Is this the weakest of all 'Classic' Disney films?
I know it's a kid's film, but even still the movie has a way too flawed storyline and compared to other Disney films it's just predictable and full of Disney movie cliches.
shareWhen people take shots at & parody Disney, THIS is the movie most of those cliches come from. That one scene from Shrek where Fiona sings with the bird is lifted directly from here. I couldn't help but to laugh since Dreamworks so perfectly nailed it...
Say what you will about the Cinderellas or the Snow Whites, at least the side characters in those movies had more of a purpose than being "cute". The Seven Dwarves and the mice actually contributed to the plot and had characters of their own. The random cuddly-wuddly animals here have zero purpose but to make you go "d'aaaw" and make "d'awww" faces at Aurora. And I'm a sucker for cuteness, yet they couldn't even pull that off.
And the whole plot itself is one of those "waaaacky misunderstandings!" plots that were all the rage in those contrived crummy 90's/00's romcoms (guess we know where they came from now). An easily fixable situation could be fixed if the two parties just TALKED TO EACH OTHER like actual human beings...but things will just so happen to work out since the people Aurora and Phillip fell in love with JUST SO HAPPENED to be the people their parents set them up with to begin with (while Aurora was still a *bleep*-ing baby, which totally isn't creepy at all), making the passive-aggressive whining both characters/families do a complete waste of time!
Oh and Maleficent is in this movie, I guess. There was a near 30-minute chunk of the movie where she just disappeared that I almost forget she's supposed to be the "villain." And while I recognize that this is an old movie and that I may just be worn out on the whole "laughing with henchmen before zappping them" cliche, it still didn't make her any more interesting or "HOMG GREAAAATEST DISNEY VILLAIN EVAR!" like everyone else says.
The saving graces for this movie is the stellar animation and some pretty good voice work from Elanor Audley as Maleficent (despite given little to work with) and the three fairies, particularly Barbara Luddy as Merryweather; I always like her work in these olden Disney films. Other than that, I can quite easily understand why it got such a Meh reception when it came out.
Why are people judging this and other Disney animated films as one would a film by David Lean or Stanley Kubrick? What makes fairy tale/folklore stories perfect for animation is also what makes them less worthy of the intense critical literary/psychoanalysis. Until 20th century media (and Walt Disney) came along, Ballet and opera had to offer audiences spectacle, color, choreography etc. and comparatively weak plots are about all one has time for before the audience gets restless and has to get home to bed. Fairy tales are perfect and that's why so many ballet and opera creators turn to folklore. The opportunities for costume, dance, and music are so much greater than for comtemporary literary forms. After the thrills, spills, songs, dances and cuteness, what room is there for substance? Do audiences really want to sit through animated Humphrey Bogart in a dark suit in a serious conversation with Mary Astor in a navy colored day suit-- now and then picking up a telephone in a bland room with venetian blinds? It's Great drama and plot but what a waste of animators' time and talent. Just imagine:Coming Soon! The most anticipated feature since Lady in the Lake, Disney's animated Who's Afraid of Virgina Woolfe?
shareReally I'm comparing it to other Disney movies...OF WALT'S TIME.
And it's still not all that interesting. Again, Snow White and Cinderella managed to have more going on under the hood even with their equally simplistic stories. Same thing for Pinocchio. They were capable of better than this, and they proved it before and after this film.
Is it the worst movie in the Disney cannon? Heck no, not by a long shot. But I'm not going to give it false praise just for existing either.