This film is one of my favorite Disney Classics from my childhood, and I have even read the book (I am a literary woman and have a gimmick for movies : live action or animated based on books).

I love the squirrel scene, when Wart/Arthur and Merlin the Wizard become squirrels (it's so cute). I also love the scene, where Wart/Arthur (that's a mean name to call him huh?) pulled the sword from the stone in the churchyard, and becomes King Arthur! And thus the legend is born. So overall, I will always love the Sword in the Stone, It's an great movie with interesting characters and great animation too.

I've always enjoyed the Sword in the Stone. It's a fun movie with interesting characters. The whole story of the movie follows the (mis)adventures of young Arthur; how he met Merlin and eventually became king.

There isn't much to the plot of this film, but the character make up for that. They really move the film along and make it worth watching. All of them, even the side ones, are interesting. There's also quite a bit of humor in the film. My favorite scene is near the end when Merlin has a wizard's duel with Madam Mim and they transform into different creatures trying to best one another.

The animation is ok, it's very rough though. Some of the roughest, I think, I've seen in a Disney film actually, but it was common of their cartoons at the time. The score is typical of a 1960's-70's Disney cartoon too. It wasn't bad but it doesn't really stand out either. The songs are pretty catchy though.

Overall this is an entertaining movie and definitely worth at least a watch or two.

This 1963 film attempted to adapt T.H. White's massive Once and Future King. I think the film at most covered about 20 of the book, and ended just when things were getting good. The tale begins with young pre-King Arthur (or Wart as he is referred to in this movie) meeting the Wizard Merlin. Wart becomes a pupil of the wiz, and experiences life as a fish, love as a squirrel, and flight as a bird. In the last few minutes of the film, the pure-hearted lad pulls the legendary Excalibur from a stone where it rested, stuck until one such as he would remove it. Upon so doing, Wart is ordained King, and the credits roll.

There are a few nice moments in the film, such as the aforementioned Higitus Figitus song as Merlin packs his entire households belongings into a small suitcase. Another highlight is a wizards duel between the silver bearded Merlin, and the wicked Madam Mim. During this duel, the magic wielders transform into various beasts until Mim is finally outsmarted. The remainder of the film, plays as a series of episodes with only a very faint thread of plot or progression. This film isn't bad, but it is kinda boring despite its short 79 minute length.

Other Disney entries in the 60's included The Jungle Book and 101 Dalmatians, both of which are considered to be classics (though not quite at the level of Snow White or Bambi). I am not sure why Stone missed the boat, but I do not completely fault Disney for this film's failure. There have been a lot of attempts to adapt the Arthurian legend, but none has really triumphed. Its just a difficult work to adapt. Nevertheless, The Sword and the Stone deserves no better than a C-.

4 stars, that's a big rating isn't it? And there's a reason for it. I think it's downright unfair for a kid's movie(which Disney did most of the time) to be rated by adults with such critique and analasis. (as adults individually watching and purposely studying a film will do.) I saw this film when I was about 6 years old, and will grade by realyzing how entertained I was with this film (WHEN I WAS 6) Now I just watched it recently, with the ability to comprehend and observe things I didn't do at that kindergarten age, even when I didn't want to.

After knowing I watched several other films by Disney well before I entered the two-digit age, I realized more than ever that the films more or less were purposed to entertain kids. 'It isn't accurate to the actual book' well, what disney film is even remotely accurate to it's original source? Complain about Pocahontas if you're 20+ years old, whining about a kid's film.I watched the film (now) with great empathy and wonderful memories of when I was little and watched it then. 'Memories' is also a common word used in Disney statements and catch phrases, but it seems true.

As for the film (about time) I loved it then, I love it now, simply because I can see my little shadow laughing and being a happy child watching it, and now observing how time really improved on animation, plus the different, sometimes funnier sense of humor displaced( I still laugh hysterically when they were squirrels) the voices that acutally fit, and the wonderfully, fun, over-exagerated realism in the characters and animation. Did my 6 year old self know this movie was completely inaccurate to the book? No. Does your 6 year old kid know? Probably not. It was meant for fun for kids, but potent enough to entertain adults, and that's just what it did, 'nuff said.

MY REAL RATING IS 2.5 STARS. I AM, HOWEVER GIVING A RATING OF 1 TO EVERYTHING J-KITTY HAS RATED 4, BECAUSE I BELIEVE SHE HAS DISTORTED THE RATINGS SYSTEM WITH HER INEVITABLE, AUTOMATIC 4 STARS FOR EVERYTHING. THE TEXT OF THE REVIEW HOWEVER REMAINS UNCHANGED.

Don't let the low rating put you off too much. 'Sword in the Stone' is actually quite a lot of fun, but objectively there are too many weaknesses in it for me to give it three. For what it's worth, it's probably a bit better than 'The Jungle Book', Disney's next effort, but it suffers somewhat from the aimlessness of that movie.

I seem to remember that at the start, the credits state 'based on the book by T.H. White'. I'm sure T.H. White would find his 'Once and Future King' almost unrecognisable. Let's see: did Merlin complain about a lack of electricity, wear Bermuda shorts, have a toy steam engine, and encourage a young boy to get romantically and possibly even more intimiately involved with a squirrel? No... that must have been in Le Morte d'Arthur' by Sir Thomas Mallory. Let's just say Bill Peet's screenplay takes the concept of taking liberties with source material to new heights. On the other hand, who really wants another ilm about King Arthur anyway, so I'm kind of glad Peet virtually ignored the original.

Those expecting a film about what the title suggests it _might_ be about - i.e. the Legend of King Arthur - are in for a bit of a shock. I think you realise when you get more than two thirds of the way through the running time, and Merlin and Wart are still turning into various animals, that there isn't much time left for much Arthurian stuff. In fact, when the film finally does hurtle to its conclusion in the last ten minutes, I think any sensible person might be forgiven for wondering just what the point of the previous hour was. But utlimately, who really cares? It was pretty good fun.

There are a variety of animals in the film - an amazing amount of time is spent in animal form, considering the thing looks like a 'human' cartoon from the cover - and a lot of them are delightfully drawn (actually they look like some of Bill Peet's own animal characters, so I wonder if he didn't have something to do with it).

Weak points: well, it's all sort of pointless, really, considering what the climactic scene is actually about. Some of the characters are showing some rather glaring pencil lines (though the backgrounds are quite a lot better than 'Jungle Book', and the animation is good, too). The songs are amongst Disney's most forgettable, but happily they're not hammered at you relentlessly, like in some of their films.

To be honest I enjoyed this movie mainly for the cool animation and animal characters. Merlin and Wart are both voiced very well, too (Archimedes voice seems to change a bit during the film).

Worth watching, and more fun than some films I've rated 2.5, but still a bit incoherent, and probably the beginning of the dive that Disney wouldn't show signs of pulling out of until 'The Rescuers'.

In response to the review above, let's find a 6 year old, show movies to him, and if he laughs, give them 4 stars. I loved 'The Jungle Book' when I was 6, but watching it today I can see that it's really not that good. OTOH, 'The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh' seems plenty good. There seems to be an unspoken assumption that adults shouldn't even be watching children's films, or that producers can make any old rubbish and it doesn't matter because kids will like it. If I believed either of those things I'd have to chuck this in.

For a Disney film, this is a strange little number in some ways. For one, it doesn't have a central villain or a major problem that needs to be overcome before the end of the movie. Instead, it meanders along through the various adventures of Wart (aka Arthur) and Merlin as the wizard teaches the boy all the important lessons of life. Perhaps the strangest thing of all though is that it works amazingly well. The film has some priceless moments like the "wizards dual" and an assortment of great characters from the future-looking Merlin to the stuffy owl, Archimedes.