>>89306290I really like it.
I feel like I'm not a huge Disney fan and so that may be why I like it more than some of the more famous films despite its flaws-- not in the sense that I hate the movies or anything but that I'm not sure there are any that really feel "perfect" to me because I usually end up disliking one thing or another about them despite other things being good (think I'm more critical about animation than live action for whatever reason). But this is one that really hits a lot of the right notes for me, even with the noticeably cheap animation in some spots and a plot that just kind of stops at the end.
Some of the things about it that it's criticized for actually work for me. The whole western film motif throughout, the laidback/low-stakes tone, mix of English and American southern accents (there actually seems to be more logic behind it than it's given credit for, with the upper-class characters tending to sound English), even the whole anthropomorphic animal thing was still a novelty at the time and, along with the tongue-in-cheek "this is how it REALLY happened" thing, helps indicate it's not trying to be a serious retelling.
I liked how the plot was meandering and ended up showing the lives of a lot of different characters. The sense of community with the characters banding and suffering together is handled well. The script is genuinely funny and has some good writing and character moments.
Also Prince John is kind of underrated as a Disney villain. The whole manchild/thumbsucking angle dominates everything about the character and it's going to be what viewers remember most, but I liked the contrast between him being a total neurotic loser who's a joke even among the villagers, but still has the power to ruin their lives through his position. Great voice acting too.
I'd like to claim nostalgia, but some of what I liked most when rewatching recently (dialogue/Prince John) wasn't what I liked as a kid. I think I just have weird preferences.
