Maleficent: Mistress of Evil | October 18 2019 | Now on Disney+

[Alli]

Quote

industry projections have the sequel to the 2014 movie at $50M (whereas some tracking firms are forecasting $45M).

 

https://deadline.com/2019/10/maleficent-mistress-of-evil-zombieland-double-tap-box-office-preview-1202760453/

[ThomasNicole]

53 minutes ago, RealLyre said:

https://deadline.com/2019/10/maleficent-mistress-of-evil-zombieland-double-tap-box-office-preview-1202760453/

 

 

 

that would be a pretty great opening, actually

 

with $ 175M global debut i highly doubt it won't cross $ 500M

[Porthos]

Up to 50 or so over at RT with a 5.49/10.  Top Critics is 33 (5.35/10), unfortunately.  Not great, but not nearly as bad as the first batch of reviews suggested.  Probably land in the 40s somewhere if that x/10 score is any indication.  But still time for it to maybe stabilize in the 50s.

 

So right around the first one.  Might be good enough for fence sitters.  Doesn't look to be a disastrous RT score. Yet at least.

[Jiggly Del Rey]

We’ll see how this goes. What’s the barometer for success here? 50/150 US, 500m WW?

In 2020 alone Jolie is starring in films from Brenda Chapman (Brave), Tyler Sheridan (Sicario etc), and of course Chloe Zhao. Fingers crossed on the quality of all of those. 

 

[Ezen Baklattan]

I'm not seeing this until someone can give me a fill report on the amount of scenery devoured by Jolie and Pfeiffer.

[Porthos]

46 minutes ago, Spaghetti said:

I'm not seeing this until someone can give me a fill report on the amount of scenery devoured by Jolie and Pfeiffer.

@captainwondyful? I believe you've been called to duty!

[Cap]

50 minutes ago, Spaghetti said:

I'm not seeing this until someone can give me a fill report on the amount of scenery devoured by Jolie and Pfeiffer.

 

3 minutes ago, Porthos said:

@captainwondyful? I believe you've been called to duty!

I am seeing this on Thursday at 9:45pm. I will report back. 

[TLK]

All A-list lead actresses (that excludes Nicole Kidman etc.) have shit filmography because they can't have it all unlike A-list lead actors. Pitt, DiCaprio and a handful of other actors can get around 1-2 big budget movies each year that pays them their asking price and are directed by the cream of the crop type of directors. For actresses like Jolie, Bullock etc. they can get either $10 million paycheck with middling directors in a big studio film or a $10 million film with an auteur. I don't blame them for taking the big paycheck.

Edited October 16, 2019 by TLK

[rihrey]

Critics Consensus

While it's far from cursed, Maleficent: Mistress of Evil too rarely supports its impressive cast and visuals with enough magical storytelling to justify its existence.

[Johnny Tran]

Of course it doesn't justify it's existence.  It's food for children and Disney has forgotten how to make children movies that adults can also enjoy.

[kayumanggi]

As expected, another stinker. I thought the first was boring, but this has been described to be even more so. I might skip this one.

[filmlover]

7 hours ago, Spaghetti said:

I'm not seeing this until someone can give me a fill report on the amount of scenery devoured by Jolie and Pfeiffer.

I actually saw someone compare Pfeiffer's performance in this to being similar to her one in mother! except with this being a Disney fantasy movie in which she plays an evil queen she's much more over the top lol.

[ViewerAnon]

2 hours ago, Johnny Tran said:

Of course it doesn't justify it's existence.  It's food for children and Disney has forgotten how to make children movies that adults can also enjoy.

I would argue Disney's live action films are sold as movies for kids but really only have appeal for adults. They're nostalgia-bait and very rarely succeed under their own merits.

[The Futurist]

9 hours ago, TLK said:

All A-list lead actresses (that excludes Nicole Kidman etc.) have shit filmography because they can't have it all unlike A-list lead actors. Pitt, DiCaprio and a handful of other actors can get around 1-2 big budget movies each other that pays them their asking price and are directed by the cream of the crop type of directors. For actresses like Jolie, Bullock etc. they can get either $10 million paycheck with middling directors in a big studio film or a $10 million film with an auteur. I don't blame them for taking the big paycheck.

Everybody would do anything for a pig paycheck, like compromising your artistic integrity by doing such an art-less and soulless movie like this Disney sequel.

The mere thought of it all makes me squirm.

[sfran43]

 

[titanic2187]

I hope this flop like Alice 2, the real soulless cash grab

[Xftg123]

23 minutes ago, titanic2187 said:

I hope this flop like Alice 2, the real soulless cash grab

Alice 2 was different though at the box office. It came out on the same day that X-Men Apocalypse did, and that ended up being way more successful.

[filmlover]

Alice 2 bombed as hard as it did because the first movie benefitted enormously from being both the first major 3D movie after Avatar and Johnny Depp, and both of those had become passé by 2016. This doesn't seem like it'll fall anywhere nearly as much since Jolie is probably still a draw in a movie like this - might help that she's been scarce (or mainly focused on directing) since the first movie came out five years ago.

[Xftg123]

23 minutes ago, filmlover said:

Alice 2 bombed as hard as it did because the first movie benefitted enormously from being both the first major 3D movie after Avatar and Johnny Depp, and both of those had become passé by 2016.

Don't forget that Tim Burton did his whimsical take on it, and it ended up being successful. Not only that, it's the 1st live action remake from Disney that made a billion and also Tim Burton's highest grossing movie. Now, unfortunately, Burton is box office poison.

[Julian1410]

Just saw iT. I actually liked it. For Some Reading the Third act reminded me so much of the last season of game of thrones in terms of story. There is also a clever Nod to the animated film at the end of the film.