The New International Trailer for "The Little Prince" Is Lovely

I've seen things about this film for a while, watched various trailers, only one of which was in English (and had Japanese subtitles over it) and liked what I saw but this one, just released this week, caught my attention.

Being on the subject of the importance of wonder and imagination, it should be no surprise the classic is well loved by fairy tale folk.

If you don't already know, this animated version of Le Petite Prince (which is being scrutinized by many people who are very protective of their childhood classic) has the framework of the story being told to a little girl by an eccentric neighbor. (Did you ever wonder who was being told the story in the book?) It has the potential to work really well but no matter how good a trailer is, we won't really know until we see the film.

Take a look!

There's a new poster too. I really like the top half in particular.

Shakespeare's (Modern) "Cymbeline" Heading To Theaters in March

A poster was just revealed for the upcoming movie release Cymbeline. (This movie was originally planned to be released in 2014 so there have been some delays and reworkings.) It's a modern (and very violent, it would seem) adaptation of Shakespeare's Cymbeline (which was also violent but had clearer fairy tale elements).

For those wondering why I'm putting something Shakespeare-related on the blog, Cymbeline is often regarded as "Shakespeare's Snow White" as it has so many of the key motifs and elements of the tale in a specific combination the parallel can easily be made. 

Did Shakespeare know the Snow White story or one of the many variants? Although it seems unlikely that he did, considering the timeline of certain collections with regard to Shakespeare's own dates, the Decameron is listed among his sources when creating the play and may have been one of those texts also seen by the Grimm Brothers in their studies (I haven't looked at this very much in depth but this discussion was started long ago on the SurLaLune boards HERE).

With regard to the upcoming movie, will any Snow White variant be detectable? Beyond the basic set-up of jealous "queen", huntsman and the girl finding her way through grit and wit and possibly a death-like sleep, I'd be surprised if the usual Snow White parallels remain, though you never know. If they stuck closely to Shakespeare's Cymbeline, there will be more classic fairy tale elements there than you'd ever think from the poster above. (You can read a break down of the similarities between Cymbeline, Snow White, Othello and King Lear by Quill and Qwerty HERE.) An interesting note is that the film was titled Anarchy for a short while but is back to being Cymbeline. That should give a few clues about the film right there.

Ethan Hawke (Edit FTNH: who did the modern day New York update of Hamlet with the same director) co-stars with Ed Harris as two players caught up in the middle of a war between dirty cops and an outlaw biker gang which forces a drug kingpin (Harris) to desperate measures. The ensemble cast includes Milla Jovovich (“Resident Evil” films), John Leguizamo, Dakota Johnson (Fifty Shades of Grey), Penn Badgley, Anton Yelchin, Bill Pullman and Delroy Lindo. 

Cymbeline will be released in select cities on March13, 2015, and will be rated R.

Into the New Year By Way Of "The Woods" (Movie Review!)

I was given a very generous gift on New Year's Day: the chance to see Into The Woods on the big screen, when I thought I'd most certainly have to wait for the home viewing release.

I'll admit, the more promos and trailers I've seen, the more excited I became about the movie, despite my initial reaction to the concept being less-than-positive. (Although, I completely agree that I, too, would jump at the chance of having my work be seen by a much-wider-than-usual audience, even if it mean inevitable compromises.) Take a look at these two featurette-trailers and perhaps you'll see what I mean.

But before I share my two cents on the movie, let me give you a little background, first, so you understand where my review (or should it be reflection?) is coming from. (And I will gif-t you with these lovely, subtle-y alive, character posters as you read.)

New Year's Day I decided it had been far too long since seeing the show (and my last viewing was not of the legendary original Broadway cast either), so I dusted off my DVD and managed to watch the entire play over the course of the day. It was a pretty great way to pass a day.

At this point, you need to know that I'm not a huge fan of fairy tale mash-ups in general and Into the Woods has never been one of those favorite fairy tale things of mine. I don't like characters from one fairy tale running into characters from another. To me it flattens them, makes them caricatures of what is the very spare character outline fairy tales generally use - and need - in order to be effective fairy tales. When you caricature them, however, to me it makes them less relatable and the power of the story drains away. I know this isn't everyone's experience, it's mine, but it has affected my view of Into the Woods over the years. My main problem with the play has always been that the division in ideas between the two acts is so extreme, (almost all light versus almost all dark) and that unless you already had an appreciation of fairy tales and understood much of the subtext, most people I knew who saw it completely missed the point of Act II and just wished it had finished at intermission, missing the entire point of seeing it in the first place.

My eventual thoughts on there being a Disney movie (underline the "Disney" part there) was that these two disparate parts would likely be more interwoven, (especially seeing as the movie making business doesn't tend to give a whole lot of credit to modern audiences to pick up on subtleties). The result would (likely) be that the core idea of the play "be careful what you wish for", which has been the key phrase of the marketing campaign, by the way, would be far more clear, as would the key themes of maturation and cycles. Despite the inevitable Disneyfication of some aspects, if they were doing it with Sondheim and Lapine, surely even a watered-down version would be worth making.

So my DVD viewing, which was a far more enjoyable (and hilarious) experience than I ever remember it being before (apart from seeing it in person, which can't be beat, in my opinion), had me very much looking forward to seeing the movie.

And then I was given the opportunity to do exactly that.

So what did I think?

Is it worth seeing on the big screen? 
Short answer: yes.
Long answer: there are definitely some parts of the movie which make the price of the ticket completely worth it, as they used the *very different* media of film extremely well, rather than having it play second fiddle to an excellent live play experience.

Did I like it overall?
Short answer: yes...?
Long answer: some parts almost glowed, they were so wonderful, while many other parts, including the end, felt disjointed. It should have been more consistently funny but wasn't allowed to carry this through as the primary tone. The times the film shone, was when the storytelling was clear or when the "funny" was given center stage. They should have done this more. A lot more. Overall I was left feeling frustrated and a little let down because it felt so uneven.

Will I get the DVD when it comes out?
Short answer: yes!
Long answer: There's a lot I'd love to see again, things I'd like to revisit and other things I'd like to puzzle out, try to understand why on earth they did it "that way". And anything behind-the-scenes will be gold.

Was it "faithful" to the Tony Award winning play?
Short answer: yes, absolutely.
Long answer: But not in all the ways I think mattered most. (See the above long answer to "did I like it" and, below, the long answers to pretty much every other question!) If I had to choose, it would be the play, hands-down, as the sheer fun of the story and the way it's told make all the difference, but I'm very glad they both exist.

What about the music?
Short answer: Excellent.
Long answer: I'm considering investing in the soundtrack. The orchestration is amazing and the best I've ever heard. The singing from everyone is top notch and then absolutely stellar by some who managed both the technicality and the acting-via-song.

What about the music changes?
Short answer: generally fine.
Long answer: Knowing there would be key differences, I tried very hard to let the movie stand on it's own music and songs, rather than looking for what was added or missing. The songs themselves were OK, though I do think the uneven placement of the numbers, including the way they stopped and started, was a detriment at times (eg the movie opened, and continued, with mostly songs telling the stories, with little dialog, which worked pretty well. When they stopped singing for a while and the orchestra's "stings" weren't accenting the lines, it was as if the focus changed and became a different movie, to the point where someone starting to sing would jolt you a bit.)

Visual style - what did I think?
Short answer: Good, almost great.
Long answer: Colleen Atwood's costume design (and the reasons and research behind each) doesn't disappoint (she even made Johnny Depp's personal preference less obnoxious than it might have been, though clearly she had to defer in that case). The overall visual style was a little uneven - sometimes clearly theatrical, sometimes faux-real. Overall the entire film was very blue, (as in literally had a blue cast over everything) which I think was a poor choice. Although colors popped here and there, the whole atmosphere seemed the same and too stagey for a film, especially with regard to the wood. I think they could have served the story and themes better with a lighter, brighter color palette (and this is from someone who loves blue and moody things by the way!)

What about the Disney-factor?
Short answer: both good and bad.
Long answer: The good was that this anti-ever-after fairy tale made it through the Disney machine, keeping it's main thrust intact without sugar-coating everything - or turning into typical Disney - to be seen by a huge audience. That's almost a form of magic in itself! The big budget was a plus for costume, cinematography and casting too. The bad is that almost all the innuendo and subtext present in the play that makes it SO much fun and so layered simply was not there. At. All. It was actually really bizarre in places that people were saying what they were because, without innuendo, there was no reason for them to be talking about that at all! I think this affected the performances as a result and it definitely affected the reason the story took the path it did (that is, the plot points appeared arbitrary as opposed to cause and effect, part of a cycle, part of a larger set of principles in motion).

So what about the (main) cast?
Short answer: better than expected.
Long answer: Although they were all very good in their parts, some were amazing while others were just "good".
I'll break it down by the mains:
Meryl Streep as the Witch: holy crap she can sing - and act while singing! It's hard to review her performance because she's "always excellent" and she was. I did feel her performance was rather neutered, not being allowed to be at all suggestive, but the mother/daughter push-and-pull within her character was clear and heart wrenching. Unfortunately, despite how good she was, many of her scenes felt uneven. [QUASI-SPOILER: The callback to her own mother at the end, was well done and a good way for her to 'exit'.]
Emily Blunt as the Baker's Wife: She was pretty much perfect. Wonderful voice, lovely layered acting, theatrical enough in her portrayal to pay homage to history. Her tone was a perfect match for the best parts of the movie and she was consistent in it throughout. If everyone has been of the same tone, it would have been a far better movie.
James Corden as The Baker: Very good. Honestly, he was mostly flawless but he was put in some odd scenes/staging that detracted. His singing was good, not perfect, but it didn't bother me in any either. In the end, the omission of some key resolution points with regard to fatherhood, left him seemingly lost. I felt sorry for him, because it felt like he wasn't allowed to travel his full arc through the woods.

Anna Kendrick as Cinderella: Very good. Her singing was excellent. I don't think she matched the best tones of the movie though. It's hard to put my finger on why I didn't love her in it, because she was REALLY good, but I think it was a tonal thing.
Johnny Depp as The Wolf: Good, generally. His performance would have been perfect for stage but he didn't match, or play well off Red Riding Hood. Not entirely his fault, I don't think. It's hard to tell. There was a lot of imbalance in his and Red's scenes together. His costume though seemed a little out of place, from a different story (thank goodness it didn't have the traditional "wolf tackle" though!).
Lilla Crawford: Good. Solid performance but too flat, one note and too "American". (Her accent was garish against everyone else's who used a more affected, traditional tale-style of speech and emphasis. She felt modern.) The fact that she really was a young girl (12 years?) and not a woman playing a young girl, just didn't work. I do think this was because of her performance though, (see notes on Jack below) and I'm fairly certain it was directed to be this way - that she was completely unaware of any layering, let alone innuendo (and she never, ever used any). She came across as brusque, flat and fairly unemotional with no sense of maturation happening through the film. Given that Little Red is one of my favorite characters because you can do so very much with her in the play, I was seriously disappointed they didn't capture even a shadow of the traditional Red.
Daniel Huttlestone as Jack: Overall he was fantastic! After the first few scenes he WAS Jack. And he grew up during the film while still managing to remain a child. His tone was perfect.
Mackenzie Mauzy as Rapunzel: Good and better than expected. She was very good opposite Streep in her Mother/Witch role. My one complaint is there was no lightness/crazy to her role at all. She was just serious and if it had been a straight movie this would have been fine, but being *this* musical, she needed to be "more" to meet the required tone.

Chris Pine as The Prince (Cinderella's): Wow. This was the greatest, most wonderful surprise of the entire movie. Where did he come from?! I had zero expectations for him and expected him to be there for eye-candy only (which usually, in my mind, requires suffering through). I barely know who he is. I'd heard ravings about his performance in this and I can tell you they are all true. He is pitch perfect! His tone is perfect for the movie and play and he walks that line of theatrical-realism to a "t". His delivery and timing are hilarious, yet touching and oh boy can he sing (thank goodness). The standout scene of the whole movie is "Agony" with the two princes. And I kept being surprised that every single scene he was in he was spot on - not too dramatic, not too smart or too smarmy, just "charming'. We rarely see Oscar noms for comedy and certainly not for musicals but I would not be surprised if he was on the list - he really is that good. If everyone else had matched his delivery, tone and performance, this movie would have been leagues better (and it's already not bad).
Billy Magnussen as The Other Prince (Rapunzel's): His performance was good. He was definitely a good foil for The Prince and should be given credit for being a key part of the best part of the movie (ie. Agony), but wasn't quite as good with comedy on his own. His scenes with Rapunzel were a bit on the dramatic side but I noticed that was also helped by how they were staged and filmed (a bit soap-like). Unfortunately, since the innuendo and subtext are largely absent, his character doesn't have a whole lot of reason for being there.

Tracey Ullman as Jack's Mother: Excellent. I think she was perfectly cast in this supporting role and hit almost all the right notes. The interaction between her and Jack at the beginning was a little odd at first but it felt directed to be so - a little rushed through.
Christine Baranski as Cinderella's Stepmother: I didn't like this casting at all. The tone was wrong, too hammy and felt cardboard.
Lucy Punch as Lucinda: She matched Baranski's performance but as a result, not the rest of the movie. (Once blinded, though, she was just the right amount of funny.)
Tammy Blanchard as Florinda: She was great. Just the right amount of everything. Her tone worked.
Note: I don't understand what was going on with all three stepmother/sister's wigs/hairstyles though - bizarre stylistic choices stood out in a distracting way in every scene.

Favorite thing/s about the movie?
Short answer: That an a-typical representation of fairy tales is doing REALLY WELL in the mainstream and the wonderful surprise that was Chris Pine.
Long answer: There are lots of little things in addition to the above. Seeing some of the magic be 'real' was fantastic (not all, by the way - some felt like filmic conceit as well). Costume details that illuminated characters (I want Emily Blunt's main 'woods' costume! Kind of Snow White-like, which sort of fit with her character arc), seeing known actors 'perform' and do it well, Milky White (what a lovely cow - I hope she was/is well cared for), the orchestration - wonderfully large and perfect for the film, that they were so faithful in the ways that they were. Extra points for keeping the Grimm's Cinderella aspects intact (mother's grave, the three nights, the pitch on the stairs, blood in the shoe - however ridiculously teeny, the sister's punishment etc)... there are so many good things.

Least favorite things?
Short answer: I think it's mostly been said above.
Long answer: it suffered from lack of innuendo, subtext and was no longer TRULY funny, in the best way that makes you laugh at yourself for doing so many of those same things/mistakes, as those characters. Most of the "magic" was too effect-y, which I expected. The one exception was that  there was NOT a profusion of glitter, for which I am ridiculously grateful (glitter has become a Disney plague!). By the time we made it to the wedding, it suddenly felt like a really long movie and the shift from happily-ever-after to "this isn't quite what I thought it would be like" was almost missing, complete with a timeline that made less and less sense, so it felt like the characters had switched movies all of a sudden. The end was just... uncomfortable, like they couldn't figure out how to resolve it properly. (What the heck happened James Lapine?!) It felt forced and, despite obvious devices inserted to make it more positive, finished on a downer.

Despite all the negative points, it was worth seeing and am glad I saw it on the big screen. I want to see it again and I'm actually looking forward to seeing it again from an enjoyment point of view and not just a pick-it-to-pieces point of view. I would have been exceptionally proud to be on this production if I were in the crew and overall am glad this movie was made.

French poster for Into The Woods

I'm going to notch it up as a good things for fairy tales in general!

Into The Woods Bonus of the Day:

Here's a brand new Into The Woods featurette, just released today (January 2nd), discussing the designing of the Woods, as well as what The Woods mean in fairy tales and to each character. It's a really neat one, worth watching!

Fairy Tale Extra of the Day:

While at the theater I saw TWO very different, fairy tale trailers:

1) Disney's live action Cinderella by Kenneth Branagh and

2) A completely revamped Jupiter Ascending trailer, which is, essentially, a sci-fi retelling of Snow White.

Re Cinderella, I hated it. Yes. That's right. I thought it was awful! Everything except Cate Blanchett, whose stepmother is EVERYTHING you want that stepmother to be. She alone may make it worth seeing. The mice are a (very) distant second pro and Cinderella is my reason NOT to see it. Yes, it's just a trailer, but it's the first time I've seen it in total (and so large). It looks more Disney than the animated movie does! (And I don't mean that in a good way.) I'm hoping this is just the marketing tactic, following the current revived perfect-princess-trend but... My skeptic hat is firmly on my head regarding this remake now (and I had such hopes).

Jupiter Ascending's new marketing approach (and greatly delayed release from July LAST year to the end of February) doesn't show much of the Snow White tale at all. But it looks like a better film than we were originally expecting. The big question is, if it holds as much of Snow White as it used to.
I'll guess we'll find out...

Hello New Year, Hello New Cinderella Trailer

Well, whaddayaknow? Midnight does change everything.

Happy NewYear!

Wishing you a tale-filled year
(all of which have happily ever afters)
bringing joy, wonder
and magic of the very best kind.

Pause for effect... (Or is that the champagne? Ahem.)

And now the news:

I don't know about you, but I didn't have a hope of catching the new Cinderella #midnight sneak peek that aired last night. But Disney have been kind enough to upload the new trailer today as a little New Year's gift to of all us in that predicament (#guessingmostpeople) and here it is:

*Aside: Isn't it great to be starting the year with fairy tale news that's, well, in the news? I'm going to take that as a very good sign for a fairy tale-filled year.*

Hopefully most of my readers have been better able to keep up with fairy tale news and happenings the past five months or so than I have, but for those who've had normal life get in the way (and are very behind, like me), I thought I'd add these new-ish posters for the upcoming movie as a little New Years Day bonus.

 

What do you think? They're a little too staged and self-aware for my preference but most everything else about this direct-from-animation-adaptation is looking fairly promising to me. 

As far as I can tell, public reaction is extremely positive and the overall sense is excited anticipation for this movie. And that's a good thing for fairy tale folk.

New Year?

Check.

Happy?

Check.

Let the magic continue!

"Cinderella" Live Action Movie Teaser Trailer Released

OK so it's more of a music preview video with a shoe. But the response so far today has been CRAZY! One glass slipper and people are nuts.

(And people ask why Disney keeps making Cinderella.)

Anyway, enjoy the shoe!

Disney's live action Cinderella is slated for release in March, 2015.

OK Disney MARCH. That's NEXT year. What about this year's Into the Woods. Can't we even have a poster yet?

Also: Did that butterfly just DIE??! OMG no! :(

"Maleficent" - Light & Dark Featurette (lovely), A Sneak Preview Scene of Aurora Pricking Her Finger... (interesting) & Amazing Tribute Posters (!)

Simon Delart

While this is a professionally done poster, it's not officially Disney. It's a tribute by Paris based illustrator, Simon Delart, of Poster Posse designs. This is his homage to the movie and iconic-looking Maleficent posters Disney has released. What makes these even more amazing is that they're constructed entirely of triangles (full count - 2857!):

Click to see larger
& 'count' the triangles..

“I have to admit that I have never seen “Sleeping Beauty”, but when I saw Angelina Jolie and her suit in Maleficent I was really surprised. I found it very graphic and fascinating. The lively red contrast of her lips and her black suit reminded me of René Gruau’s illustration, very minimalist.I looked for what could symbolize Maleficent, and the branches of bramble surrounding its castle are in her effigy, disturbing and dangerous.  Brambles compose her suit giving a minimalist aspect to the poster, but when we look at it closer, it reveals all its complexity.

Triangles - that makes for an interesting representation of the movie approach as well... Apart from the gray, there are three different colored backgrounds you can find HERE as well ("...variants on the four elements: earth, air, fire and water as they intertwine with the “thorniness” of evil..."). 

And now that you've been delightfully awed and distracted by these (amazing!!) posters, here's what you actually came to see: the clips.

First is a new featurette (#4), titled Light & Dark. Its quite lovely! (And of course, there are glimpses of additional scenes in there too.)

And I can't let you leave without teasing a scene from the movie: when Aurora pricks her finger on the spindle. The approach has a lot of similarities to the Disney classic but departs from it in key ways as well. 

WARNING: Clip contains what may be considered spoilers (even if you are very familiar with various Sleeping Beauty's and the Disney classic.

If I was uncertain about it being a family movie before, I know it is now, and that's a good thing. We need some good live action family fairy tale films. I'm more excited than ever to be taking my son now.

To quote Angelina Jolie from the conference (this was included in the clip I posted a few days ago HERE):

"I think all kids are curious. They're drawn to things that are dark. It's not just simply a desire to be wicked. I think there are things that frighten us in life, and especially children, they want to understand so they can take it on, or they want to understand so it frightens them less."

The G.K. Chesterton paraphrase of my favorite fairy tale quote* equals awesome.

*  Click for larger image & to read the quote. 

Sources: HERE, HERE & HERE

3 New (& Wildly Different) "Maleficent" Promos With Lots of New Footage

It's Maleficent month! And the ramp-up to the release is expected to intensify.

Already we have three new official promo trailers released but they're not necessarily what you might expect.

The first, and least favorite of mine, has some odd sort of animation included at the beginning (animation that's NOT from the classic) and the voice over is female, but neither Maleficent or Aurora. There's a teensy bit of new footage here that might still interest though:

And the second, which is possibly my favorite, seems to bean exclusive to some show, and includes an interview with Angelina Jolie, in which she talks about Diaval, her (literal) wingman. This shows us quite a bit more:

(My son says her smile looks like Harley Quinn's. He may not be far off on that parallel to some degree!)

The third is a little behind-the-scenes peek at some of Aurora's scenes with a brief commentary by Elle Fanning, talking about the movie, the classic and her playing the role of Sleeping Beauty:

Here's a little more behind-the-scenes info from Elle Fanning in an interview she had with CoverMedia (I believe) in which she says she relates a lot to Sleeping Beauty. Excerpts that might interest fairy tale folk are below:

Q: You’ve taken this role very seriously, this Disney princess?
FANNING: A little bit just because I know there are so many fans of the animated movie and I don’t want to let them down; I want to do it the right way. This is the first film they ever did with Sleeping Beauty played by a person so before I started filming I went and I watched the animated movie again just because I wanted to. She has a very specific gait; her posture is very good and has little hand motions and I wanted to be sure I incorporated it in the same way that she walks and holds her dress so I tried to bring that into my version of Sleeping Beauty. 

Q: What does it mean to you to play a character that represents beauty?
FANNING: It was very exciting. Also I felt that hers is a type of beauty that is a natural beauty; she is not making herself up, she’s not doing her hair or putting lipstick on. She lives out in a cottage with her three aunties who take care of her; they make her dresses so she has her own clothes, her hair is down other than maybe she puts some flowers in it. And yeah, during the filming I wore a wig but it wasn’t much make up. It very natural and so I liked that I was kind of representing natural beauty instead of an all done up kind of beauty. 

Q: How much do you identify with her?
FANNING: I do identify with her. I guess a lot in some ways but in other ways I don’t at all. There’s one scene where she is probably the most pure and innocent princess just because she is trapped away and when she meets the prince for the first time she has never seen a male before in her life because she is so cut off. I think her curiosity comes through. I have always wanted to learn things and I try to find everything I can and absorb all I can and in that way we are alike. She wants to learn about everything. 

Q: How is the relationship between Maleficent and Aurora?
FANNING: It’s different. Our story is Sleeping beauty and it has all the iconic images that you think off when you think of the animated film but there is a lot more to it; all the questions that you have when you are watching the animated film are pretty much answered in Maleficent. And also you get to see Maleficent and Aurora together a lot in the movie. All my scenes are basically with Angelina and in the animated film they are never together. You just see her when she curses at the christening so you get to see that.

You can read the whole interview HERE.

Although I do love seeing new footage and finding out more information I do hope the movie has a lot of reveals yet to come...

And I want a making of and behind-the-scenes book, with tons of info on the fairy tale research each department underwent please!

"Maleficent" Banner Released Today Shows Us Sleeping Beauty's World (& What Kind Of Movie This Really Is)

The new banner poster for Maleficent - click to see much larger image

We saw a blurry three quarter view from a pic taken at CinemaCon but here's the full image of the World of Sleeping Beauty and Maleficent (original source). Best of all, it makes it clear what kind of movie this really is: an epic family fantasy adventure blockbuster movie, on the scale of Legend.

You must admit, Disney are really good at these 'world of' teaser banners. They definitely call to mind the epic fantasy paintings from series book covers like The Belgariad (remember those?) and similar. Both the US Alice in Wonderland and the Oz the Great and Powerful banners are gorgeous looking, no matter what you eventually thought of the movies. (You can click on the posters below to view them a bit larger but you get the idea: world = magical). I just hope Maleficent proves to be much better than either, and is better at capturing the imagination - like Labyrinth, Legend and ET were, way back when.

  

I also really, REALLY hope it's good, because there has been a decided lack of family fantasy movies in general* for the last 30-ish years (other than animation or talking animal movies) and although my son has just reached that wonderful age where I can show him some of the classics (there has been some serious pleading to get a "My other ride is Falkor" license plate for our car), I'd love to have him experience the currently-in-theaters, en-masse-social-excitement for a new fantasy or fairy tale film that I had when I was his age. Not to mention, if Maleficent does well and hits the magical, substantial yet not TOO dark, target for families, we'll get more fairy tale family movies in the near future - that's just about guaranteed.

Seeing fairy tales in the theater when you are still at that age where Santa, The Easter Bunny (and in our house, Baba Yaga's Monster Chicken) comes to visit you every year makes a huge impact on a person and not just as an escape or piece of entertainment. I dearly hope Maleficent is something I can take him to see. And it means we'll get help raising a generation of people who love and are aware of fairy tales again.

For something to compare the foreign fairy tale marketing, here's the Italian poster, which has the added subtitle "The Secret of Sleeping Beauty". What are your thoughts on the different approaches? And does the "world reveal" of the top poster make you look forward to the movie or worry that we're about to be treated to another disOZster?

*Yes, we've had the Harry Potter film franchise but honestly, I can't really show more than the first two to my kid yet. They get darker and darker with every sequel too, so, true family films, notsomuch. We had Narnia (The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe) and the sequels but only the first one really made any sort of social impact. The Golden Compass was epic but rather high concept and difficult for the under-tens to understand and enjoy and Stardust just wasn't little-kid-friendly conceptually (and check the dates on all these movies too - they were quite far apart). There have been smaller films (and a number of more recent foreign films) that have been excellent but not many people seem to know them. Sadly, most of the really big fantasy films have been for teen and older audiences: Pan's Labyrinth, Lord of the Rings, The Hobbit,  Red Riding Hood, Snow White and the Huntsman, Jack the Giant Slayer etc or they've been so effects-dependent with subpar writing, eg Oz the Great and Powerful, that the magic and possibility of jump-starting kids' imaginations has been sucked right out. While I adore grown-up fantasy movies, I'd really love my kid to grow up loving fantasy and fairy tales being buzzed about in popular culture as well. It feels a bit like everyone who grew up watching The Neverending Story, ET, The Princess Bride, Jumanji, Legend etc went on to make Lord of the Rings or Doctor Who and forgot to make good quality fantasy their kids could participate in viewing and loving as well. It's about time it came back around to an epic but family friendly fantasy. Hopefully this will fan the flame of good family fantasy and fairy tale movies and perhaps spawn some TV series in the same vein as well. (More Storyteller please!)

"Jupiter Ascending" New Trailer, New Posters, TONS of Action

This is possibly the most action-packed Snow White story to-date. The new trailer for Jupiter Ascending, released yesterday (at writing) makes it pretty clear: this is an action movie, sci-fi style, complete with big budget and beautiful people.

Take a look:

The new posters are... nothing like I expected. My main impression is an attack of the Photoshop for both of them but the Mila Kunis one is a bit unfortunate. The disconnect between her outfit, her "face-styling" (with all the Photoshop, I'm just going to call it a thing now) and the background and graphic elements just doesn't work for me. In addition the shirt is so clean and pressed-perfect... it's just weird. Her all-blue cleaning outfit, complete with rubber gloves and some daily grime would have worked much better IMHO. But we shall see what the masses think.

The new trailer is very... big. This should go down really well with sci-fi fans. I'm curious what people will think of the Snow White storyline - or if they'll even recognize it. We shall see...

Jupiter Ascending is scheduled for release on July 18, 2014.

"Evil Is Complicated" (Maleficent Update)

Fan made poster by Silviya Stoyanova Carrier

I found all these random little things regarding Maleficent this past week and decided I might as well just put them together in one post.

The first is a Twitter comment, not at all related to Maleficent but I thought illustrated the direction this movie has taken really well. They say when you write for an evil character the best way to make them genuine is for them to believe they are really the (unsung/misunderstood) hero.

Then there's the most recent trailer, released last Thursday, which dovetails well with this sentiment. It's titled "Evil Is Complicated":

The day immediately after, these gifs (that I still can't find the source for) surfaced:

I found an alternate set of gifs that show the context better, though they're not as pretty:

That cottage... definitely channeling the Disney the fairies hidden cottage, though Maleficent clearly didn't take sixteen years to find this one.

And yes, I'll keep hunting for actual footage, with sound, of this scene.. (though if you have better google-fu than I today and find it first, please do share the link with us all in the comments below!)

In an interesting turn of my brain, the baby smiling at Maleficent's words (whatever they happened to be), reminded me of Godfather Death and how the godson was never afraid of his unusual godparent, despite that he was the ultimate fear of most of the world.

It makes for an interesting set of questions, regarding how much the people who watched over you when you were small, ultimately ended up influencing you, especially as you didn't realize who - or what - they were. This is a theme you find quite a bit in fairy tales. The godchild either turns out to be truly special because of they way they see a situation (and act in it) OR they reveal a warped psyche no one could have predicted and turn out to be some kind of monster. More than that, their 'monster' is a truly scary one since they believe themselves to be the only one who sees things the way they really are and does "what needs to be done".

Fan made poster by Peter Gilbert

I have to say, we're being shown an awful lot of this movie. I do hope there are some real surprises left for us (and that they're GOOD surprises). How are you feeling about all the reveals?