Related Movies:

Maleficent: Mistress of Evil (2019), directed by Joachim Rønning, is a spellbinding sequel to the 2014 hit Maleficent, expanding Disney’s reimagined Sleeping Beauty saga with breathtaking visuals and emotional depth. Starring Angelina Jolie as the iconic Maleficent and Elle Fanning as Aurora, the film explores a clash between magical realms and human kingdoms, anchored by their evolving bond. With Michelle Pfeiffer joining as a cunning queen, the movie delivers epic battles and lush fantasy aesthetics but struggles with a convoluted plot and uneven pacing. This review dives into why Maleficent: Mistress of Evil is a dazzling yet flawed fairy-tale adventure, perfect for fans of magical epics.

Plot Summary: A War Between Realms

Set five years after the first film, Maleficent: Mistress of Evil follows Aurora (Elle Fanning), now queen of the Moors, as she accepts a marriage proposal from Prince Phillip (Harris Dickinson). Her happiness is tested when Maleficent (Angelina Jolie), her protective godmother, disapproves, sensing danger in the human kingdom of Ulstead. Tensions escalate at a royal dinner hosted by Phillip’s parents, King John (Robert Lindsay) and Queen Ingrith (Michelle Pfeiffer), whose schemes spark a war between humans and the magical creatures of the Moors. As Maleficent uncovers her own origins among the Dark Fae, led by Conall (Chiwetel Ejiofor) and Borra (Ed Skrein), Aurora must navigate betrayals to broker peace.

The screenplay by Linda Woolverton, Noah Harpster, and Micah Fitzerman-Blue expands the first film’s lore, introducing new characters and a sprawling conflict. While the story’s themes of family, prejudice, and unity resonate, the plot feels overstuffed, juggling too many subplots—Maleficent’s heritage, Aurora’s romance, and Ingrith’s machinations—at the expense of coherence. Critics note its shift from the intimate fairy-tale retelling of the original to a broader, action-heavy epic, which may alienate some fans but appeals to those drawn to fantasy spectacles like The Hobbit.

Cinematography and Atmosphere: A Lush, Magical World

Joachim Rønning, known for Pirates of the Caribbean: ᴅᴇᴀᴅ Men Tell No Tales, crafts a visually stunning world in Maleficent: Mistress of Evil. Cinematographer Henry Braham brings the Moors to life with vibrant, CGI-enhanced landscapes—glowing forests, cascading waterfalls, and subterranean Fae realms—that evoke the fantastical beauty you admired in films like The Grey for its atmospheric settings. Aerial battle sequences, featuring Maleficent’s soaring flight and explosive magic, are breathtaking, with dynamic camera work capturing the scale of the conflict.

Geoff Zanelli’s haunting score, paired with a cover of “You Can’t Stop the Girl” by Bebe Rexha, enhances the film’s emotional and epic moments. However, some CGI-heavy scenes, particularly the climactic battle, feel overly polished, lacking the gritty realism you enjoyed in action thrillers. Minor pacing issues arise from the crowded narrative, but the lush visuals and immersive atmosphere make the film a sensory delight, as praised by Rotten Tomatoes reviewers for its “eye-popping” production design.

Performances: Jolie and Pfeiffer Steal the Show

Angelina Jolie reprises her role as Maleficent with magnetic intensity, blending menace, vulnerability, and dark humor. Her commanding presence—accentuated by iconic cheekbones and wings—anchors the film, making Maleficent a complex antihero. Jolie’s scenes with Elle Fanning’s Aurora are the emotional heart, their mother-daughter bond resonating with warmth and conflict, a dynamic you might appreciate given your interest in strong character chemistry in films like Vengeance: A Love Story.

Fanning shines as Aurora, portraying her as a hopeful yet mature queen, though her role feels sidelined by the war-driven plot. Michelle Pfeiffer delivers a deliciously villainous performance as Queen Ingrith, her icy cunning rivaling Jolie’s intensity, particularly in a tense dinner scene. Supporting actors like Chiwetel Ejiofor and Ed Skrein add gravitas to the Dark Fae, while Sam Riley’s Diaval and Imelda Staunton’s Knotgrᴀss provide comic relief. However, Harris Dickinson’s Phillip and other human characters are underdeveloped, a common critique in reviews noting the script’s focus on spectacle over depth.

Themes and Tone: Love, Prejudice, and Power

Maleficent: Mistress of Evil explores themes of family, prejudice, and the struggle for coexistence, reflecting real-world tensions through its fantasy lens. The conflict between humans and magical creatures mirrors societal divides, with Ingrith’s bigotry paralleling xenophobia, as noted in analyses by Common Sense Media. Maleficent and Aurora’s bond underscores the power of chosen family, a theme that resonates with your interest in emotionally driven narratives like The Hunter.

The tone blends dark fairy-tale elements with family-friendly humor, though its darker moments—genocide plots and betrayal—may surprise younger viewers. While the film aims for emotional depth, its overcrowded story dilutes the impact, leaning on action over introspection compared to the first film’s focus on Maleficent’s redemption. Still, its message of unity and love shines through, making it accessible yet thought-provoking.

Pacing and Execution: Ambitious but Overstuffed

At 119 minutes, Maleficent: Mistress of Evil feels longer than its predecessor due to its sprawling subplots. The first act sets up the conflict effectively, with the royal dinner as a standout, but the middle sags under the weight of new characters and lore. The climactic battle delivers spectacle but feels rushed, with convenient resolutions undermining the stakes. Rønning’s direction is polished, but the script’s ambition outpaces its execution, as critics on Metacritic note, citing a “bloated” narrative.

Technical aspects, like costume design by Ellen Mirojnick and production design by Patrick Tatopoulos, are top-notch, creating a visually cohesive world. However, the reliance on CGI and a crowded cast can overwhelm, a contrast to the leaner storytelling you enjoyed in thrillers like Bullet Head.

Reception: A Mixed but Magical Sequel

Maleficent: Mistress of Evil holds a 39% approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes (based on 258 reviews) and a 6.6/10 on IMDb, reflecting mixed reception. Critics like The New York Times praise Jolie’s performance and the visuals but criticize the convoluted plot and tonal shifts. The X post’s 8/10 aligns with fans who love its “dazzling” scope and emotional core, similar to your enthusiasm for visually striking films. Its $491 million global box office (per Box Office Mojo) proves its commercial success, though it falls short of the original’s critical acclaim.

Where to Watch Maleficent: Mistress of Evil (2019)

As of May 2025, Maleficent: Mistress of Evil is available on Disney+, as noted in the X post, and can be rented or purchased on Amazon Prime Video, YouTube, Apple TV, and Fandango at Home (check regional availability).

Final Verdict: A Flawed but Enchanting Adventure

Maleficent: Mistress of Evil (2019) is a visually stunning fairy-tale epic lifted by Angelina Jolie’s iconic performance and a heartfelt Maleficent-Aurora bond. Its lush world and epic battles captivate, but a convoluted plot and uneven pacing keep it from matching the original’s magic. Fans of Maleficent or fantasy epics like The Chronicles of Narnia will enjoy its spectacle, but those seeking a тιԍнтer narrative may find it lacking.

Rating: 7/10
Perfect for: Fans of Disney fantasy, Angelina Jolie, or visually rich stories.
Skip if: You prefer streamlined plots or the original’s intimate focus.

Stream Maleficent: Mistress of Evil on Disney+ for a magical, if flawed, journey into a world of dark enchantment.

Keywords: Maleficent: Mistress of Evil 2019, Angelina Jolie, Elle Fanning, Michelle Pfeiffer, Disney fantasy, fairy-tale sequel, movie review 2025, Joachim Rønning, dark magic, family bonds.

A Farmer’s Misplaced Hammer Led to the Largest Roman Treasure in Britain

---

November 16, 1992 was the day which changed Suffolk-resident Eric Lawes’ life in a huge way. What he thought would have been an innocent search for a hammer he had misplaced on his farm in Hoxne Village, Suffolk, England ended up bringing him much more than he had bargained for — namely, uncovering the hiding spot of a long-hidden treasure. Based on the Guardian’s coverage of the story, Eric Lawes had been previously gifted a metal detector upon his retirement as a parting token. He decided to put his retirement gift to good use in order to locate the hammer which he had had some trouble finding. According to a 2018 Smithsonian Magazine article, when the device started recording that there was a strong signal coming from the earth, he knew that he was about to discover something big. As he started digging, it soon became clear to him that he had unearthed a treasure trove.

The Guardian reports that, when Lawes saw that his preliminary digging had yielded a few gold coins and silver spoons, he immediately contacted both the local archaeological society and the police department. Archaeologists came to the property the following day and had the area of earth holding the treasure carefully sectioned-off and removed. Their hope was that at a later stage, in their laboratory, they could examined the items in order to identify both their age and how they were stored.

When all was said and done, close to 60 pounds of items made from silver and gold were found on the site. These included more than 15,000 Roman coins, 200 gold objects, and several silver spoons. For archaeologists, this find — which later became labeled as the Hoxne Hoard — was an incredible discovery. AP News reported that archaeologist Judith Plouviez was over-the-moon about the discovery, saying that it was “an incredibly exciting and amazing find.” What’s more, another archaeologist, Rachel Wilkinson, told Smithsonian Magazine that this discovery was “the largest and latest ever found in Britain.”

Ordinarily, archaeologists would use radiocarbon dating as a means of identifying the age of ancient relics. However, they couldn’t locate any suitable material from the haul. Consequently, they determined the age by examining writing on the coins, as well as the ruler carved into them, estimating that the treasure was probably buried in either 408 or 409 AD.

Roman-era archaeologist Peter Guest told Smithsonian Magazine that “if you look at them a little more carefully, then they should be dated to the period after the separation of Britain from the Roman Empire.” He offers as part of his evidence the fact that almost all of the coins found in the Hoxne Hoard were clipped – in other words, small chunks of their edges had been taken off. These clippings would have been used to create coins which were similar to the Roman coins of that era.

Guest has a logical reason for this, arguing that “The Roman Empire wasn’t supplying Britain with new gold and silver coins, and in light of that, the population tried to get over this sudden cutoff in the supply of their precious metals by making the existing supplies go further.”

Archaeologists also believe that the treasure belonged to a Romano-British family. During that time, considering that there was so much societal discord and upheaval, it was common for Romans who had settled in Britain to bury their most prized possessions.

That said, one archaeologist is of the belief that the hoard had a lot of sentimental value for the Romano-British family to whom it is believed to have belonged. In her book The Hoxne Late Roman Treasure: Gold Jewellery and Silver Plate, Catherine Johns claims that the manner in which the treasure was kept supported this claim. Some of the items which were recovered had been packaged in small, wooden boxes which were lined with leather. What’s more, pieces of wood, locks, and nails, among other things, surrounded the gold and silver pieces. This leads Catherine to assert that the package was carefully buried and not simply chucked away in a rush.

Interestingly enough, the items unearthed might shed some light on the identity of the family who owned them. They cite a gold bracelet bearing the inscription “UTERE FELIX DOMINA IULIANE,” which roughly translates to “use this happily Lady Juliane”. A second name “Aurelius Ursicinus” has also been discovered. This has consequently led some to believe that Juliane and Aurelius were the couple and the original owners of the treasure. That said, that has yet to be confirmed.

All in all, the discovery was a real treasure for archaeologists, and by extension, for Lawes. According to Smithsonian Magazine, in recognition of his discovery and willingness to contact authorities, the British government rewarded him with over £1.7 million, an amount which he shared with the farmer whose land was dug out in order to get the treasure. Funnily enough, apart from the treasure, Lawes also found his lost hammer — which now resides in the British Museum.