The Sword in the Stone (1963)

An Exercise In Nonsense

Pretty good movie overall. First half was nothing special but it got better as it went along.

Let me be very fair here, this is not the best movie in my opinion. But, this movie is fun, it has purpose and is very enjoyable to watch.

Blistering performances.

As the final completely animated movie produced before the death of Walt E. Disney himself, this was a truly grand conclusion to the Golden Age of Disney's animated films. The humor works, the charm is captivating, and the duel between Merlin and Mim is made in a way that despite how it doesn't have the serious action, it can constantly entertain with the different animals they transform into, in a cartoony manner. I also didn't notice errors in the narrative like several more official critics did, and even if I did notice, the humor would make up for it. I did take unfavorable notice of Merlin's ability of foresight, as they snuck some 1963-era references into a film set in the 5th century (this is around the time Arthur was crowned King of Britain), including the historical spoiler that King Arthur's experience would be made into books and movies. Give it a watch and see for yourself that this film is under-appreciated and overlooked.

The Sword in the Stone is one of the scratchiest Disney movies. At the time they were still experimenting with and getting to know the Xerox system, allowing them to produce animation with a smaller budget, but with a noticeably rougher outlines and simpler character models. And it shows. The Sword in the Stone is one of the worst looking Disney films, there's really no way around it. But, it makes up for that, at least partially, with some catchy tunes from the Sherman Brothers, and with fun, memorable characters.The story is basically that from T. H. Stone's novel of the same name. Merlin is a wizard who ages backwards in time - it's complicated - and he's the one who mentors Arthur Pendragon in his early days as a page in a distant, rural castle in the English countryside. That mentoring mostly consisting of him changing Arthur into various animals and watching as he almost gets eaten. Happy fun times for the whole family.In all seriousness though, Merlin is a great character. Good lines, classic character design, the best song in the whole film and his various hijinks with Arthur's life do keep us entertained throughout the whole film.What keeps this from being a greater Disney film is that the story itself doesn't really contain all that much and that the side characters are not that interesting. In the book we have knights, creatures of the forest, Robin Hood of all things, villagers, castle folk. None of which we see in this film. It's just Merlin, non-speaking animals and Arthur most of the time. It's kind of fun, but the book had potential for so much more. Imagine if they did King Arthur during the 90s, in the middle of Disney Renaissance. That would have been amazing. Just think about it.In the end The Sword in the Stone is a perfectly good children's film with a more relaxed tone than was typical for a Disney film at the time. It's not bad, but it's unfortunately not great either.

Tired of living in a Medieval mess... Merlin uses all his magic powers to change a scrawny little boy into a legendary hero! When you think of strong Disney films, this may not immediately come to mind, but it should. While people tend to either think of the classics (Snow White, Sleeping Beauty, Bambi) or the early 90s revival (Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin), this is every bit as good with an entertaining story and lots of fun, with good animation, too.The most memorable part is with Madam Mim, and it is not surprising that Disney has used her in other cartoons, and even put her in their "Kingdom Hearts" video game. She is a great villain, especially given that she is most kooky than evil.The moral of the story is somewhat obscure. Early on, we are lead to believe that the importance of education would play a big role in Arthur's success. Merlin makes education out to be the most important thing. But as the film progresses, we see more time is spent turning into different animals (fish, bird, squirrel) than actually learning.Apparently this is one of the few Disney films of its era without a sequel or platinum DVD. Why? If there is someway to put together a handful of special features, this ought to be seen by more people and respected as a historic treasure.

This is one of my favorite Disney movies. I've watched it since I was a little kid and a it still entertains and makes me smile to this day. However, while I originally just watched it blissfully, my adult mind has asked me "Why do I like this?" So here's what I think of this great Disney classic: First of all, being Disney, this has nothing to do with the original book, but, again being Disney, they created a great story with lots of imagination. The main story is a young Arthur(sometimes referred to as "Wart") falls into the cottage of Merlin, the most powerful wizard. Merlin, being a soothsayer/time traveler, knows of Arthur's great destiny, so he begins to teach him valuable life lessons that will help him lead righteously. What follows are a lot of funny adventures with fun animation and characters.I LOVE Merlin in this movie. He's easily in my Top 5 Best Disney Characters List. Instead of being stuffy and wise, as most versions portray, he's more like a bumbling English professor. He's smart, but he's forgetful. He lives in the past but prefers the future. He knows what he's doing, but he doesn't always pay attention. He always has a solution, but they don't always work to his advantage. In short, he's the perfect mix of a character that keeps him from being a stuffy old man or an annoying idiot. The voice actor for him is perfect as well. I don't see a celebrity in a recording booth, I hear an actual character who's having fun. The design is simple but unique, with a blue pointy hat and a long white beard, which is typically what people think of when they think wizards. With all these things, Disney has created a perfect three-dimensional character that entertains, teaches, and is really fun to watch.Several other characters are brilliantly done as well. There's Archimedes, Merlin's talking intelligent owl, who has a grumpy personality but a heart of gold. He has a lot of great lines and moments throughout the movie, usually of him getting coerced into doing something. Then there's the "villain", Mad Madam Mim. Note that I say "villain", because she's more of a side character who pops up in the middle of the movie, has a musical number and a fight scene, and is never seen again. She's an old cranky crone, but very energetic and very creative with her magic, as she shows in her song, which she brags is as powerful as Merlin's. The Wizard's Duel between her and Merlin... WOW! This is nearly animated perfection. The slapstick, the timing, the effects, the scaling, is all perfect. I won't DARE give away how it all ends. You need to see it yourself.Besides the characters, there are a few other good things to note. The sketchy animation and backgrounds supervised by Bill Peet people either love or hate. I think it fits and makes a lot of the movie looks like an illustration in an old book, which looks great. The songs are all memorable, from the introduction song to "Higitus Figitus" to "Mad Madam Mim" and others, they're creative with the bouncy beat we usually associate with Disney. Though the movie does show the financial difficulties Disney was going through at the time, they did great with what they had, better than the next few movies that would come out of the Disney Dark Ages...So this sounds like a great movie. What's the problem? ...Well, the main problems, sadly, are with the story and the other characters. Notice that I didn't list Arthur in the Great Characters part. He doesn't have much of a personality, just serving as the "everyman", the student to learn a lesson and to share the audience's amazement of Merlin's magic. Not exactly boring, but with being the main focus of the story and in contrast to Merlin's 3D character, he's a disappointment. His closed-minded guardians named Sir Ector and Sir Kay are even more boring, with their only thing of note that they believe in strict discipline and the old ways. They show up, there's a short conflict, then they leave. They have basically nothing else to do with the movie but create short bouts of "reality."The story, I'm sorry to say, is very disjointed. Most of the movie focuses on Merlin's lessons and the adventures he takes Arthur on. I keep forgetting that the land has no king, that they're going to hold a tournament to decide, and YES, even the Sword in the Stone, what the movie is named for, only appears at the beginning and end! Additionally, all the lessons that Merlin teaches Arthur to be a good king, they're never brought up again. There's nothing showing Arthur putting them to use, mentioning them, or any situation that might require them. The movie is basically "have an adventure, teach a lesson, 5 minutes of plot, repeat." The ending, without giving anything away, just ends. No resolution, no "what next", it just runs out of time and leaves the rest to draw your own conclusions.In conclusion, this movie is REALLY FUN, one of Disney's best. However, they put nearly all their focus and creativity into Merlin and his world and left the rest of the movie to run on autopilot. If they had made Arthur as interesting and fleshed-out as Merlin and given more meaning to the lessons, this might have been a fantastic movie. As is, the movie is still great to watch, both for young and old. It's a Disney classic, and I thoroughly enjoy it.