Ava-Grace Willis
Story: It's very simple but honestly that is fine.
Lidia Draper
Great example of an old-fashioned, pure-at-heart escapist event movie that doesn't pretend to be anything that it's not and has boat loads of fun being its own ludicrous self.
Billy Ollie
Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable
Vimacone
By the 1960's, the animation industry had sharply declined due to increased production costs and changing technology. Walt had become less involved with animation when he started Disneyland and television. THE SWORD IN THE STONE, released in 1963, has never been held in high regard by Disney fans, but has never been disliked either.I've always found THE SWORD IN THE STONE to be an anomaly in the Disney canon, because it was released between two features with strong and engaging storytelling and the fact that one of Disney's best storymen, Bill Peet handled it single handedly. Yet the story feels underwhelming as there isn't very much action nor is there conflict with a build up to the climax. Another issue is the heavy amount of reused animation, most of it from the film itself; Several animation cycles are repeated throughout the film. This also cheapens the artistic value of an already insipid film. Director Wolfgang Reitherman was known for doing this as a director and was criticized by his colleagues and fans for this. The stylized designs that worked so effectively in 101 DALMATIANS don't really lend itself to a medieval setting nor does the jazzy musical score. One key element to a great Disney picture is great characters and they're here. Merlin and Archimedes are cantankerous and funny. Sir Ector and Sir Kay are obnoxious antagonists (though not true villains), but are also funny as well. When you really think about it, Arthur's situation with Ector and Kay is basically the same as in CINDERELLA.The storyline is mostly Merlin attempting to educate a young Arthur by transforming him into various animals. Despite the shortcomings of telling an engaging story, the viewer does come away with an appreciation for education and philosophy. It can be argued that despite Merlin's (short sighted) ability to see into the future, his attempts to educate Arthur nearly prevent him from being anointed king, which is something Merlin had no foresight on.Although not one of the Disney greats, this should belong in the library of any true Disney connoisseur.
Realrockerhalloween
My favorite version of the legend about a boy destined to be king and meets a man who changes his life forever when he pulls out the sword.It covers his home life as an orphan, his training with Merlin and being crowned. The humor is situation comedy from turning the boy into a fish and nearly getting eaten by sharks or a wild following them keeps getting hurt three stogies style. Archimedes (an owl with a mind of his own) is witty, clever and has courage when it counts for his friends.What makes this a classic is the subtle hints to come with a squirm taking interest in Wart (King Arthur) and he breaks her heart like he will Gweniver someday or when Merlin says Tahiti will be a popular tourist destination in the future.The songs are catchy times that stay in your head for days like this is what makes the world go round and the sword in the stone.The medieval setting seems a little inaccurate since London won't be found for another thousand years or in door plumbing for that matter. The art drawings weren't the best during the crowd scenes and forest scenery like other Disney classics. Its very noticeable at how laughably bad it can get.Still I find the plot, characters and music over comes the flaws.
MartinHafer
"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.
gavin6942
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.
