Persona (1966): 9/10
A classic psychological drama that helped define the 'language' of modern experimental film making, and which itself has mostly aged well. Incredible performances, striking cinematography, and two of film's most memorable monologues work to ensure that this a film that will haunt the recesses of your mind long after having seen it. I still want to sit down for a triple feature of this, Altman's 3 Women, and Lynch's Mulholland Dr.
The Swan Princess (1994): 5/10
I don't even--
Look, maybe it's not a bad animated flick taken on its own merits. But this came out the same year that Lion King did. The difference in quality (character development, songs, plotting, animation) between the two is, frankly, astronomical. How this has become something of a cult classic is beyond me. At least it's better than...
Thumbelina (1994): 3/10
...this hot mess. Oh my god. What was anyone involved with this thinking? Not only is Thumbelina herself perhaps the most vapid 'heroine' of all time, but the supporting cast (honestly an overstatement) consists entirely of annoying caricatures who waltz into the frame to sing some dumb, forgettable song, then promptly exit the stage. And the hilarious thing about it is that the plot still tries to hit all the standard kid-cartoon beats--but then never actually does anything with them. Just goes to show that you can check off all the tropes associated with any genre of film and still not be even halfway to a complete experience.
Sleeping Beauty (1959): 7/10
It's not without its pleasures (Maleficent is a great old-school villain, and the grace with which the characters move about the screen is occasionally genuinely entrancing), but on the whole I find it to be quite a bit less magical than the studio's work from even the same decade. It lacks the memorable story developments and moments of Cinderella, the delirious weirdness of Alice in Wonderland, the charming adventurous spirit of Peter Pan, and the sweetness of Lady and the Tramp. Even the overall art design falls flat (god, how I dislike those square trees). It's a fine effort from a legendary animation studio, but it doesn't come anywhere near the heights of Disney's greatest work.
Anastasia (1997): 7/10
Whatever one thinks of the appropriateness of the source material, I don't think one can deny that there is a near-masterpiece buried somewhere in this film. The attention to detail, set pieces, and animation quality approach that of Disney's best work, even if the songs and character development don't. Where Anastasia really fumbles though is in its misplaced desire to cater to a younger audience: all Rasputin and Bartok do is derail a story that works just fine without them, and as Studio Ghibli has proven time and time again, you don't need hammy villains or silly animal sidekicks or even conflict to keep a child's attention. Not that it doesn't help obviously, but such elements employed sloppily (as I feel they are here) detract from the adult experience--I wanted to get swept away in Don Bluth's imagined Russia and Europe, and I just couldn't. The sad thing is is that the potential is all lined up and ready to go. For example, the characters have tremendous potential--if only a significant portion of their road-trip together weren't dismissed with a forgettable song and a lame montage. I'd be tempted to blame most of this film's missteps on a studio that wanted to ape Disney's formula, but let's not forget that this was directed by Bluth, whose legacy is uneven, at best.
The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies (2014): 6/10
The shortest of the three Hobbit films, but also paradoxically the most bloated. This is what happens when you take a relatively slim novel and try to spread it out for three films at two-and-a-half to three hours each. Nothing that I've seen Peter Jackson do in this trilogy has convinced me that The Hobbit would have been any better off with anything more than a single film. All Jackson has done with the extra time and money he has been given is squander it on unnecessary call-backs to the Lord of the Rings film; endless video-game CGI action where makeup, stunts, and a keen editorial eye would have served better; characters original to the film whose purposes for existing I still cannot fathom; and behind-the-scenes technological masturbating that adds little of value to the film experience (higher frame rate, I'm looking at you). All of Jackson's foibles as a director shuffle their way into the full light of day here--where they were easy to forgive in The Lord of the Rings they are more difficult to cope with here, and many of Jackson's flourishes, such as they are, rocket past the point of self parody with this final installment of a completely unnecessary trilogy.
All that said--and I am ashamed to admit it, I still enjoyed it. The attention to detail throughout is fantastic, and few people direct conflicts on a huge scale better than Jackson does. Martin Freeman was pitch perfect as Bilbo throughout--he could have easily carried this movie on his own shoulders, if only he had been given the opportunity. When the writing hewed close to Tolkien's it was great and was delivered well by its actors. And the ending was extremely satisfying--Jackson has sure come a long way with regards to knowing when and how to end a ******* movie. It's just a shame about the rest of it, from the mere presence of Legolas, to the numerous thudding one-liners, all the way down to Tauriel. Especially Tauriel, in fact, who seems like she was given form (and lines) by some sort of evil fanfiction writers' conglomerate. If only such garbage could remain relegated to fanfiction.net, where literature, art, imagination, and hope for the human race goes to die.
When it's all said and done, if you've seen the other two, you may as well see this one. You'll probably enjoy yourself on some sort of animal or nerdy level. And you'll be very, very relieved when it's over. In fact, let's all just take a moment to breathe a collective sigh of relief, and agree to treat this like Star Wars, yeah? Just pretend that the prequel trilogy doesn't exist.
. What do they mean with Strong expected WOM. Weapons of mass destruction?
