jrcarney52
Unlike other Rankin and Bass animated movies--The Hobbit and The Last Unicorn--this film isn't based on a single work. It doesn't have a "primary text," if you will, to accurately relate or deviate from. It's based on other works, but it is a mixture of two: (1) the "speculative natural history" book titled Flight of Dragons (1979) by Peter Dickinson, and (2) the novel, The Dragon and the George (1976), by Gordon R. Dickson. I'm not familiar with either of these works (though I wish I was). Needless to say, the narrative of this film is unique and not one that precedes its production.Some brief plot summary: the film concerns the adventures of a former biology student turned fantasy novelist / fantasy game maker. He creates a very "Dungeons and Dragons" type game and a world to go along with it. And, through some various magical happenings, he gets whisked away to the fantasy world he created. There he finds out that he is the champion of this world. He has to fight an evil necromancer named Ommadon (voiced by James Earl Jones). The story is filled with dragons, elves, rangers, knights, magical spells, fairies, slime worms, dreary taverns, etc..On the level of plot, it's very thrilling.But the plot is not the only thing that endears me to this film. Let me just list some of the elements that make it a masterpiece.The animation style: Rankin and Bass's unique animation style comes through here. Slightly strange, borderline grotesque, the artistic style creates a tension between the real world elements the drawings are derived from and the abstractions the drawings are supposed to represent. Thus, there is a kind of rawness / baseness to it.The drawings are stylized, for sure, but the nature of the stylization is such that it might even be described as a resistance to stylization. In other words, the artists strived for reality while realizing that reality was beyond the pale of animation. In other animated films, artists seem to abstain from any ambition to "realistically" represent something. And in this way you get the "four-fingered" hands of so much animation / cartoons.The voice acting: There is some strange voice acting in this film, but it endears me to it. Particularly, the voice actor who plays the voice of the Princess character, Millisande, is quite awkward yet completely satisfying for its mystical, almost recitative quality. Also, the voice actor who relates the character of Smrgol the Dragon—James Gregory—is brilliant! He's an old dragon, tired out by life, and the husky voice no-nonsense delivery completely communicates this. John Ritter does the voice of the main character, Peter Dickinson, and he ramps up the nerdy quality of his voice to the extreme. And, of course, James Earl Jones as the archvillain is just brilliant. He evil laughter is pure art.The thematic content: For a kid's film, this flick engages with some serious philosophical issues. Ultimately, this film is about the conflict between magic and science, empiricism and emotion, two fundamentally distinct ways of understanding the world. Without giving away too much of the plot, the main character becomes the avatar for reason and logic, science and math; thus, the baddies become the representatives of superstition, magic, fear, and other emotional ways of coming to terms with the world.Spoiler alert: It's a strange twist, but the main character's quest ultimately preserves "the magical realm," which is an absolute incongruity considering his way of understanding the world necessarily undermines it.But I forgive this film this as it really begs the question, "Are our imaginations and flights of fancy, our impulses toward wonder and beautiful ignorance necessarily incompatible with the scientific endeavor? Is there something worthwhile is hearing "a god's anger" in the thunder rather than, say, "the manifestation of a meteorological phenomenon?" Is there something lost when we "unweave" the rainbow?The film doesn't answer this rich question. It's the source of its aesthetic power is that is even raises it.
stephen-560-161818
As a rule I don't like animations. They simply are not for me. I don;t like Manga, and really do detest Dysney. However this one is different I first saw this as a child, and recently re-watched for nostalgia, and to my surprise I still found myself enthralled by it It is obviously aimed at children, but it has layers which is the mark of a true brilliance. The question raised by the movie, that of magic vs science may be a little stale, but the way it presents the question is enchanting. Put simply the question is between the Innocence of Youth vs the Ignorance of Maturity vs the balance of Wisdom. The even more topical question about the evils of progress/technology is simply put and is in stark contrast to the beauty and subtlety of the animation. Unlike Manga there is little stylisation and unlike Dysney there is no need to dumb down, with ridiculous songs and dancing (something I have increasingly detested since the age of 5) and the art work is simply a pleasure to the eye.The sheer genius of the film is that it is still so watchable today over 20 years on and equally by adults and children. Something few other animations particularly the modern CGI ones will enjoy.The music is both discrete and perfect, the slight aura of melancholy that it injects is so right for the story which is one where there can be no real winners. Either way something is lost and it comes down to the hero to decide what he really wants. Magic or Science. We are shown that in both there is right and wrong.The ending is perhaps the most disappointing in a way, although it is pure high fantasy where the hero gets the girl. As a child it was something missed and as an adult its one of those unreal romantic notions, which kind of gets on my nerves. Thats just me though I guess.ANyway I fully recommend this film to anyone, who loves fantasy.
