It is written among the limitless constellations of the celestial heavens, and in the depths of the emerald seas, and upon every grain of sand in the vast deserts, that the world which we see is an outward and visible dream, of an inward and invisible reality ... Once upon a time there was a golden city. In the center of the golden city, atop the tallest minaret, were three golden balls. The ancients had prophesied that if the three golden balls were ever taken away, harmony would yield to discord, and the city would fall to destruction and death. But... the mystics had also foretold that the city might be saved by the simplest soul with the smallest and simplest of things. In the city there dwelt a lowly shoemaker, who was known as Tack the Cobbler. Also in the city... existed a Thief, who shall be... nameless.
Similar titles
You May Also Like
Reviews
Very well executed
Sorry, this movie sucks
Good concept, poorly executed.
The biggest problem with this movie is it’s a little better than you think it might be, which somehow makes it worse. As in, it takes itself a bit too seriously, which makes most of the movie feel kind of dull.
The re-cobbled cut holds a lot more magic to it, and my rating is more for that edit than this one.
Richard Williams started work on his magnum opus, "The Thief and the Cobbler" in 1964 as an adaptation of "Nasruddin". In the 1970s, it was switched to an original story based on the "1001 Arabian Nights" tales. This film was self-funded, and thus he had worked on for over 20 years by the time he got the funding to finish the film in 1988. Missing a deadline in 1991, Warner Bros. (who were going to distribute the film) backed out and the film was taken away from Williams and finished (and re-cut) by Fred Calvert.The film itself displays very elaborate, even stunning animation that wasn't even done on computers. That's what make the film all the more amazing. Several scenes are mindblowing. The artwork of the film (based on Persian miniatures) is beautiful, and works well with the theme of the film. The climax, the War Machine sequence, is probably the most stunning scene I've ever seen in classic animation. Unfortunately, the film's story quality is a bit weak. The story was a bit of a muddle, and the action didn't really take off until The Thief unintentionally causes trouble for the Golden City, removing the Golden Balls that protect the city from its minaret. A love story between Tack the Cobbler and Princess Yum-Yum is established early on in the story, and it's also established that the Grand Vizier Zig Zag (Voiced masterfully by Vincent Price) wants to marry Yum-Yum to rule the Golden City.So about the released versions? They're definitely inferior to Williams' unfinished film (That's not what the money people thought). Fred Calvert was given the task to finish the film, and he believed that he was making the unfinished film into a "watchable" or "passable" film. What he did was mess it up.It is obvious that Calvert was trying to make it more commercial, but I'm not sure if this was Williams' intention. It was more of a "Fantasia"-like project, as that film wasn't very commercial when released. Instead of finishing the unfinished 15 minutes, Calvert put new animation in (That looks very sub-par), redubbed a lot of the voices, and... songs! Why? I guess Calvert thought they advanced the plot. Instead, they don't work. Even worse, Tack, a mute character, was given a voice. Horrible. That would be like giving Tom and Jerry voices (Well, it did happen with 1992's "Tom and Jerry: The Movie"). Also, adult content and violence was toned down. Calvert's edit was released as "The Princess and the Cobbler" in South Africa in 1993 and in Australia in 1994, although it was going to be titled "The Thief and the Cobbler" (as evidenced by an earlier trailer for Calvert's edit). In total, Calvert's version is inferior to Williams' film. Calvert's version is a mess, with unnecessary songs. Tack talking just doesn't work, it eliminates the whole idea that Tack is a character whose tacks make a mouth for him, and it ruins that deep voice gag at the end of the film.Calvert's edit was not a success where it was released. Miramax then bought the rights to it in December 1994, planning to release the Calvert version in theaters in the U.S. Instead, they recut the film even more. The Thief is given a voice, along with the character Phido (Zig Zag's vulture). It made the damaged film even worse. It was released in 1995 as "Arabian Knight", obviously trying to cash in on Disney's very similar "Aladdin". This leads some to believe that "Aladdin" took ideas from "Thief". However, that doesn't mean we have to go anti-Disney. "Aladdin" is still a good film, despite the fact that it does borrow "a lot" from "Thief". Was it intended to rip-off "Thief"? Who knows. After all, it was Michael Eisner and Jeffrey Katzenberg who were head of the company at the time. They steered Disney into big money in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Maybe it was because Richard Williams himself supposedly said he wasn't happy with "Roger Rabbit" (he directed the animation, which was what got "The Thief" funded). But remember, Williams missed the deadline, so we can't say the disaster is all the money people's fault (Though a lot of it is). Williams fired 100 animators during production because they didn't meet his standards, many of these animators went onto Disney and worked on "Aladdin". Williams has missed deadlines before, once with "A Christmas Carol" and again with "Raggedy Ann and Andy: A Musical Adventure". The latter of the two was a box office failure (though it featured elaborate animation) that's sadly not on DVD.It's a horrible story. What if Williams didn't miss the 1991 deadline and "The Thief and the Cobbler" hit theaters on time? It might've done well, or it might've failed (The concept was deemed unreleasable years ago). But Calvert shouldn't have tinkered with the film, he should've finished it the way Williams wanted it. Instead, he went for the money and wanted to a more commercial, more audience-friendly picture. Miramax, I can only imagine why they did what they did. The Thief's inner thoughts don't work, and it comes off as a professionally edited parody / comedic re-dub."The Thief and the Cobbler" is a stunning animated film, but it does lack a strong story. A 9.0 out of 10. The re-cuts. Well... they're inferior. Calvert's film is a mess. The Miramax version is poor.
Famously ill-fated animated feature by the renowned Richard Williams, which remains uncompleted despite his having worked on it for almost 30 years!; the film was eventually released in two bastardized versions under the titles of THE PRINCESS AND THE COBBLER (1993) and ARABIAN KNIGHT, while bootlegs actually a workprint closer to Williams' original vision have also surfaced (which is the edition I acquired).It's a typical Arabian Nights fantasy and it's no secret that the Disney Studios 'borrowed' some of its ideas for their hugely successful ALADDIN (1992). Of course, we have a hero (the Cobbler), a heroine (the Princess), a comic-relief sidekick (the Thief) and a villain (the Grand Vizier); the latter is recognizably voiced by the late great Vincent Price (running the whole gamut of emotions in the process), while one of the more interesting aspects of the film is that the titular figures are given no dialogue (except for one silly line by the Cobbler at the very end). Both also have other weird characteristics: the Cobbler's mouth is shaped like two nails set side by side with their points meeting, while the Thief is constantly being followed by a swarm of buzzing flies! The plot basically revolves around three golden balls atop the King's (shouldn't that be Caliph?!) palace which, if removed, would bring disaster upon the land and, sure enough, the Thief is after them. Needless to say, the Grand Vizier called Zig-Zag (with faithful vulture companion Phido in tow) not only craves power for himself but the Princess' hand, too, and he secretly connives with a warring people intent on conquering Arabia to this end. As expected, the visual design is extremely colorful and amazingly detailed (especially effective is Williams' clever use of perspective) though it's hardly rendered justice by the fuzzy quality of the copy under review (to check out the film as mangled by other hands is clearly out of the question for me).At 96 minutes, THE THIEF AND THE COBBLER with its slight plot and even thinner characters does tend to drag a bit (especially during the climax and the Thief's protracted hair-raising stunts to survive a conflagration), but the latter's amiable antics throughout and Price's agreeably hammy rendition more than make up for any such deficiencies. For the record, many other notable actors were roped in for the project over the years with sometimes more than one person being engaged for the same role (the King, for instance, was voiced by both Anthony Quayle and Clive Revill and the narrator was either Felix Aylmer or Ralph Richardson)!
26 years in the making, The Thief and The Cobbler has truly become one of my all time favorites. From Richard Williams, the 3-Time Academy Award Winner who dazzled us with his shorts The Little Island, and A Christmas Carol, his directed debut film Raggedy Ann and Andy: A Musical Adventure, and his animation direction on Who Framed Roger Rabbit, comes the ultimate masterpiece in 2-D Animation. Taking place in a golden city, the story tells about a cobbler named Tack who falls in love with the beautiful Princess Yum-Yum and a sneaky little Thief (a man of few words but many thoughts who shall be...nameless.) who tries to steal 3 Golden Balls which protects the city from destruction and death. When they fall into the hands of Zig-Zag the Grand Vizier he plans to take them to the evil King One-Eye, his army, and war machine. The Miramax Cut and Recobbled Cut are my favorite cuts of the film. I love the Miramax Cut because in my opinion it's one of the watchable edited version anyone can watch. I loved Jonathan Winters work as The Thief, but the only thing that bugged me in this cut was the talkative Phido and talkative alligators and the fact that it's 73 minutes long. But besides that, it is pretty watchable. The Recobbled Cut, the ultimate restoration to the original by fan Garrett Gilchrist is too my favorite version. Not only is it close to Richard Williams' original version, but it's my favorite version to watch over and over again! Garrett's fan edit is truly amazing and with his updated Mark III with a new 35mm showreel source and with a bonus disc, there's a good reason why you should own it! It's a damn shame that Ricard Williams' original version never saw the light of day. I recommend you buy either the Miramax Cut and the Recobbled Cut from Garrett Gilchrist since they both watchable and laugh-out loud funny! And let me tell you, the animation is so breathtaking, so unbelievable, so lovingly, so imaginative, it's no wonder why it took 26 years to make. Let's hope one day, Williams' original version finally gets released to the public.