[6.0/10] The Sword in the Stone isn’t quite good. It isn’t quite bad. It’s just kind of there. Nothing in it is objectionable, but it lacks a driving idea, an engrossing story, or some other spark to make it more than an hour and change’s worth of amiable but unavailing content. What it gains from having no major faults it loses in having nothing in particular to recommend it.
The movie, to use the term loosely, essentially breaks down to a series of episodic vignettes. Merlin finds Wart. Merlin teaches Wart a series of irrelevant lessons. Wart becomes King Arthur. There’s little, if any connective tissue between these episodes. Instead they are, at best, showcases for some chases and transformative chaos, which lose their impact from the movie repeating the same setup over and over again.
To the point, there’s barely a story in The Sword in the Stone. If you squint, you can make out something about Wart being torn between his humdrum life as an aspiring squire under his demerit-dispensing surrogate father, Sir Ector, and the life of royalty that Merlin is trying to prepare him for. But the movie gains nothing really from that contrast beyond some mild conflict between the portly old knight and the spindly old wizard.
To the extent the film has a point, it’s Merlin finding the boy who would be king and trying to emphasize brains over brawn. Theoretically, that comes in two forms: actual lessons on reading, writing, and arithmetic in the classroom and more figurative lessons on wisdom in the field.
It’s the latter, naturally, that make up the bulk of the movie. First, Merlin turns Wart into a fish, and they learn an important lesson about needing to be clever to avoid dangerous predator fish. Then, Merlin turns Wart into a squirrel, and they learn an important lesson about...avoiding amorous squirrels. Then, Merlin turns Wart into a little bird, and they learn an important lesson about needing to be clever to avoid dangerous predator birds and, eventually, witches who cheat at wizards’ duels.
It’s all very repetitive and arguably derivative. If you’ve seen Tom and Jerry, or Sylverster and Tweety, or any number of other, similar chase cartoons, then you’ve more or less seen what The Sword in the Stone has to offer. The skirmishes with interlopers in the land, air, and sea are all fine enough, but there’s nothing especially glowing or novel about them that you couldn’t see in hundreds of other animated shorts of the same vintage. One or two sequences along those lines might be a fun flight of fancy, but strung together, it starts to feel like the movie-makers ran out of ideas and needed to pad the runtime.
The only of these segments with any real verve is that last duel between Merlin and the Marvelous Mad Madam Mim. With their stand-off, the film can boast an entertaining, animalistic game of rock-paper-scissors, as each tries to thwart the other with the latest creature transformation. Therein also lies the film’s only worthwhile lesson from Merlin. Whereas Mim’s transformations just get bigger and badder, he wins the fight with clever counters instead of speeding into an animal kingdom arm’s race. The various designs, which incorporate human elements into animal forms, have a type of fun to them that’s missing elsewhere (even if it seems like they stole the same crocodile design from Peter Pan).
The problem is that none of these lessons end up mattering for Wart. If he somehow used the things he’d learned to become king, or was shown using them as king, there’d be something to them. Instead, they’re just showcases of the same tired chases, and all it takes for Wart to rule England is to pull the titular sword from the titular stone.
The best moral you can attach to the film is that education is important, even if you don’t think it’s necessary for your path, because you never know where your path might lead. Wart is more interested in the strength and brownie points it takes to become the doltish Sir Kay’s second, because he thinks that’s his future, little realizing that Merlin’s guidance and direction will end up being much more important for the future King of England. But even that tepid “stay in school” message doesn’t add much to the picture.
The one positive thing you can say for the film is that there’s some interesting animation work in the characters’ movements. Archimedes the Owl in particular has a distinctive way about him, and his cantankerous and bossy qualities, matched with his avian flourishes, make him the most memorable player in the piece. But the other characters also have an expressive, almost rotoscoped quality to them, where natural gestures are matched with cartoonish embellishments. You can see it in Merlin playing with his beard or Ector’s bouncing midsection. Sometimes it becomes too much, but it’s one of the few distinctive things in the film.
That’s a plus, because otherwise the animation looks particularly cheap and unmemorable for a Disney flick. While the movements themselves carry a lot of expression, the designs seem rudimentary and, in places, almost unfinished. If I didn’t know better, I’d almost call this a T.V. show chopped up and sewn together into a film, both given the quality (or lack thereof) of the visuals and the lumpy, episodic nature of the thing.
Even that sort of hang-out/showcase approach could have worked if there were any decent characters in the thing. Every figure in the film is one-dimensional at best, with few having a real motivation and most barely having a personality beyond some broad archetype. Sometimes you can overcome that with performances, but nobody here acquits themselves above the level of “perfectly fine.”
That’s an indictment that could extend to the movie as a whole. Aside from a bevy of poorly-done, forgettable songs, very little here falls below a level of decent competency. And yet, The Sword in the Stone plays like a movie made of spare parts. The resulting “flying machine” that Disney assembles with them certainly runs without issue, but it won’t take you very far and certainly never soars. As a series of wizard’s tricks, there’s little wrong with it. There’s just, sadly, not any magic here.
Now here's a Disney movie that I'm sure I saw when I was very young. I vaguely remember it. In fact, I likely saw it on TV, possibly on "The Wonderful World of Disney", viewed on some old black-and-white television.
"The Sword In the Stone" is not one of the more fondly remembered Disney films, but I really enjoyed it. I prefer it over "Sleeping Beauty", which I just recently watched and was released just four years earlier. What I enjoyed most, of course, was the animation. I loved what I'll call the scratchiness of some of the backgrounds and the slightly sloppy look of the characters. And speaking of those characters, Merlin, Archimedes the Owl, Wart, they were terrific. It's a story much less grand in its scale and lacking of a primary villain. Merlin and Wart get into their share of trouble but most of it is of their own doing as Merlin teaches the young boy about life.
Thinking about the animation a bit more, it recalls the style of another Disney classic, "Winnie the Pooh" and maybe even "The Jungle Book". Something that really stood out was the way that there is always water or something that the characters are sloshing around in, ringing out of their clothes or their beard or feathers. It made me laugh because a character would be arguing for a minute or two, and as they are carrying on, they are continually trying to dry off or clean themselves up. It happens a lot and it was a neat touch by the animators.
"The Sword In the Stone" seems unfairly forgotten as a Disney classic. It's got great animation, lovable characters and is a fun little adventure that adults and kids will enjoy.
T.H. White’s work on Arthurian legend comes to life in the Walt Disney animated film The Sword in the Stone. Set in Medieval England, an eccentric magician named Merlin takes an aspiring squire named Wart under his tutelage. There really isn’t much actual story, as most of the film consists of a series of random adventures where Merlin turns Wart into an animal in order to teach him some vague lesson. And, there aren’t any memorable musical numbers. Part of this is likely do to the tone, which doesn’t have much joy to it. Unfortunately, The Sword in the Stone is a disappointing and lackluster film (especially considering the richness of the source material).
For a movie about King Arthur there wasn't a whole lot of being King and way more turning into animals than I thought there would be. Still it is entertaining.
In an attempt to teach Arthur the importance of education, brains over brawns, and many sequences of being an animal chased by other animals, all of Merlin's lessons seem to having nothing to do with pulling the sword out of the stone and becoming king.
The Sword in the Stone's job seems to be showing kids why parents and teachers interact with them the way they do; they want them to learn. But each sequence of transforming into an animal only goes so far. It doesn't feel too different to Sylvester and Tweedy or Tom and Jerry. Almost the entire movie was a compilation of these sequences, that it started feeling repetitive. There was nothing new about it (beside from having a different setting and different animals).
Arthur's child labor with Sir Pellinore, and him being picked on and disrespected gives that Rags to Riches beginning to it. But the climax where Sir Pellinore apologizes and Kay accepts him, doesn't feel that much of a climax. This scene of becoming king felt unearned and forced. I feel a large disconnect between all of Merlin's lessons and the becoming king scene. You have this compilation of cartoon action sequences followed by this climax, and that's no way to do a movie.
Fond memories of this movie, one of my favourites as a little boy. A beautifully animated funny story with a happy ending.
Highly recommended for children!
Like a whipped cream pie: sweet but mostly filler.
While this classic Disney isn't without its charm, it feels like a short cartoon they draw out with scenes that don't advance the story and songs that are flat by Disney standards.
I don't know about you, but I always wanted to punch that annoying girl squirrel in her face. I mean she served no purpose to the story as she never gets brought up ever again. She only wants Arthur's nuts and she almost gets him killed by that wolf, and yes she dose save him but all of this wouldn't have happened if she didn't chase him. F**king b*tch.
When that f**king squirrel gets rejected, my honest reaction to that scene went like this: www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhckuhUxcgA
A timeless vintage animated classic, with some very memorable moments... let down by its writing, clearly geared towards a younger audience.... and its obvious drop in production quality compared to Disney classics that came before it.
Such an up-and-down film, in terms of quality.
I've personally always found 'The Sword in the Stone' uninteresting. The premise is very light, there's barely enough to support the run time - shown by the fact that just (roughly) 5-10 minutes of the film are about its title, the rest is build-up/filler with repeated gags and repetitive story beats.
That's not to say the film doesn't have positives, it does. I enjoy the humour, the idea of teaching Arthur and Merlin himself. However, that's all hampered by the aforementioned issues.
I think the plot needs more to it, perhaps Merlin could hide his magic more from Arthur though still teach him whilst they travel cross-country to the sword - as opposed to staying in one location for the vast majority of the production. I assume it's sticking to the source material.
Karl Swenson is good as Merlin, pretty much the only great performance here; though Martha Wentworth as Madam Mim is quite amusing.
I thought about giving this a lower rating, but I think there is enough there for it not to be deemed a poor film - I just see the greater potential for this story, hopefully the future live-action will realise it.
OOOOOOoooooOOOOOOO QUE FILMAO DO CARAAAAAIOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO melhor filme da Disney, vai ver sem medo senhor
deus eh top
Shout by LainfanBlockedParent2014-01-05T14:13:15Z
Best Disney Movie ever!
Great comedy, great sing-a-long music like Disney did best in the early era and a compelling story.