Good concept, poorly executed.

Admirable film.

A lot of fun.

The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

I say at times, because in my honest opinion, The Sword in the Stone is one of those movies I'm torn about. Merlin and Archimedes are the are the most memorable characters in it. Mad Maddam Mim, too, but she is only in it for a short time. You can definitely see that this movie is from the beginning of the time when Disney started using the xeroxing process to directly transfer their drawings to the cels without much clean-up on the lines creating a sketchy look. That's not a turn-off, cause Robin Hood is one of my favourite Disney movies, but sometimes it is distracting. The light-hearted tone of the movie is really enjoyable, I must admit. We're not put through a lot of peril until the climactic battle between Merlin and Mim, which is the absolute highlight of it. One of the most entertaining climaxes in any Disney movie, hands down. What brings it down as a movie is that it really is the most fragmented in the Disney canon. Every lesson Merlin teaches Ward could without noticing be shown on its own as an educational short. And it feels kind of aimless too. Personally, I couldn't tell what difference there was to Ward after his lessons, he just pulled a sword out of a stone and he is the king. All of this for so little. It just doesn't work as a movie if you ask me. But agian, The Sword in the Stone is a lot of fun and has some great scenes which really show the talented Nine Old Men. Go watch it and judge for yourself.

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

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-

In medieval times, Merlin the Magician tutors a 12-year-old boy through educational magic; the lad, nicknamed Wart, is the future King of England, King Arthur, though what he learns from being temporarily transformed into a fish, a squirrel, et al. isn't made clear. Animated adventures from Walt Disney is heavy on both the slapstick and the talk--the former a handicap because of a lack of visual wit, the latter a detriment because the characters aren't very interesting. The picture has nice color, and a funny supporting performance from Junius Matthews as Archimedes the owl, but the main set-piece (a showdown of magic between Merlin and his nemesis, Madam Mim) is just a flurry of activity, magic without boundaries for easy laughers. The intermittent songs, by Richard M. and Robert B. Sherman, are weak (and unsingable) and the character of Wart, hindered by poor vocal work, fails to emerge. ** from ****