just to pay the bills or make the monthly rent?” “An awful bloody lot,” would be the answer given by reunited friends Craig and Vince, who take part in sick, twisted bets for money (lotsa money!) in E.L. Katz’s jet-black comedy. Recently let go from his job as a car mechanic, struggling family man Craig (Pat Healy) bumps into Vince (Ethan Embry), an old high school buddy, at a bar one night. There, they meet a rich couple (David Koechner and Sara Paxton) who invite them to play a game. The game: competing against each other, Craig and Vince must complete various tasks for wads of cash. The longer the night goes on, the bigger the rewards become and the further the tasks escalate into violence and depravity. I’d detail some of those tasks here, but I don’t want to spoil any of the surprises in store -- I will say, however, that if you’re an owner of a small poodle and you love that small poodle, maybe this movie isn’t for you.

This is a dark, dark, *dark* comedy. If you laugh at this, you’re one sick fuck. Luckily, I am a sick fuck, so I was happily chuckling along even as I was writhing and squirming in horror and disgust. Not all of it is played for laughs: the film is, after all, ultimately a sad tale of financial desperation in our current economy, so a sharp sting of melancholy hangs heavy in the air. But the enjoyment of “Cheap Thrills” comes mostly from seeing just how screwed-up the bets become over the course of the night and just how low Craig and Vince are willing to stoop. Suffice to say, this is not a film for the faint of heart, but for the strong of heart, it’s a deliciously fucked-up blast of twisted nastiness. All the while the fantastic (and, crucially, convincing) performances of the four game leads help to elevate the film above cheap schlock, which I suppose it is -- just look at the title. But it’s cheap schlock with a point and a purpose. And if I’m being served cheap schlock, that’s precisely how I want it served (alternative side dishes: a slice of fun and microwaved pet).

Rating: 8/10

Edge of Tomorrow - Review

Director: Doug Liman Writers: Christopher McQuarrie, Jez Butterworth, John-Henry Butterworth Studio: Warner Bros. Pictures Cast: Tom Cruise, Emily Blunt, Bill Paxton, Brendan Gleeson Release Date (UK): May 30, 2014 Certificate: 12A Runtime: 113min

“Edge of Tomorrow” might just be the greatest video game movie ever made. Only, it’s not actually based on a video game, thank God -- in actual fact, it’s based on a novel, 2004’s “All You Need is Kill,” penned by Japanese writer Hiroshi Sakurazaka. What I mean is, it’s a film which takes on the structure of a video game, thanks to a premise which has Tom Cruise respawning over and over again like a video game character against the war-torn backdrop of an alien invasion. Cruise plays William Cage, a cowardly army major and PR specialist who to his horror is thrust into the battlefield when Earth is invaded by militarised extraterrestrial beasties. Killed by the enemy, he awakens the previous day, finding himself stuck in a time-loop where he must fight the exact same battle day after day until the battle is won.

The moment Cage wakes up is essentially the film’s checkpoint: each time he dies, he respawns before the battle begins, given another chance to win the war and effectively beat the game. And each time he goes into battle, he’s given a chance to improve, to work out a new and more effective strategy: he memorises every detail and plans out every step, much like a player would on an especially tough level. There’s even a tutorial stage, as Cruise is trained by Emily Blunt’s iron-tough Special Forces Sergeant Rita Vrataski in a room full of spinning metal claws. It’s all very video gamey. Of course, that’s a term oft considered an insult in this medium: you call a film video gamey, chances are you ain’t giving it five stars. And yet in the case of “Edge of Tomorrow,” a film which operates under the rules of a video game, it’s a full endorsement. And unlike every movie based on a video game I’ve seen in the past, I felt like I was involved in the action and the drama rather than watching someone else play a game while waiting to be handed the controls. For Doug Liman’s film manages to do what no movie based on a video game has ever done before: it’s engaging, it's involving and it's (*gasp*) fun.

Of course, with the idea being that the film repeats itself over and over again, it runs the risk of becoming monotonous -- but thanks to brisk editing, genuinely funny levity and the always developing relationship between Cruise and Blunt, the action never grows tiresome (in fact, it remains hugely enjoyable right through to the high-stakes Louvre-crashing finale). And Christopher McQuarrie, Jez Butterworth and John-Henry Butterworth’s script successfully taps into Cage’s mentality: it understands that reliving the same day and over and over again and dying at the end of it would exhaust, frustrate and dishearten, especially when you have to watch a person you’ve grown to care for, i.e. Blunt’s character, die time and time again. Blunt, by the way, is terrific, holding her own against Cruise’s movie star mojo; with this, ”The Adjustment Bureau,” “Looper” and the upcoming “Into the Woods,” she’s establishing herself as the next big star of sci-fi/fantasy cinema.

I wasn’t a fan of Cruise’s previous sci-fi vehicle, 2013’s “Oblivion.” I felt it was too derivative of other, better sci-fi movies and struggled to find an identity of its own. “Edge of Tomorrow” is also derivative, taking its central time-loop concept from “Groundhog Day” and “Source Code.” But it takes that concept, makes it its own, has fun with it and allows us to have fun with it too. In a year of strong popcorn movies, “Edge of Tomorrow” is one of the best, offering pretty much everything you could ask of a summer blockbuster: heart, thrills, laughs, spectacle, an engaging story and Tom Cruise battling alien scum. My only disappointment: it’s a video game movie co-starring Bill Paxton and yet at no point does he utter his immortal line from “Aliens:” “Game over, man! Game over!”

Rating: 8/10

Maleficent - Review

Director: Robert Stromberg Writer: Linda Woolverton Studios: Walt Disney Pictures, Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures, Roth Films Cast: Angelina Jolie, Sharlto Copley, Elle Fanning, Sam Riley, Imelda Staunton, Juno Temple, Lesley Manville Release Date (UK): May 28, 2014 Certificate: PG Runtime: 97 min

So enormously watchable is Angelina Jolie in Disney’s “Maleficent” that one is awfully tempted to pardon the film for its myriad storytelling hiccups based solely on her lead performance. As the iconic villainess who in the classic 1959 animation cursed Sleeping Beauty into an endless slumber, Jolie is magnificent: lavishly wicked, devilishly elegant and with a fiery glare that could turn any man to pure stone, her performance is dead-on, so much so that one suspects she might have actually been born to play the role -- watching her glower and prowl about in her extravagant costume is like watching Maleficent herself step out from her animation cels into our reality. Jolie also reminds us why she became such a superstar in the first place: though she’s often dismissed as nothing but a tabloid beauty, people forget that she truly is a terrifically talented actress with real screen presence, and that taking your eyes off her is a tough ask -- especially when she has thick, twisting horns growing from her crown and pointed cheekbones that could sharpen an HB pencil.

So it’s a damn shame that the rest of Disney’s live-action fairy tale reimagining, which shines its titular Mistress of All Evil in a new and more sympathetic light, does her performance little justice. Somewhere in here there’s a dark and intimate character study ready to burst out and spread its wings; sadly, its wings are clipped by rushed storytelling which races through Maleficent’s untold tale, skipping over character beats in favour of pretty CG visuals. Her transformation from angelic innocent to vengeful villain to loving mother is rendered rather limp and could have benefited from a longer, more fleshed out runtime (at 97 minutes it’s one of the shortest blockbusters of recent years). We can put this down to the inexperience of first-time director Robert Stromberg: previously a production designer on “Avatar” and “Alice in Wonderland,” Stromberg crams the screen full of colourful fantasy landscapes and magical creatures, and somewhere along the line, Maleficent’s story gets lost in the spectacle -- that the bogstandard fairy tale setting feels largely artificial doesn’t do well to help matters either.

The film does have an admirable revisionist feminist streak akin to last year’s “Frozen,” with a rape-revenge plot tied in with Maleficent’s tragic backstory (an early moment of surprising bleakness the film never quite recaptures) and the “true love’s kiss” cliche given a neat spin. Along with that, it’s easy to see what it was about the project that appealed so much to Jolie: as Maleficent grows close to the growing Aurora, aka Sleeping Beauty (the talented Elle Fanning, sadly given nothing to do), the film delves into themes of adoptive parenting and maternal love, which the three-time adopter ought to know a little something about. But the execution lacks true enchantment and for a film called “Maleficent,” it disappointingly only scratches the surface of its anti-heroine’s intriguing psyche. Jolie is a joy to watch, her performance a darkly exquisite, ferocious treat; trouble is, whenever she prowls off-screen, you find yourself willing her to prowl straight back.

Rating: 5/10