I only first saw this movie a few months ago, and I've got to say it really is a mixed bag. I've not yet finished the book in which this movie is based on so I'll judge this movie on it's own. First I must talk about the animation. The animation starts off pretty good, not Disney quality but it's passable. However it's one of those animated movie, you know the one where the quality seems to get worse as the movie goes on. Those kind of movies really bother me. I know animated films are painstakingly hard to make but I just feel this approach is lazy. But a good story is a good way to cover some flaws, and how is that? The story is actually good, it's well paced, it ties up the loose end and it managed to do so with an 80 minute running time. Not to mention this is the story that really helped influence Tolkien and C.S. Lewis to right The Hobbit and Narnia. So props to that. With that said a good story can't be saved unless it has good characters to carry it through and this is were it gets mixed. First things first, the Goblins. Everyone knows goblins are the most devious creatures of all fantasy, how are they portrayed in the movie? How do I put this nicely.... THEIR ANNOYING!!!!!!!! Seriously goblins are versatile, open to many possibilities but this movie decided to go to lowest denominator. The supporting characters are not very good either, the guards, the nanny etc. are very annoying. Fortunately to the movie's credit the two leads Princess Irene and Curdie are actually likable. They share a cute chemistry and you do want to route for them. In conclusion The Princess and Goblin is lukewarm, A good well paced story with two likable leads, but annoying supporting characters and inconsistent animation. So in the end I'm glad I saw it, but I won't be rushing to see it anytime soon.

The Princess and the Goblin has absolutely terrible animation. Terrible as in The Legend of Zelda Saturday morning cartoon terrible. Which is too bad, because otherwise it's really a nice movie. The story is magical and exciting. The characters are likable. The English dub is surprisingly well-acted, with competent performances from even the most minor of characters. The background painting is beautiful. The music is appropriate and pretty. It's well-directed, with the grandmother scenes likely to trigger little thrills of awe in even older and more-cynical viewers. If the animation had been vaguely above sub-par, this might have been a great movie. Unfortunately, it isn't.

I love books,and I love animation, so considering how much I love the book by George MacDonald I wanted to give this movie a try. And you know what, I like this movie a lot. While the book is definitely better, this is quite a charming film. It is too short however, somehow I would've expected it to be 10 minutes longer, and the grandmother wasn't as well explained as she is in the book. Speaking of the grandmother though, I loved not only how beautiful and wise she was but also how Claire Bloom voiced her. I know how a lot of people have complained about the animation being crude and lazy, and I would like to say that I actually liked it. There are some lovely colourful backgrounds and I loved how King Papa, Irene and Grandmother were animated. Also, the goblins who do steal the show with their hatred of poetry and jealousy of humans, are MEANT to be ugly. I liked the music too, the score was beautiful and the song had a really upbeat and medieval feel to it and was sung surprisingly well. The story is easy to follow and is suitably simple, and the voice acting is excellent. Especially Rik Mayall as Froglip, who is quite sexy for a goblin, and Joss Ackland in a wonderfully dignified vocal performance as King Papa. Princess Irene is really cute too, and Sally Ann Marsh voiced her with real innocence and vulnerability and Peter Murray is appealing as Curdie. Also the little kitten Turnip is adorable. In conclusion, this is a good, charming movie. 8/10 Bethany Cox

Before I go further, ask yourself, when did Little Mermaid come out? Then ask yourself, when did Jurassic park come out?1989, 1994. Aladdin? Here's the kicker.. 1992, same year as Princess and the Goblin.The reason I bring those films up is because, not only because of their success, but because of the sheer technical brilliance of the animation. Sure, some of Jurassic parks dinosaurs were made with robots, but it was also the starting points of major 3-D Animation. Which means back in 1992, they had the skill to produce a good movie. Not three years later did the first all CGI TV show premier on Saturday morning.The point is, the princess and the goblin was gipped. I can see the potential for a good story here, but with shoddy characters and character design, and the only good quality this movie had to boast about were the background and water animation..Let me continue on with the characters. Irené, the leading lady, was dense as a pickle. In fact you got more from a pickle, like, spice, pizazz. this kid has no personality, and was the poster child for cliché animated mannerisms. IE, every single girlish pose, she does in this movie.Next is Curdie, who's a broken record, repeating himself over and over with the key to stopping the goblins with not a witty repartee in the mix. He was NO Aladdin. Honestly this movie reminded me more of early low budget anime made in japan then it did a feature film.The villains, actually, had the most potential, I thought, they fought dirty, they were dark, but, yet again, they were brought down by the poor presentation. Froglips, as stated in his name, had this horrible lisp which only stole from his character. The mother I rather liked to a point, more towards the end of the movie, though, when she was fighting. Pacing and flow were something I gawked at. They would take a character away from a scene and often have no follow up scene to show any characters were effected by it. In short, this movie is so driven by plot that it ignores character development.In short, this one's better left to clips on youtube.