SunnyHello Nice effects though.

Dotsthavesp I wanted to but couldn't!

Brightlyme i know i wasted 90 mins of my life.

Glucedee It's hard to see any effort in the film. There's no comedy to speak of, no real drama and, worst of all.

zsofikam I should state that I am a massive Prydain Chronicles fan. Naturally, when I heard there was a movie I of course had to check it out. After my dad finished reading me the books he rented the movie for me. My 7-year-old self knew that the movie wouldn't be exactly like the books due to time constraints and that it was only based on the first two books anyway, but the only similarity between this film and the books is the character's names. For one thing, there are tons of characters missing such as Coll and Gwydion, and the characters that do make it in are virtually unrecognizable. For example, Taran should have had black hair, both Eilonwy and Doli should have had red hair, and Fflewddur should have had blond hair. But these are all minor differences compared to some others. Dallben and Coll are also combined into one. If you read the books, Dallben is essentially Merlin in all but name while Coll is the pig keeper that Taran is apprenticed to. Also, the gwythaints are birds in the books but here are dragons for some reason. Lord Arawn isn't looking for the Black Cauldron but already has it. Gurgi is the same for the most part though I imagined him to be a bit taller. Also I found Creeper annoying, not like his powerfully imposing master. But how does it fare on its own? Well, there are definitely some good aspects. For one thing, the animation, while not the best I've seen, is very detailed, especially on the Horned King. Also, I like the fact that there are no songs. Nothing against musicals (there are some really good ones like Little Shop Of Horrors, Rocky Horror Picture Show, and Mary Poppins), but it feels like every other animated movie has musical numbers and quite frankly it gets kind of tiresome. But the best thing about the movie by far is the Horned King, who reminds me a bit of Cyvus Vail for some reason. While he may not be particularly action-oriented, he has a very imposing presence and a truly amazing voice (I must confess that until I went on IMDb I thought they just followed around some 90-year-old man with a mic). Conclusion: A surprisingly enjoyable and entertaining movie with a truly fascinating villain. Some fans of the books (which I am one of) might be disappointed but I found myself liking it.

datautisticgamer-74853 The Black Cauldron is given a bad name by even Disney itself for nearly destroying their animation studio (it was a major flop at the box office, comparable to their films in the 1940s) and for being a departure from the typical Disney format of either musical or just light-hearted joy (for the most part), but the truth is, it only recently got the warm cult reception it deserved back in 1985. Despite having some dull moments, the acting is top notch (especially John Hurt's Horned King), the horror scares, and there is enough action (including a shockingly crude joke that left my mouth wide open) to enjoy it as much as Lloyd Alexander's series. In fact, on Rotten Tomatoes it has a higher rating than Robin Hood or a few of Disney's early-mid 2000s films (55%), which I guess can be agreed with seeing how many critics didn't appreciate the new format, though its execution is not something to be glossed over. See it for yourself; I enjoyed it, but I can't guarantee, especially if you like older Disney films, that your rating will be just as or more favorable.

scrapheap-80456 I found this to be an excellent film!The voice acting was brilliant.The music was brilliant.The main characters (good and evil) were brilliant.The action was brilliant.Capable of making you feel emotion - happy, sad, baleful, hilarity, you name it.And I do love the fact that this is one of Disney's darkest.It's my favorite Disney film ever.And if you're gonna tell me "Read the Books!" don't bother. I tried the Books and they were horrible.

Sean Lamberger A notorious relic from Disney's back catalog that was censored and shunned internally for years due to its "distressing" content. In a modern light, it's tough to see what all the fuss was about. A few marching skeletons? A bit of swordplay? It all seems so quaint now, with the benefit of hindsight on our side. Not that the film should be mentioned in the same breath as the studio's calling cards, of course. It's short, shallow and more than a little murky, with a distinct lack of Disney charm, but it still has a lot going for it. The animation, for instance, is superb - a great blend of photo-reference and vivid exaggeration that looks and feels like a Don Bluth classic (though Bluth himself, having departed six years prior, was uninvolved with the production). It also enjoys a much more loyal fantasy tone than many of Disney's efforts, sharing many themes (and maybe a few characters) with the then-neglected Lord of the Rings trilogy. Fascinating for many reasons, most of which occur behind the scenes, it's too narrow-sighted and streamlined to be taken all that seriously.