question:  The reviewer shares the following similar criticism of Princess Mononoke and Roberta Guaspari:
context: Machines in the Garden In the animated ecological epic Princess Mononoke , the camera travels over landscapes with a clear, steady gaze, like a Zen hang glider. The Japanese director, Hayao Miyazaki, who spent three years on Princess Mononoke and is reported to have done 70 percent of its paintings himself, seems to work from the outside in: to begin with the curve of the earth, then the mossy hills, the watercolor foliage, the nubby stones, the whorls on the wood, the meticulous carvings on a teacup. A view of nature that some would call "tree-hugging" doesn't feel softheaded when the trees are rendered in such brilliant and robust detail. But then, "soft" is not a word you can apply to Princess Mononoke , however pantheistic its worldview. According to the New York Times , Toy Story animators screened reels of his work when their imaginations flagged, and writers for Star Trek named an alien species after one of his features. Watching Princess Mononoke --which has been dubbed to Disney/Miramax specifications by American and English stars but retains its two-hour-plus length, its gory beheadings, and its grim, near-apocalyptic finale--you can understand their worship. The movie has a scope that makes Hollywood's homiletic, follow-your-dream fables look even more solipsistic. In fact, the boars and apes have little patience with Ashitaka's call for nature and mankind to live together in harmony; they'd like to eat him. It's Miyazaki's use of sound--and silence--that takes your breath away: the determined tap of the wolf princess's shoes as she scuttles over the fortress's rooftops; the silence of Eboshi and her army as they stare at this tiny yet formidable tomboy against the black sky. It's a shame that the wolf princess warms up to Ashitaka and spends the rest of the film either saving him or being saved by him.
output:  They lose their appeal when the director reduces their rough edges
options:  They are unoriginal and sexist caricatures of stereotypical female archetypes  They are not developed to the fullest extent they could be, and the audience loses interest in their storyline  They lose their appeal when the director reduces their rough edges  They should have been cast as the protagonists of their respective stories, instead of secondary characters