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
Add a Review
-
I've always enjoyed this movie. I first saw it when I was little and it was one of my favorite animated movies as a kid. I had it on VCR and just watched it on and on. I'm Icelandic so I saw the movie in Icelandic growing up. Some years ago I tried to watch it in English but I didn't enjoy it. But, that's just me. It's just become a habit seeing it so often in Icelandic. Now that I've watched it again in Icelandic, I still enjoy it but I have noticed that the animation isn't really that perfect. It could be much better but it doesn't really bother me.I really like the storyline, it's very good. In my opinion this is a very enjoyable movie for kids.
-
I remember constantly watching this movie as a kid. I even remember where I got it from. Avon, since my Grandma sells it and still does. Out of all the animated movies I don't know why I loved this one so much as a kid. Re-watching it now I still don't. What do I think of it now?
Well, it's OK. I've definitely re-watched worse old animated films. This one actually even had some pretty decent songs. The story was simple but good overall. There are some things I noticed about it now that I know I would have never caught as a kid. But then that's why for the most part that I do re-watch things that I watched as a kid. That and to see how they hold up now. One things for sure, I can see why kids would like it. It will always have a lasting impression on my mind also, no matter how faint. :) -
Maybe I'm just used to sound effects and music making scenes seem more dramatic, but this cartoon felt unfinished. There is very little music in any scenes to help set the mood. The sound effects are also missing a lot, like one scene a boy stomps the ground and it makes no sound. This is not a musical (hence there being no music), but one song appears about 5 times, like one of the writers were smart enough to think up one song and wanted to brag by playing it over and over again. The animation is also lacking quite a bit. Some cool tricks, like putting layers between the characters and foreground are used, but the actual animation is pretty bad. It almost looks like a good looking anime cartoon, or a bad looking Disney knock-off. These are the little things, that made this movie a step down in it's rating.
Princess Irene escapes one day from her nanny, gets lost in the forest, and meets many of the horrible pets of the goblins who live in the area. A young miner boy, Curdie, finds her and scares off the animals by singing the only song in the movie. When Irene goes back to the castle, she meets her dead grandmother who tells her some odd secrets about the castle and the goblins. Curdie follows the goblins to their area of work, and chaos ensues.
The best scenes in the movie are the ones featuring the goblins, and there are way too few of those. This movie is around 80 minutes, and the goblins have maybe, 10 to 15 minutes of screen time, but it seems longer because they're such interesting characters. Scenes with Irene in the castle can get quite boring, and what's strange is Irene's nanny Looti is actually a much more interesting character than Irene. Scenes with Curdie can be annoying, because he tends to think out loud, which just adds up to bad writing and inexpressive animation.
Overall, this a fun movie, and it's somewhat cute and funny, but it's nothing special.
My rating: ** 1/2 out of ****. 80 mins. G. -
nilanna99928 June 2011Okay, this movie isn't Disney. The character development is flawed to say the least but this is a good movie overall, considering what they had to work with. The only thing I really disliked about this movie was some of the writing. Irene would sometimes be shown to be pretty tough... then she'd turn into a complete idiot. Same with Curdie, but even more because he was supposed to be tough. And then he seems to forget to be consistent. This is evident when he's captured in the middle of the movie by the goblins and tries to sing to save himself. But then he seems to forget to keep singing, thus helping them capture him.
And the music. The song they got was absolutely wonderful. It captures the story really well. Unfortunately, not only is it the only song in the movie, but it's repeated over and over again.
That's the bad, but the good is still there. It is entertaining and sweet. I wouldn't recommend it for the older crowd but for kids, it's a pretty good movie and not one they'll be embarrassed about liking when they get older. The plot is good and the voice acting is great. -
oobrey530 January 2007I loved this movie when I was a child. It was just so fantastical and lovely, and the main song just sticks in your head for days upon days. When I watched this movie recently (as in 10 years later), I saw how fine the animation was designed to be, and how well it was done in some areas. It's old, and the animation dosen't really compare to the computer graphics we have today, but it's CLASSIC. And although someof the actions are exaggerated in the movie, it's like opening my Hans Christian Anderson book, and seeing stories come to life.
So if you're a lover of fairy tales, or enjoy telling stories, this movie was MADE for you. -
stagedlined4665 April 2014I 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. -
calongne19 August 2007The Princess and the Goblin is a story about bravery and loyalty. This animated version features a lovely song, excellent voice acting and enjoyable animations. Curdie, the miner boy, sings a song with such haunting beauty that you feel the power in it (reminiscent of a soloist in the Vienna Boy's Choir). The song remains in your memory long after you watch the movie.
From the beginning, the encounters with the goblins and the cobs are handled in an unexpected and amusing fashion.
My family liked The Princess and the Goblin and we recommend it. This movie is refreshingly different from other animated fare, and it brought the 1872 book by George MacDonald to life. -
neverland88888820 January 2014This is one of the worst films I have ever seen, let alone adaptations of the stupendous novel that was my childhood favorite.
First off, her name is pronounced (Eye-reen), not (Eye-reen-ee). Maybe it's just me, but everyone I know pronounces it Irene.
Second, this animation is horrendous. Absolutely awful.
Third, that song is lame. A song generated for the Disney Princesses written by a six-year-old girl wouldn't be as cheesy.
Fourth, the scene at the end where Curdie beats up the Goblin Queen was literally the worst scene for children in an animated film. Ever.
Fifth, the characters are portrayed horribly. Irene doesn't run away from her nurse, and is eight. The nurse, Lootie, is not a fat idiot. Curdie is twelve years old, yes, but he's also not an idiot who runs off to look for trouble. The Goblin King is not annoying, the Goblin Queen is not... that, and the prince is not a psychotic killer- in fact, in the book, the Prince was barely in there and seemed rather innocent.
Sixth, there is no cat. That cat was annoying. The Goblin Cat was, too, but me and my sister came up with the name "Doofenscourge" (after Doofenshmirtz in Phineas and Ferb and Scourge from the book series Warriors), so now he's just a joke.
Seventh, the original book was a classic masterpiece that was the favorite of JRR Tolkien and CS Lewis. NOT a randomized, made-for-children film created just to get a buck off that parent across the street.
Eighth, while I admit that the Great-Grandmother was cool, she was like, "Someday you'll find magic of your own and you won't need me anymore!" Uhh... where to begin? How about, a) Irene has no magic whatsoever (at least in the book) and never will, and b) THE GREAT GRANDMOTHER WAS SUPPOSED TO REPRESENT THE Christian GOD, AND THE Christian GOD SAYS THAT WE WILL ALWAYS NEED HIM BECAUSE WE ARE SINNERS AND HE WILL TAKE CARE OF US IF WE JUST LET HIM. OKAY?! Gosh, this movie made me resort to all caps. While I have more arguments, I should probably go lie down. Just, stay away from this awful movie. -
irishgirl12 July 2000For anyone who has seen this movie, they know what I'm talking about. This movie is pretty good although there is exaggeration in some parts. Personally, I like the song. It has a nice beat, very medieval and it gives hope. It was made in Hungary and it won a prize. YES! When I first got this movie, people who came to my house always wanted to watch it and I got sick of it. Now I just watched for the first time in 3 years and it was good. Watch it! You'll like it! If you've seen it already, you must really think the goblin cat is the most hilarious thing in the movie.
-
jestanfield10 March 2011Many reviews say this is a "charming" movie and a good adaption of the book. I think a movie that completely changes the message of the book is not a faithful adaption. It was most likely an attempt to secularize it, which I think would make George Macdonald roll over in his grave. It would probably make the biggest Macdonald fan in the world, C.S. Lewis, start spinning as well. It's not even like the book is extremely overtly religious, so I don't get why they had to sterilize it.
You don't even have to watch the movie to see that the message is not the same. The summary on IMDb says it all: "Irene must rely on her own magic to save Curty, and in turn the entire kingdom." The focus is for her to solely rely on herself and her own power. That's actually the exact opposite message of the book, which is much more charming than this crappy movie. -
axldance17 February 2022As a non-Disney movie made in 1991 with 1/3 the budget of Alladin, it is a masterpiece. If you want to hate this movie you will find reasons to do so, but it is a really fun, sweet, and surprisingly conceptual for a child's film. I am uncertain whether today's 5 year-olds would enjoy such a dated presentation but it's worth a shot.
The animation is dated now and it was kind of dated back then. It came out in 1992 but I would believe anyone who said it came out in 1982. It's not bad animation, just not on par with Alladin but better than Jungle Book. I actually like the kind of watercolor backgrounds, it adds a dream-like quality.
The story is sweet, it is a kid's movie, and there are couple funny parts. The voice acting is for the most part quite good.
It was one of my favorite movies as a kid probably between 4 and 10 years old. The concepts and story are quirky. The characters are lovable to a fault, even some of the goblins. -
Here is another film that my aunt Sharon has in her house that I watch whenever I visit her. I really enjoyed it, and it has become another of my favorite animated or literary films. You know I thought the animation was very well done, and I should tell you that after seeing the film, I had read the original book and also its sequel, "The Princess and Curdie."
I love little Princess Irene; she's cute, and I love her kitten Turnip too. I also love the wonderful music score, and as I always say, I love a film with a good soundtrack. So overall, I love this film, and it's a fine adaptation of George MacDonald's wonderful book. -
impulseyj12 November 2007Before 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. -
My childhood was full of obscene movies that don't get recognition. My parents seemed to always bring home movies where if I were to mention them to someone, they'd have no clue what I was talking about. More often than not, the movies would be scary to children who were not used to that type. Thus, I had a varied and interesting movie collection as a child. And my childhood friends would never watch a movie I'd recommend.
This has very few spoilers at the end (the first one is more like a warning to parents and the second one to people with germaphobia than spoilers). I put the word spoiler in front of it, so a reader doesn't accidentally read it and get mad at me.
This movie is based off a book by the same title by George MacDonald, published in 1872. Many people who have read the book don't like the movie adaption because so much was left out, or barely mentioned, and characters personalities are changed immensely. I've read the book, and I still like this movie. I grew up watching it and read the book much later, so maybe that's why I can excuse the watered down adaption. I love both the book and the movie.
Young Princess Irene (pronounced Eye-reen-ee for an unexplained reason; the director was from Hungarian, so maybe that's how it's pronounced there? Just a guess) wanders off from her lady in waiting one day outside the castle, and goes exploring in the nearby woods. Not knowing her way, she gets lost, and is found by a miner's son, Curdie, who warns her about the goblins that could be lurking around in the forest, and leads her back to the palace, becoming friends along the way. When Curdie goes to the mines to work the next day, he slips down a hole that leads him to where the goblins are, deep into the earth, who are concocting a plan against the royal palace.
Magic was a majour theme in the novel, and didn't carry into the adaption. There is a bit about magic that isn't explained well by a character that doesn't have a solid place in the story. It can leave the viewer wondering why it was even added in the first place. I think if the movie was longer and added to the magical aspect and the character, the movie would have been a lot better. The story feels incomplete. Good, but incomplete.
This is pretty dark for a children's movie (as so many of the old ones are). This movie is not rated, so I recommend that, if someone were to show it to children, to watch it beforehand to decide whether or not its appropriate for the children. This movie can haunt children for life.
I'd recommend this movie to a teenager because a lot of teenagers like children movies and darker stories, and this movie infuses the two.
This movie is on YOUTUBE.
*WARNING/SPOILER* to PARENTS There is a very violent battle between the goblins and the humans in the end, which could frighten children. *END warning/spoiler*
To anyone has GERMAPHOBIA or is disgusted easily about bodily functions: *WARNING: The Goblin Prince Froglip picks his nose while in the meeting with his goblin minions, and flicks it into a puddle. I used to be so revolted by that, and I still kinda am, and it grossed me out the first time I saw it. And many times after that. I still cringe at it. *END of warning*
If you watched Princess and the Goblin, and liked it, here are a few other older children movies I'd recommend:
The Troll in Central Park (1994), The Pagemaster (1994), Matilda (1996), Thumbelina (1994), Ferngully (1992, may also scare young chilren), A Little Princess (1995) -
I was struck by the amateurish animation, like the rough work in the CTW version of "The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe" but with better backgrounds and with even worse sound. I can forgive weak visuals when the story is strong, but this feature falls short there too. It's a mishmash of poorly developed characters and poorly motivated action set pieces. The Great Great Grandmother character is tossed into the mix for some magical glamor, but only adds to the humor and confusion with her "I'll always be there for you, except when I'm not" speech. The violence is also a little rougher than I'm used to, including a bloodstain from a character's wound, a goblin dog shown in shadow being kicked in the head until senseless, and a strange moment where a nursemaid is licked, repeatedly and lasciviously, on her clothed belly and chest by an attacking goblin. The voice acting is good (not surprising considering the cast) but it's not enough to save this movie.
-
animation doesn't always have to be done on the level of Disney or Spielberg to be good. ever since UPA Animation Studios made the scene back in the 50's with Gerald McBoing Boing and Mr.Magoo, they rivaled Disney and full animation in terms of success, artistic vision and effectiveness. UPA proved that animation could be limited and low budget and still compete successfully. they changed the look and face of animation ever since.
except for a few films like 'Yellow Submarine', 'Little Nemo in Slumberland' and the amazing works of Miyazaki, feature length animation isn't always as effective or as watchable for the same length as Disney accomplishes with their 90 minute animated features. critics once said when Disney's 'Snow White' was being made that "nobody will want to sit through a feature length animated cartoon". it's always been believed that that claim was debunked by Disney's success. i'm not so sure that was totally debunked. i love feature length animation but sometimes i find it difficult to get involved with animation that is much longer than 70 minutes. though Disney is the most successful, even Disney animated features like 'Tarzan' and 'Hunchback of Notre Dame' can seem a bit too long.
Hemdale did a great job with 'Princess and the Goblins'. it is a very modest feature, sometimes a bit underwhelming, but it is amusing and sustains it's length of 80 minutes well. it is also a good enough adaptation of MacDonald's children's classic.
there are times, like in the animation of the flooding water, where the animation reveals it's limitations. however the film often makes up for it's short comings with good graphics in it's backgrounds.
it also manages to be a good, wholesome film for little children. the dedication at the end of the film, "to babies everywhere", is appropriate and sincere. it's a film to be treasured for the very young. -
casdemorree28 November 2018This movie isn't the prettiest ever made, but my god what nostalgia. I watched this movie when I was a kid myself and today I showed it to my daughter. She appeared to love it as well. Love this movie so much. If only more present day animated movies were made like this.
-
gigangigan10 March 2019Going through everything wrong with this animated movie would take more than a short review, so I'll keep this to a few points.
Most distractingly, the animation is really strange - characters twist and warp as they make even the slightest movements. Nobody's hair never seems to stay still, and distractingly flies all over the screen. Just bizarre emphasis on every tiny action - it seems like a lot more could've been done with the animation budget, instead of using all those frames on the weird, undulating movements. It really reminds me of the Zelda CD-I games' animation, and needless to say, this pulled me out of the movie.
The villains are the least menacing I've ever seen in a children's film, and this removes all tension or interest to what the protagonists are even fighting for. The goblins are goofy and incompetent right from the getgo, so it feels like there's no reason for the kids to fear them. Not only this, but there's some weird homophobia / transphobia going on, with the hideous Goblin Queen with a male voice actor and the other goblin villain with a pronounced lisp and flamboyant gestures. Yuck.
I generally don't expect much from children's fairytale animation, but this was still glaringly awful in comparison to other, similar fare. -
It's great for a low budget animation. But any time I watched it, I got serious nightmares for a few days. And I wasn't even that young, I was like 11-12... I found it really scary, I felt more horror than any horror movie since then. But since I didn't find any review of that sorts, maybe I'm the only one who felt this way, although my brother felt similar that time.
-
alexandra-8077611 March 2024It's cute. Family friendly. Full of adventure and love. Animations are cute and simple vs too perfect and computerized. Simple storyline. Brings back the best childhood memories. Such a fan of this film. An easy watch. And can we admire how crazy they make the goblin family? Very almost rock n roll, and of the times; especially being early 90s. Themes of bravery, overcoming fears, and friendship. The original vhs also had a commercial advertising prepaid pay phone cards for children. So incase the kids were lost like the Princess, that they could have their magic card to call home with. Just sweet since this was the pre cell phone craze.
-
strawberry_fields-639-55935725 July 2011The 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.