Sure, it's not in the storytelling league of "Pinocchio" or something like that. It's loved because of its visual Gothic beauty (truly striking), and for its villain. The prince is an ice cream sundae, and Aurora's a cipher. The fairies are somewhat uninteresting. But those shots, and those castles, that dragon fight! That voice that comes out of Maleficent! These are immortal.
D.H. Lawrence said, "Trust the tale, not the teller." This is a huge example of that. It tries to be the story of goodness triumphant, but the villain's so much more compelling than anyone that it takes us deep down the Nietzschean rabbit hole. And that, to me, is why it's so fascinating.
The Gothicism in this is so darkly attractive. The thorns, the purple-tinged steps and the bird turning to stone are among my favourite pieces of Disney animation.
For some people. I still think you need a good strong story with good characters to make a great film. Movie making to me is a microcosm of Visuals, Music, and Writing. To disregard one of the those 3 betrays its purpose.
That depends, though. In some ways it's the truest "fairy tale" they ever made, since it's characters, for the most part, are dim outlines. Read any tale by the Brothers Grimm, and it's similar. You could say that a great painting of people needs realism and depth, but look at some medieval frescoes and that's called into question a little. These are different art forms.
Anyway, Sleeping Beauty clearly has two of three (visuals and music) in spades. Add to that Maleficent, one of the grandest villains ever put on film by anybody, and you've got something not to be sneezed at. The style of the whole piece is bent a bit sideways, something kind of experimental and wonky and not to be judged by the textbook rules. But its twisted, Gothic approach to things is a statement all its own---that's my point. There is nothing remotely shallow in "style."
That depends, though. In some ways it's the truest "fairy tale" they ever made, since it's characters, for the most part, are dim outlines. Read any tale by the Brothers Grimm, and it's similar. You could say that a great painting of people needs realism and depth, but look at some medieval frescoes and that's called into question a little. These are different art forms.
You said it right there "different art forms" movie making is different from a Storybook or a painting. You brought an example of a fairy tale from a book. The reason fairy tales have dim characters is because that's the point. Fairy tales have dim characters because the readers are encouraged to use their imagination and fill in the blanks. It allow us to create our own world and get lost in the story.
Movies are different in that it's someone else's vision not ours we can't interpret it like a book or a painting. The responsibility is on the visionary to give not only give us great visuals, sounds, and good writing.
Yes, I'm not saying Sleeping Beauty's on the level of Pinocchio, in that regard---but I'm arguing it deserves to be cut a bit more slack, as a gorgeous experimental film that takes certain elements further than anyone.
And again, the visuals are great, the sounds and music are certainly great, and the writing, though flawed, has magnificent sections. If we throw in the acting of Eleanor Audley, well...