However painful it is to write this, but this time, Miyazaki indulged to self grandiosity...

Rating: 6/10 (22 December 2017)

I'm glad that Hayao Miyazaki reconsidered his decision to retire otherwise his 2004 "Howl's Moving Castle" would be his last movie I'd experience and well, you got it, it wasn't as pleasant as the previous ones. I watched it three times, as I used to because his movies tend to be rich content and form wise so the two aspects can distract one from another, but then checking some other users' comments, I stuck to my initial reaction: the animation is as great as you can expect from the master but it's one of these cases where, paraphrasing Emperor Joseph from "Amadeus", you can just sigh and say there are simply too many 'notes'.
Don't get me wrong, it's not a case of Emperor with no clothes, but with so many clothes you can't even recognize him anymore. But I had my reservations from the beginning because the title reminded me of "Castle in the Sky" and that film didn't leave me ecstatic either, an action-packed coming-of-age story, puppy romance with environmentalist and anti-war messages venturing in the realm of magic led to a real overdose of effects not easily 'digestible' by a younger audience. The film is still just a lighter version of "Howl's Moving Castle", a real 'fantasy' bouillabaisse and perhaps the unique instance where a point came I stopped to care about the film and was waiting for it to end.
Was it because Miyazaki was so intoxicated by the universal (and deserved) acclaim of "Chihiro's Travel" that he felt he could fly that close to the sun and get away with it, there was just something a tad pretentious in that late-minute eruption of fantasy and witchcraft. And yet it started so promisingly
I just loved the quiet beginning in that small European town, I figured the action took place during World War I, then it started with a meek and mousy milliner named Sophie who's saved from two bullying soldiers by a handsome flying 'angel' named Hauru (the titular Howl) and then you have your set-up for a typical Miyazaki journey, a young female candidate for a great coming-of-age story, flying, magic and war as the backdrop. Then the troubles begin: a cruel sorceress named the Witch of the Waste turns Sophie (for no apparent reason) into an old woman and not only we've had to say goodbye to the pleasant look of Sophie to (yet another) ugly looking grandmother. What's with Miyazaki and old women anyway?
Still, the real problem is that the personality of Sophie changes as well, in fact, it changes so radically that she becomes like another character. This might be the most disturbing thing about the film, all through her adventure; the changes in Sophie's looks and personality are so inconsistent that I had a hard time detecting the aspect of her personality that was meant to evolve. I initially thought being an old woman would help her to embrace life with more enthusiasm, but she seemed to have understood it very quickly and become your typical domineering lady as soon as she enters the castle (with the help of the turnip-face scarecrow). So what was Sophie's lesson to learn?
From the ending, we gather that "Howl's Moving Castle" was meant to end like a love story. I didn't read the original novel from Diana Wynne Jones (in fact, when I heard the name "Witch of the Waste and saw the scarecrow, I expected a 'Wizard of Oz' like journey) but even in the novel, I guess there was an arc to close, but here, Sophie falls in love with Howl or Hauru, why? She did save him in a way but since she spent most of her time as an old lady trying to break her spell, she acted more as a motherly figure helping an insecure kid, those were interesting twists on the usual characterization, but at the end it seems that there's a return to a basic narrative that didn't match the beginning.
I quite enjoyed the film say after the visit to the Queen and then, the overuse of magic and ominous malevolent spirits, then the chants and the chases and I just stared at the screen and thought "boy, that escalated quickly". The problem with magic is that it's a double-edged sword, basically when the main protagonist is victim of a curse, her 'love' interest is a wizard, the nemesis turned protagonist is a witch, and the wise queen an even crueler witch, and the castle is a magic spirit moved by a talking fire, well, there are so many possibilities there's no savor to unpredictability anymore, it becomes boring. The movie goes in too many directions and magic shortcuts itself in a chaotic extravaganza. Kiki's incapability to fly the broom was more intense than anything from "Howl's" climax.
Yes, the film is visually pleasant but at some point but so are many Terry Gilliam's movies and they're not in the same league of greatness. At least, "Castle in the Sky" had the pirates and couldn't be a love story anyway, while "Howl's Moving Castle" seems to cut-and-paste all the usual elements of Miyazaki and provide a great entertainment without any 'ubstance', the ingredients are all there but making a film is also like making a good cake. Miyazaki did this film like the pastry cook who's just finished his cake, added some Chantilly cream, then some fruits, then some raspberry coulis, and then some walnuts... individually, they all taste great but in the same recipe, they can only contribute to something indigestible.
While not a bad movie or a misfire, I think this is just Miyazaki being carried away at the most pivotal moment of the film and realizing at the last minute that it should have a proper ending. Definitely a case where the best was the enemy of the good.