It's fine to call mid films "Miyazaki" because he's made like 3 good films and the rest are solidly mid or worse.
Movies & TV

Rules for Movies & TV Discussion
-
Any discussion of Disney properties should contain a (cw: imperialism) tag. If your post isn't tagged appropriately it will be removed.
-
Anti-Bong Joon-ho trolling will result in an immediate ban from c/movies and submitted to the site administrators for review.
-
On Star Trek Sunday only posts discussing how we might achieve space communism are permitted. Non-Star Trek related content will be removed and you will be temporarily banned until the following Sunday.
Here's a list of tons of leftist movies.
I’m not from Portland, Oregon so maybe it’s just novel and shocking for me personally, but there is an overt wanderlust-whimsical aroma to the entire movie that to me is just annoying. I can’t quite place my issue with it, or at least not in a small number of words. Maybe those who watch it, or those who know Portland, will know what that is?
It's the dream of the 90's, as they say. The showing my friend went to literally had a unicyclist playing bagpipes outside of it when the theater emptied out. It's still legal to be quirky chungus and cringe. Everyone in Portland has bumper stickers that say "Keep Portland Weird" and are convinced they are the weirdest and coolest people alive. It's the fertile soil in which hipsterdom first arose, and while it died off elsewhere it never died off here.
It's the cultural reflection of all the white people who kept going West trying to escape the engine of Capital in the East, hit the West Coast, and still want a way to escape by going into the forests and fantasy worlds and beards and twee "authentic" experiences. It's the secular version of Mormons always feeling persecuted by the outside world and retreating westward.
You have a good way with words, I've never been there or in the US, but I've got a vivid mental picture now.
Regrettably it is wrong.
ah, well, thanks to you I now know what was wrong about it and what the correct version of the story is, thanks for teaching us!
ok.
Damn, I never realized that Portland really is just the epicenter of post modern Bohemianism that never wanted to actually confront capital in any meaningful way. This isn't to discredit the existing mutual aid groups in the Portland area but damn if the vibe of Portland isn't more about escapism vs actually being a growing point for American leftism (honestly makes sense given Oregon in general was a heavily segregated settler state).
It's based on a children's (maybe YA) series. I went in not expecting too much of the plot. It made me feel even more romantic about Portland than I already do. It truly is a great place.
Miscellaneous thoughts (spoilers)
The main character, Prue, might as well be called Mary Sue because she’s always right and has no flaws. I was pissed off that the writers decided that the mystics were useless and that Prue should be the Chosen One that the tree speaks to. What even is the point of the mystics? Why does Prue do everything?
The battle near the end made little sense to me, even as a non-military-strategy-knower. The powerful bad guys had a severe technology advantage and high ground, literally with guns and cannons pointing down at a medium number of untrained farmers with shovels. Why would the bad guys charge down the hill for a melee? It was open season.
Why are Prue’s parents so boring and useless? The one chance they had to be interesting characters, again the writers decide that Prue should do everything, because she’s the Main Character (derogatory). Prue already brought Curtis into the woods, so it is shown to be possible to bring non-magical guests into the forest. The parents should have gone along, not only to protect Prue, but to get back their goddamn son!
On nature: I did not enjoy the conception of nature in this movie. The writers don’t know how to have it: on the one hand, they want harmony between humans and nature (plants and animals) but, in their lack of imagination, they write entire species of animals as ontologically evil (coyotes and crows, sans one singular coyote) and other species as ontologically good (owls, eagles, sparrows). It is an essentialist framing that suggests speciesism and racism! If species are ontologically evil, then harmony is impossible.
On animal liberation: this was a partially good aspect of the film. I noticed only one instance of carnist food, a bowl of venison stew offered by the Governess when she meets Curtis. The late scene with the mystics living among the (sentient) plants and animals suggests a society liberated from animal exploitation. They live as farmers, which is weird when you consider that the plants are supposedly sentient. But most importantly, again here the writers reveal their lack of imagination. They cannot conceive of animal liberation except as animals becoming humans in practice, walking on two legs, wearing clothes, and speaking English. I know this is just a movie but it bugs me when people think of animal liberation in human-centric and human-gratifying terms. Hence even many vegans are quite blind to animals that are not cute cuddly mammals.