---
title: "Maleficent"
year: 2014
kind: "film"
canonical: "https://film.one/film/maleficent"
fi1m_id: "maleficent"
imdb_id: "tt1587310"
tmdb_id: 102651
wikidata_id: "Q172271"
fi1m_score: 55
critics_score: 58
critics_reviews: 20
published: "2026-10-05T13:13:32.006581+00:00"
updated: "2026-10-05T13:13:32.541485+00:00"
region: "SE"
licence: "© Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL."
---

# Maleficent (2014)

Directed by Robert Stromberg · 1h 37m · Statens medieråd 11 · Fantasy, Adventure, Action, Family, Romance

## Identity

Maleficent

- **Canonical:** https://film.one/film/maleficent
- **Type:** Film
- **Fi1m ID:** maleficent
- **IMDb ID:** tt1587310
- **TMDB ID:** 102651
- **Wikidata ID:** Q172271
- **Same entity:** https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1587310/, https://www.themoviedb.org/movie/102651, https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q172271

**Fi1m score: 55** · Critics 58 from 20 reviews

*In a sentence:* Disney spends 97 minutes explaining its best villain and ends up with a babysitter in horns

> Angelina Jolie is a perfect fit for the horns and gets the film’s few good lines. Around her, Robert Stromberg’s revision of *Sleeping Beauty* is handsome in patches, rushed in storytelling and so anxious to redeem its villain that it forgets why anyone liked her.

## Synopsis

Two kingdoms share a border: the Moors, a forest of fairies, and the human realm beside it, ruled by the greedy King Henry (Kenneth Cranham). Maleficent, a fairy with great wings, befriends a peasant boy, Stefan; Isobelle Molloy and Michael Higgins play them as children, and the friendship cools as they grow. When Henry’s army marches on the Moors and is thrown back, he promises his crown to whoever kills her. The adult Stefan (Sharlto Copley) returns to his old friend, drugs her and cuts off her wings while she sleeps. Maleficent (Angelina Jolie), now walking where she once flew, saves a raven, Diaval (Sam Riley), and gives him a man’s shape. When the new king’s daughter Aurora is christened, she arrives at the castle without an invitation.

## Review

Disney goes back to its own [*Sleeping Beauty*](https://film.one/film/sleeping-beauty) (1959), takes the horned fairy who cursed a baby because she was left off a guest list, and asks what she had against the baby. Linda Woolverton’s script gives her a childhood, a sweetheart and a grievance, and the tagline says “Don’t believe the fairy tale.” The trouble is that the film does not believe in its villain either. It has 97 minutes and it spends most of them making her nicer.

Angelina Jolie is the reason to watch and the film knows it. The cheekbones are built out with prosthetics until her face is a set of angles, the horns are bound in black leather, and she moves little but her eyebrows and her vowels. Her entrance at the christening is the best scene by a distance: she glides up the hall, bows to a frightened court, and delivers the curse in the tone of a hostess who regrets she cannot stay. Later she tells a baby to its face that she does not like children, and we laughed, surprised at how dry she is allowed to be.

The other scene that works is the one that should not be in a PG film at all. Stefan (Sharlto Copley), the boy she loved, drugs her and cuts off her wings while she sleeps. Robert Stromberg holds on Jolie’s face as she wakes and finds them gone, and the noise she makes is not a fairy-tale noise; it is a woman discovering what has been done to her body. We were shaken. It is the one moment the film has the nerve to be about what it says it is about, and the script never goes back there.

Stromberg designed the world of [*Avatar*](https://film.one/film/avatar) (2009) before he directed anything, and it shows both ways. Gary Freeman and Dylan Cole’s Moors are a lit garden of glowing pools, walking trees and mud creatures with faces. Dean Semler shoots them in a permanent late afternoon and King Henry’s castle in slate blue, so you always know which side of the border you are on. Jane Clive and Anna B. Sheppard give Jolie high black collars and horns wrapped in leather that look handmade rather than rendered. The failure is the three pixies. Imelda Staunton, Lesley Manville and Juno Temple are shrunk by the effects to the size of starlings with their own faces pasted on, and spend what feels like a quarter of the film squabbling in a cottage. We were bored there, and it was the particular boredom of watching good actors wasted.

The structure is the deeper problem. Chris Lebenzon and Richard Pearson cut sixteen years into a montage and the story into blocks that do not join. Copley is asked to play a king going mad and given three scenes to do it in, so he shouts in a Scottish accent at things off screen. Elle Fanning’s Aurora is sunny and has no other quality. Brenton Thwaites’s Phillip rides in on a horse and is at once the butt of a joke about princes. Sam Riley’s Diaval, a raven given a man’s shape who resents every other animal he is turned into, is the best supporting turn. James Newton Howard supplies a choir for the Moors and a swelling theme for the wings, pleasant throughout and loud at the finish.

The 1959 Maleficent frightened children because she had no reason. Woolverton wrote *Beauty and the Beast* (1991) and knows how to make a monster lovable, and that is what goes wrong here: she does it again, and the film is left with a villain nobody is allowed to enjoy and an antagonist nobody feared in the first place. The last twenty minutes do pick up, and we felt the lift, for reasons we will not describe.

Take a child who knows the cartoon. They will like the Moors and the eyebrows and ask you on the way home why the bad lady was nice. The film had 97 minutes to answer that and spent them changing the subject.

*Fi1m score 55, published 5 October 2026.*

## What the critics say

The reviews split almost evenly three ways, and the critics’ score settles in the middle. On one thing nearly everyone agrees: Angelina Jolie. Critic after critic calls her casting the film’s strongest feature, praising her presence, her physical control and the way she makes the character both tender and dangerous. The visual design draws the next largest share of praise, with the richly imagined fairy world and the costumes singled out repeatedly.

The disagreement is about everything around her. Those who like the film find its feminist revision of the old tale witty and moving; those who do not say the storytelling is clumsy and the emotional arc incoherent, and that turning the villain into a wronged heroine sanitises what made her interesting. The spread is wide, from warm raves to Empire calling it confused and boring. Paste is the rare dissenter on Jolie herself, finding her performance limited, and Den of Geek says even the striking visual moments cannot carry the weak acting and muddled story.

## Straight answers

**Is Maleficent worth watching?**

*Maleficent* is worth watching mainly for Angelina Jolie, who gets the film's few good lines and its best scene, and we scored it 55. Around her, Robert Stromberg's revision of [*Sleeping Beauty*](https://film.one/film/sleeping-beauty) is handsome in patches but rushed and so anxious to redeem its villain that it forgets why anyone liked her. Children who know the cartoon will enjoy the Moors; adults will tire of the pixies.

**How long is Maleficent, and what is it rated?**

*Maleficent* runs 1h 37m and is rated 11 by the Statens medieråd in Sweden. It is a fantasy and adventure film.

**Where can I watch Maleficent in Sweden?**

*Maleficent* is streaming on Disney+ in Sweden, and it is also available to rent from Amazon Prime Video and Apple TV from kr 39.00. Availability is checked daily; the links above go straight to each service.

**How does Maleficent compare to Sleeping Beauty?**

*Maleficent* retells [*Sleeping Beauty*](https://film.one/film/sleeping-beauty) from the villain's side, and the earlier film is the stronger of the two. The 1959 Maleficent frightened children because she had no reason; Jolie's is given a childhood and a grievance and ends up nicer than she should be. Watch the original for Eyvind Earle's backgrounds and Eleanor Audley's voice, and the remake for Jolie's eyebrows.

**What should I watch after Maleficent?**

After *Maleficent*, try [*Sleeping Beauty*](https://film.one/film/sleeping-beauty) (1959, Fi1m 78): The original, where Maleficent needs no excuse and is frightening for it. Then [*Pan's Labyrinth*](https://film.one/film/pans-labyrinth) (2006, Fi1m 87): A girl, a fairy kingdom and a real war, with menace this film only gestures at; and [*Wicked*](https://film.one/film/wicked) (2024, Fi1m 70): Another villain given her side of the story, with songs and a steadier structure.

### Reviews we read (20)

- **The Hollywood Reporter**, Sheri Linden (90/100, inferred): Linden finds the film a dazzling, emotionally absorbing reinvention, despite a few bumpy patches. She especially praises Angelina Jolie’s magnetic performance and the film’s richly imagined visual world. [Read](https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-reviews/maleficent-film-review-706491/)
- **Evening Standard**, Charlotte O'Sullivan (85/100, inferred): O'Sullivan gives the film an emphatically positive verdict, calling it a project with peculiar, landscape-changing power. She especially praises Angelina Jolie's natural fit for the role and the film's feminist mood, visual effects and costumes. [Read](https://www.standard.co.uk/culture/film/maleficent-review-angelina-jolie-is-a-natural-as-the-titular-bad-fairy-9457856.html)
- **Total Film**, Jane Crowther (4/5): Crowther finds the film a magical, modern adventure that is visually sumptuous and thought-provoking, though it does not fully reinvent the tale. She especially praises Angelina Jolie’s commanding, emotionally nuanced performance as Maleficent. [Read](https://www.gamesradar.com/maleficent-review/)
- **The New Yorker**, Joan Acocella (78/100, inferred): Acocella finds the film’s revision of the fairy tale’s romance and gender politics witty and moving. She especially praises Angelina Jolie’s nuanced physical performance, which makes Maleficent both tender and dangerous. [Read](https://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/loves-true-kiss-maleficent-s-complex-sexual-politics)
- **Screen Daily**, Mark Adams (75/100, inferred): The critic calls the film a thoroughly entertaining fantasy romp. The standfirst praises its overall entertainment value, but the paywalled text does not reveal a specific element singled out for praise. [Read](https://www.screendaily.com/maleficent/5072482.article)
- **Los Angeles Times**, Betsy Sharkey (70/100, inferred): Sharkey finds the film uneven but ultimately engaging, with Angelina Jolie making a mesmerizing Maleficent. She also praises the striking visual world, while noting that the film’s many ideas blunt its emotional impact. [Read](https://www.latimes.com/entertainment/movies/la-et-mn-maleficent-review-20140530-column.html)
- **IndieWire**, Eric Kohn (C+): Kohn finds the film visually dazzling but ultimately predictable and narratively weak. He praises Angelina Jolie’s commanding screen presence, while criticizing the film’s shallow attempt at progressive storytelling. [Read](https://www.indiewire.com/criticism/culture/review-maleficent-is-a-predictable-3-d-wonder-but-should-we-expect-more-from-angelina-jolie-25935/)
- **RogerEbert.com**, Christy Lemire (2.5/4): Lemire finds the film visually sumptuous but emotionally hollow. She singles out Angelina Jolie’s performance and the film’s striking visuals, while faulting its thin emotional depth. [Read](https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/maleficent-2014)
- **Radio Times**, Jamie Healy (3/5): The review considers the reworking enjoyable. It singles out Angelina Jolie’s portrayal of Maleficent as a highlight. [Read](https://www.radiotimes.com/movie-guide/b-k4ilqg/maleficent/)
- **Time Out**, Joshua Rothkopf (3/5): Rothkopf gives the film a three-out-of-five-star assessment, suggesting a mixed verdict. He singles out Angelina Jolie’s casting and expressive eyebrow as a strength. [Read](https://www.timeout.com/movies/maleficent)
- **The Guardian**, Peter Bradshaw (50/100, inferred): Bradshaw gives a mixed verdict on the revisionist fairytale spin-off. He praises Jolie’s fierce screen presence, while finding her performance panto-like and wanting to see her in a grownup film. [Read](https://www.theguardian.com/film/2014/may/28/maleficent-review-angelina-jolie-sleeping-beauty-horns-vinegar)
- **Vulture**, Bilge Ebiri (42/100, inferred): Ebiri finds the revision of Maleficent intriguing but says the film’s storytelling and weak antagonist undercut it. He praises Angelina Jolie’s emotionally urgent performance, while lamenting that the rest of the movie lets her down. [Read](https://www.vulture.com/2014/05/movie-review-maleficent.html)
- **The New York Times**, A.O. Scott (40/100, inferred): Scott’s verdict is mixed to negative, finding the film more clumsy than compelling. He singles out Angelina Jolie’s performance as its strongest feature. [Read](https://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/30/movies/angelina-jolie-stars-in-maleficent-from-disney.html)
- **Slant Magazine**, R. Kurt Osenlund (1.5/4): Osenlund argues that the film weakens its compelling central character by turning her into a sanitized, all-purpose heroine. He praises Angelina Jolie’s captivating presence, while criticizing the visual excess and the story’s failure to explore Maleficent’s transformation. [Read](https://www.slantmagazine.com/film/maleficent/)
- **Variety**, Andrew Barker (35/100, inferred): Barker finds the film visually arresting but narratively unsatisfying, with an incoherent emotional arc. He praises Angelina Jolie’s commanding performance and the consistently exquisite visual craft. [Read](https://variety.com/2014/film/reviews/film-review-maleficent-1201194138/)
- **Empire**, Olly Richards (10/100, inferred): Richards finds the film confused and boring, arguing that it fails to make its reimagining of Maleficent cohere. He praises Angelina Jolie’s casting and expressive looks, but complains she is given a costume rather than a role. [Read](https://www.empireonline.com/movies/reviews/maleficent-review/)
- **The Wrap**, Alonso Duralde (70/100, inferred): The review finds the film entertaining and bold, despite its aggressively unpleasant visuals. It especially praises Angelina Jolie for making Maleficent a fully fleshed-out character. [Read](https://www.thewrap.com/maleficent-review-angelina-jolie/)
- **Digital Spy**, Ben Rawson-Jones (3/5): The review finds the film uneven, with a weak opening and clumsy storytelling redeemed by a rousing finale. It particularly praises Angelina Jolie’s mesmerising performance, which keeps the film afloat during its worst stretches. [Read](https://www.digitalspy.com/movies/a573570/maleficent-review-angelina-jolie-is-mesmerising/)
- **Paste**, Geoff Berkshire (5.9): Berkshire finds the film creatively disappointing, with a softened lead character and a story that drags. He praises the extravagant visual design, while faulting the narrative choices and Jolie’s limited performance. [Read](https://www.pastemagazine.com/movies/maleficent)
- **Den of Geek**, Don Kaye (2 out of 5): Kaye finds the film incoherent, dull, and lacking a reason to exist. He singles out its striking visual moments, but says they cannot compensate for the weak performances and muddled story. [Read](https://www.denofgeek.com/movies/maleficent-review/)

## Details

- **Director:** Robert Stromberg
- **Director:** Robert Stromberg
- **Screenplay:** Linda Woolverton
- **Cinematography:** Dean Semler
- **Editor:** Richard Pearson, Chris Lebenzon
- **Music:** James Newton Howard
- **Production design:** Gary Freeman, Dylan Cole
- **Costume design:** Anna B. Sheppard, Jane Clive
- **Producer:** Joe Roth
- **Cast:** Angelina Jolie as Maleficent; Elle Fanning as Aurora; Imelda Staunton as Knotgrass; Sharlto Copley as Stefan; Lesley Manville as Flittle; Juno Temple as Thistletwit; Sam Riley as Diaval; Brenton Thwaites as Prince Phillip
- **Runtime:** 1h 37m
- **Certificate (Statens medieråd):** 11
- **Release (Sweden):** 28 May 2014
- **Genres:** Fantasy, Adventure, Action, Family, Romance
- **Budget:** $180 million
- **Box office:** $759 million
- **Trailer:** https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28U4LxdkNWI

## Where to watch in Sweden

- Disney+: streaming, uhd
- Amazon Prime Video: rent kr 39.00, uhd
- Apple TV: rent kr 39.00, hd
- Amazon Prime Video: buy kr 139.00, sd
- Apple TV: buy kr 139.00, sd

*Checked 2026-10-05.*

Also available in: AE, AR, AT, AU, BE, BG, BR, CA, CH, CL, CO, CZ, DE, DK, EC, EE, ES, FI, FR, GB, GR, HK, HR, HU, IE, IL, IN, IS, IT, JP, KR, LT, MX, NL, NO, NZ, PA, PE, PL, PT, RO, RS, SE, SG, SI, TR, UA, US, ZA. Add `?region=XX` to this URL for another country.

## Awards

- Academy Awards 2015: Best Costume Design (nominated)
- Kids' Choice Award for Favorite Movie 2015: Kids' Choice Award for Favorite Movie (nominated)
- BAFTA Film Awards 2014: BAFTA's Children & Young People Award - Feature Film (nominated)

## If you liked this

- *Sleeping Beauty* (1959), Fi1m 78: The original, where Maleficent needs no excuse and is frightening for it. — [Fi1m page](https://film.one/film/sleeping-beauty.md)
- *La Belle et la Bête* (1946): Cocteau’s fairy tale, made with candles and mirrors, still stranger than any effects house.
- *The Company of Wolves* (1984): Angela Carter’s wolves and Neil Jordan’s forest; a fairy tale that keeps its teeth.
- *Pan's Labyrinth* (2006), Fi1m 87: A girl, a fairy kingdom and a real war, with menace this film only gestures at. — [Fi1m page](https://film.one/film/pans-labyrinth.md)
- *Wicked* (2024), Fi1m 70: Another villain given her side of the story, with songs and a steadier structure. — [Fi1m page](https://film.one/film/wicked.md)

---
© Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL. Canonical: https://film.one/film/maleficent