User reviews

The 90 minute cartoon is in fact the first chapter of T.H. White's novel The Once and Future King. Made for the kids, Disney does it again taking a classic story and adding fictional animal characters that can talk. Still, Disney remains loyal to the story by keeping many of the characters in the story including Kay, Sr. Pellinoire, and Sir Ector.

Worth watching twice with the family. An animated classic

I used to watch the Sword in the Stone quite a number of times as a kid, and I know why later on in my years. It's actually quite a fun little movie considering its a quasi-history lesson on how Arthur (aka 'Wart') became King of England. It includes Merlin, and his 'educated Owl' Archamedes, and a whole lot of wacky adventures trying to get Arthur, who can't read or write, into a mode of thought higher than how he's been raised. For a Disney film, as well, it's also quite the quotable film at times, with some lines and situations still sticking out in my mind years later. For example, the sequence involving Arthur and Merlin as squirrels in the trees, and a small lesson in love (or lack thereof) a lady squirrel presents in the face of danger. Or the story involving Arthur as a bird, trapped in the clutches of Madamn Mim (maybe one of the funniest sequences in any Disney movie).

So, as one can figure from what I've described (if you haven't seen the film yet), it's fairly over-the-top, loaded with silly-songs (one of which a true charmer involving Merlin's proclivity for organizing a packing up of his house) and little lessons for kids. But it actually is also funny for adults too, I'd guess, or at least funny to watch along with the kids. It may not be in the absolute peek of the period in Disney films (one may try to look to the Jungle Book or Winnie the Pooh for that, or the underrated Aristocats), however I sometimes come back to this film in my mind. It has a catchy attitude that made being in the 'dark ages' as fun as possible- Archamedes in particular is maybe one of the great side-characters in any Disney film.

Alakazam!

This movie is another proof of the high quality of the classic Disney films. Today feature films are quite funny too... but they based mostly on simple, crude jokes and spoofing of other topical movies (remember the bullet time-spoof in "Shrek"). There is no substance to think about in it. You can see them, laughing about them...and forgot them almost completely a few years later. Who will remember, i.e., "Ice Age" or "Madagascar" in 40, 50 or 60 years? The old Disney classics are different, there are timeless! "The Sword in the Stone" contains a lot of joyful gags too, but no gag stands above the characters, no joke was made only to fill a hole in the plot. The story, the plot, and the characters are primary. And Disney add not only joyful gags. As Walt himself once said: "For every laugh, there should be a tear." Disney take children always quite seriously, and a lot of his early films contains a lesson for life, sometimes the lesson can be very sad and cruel, like in "Bambi", sometimes lesser sad, like in "The Sword in the Stone"... but can anybody forget the cute little girl squirrel, that was left by Wart, desperately crying and with a broken heart? And Merlin's closing words about love: "Well, yes, in its own way... yes, I'd say it's the most powerful force on Earth"!

This is one of the main ingredient of the famous Disney Magic: Joy and tragedy! Another is the art of hand drawn animation. The quality of the animation went downwards at Disney after WW-II too, slowly, but surely. But in 1963 cel-animation was still on a high level. Not so good as in the golden Era, when "Fantasia", "Pinocchio" or especially "Bambi" set the utmost high standards of perfectionism, but quite better than in "Hercules", "The Lion King" or "The Rescuers down under". 7 of 10 stars for "The Sword in the Stone"! It is not the best of all Disney films, but quite better and deeper than the most of the modern CGI movies!

I'm really not much of a Disney fan, and a lot of their films I find are sentimental rubbish, to put it bluntly. This, however, is different. I remember watching this when I was little and finding it hilarious. I hadn't watched it for years until recently when my younger siblings borrowed some videos from a friend. I still find it funny. The animation's nothing amazing, it's done more or less in the style of 101 Dalmations, and the storyline is basic King Arthur stuff (but I do like King Arthur stories anyway). It's the humour that really makes it memorable and charming. The characters have personality, there are no bimbo princesses or princes, and I find myself warming greatly to Merlin and Arthur and even grumpy Archimedes. Well worth watching.

The Sword and the Stone is a very relaxing movie to watch. In an animation, you want humour and emotion, and this movie had plenty of both. Most of the humour comes from Sir Ektor(voice of Sebastian Cabot) and Archimedes (voice of Junius Matthews), but Merlin (voice of Karl Swenson) had some truly delicious lines. I just love Archimedes, he is absolutely hilarious, and still manages to be likable, despite being very grumpy. The animation was lovely, and the scenes when Wart (voice of Ricky Sorenson)was an animal were truly entertaining. My personal favourite was the squirrel scene, but the duel of Merlin and Mim was the highlight of the film for me. The songs by the Sherman Brothers, while not particularly memorable, were very pleasant to listen to, as was the incidental music by the composer of the Jungle Book George Bruns. All in all, a truly enjoyable movie, that is definitely underrated. 9/10 from me. Bethany Cox

The 18th animated Disney classic is among the most hilarious of all time. It was never very popular, which is too bad, because it deserves to be more known. However, like other forgotten Disney classics, it has been winning a legion of fans with time.

"The Sword in the Stone" is almost at the same level of the 1960's and 1970's Disney classics when it comes to artwork. It was one of the last movies with the participation of Walt Disney himself.

"The Sword in the Stone" is Disney's version of the famous King Arthur's story. Disney tells this story with its personal touch and classic humor.

I don't know if the Disney version is totally faithful to the real story, but that's not the point.

Arthur, called "Wart" by Sir Ector (his adoptive father) and Kay (Sir Ector's son), is overworked and humiliated by them both. "Wart" is almost like a "Cinderella boy". But despite these problems, he remains optimistic and still dreams about being a great warrior and a knight's squire. Somehow "Wart" was the inspiration for the character Taran from "The Black Cauldron".

In the meantime, he meets the powerful but clumsy and hilarious wizard Merlin, who wants to give him education and culture. Merlin believes that pure strength means nothing when a person has no brain.

Together, Merlin and "Wart" live great adventures, funny moments and Merlin teaches everything he knows to "Wart". We mustn't forget the owl Archimedes too. The owl, as you know, is usually «the fountain of knowledge» on cartoons.

Archimedes is wise, intelligent, clever but also very lazy, very confident, grumpy and has a strong personality. That's what makes him so funny. In fact, both Merlin and Archimedes are a comic relief.

This film might take place in medieval times (which year is unknown). But it is one the funniest Disney classics ever, like "Pinocchio", "Aladdin", "Robin Hood" and "The Aristocats".

It has lots of hilarious moments which can make one get into uncontrollable laughter.

Let me mention some of them: the scenes with Merlin and the Granny Squirrel; the scene when the dishes wash themselves and Sir Ector and Kay get a "bath"; the scene when Kay brutally crashes with the castle's oldest tower; the part when the plane model gets stuck on Merlin's beird and Archimedes laughs so hysterically that he almost can't breathe; that part when Archimedes nearly shrinks inside his little house; the moments with the sugarpot...

I could go on, but it would take forever because there are so many hilarious moments.

The songs are clever and enjoyable, such as "The Sword in the Stone", "That's what makes the world go round" and especially "Higitus Figitus", my personal favorite.

I like this movie and I've gotta say that humor is, without a doubt, the strongest attribute of this movie.

This should definitely be on Top 250.

"The Sword in the Stone" is a film that most children will enjoy. However, if you were to ask 100 random kids what their favorite Disney cartoons were, I would probably have a heart attack if even a single kid said "The Sword in the Stone". It's enjoyable enough to watch--but also lacks anything endearing that would make it truly memorable. While there's really nothing to hate about the film, there really isn't a lot that stands out either. The animation is 1960s style Disney-- which means a rougher style due to cost-cutting measures. Instead of huge armies of animators, many were fired and the use of Xerox machine was introduced. It saved money but also gave the films a slightly rougher look. The music is also enjoyable but nothing in it is memorable. And as for the story, it's nice...and nice is a term you don't use with a film that is a classic. Overall, worth seeing but nothing more.

This isn't usually counted as being one of the top-ranking Disney films, but I insist on not being snobbish in this list, and remembering the films that brought me joy as a kid. Wart gets to be a squirrel, a bird and a fish during this film which plays fast and loose with Arthurian legend. Merlin is great, and his battle with Madam Mim the stuff of legend. It's not big, it's not clever, but it is fun!

This very nice Disney Classic was based on the children's novel by TH White. This was not yet that very well-known, heavy novel titled "the Once and Future King" that so many later movies were based upon, but the lighthearted earlier version. Many agreed that the later novel has disfigured the first, so that we may be thankful for the Disney version!

Though it does not quite follow the book (this is hardly possible, at times) it is a very good version as animated movies go. Not tedious, though of an age where children were meant to learn something from a movie...

A collectors item!

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.

Pleasant Disney animation, without being a classic. It has its moments, particularly the magic-fight between Merlin and Mim, but is light on characterisation and especially good songs. The soundtrack tunes are very simplistic both melodically and especially lyrically and resolutely refuse to stay in your brain.

The narrative itself is unusual, introducing the sword in the stone legend immediately and then dispensing with it until the last five minutes or so, concentrating its energies instead on young Arthur (read Wort) and his upbringing by the kindly Merlin and his obstinate talking owl Archimedes.

I kept seeing recollections of past Disney (and other) cartoon forebears, everything from, naturally enough the Sorcerer's Apprentice from "Fantasia" and "Cinderella" while the chasing wolf early on is a blatant lift of Wile E Coyote in the "Road Runner" shorts. The old Disney trick of an experienced elder mentoring a young innocent had of course been done before in "Pinocchio" and "The Jungle Book" although I could also see some ideas which were adapted in future projects, the animated crockery anticipates "Beauty and the Beast" for instance.

Disney never did return to the Arthurian Legnd in future animations as was hinted might happen here which is a pity but for me there's far too much diversion from the legend itself so that I was willing young Arthur to hurry up and give the sword the required pull long before the ending, which when it does arrive seems far too rushed in any case.

No, not the best Disney by a long way and certainly not in the vanguard of the studio's work.

This is Disney's version of the legend of King Arthur and it represents an adaptation of T.H. White's children's story. Here, Arthur is a young boy who is unaware of his great destiny. He meets and befriends the great wizard Merlin who decides to give him a proper instruction and education in order to prepare him for his future.

The film has some great characters: Merlin the wizard and his intellectually trained owl Archimedes are particularly funny. The animation is very good, but this is Disney after all, so you would expect it to be like that. The film is definitely entertaining, but there are a few drawbacks as well. There are moments when it feels a little too similar to Disney's other animated features from that period. The film also incorporates a lot of plot elements from other Disney movies and the film is very predictable at times. In comparison to another Disney classic, "Sleeping Beauty", this film looks more like a secondary project.

"The Sword in the Stone" is nevertheless a good film and it is superior to many of Disney's modern efforts ("Hercules", "The Hunchback of Notre Dame" or "Pocahontas" to name a few). It is very entertaining and definitely worth watching.

My rating: 7/10

This is one of my all time favorite Disney films. The lyrics of the songs are clever and memorable. Who can forget "Hockety Pockety Wockey Wack?"

The characters are also very entertaining. The idea of Merlin as a clutz is unique to this version of the story. Archimedes also offers several laughs.

Though there isn't much of a plot, the development of character makes this film very entertaining.

My four year old sister loved the film. She has already watched it at least a dozen times, and I only checked it out from the library three days ago. Modern Disney bores her. I've found that young children can't sit through "Beauty and the Beast" or "Mulan." This older style of Disney catches attention and entertains.

Walt Disney the film-maker didn't fritter away the 1960s entirely - not with `One Hundred and One Dalmatians' and `Mary Poppins' - but he was no more than a shadow of the artist he had been in the 1930s and early 1940s. More than any other animated film he made this one fails to live up to his standards. He made nothing so nothingy. `Peter Pan' had been bland, but not THIS bland. `Alice in Wonderland' had been bad, but its badness was the badness of excess - in any event, it looked good and had some touches that make it worth watching. Apart from some accomplished animation there's no evidence that `The Sword in the Stone' even came from the same studio.

Writer Bill Peet's approach is disastrous - although I admit it feels incongruous to use such strong language for a film so uniformly unmemorable. The Arthurian legend, however you slice it, is a fantasy. This treatment of the fantasy offers no magic, no buzz, no confection, no charm. Peet is studiously detached from his material. Why he was detached, I have no idea. He doesn't distance himself from Arthuriana in order to do anything WITH it, in the way Monty Python did. Here we have a film that has sold its soul - or at least its spirit - and gotten nothing in return.

The songs might as well not be there, not that they make enough of an impression to do any harm, the story goes all over the place without going anywhere, the art directors had no very strong ideas - how many ways can I say it? Not that it would even be worth saying if the film hadn't had Disney's stable of animators working on it, turning out their usual good work and struggling to make an impression. They come close to doing so in the magical duel at the end. But even here, the dogged presentation, the way everything is telegraphed in advance, undercuts their efforts.

No-one has explained to my satisfaction what happened to the old (or rather the young) Walt Disney. So - what happened to him?

The Sword In The Stone is such a wonderful movie!!! A great cast along with a wonderful storyline!!! It has laughter throughout the entire movie, love, thrilling moments and a wonderful outcome for the film.

I only had very vague recollections of this movie until I watched it again just recently and I've decided this is kind of an underrated film.

I'm not all that familiar with the original story of the Sword in the Stone aside from the obvious more famous bits but I imagine the story guys on this movie took a lot of liberties. When it comes right down to it the plot is little more than a lot of fluff to fill running time until Arthur AKA Wart gets to the sword. Fluff or not though the film's entertaining enough and allows for the great animation that I found to be the stand out quality here.

I'm an animator myself so maybe this means more to me than the average audience, but the character animation on Merlin and Madam Mim can easily go head to head with Disney's more highly regarded classics and the use of effects is remarkable (in classical animation, effects refer to any animation that's not a character i.e. water, smoke, fire, dust etc.) Everything from rain storms to pixy dust is masterly handled and adds a whole layer of wonder to the whole thing. The highlight for me was a showdown between Merlin and Mim in which they morph into a variety of creatures to battle one another and no morph looks the same twice.

This is just light hearted entertainment. It's definitely geared more for kids but if you're an animation fan it's worth watching for that alone.

I consider this a Disney classic. But then again all full length feature animated films while Walt was alive were classics. Of course the reason for that is because of the high standards he set for his animation department. This movie of course is the Disnified version of King Arthur as a boy. Merlin is the real star. I must admit I am a fan of all things Camelot so my rating is biased. This film as measured against Disney animated films made before this one places it in the lower half. Don Bluths influence can be seen in this film. 20 years later he would make a video game called Dragon's Lair (and apparently a feature length film based on this game is going to be released) and that video game has a style you can see in The Sword and The Stone. I gave it a high rating because I feel 7.2 is too low.

The king has died and no one can agree on the right king for England. A miraculous sword appear in London stuck in an anvil and stone. It comes with an inscription proclaiming the man who pulls the sword will be the new king. Many try but nobody succeeds. The Sword in the Stone becomes forgotten as the land fall into a dark age. Merlin the wizard has plans for the young orphan Arthur.

The animation is classic hand-drawn style. It has an old-style charm that is reminiscent of TV cartoons of that era. It's educational at times. It's pretty light weight humor. The story is pretty thin. It doesn't put in enough time for a compelling villain. It also suffer for not having a beautiful princess or an interesting lead. Arthur is too flimsy to be a compelling child character. Merlin and Archimedes are really the only fascinating characters. It's also missing any great songs. The best part of the movie is the transformational battle between Merlin and Mim.

Disney films are almost always great, especially the animated classics. Sadly, The Sword in the Stone is one that doesn't really hold up whatsoever. With an overabundance of goofy humor, no antagonist, little plot movement, and an ending that comes out of nowhere, The Sword in the Stone is a disappointing take on Arthurian Legend. At this point, pretty much everyone knows the basic story of King Arthur, so I guess the film ignoring most of what makes the legend popular is a bold move, but it isn't one that the film benefits from. I understand that this film deals with a young Arthur, or better known as Wart, but I'm not a fan of watching an 80-minute adventure that has little to do with anything involving King Arthur. The worst part is, the title only applies to the last 10 minutes, with the rest of the movie failing to set-up any potential payoff the ending could have. If this film wasn't titled The Sword in the Stone and didn't share some of the names of famous people, I think I could have enjoyed it a little more. Merlin and Wart go through several entertaining adventures involving many different animals and obstacles that I'm sure would be fun if it weren't supposed to live up to the legend of King Arthur. With that said, there is basically no plot at all. Merlin comes across a scrawny and clumsy boy named Wart and he just assumes that he is destined for greatness, but there's never any real movement on that besides a few training sessions. Training sessions for what you ask? It's never made clear. As I said before, if it weren't for the title this could be viewed as a halfway decent animated adventure, but the film hardly does anything to live up to the name.

4.7/10

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.

This is another one of those animated Disney films, it is another one of those underrated ones and it is based on the book by T.H White: "Sword in the Stone". This is different from quite any of the Disney classics in the fact that (if I am wrong here, I do apologize): it has time travel subtly intertwined among the rest of the film. It is underrated, to put it plainly, because: IT IS A VERY GOOD FILM!! :-) This film is not completely similar to the book by T.H White, but the changes that Disney made are pretty understandable, otherwise this film would last roughly four hours (L.O.L) and it would not be completely suitable for young children. As it is, this Disney film is good for people of any age!! :-)

What I like about this film is the characters, the way the makers formed the plot, the songs (which consist of two, which is a little too few) and the humour (which comes predominately from Merlin).

As you may have realised, this film is one of many interpretations of the story of King Arthur. Here, Arthur does not pull the sword out of the stone until the very end and it is mostly about him learning of the world with Merlin.

I recommend this to anyone who likes Disney films, of all ages, very well worth watching! Enjoy "Sword in the Stone"! :-)

This is an animated film from the Walt Disney era, one about young Arthur, who aspires to be a knight's squire. However, a powerful but forgetful wizard named Merlin has plans for Arthur to be something beyond a squire.

This movie actually starts off with a captivating intro where England is left without a king, and a proclamation has been sent that the one who can pull the sword out of the stone will be made king. It then leads to imaginative and quirky scenes where Merlin demonstrates his magical powers to Arthur while, at the same time, try to get him an education so he could get to places beyond that of being a squire.

This film really does not have much of a plot, as most of the movie is about Merlin showing Arthur his magic spells (I thought the squirrel scene took up too much time). However, it's great imaginative fun for the little kids and, probably to the adults' liking, you can get a couple of important messages from the film like getting an education and how complicated love can get.

The animation was pretty good, not as vibrant as earlier films or in later films of the 80s and 90s, but it is serviceable. The songs by the Sherman Brothers weren't my favorite to listen to, but they're quite fun and easy to sing along with (again, something good for the kids). Wolfgang Reitherman did a nice job directing, as the characters were memorable and have a nice dose of humor, and his sons, Richard and Robert, did a nice job in voicing Arthur - innocent and carefree, but grounded. Rickie Sorensen also voiced Arthur and also did an equally good job.

Overall, it's not one of the best Disney movies I've seen but it does have a certain charm to it that definitely acquires that special "Disney touch." Perhaps that is what separates the more classic Disney movies from the more recent ones - the classics, and some of the ones filmed later in the 1980s and 1990s, have a more whimsical and charming element, while the more recent ones have a more hip and modern Hollywood influence. I myself prefer a Disney film with a more classic feel.

Grade B-