Seeing The Black Cauldron again in my 30's, and on DVD (albeit a blu-ray, or in full 70MM, would have been preferred), is a different experience than seeing it when I was 13 or 14 or whenever it was the movie first hit VHS (Disney didn't put it out when I was little, otherwise I would've seen it then). I recognize more references now - the little dog voiced by John Byner is clearly, whether it was from the book(s) or not, an homage/rip-off of Gollum (like the cuter/fluffier/Happy Meal version), and the feeling of Lord of the Rings permeates a lot here. So does the Dark Crystal. Perhaps a lot of fantasy stories feed from the same trough as Tolkien, or it goes back further (from what I've read these books are inspired by Welsh folktales or something like that), and so familiarity is inevitable. Watching it now though, as opposed to when I had less discerning taste, I wish this had a stronger story and was not cut off at the knees as an 80 minute tale (with credits).Maybe Katzenberg was right when he literally took the reels of film, which was unheard of at the time for an animated feature at Disney, and cut into it to remove however many minutes (from what I read it was between 10 and 15 minutes, as though this would make the film more palatable for audiences, though allegedly some of the cuts were to reduce it from a PG-13 or, as one might want to believe the "street cred" of this, an R). What I have is what's before me, and The Black Cauldron is a style over substance piece of fantasy cinema. It's fitting that it's the first (and since, the last) time since Sleeping Beauty that was released on 70MM, the prestige film format, since it is a spectacle to behold and full of the kind of widescreen dark sorcery that a full widescreen gives a story like that or this.It's interesting for me to see the star rating I give this and then for Sleeping Beauty as they're almost the same, but it's about expectations: SB has one of the highest pedigrees in all of Disney, so to see it and be a little let down is where that comes from. With Black Cauldron, this is one of the most ambitious films of the 1980's, animated or otherwise. The filmmakers here (the directors previously had a small success with The Fox and the Hound, the last of the "9 Old Men" animated films at Disney) are shooting for something grander and more serious-minded, at least in some spirit, than their other films; it's the first time that there are no songs to be heard (though one was animated it was cut before release); there's animation of skeletons rising from the dead, the "Cauldron Borne", that likely inspired scenes in Sam Raimi's Army of Darkness. It aims to have the scope of its spiritual influence of Lord of the Rings in its layouts and some of its character designs.But, at the end of the day, it's still a Walt Disney animated film, and it is in an uneasy area. Reading the history of how this got made is fascinating in that the connections to its production extend to Ralph Bakshi (who turned it down) and Don Bluth who was at Disney through some of its development but left the company before it really ramped up as its 25th production. By the time Black Cauldron hit theaters in the summer of 1985, it was three years after Bluth made his breakthrough with Secret of NIMH, which is a "family" film but dark as hell and maintains its tone. The animators and story people and producers of Black Cauldron can't keep a consistent tone, and that's a tricky thing to manage. Hell, Disney just barely was able to maintain it on a razor's edge with Snow White, and here the problem is that the main characters (the young man on his quest, the princess of wherever who joins up with him midway through) are really dull and not given much personality.So mostly what you're left with are some charming animated scenes, but sparingly (the little fairy characters or whoever they are are nice to see, but are a little familiar too), and then a lot of (for kids) dark stuff involving the Horn King (voiced brilliantly by John Hurt) and a character like the talking dog. Its plot is so thin, and I'm not sure if this is due to the many years of it being in production, that it was in a sort of odd slump of the end of that age of Disney animation of those left from those later days of Disney, and right as the new group would come in (I saw Don Hahn in the credits as production manager, and he'd go on to be involved/produce/direct the 90s animated films). And yet, and it's a big yet, I love the LOOK of this film (with a couple of small reservations, i.e. some character animation seeming to be too pencil-drawn like it's still Sword in the Stone, but whatever).This has a ridiculous budget, a lot of imagination in its design, and the money seems to be mostly up there on the screen. The ambition to translate an (sort of, maybe not) unique world from those books to screen is commendable, and near the end the filmmakers do try to make some emotional stakes matter with one character. The Black Cauldron is a miss, but it's a wonderful miss, and I'm glad it got finished in some form, despite its script issues and hit or miss voicework.

Now there are Disney fans who have grown up with this Disney film and this is 4 years before the start of the Disney renaissance era. Now this film is based on an old fairy tale book and it tells about this Black Cauldron which has the power to raise the dead and enslave the world. The only one who could use that kind of power was the Horned King. One boy, a princess and a little dog like creature were all that stood in his way. When the power of the Black Cauldron is reversed, the Horned King gets sucked into it along with his army of the dead. Then the boy, the princess and Gurgi lived happily ever after. Now one fact about this is that this is the first animated Disney film without any songs. Now this is an OK Disney film but the animation in this isn't all that great. I choose Frozen and the Lion King over this.

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.

Version I saw: Amazon Instant Video streamActors: 6/10Plot/script: 5/10Photography/visual style: 5/10Music/score: 6/10Overall: 6/10The Black Cauldron has a reputation as the film about which Disney are faintly embarrassed, and would rather people didn't know about. The film has never had the publicity of others in the Disney stable, taking a long time to reach home video and DVD release. It would seem to have been a ruinously expensive box office flop, and investigations into the background reveal board-level personality clashes and fractious internal politics. I don't know about you, but that sounds intriguing to me.The film has problems, certainly. It is generally agreed to be considerably darker in tone than almost any other Disney film, and rather darker then studio execs were comfortable with. What first struck me, though, was not the tonal darkness but physical darkness. Throughout the early part, it was irritatingly difficult to even see what was happening on screen, even with brightness and contrast turned up to maximum. Thereafter, too, there is an odd discrepancy between the sumptuous, subtly shaded, almost canvas painting style backgrounds, and the simplistic design of the foreground characters, all thick lines and blocks of colour.There is a comparison to be drawn between The Black Cauldron and The Sword in the Stone. Apart from the medieavalish period setting, there is a distinct similarity in character design, and indeed the art style of the film in general. Thematically, though, it has far less in common with Disney in general than it does with Brian Froud's faerie illustrations and Lord of the Rings. In terms of the latter, some of the similarities are a bit too close to comfort. We have a Sauron-clone with Nazgul-clones, other incompetent lackeys (less unique, but still something in common) and a Gollum-clone. Admittedly, it could be that these were inserted by Disney based on Tolkien's popularity, and even if they are in Lloyd Alexander's source text, The Chronicles of Prydain, he would not be the first or the last to copy the seminal master of fantasy fiction.The writing has other problems. I found it short on the honed wit that brightens Disney pieces both before and since. Some bemoan the American committee style of writing, claiming that it leads to a certain soullessness, but at least a room full of brains can be counted on to deliver the zingers. Also, the main character Taran has very little about him to incline me to root for him. He is not strong, which is fairly standard, but neither is he clever, or brave, or even witty. His only real virtue seems to be luck, and even this abandons him at times in the narrative. This is especially a problem given how long he spends alone before companions are introduced.At least when other characters appear, they include a strong female character. Or do they? Certainly, Princess Eilonwy has personality, and a more engaging screen presence than Taran, but for the most part she seems content to tag along behind, and be a bit sassy. Still, that's a step up from Sleeping Beauty.So why 6 out of 10 and not lower? Two factors: Elmer Bernstein's excellent, strident orchestral score - exactly what one would expect from a cinematic legend of his pedigree - and the ending. I will try not to spoil it, but I found the deviation from the "hero saves the day" convention very refreshing. The virtues displayed in obtaining victory are not the sort to be usually found in this kind of film. That papered over a lot of cracks for me.In some ways, I was a little disappointed that it was not more repellent, or otherwise inappropriate, which would have been an entertainment in itself. I suppose that will have to wait until I can seek out and watch 'Song of the South'...