"The Black Cauldron" is not a typical Disney animated feature. For one thing, it's not a G-rated musical. In fact, it was the first-ever Disney feature to receive a PG rating. The story comes from the works of Lloyd Alexander, in the spirit of J.R.R. Tolkien. In it, Taran, a young pig-keeper must protect Henwen, a prophetic pig who can divine the whereabouts of a powerful weapon known as the Black Cauldron. The demonic Horned King is after this bastion of black magic to create an invincible army of the undead. This movie boasts impressive art shot in 70mm widescreen format, art which includes the contributions of a young Tim Burton. Sadly, this feature did poorly in theaters, possibly being too frightening, or going over the heads of Disney's usual target audience. Just the same, "The Black Cauldron" deserves a good look!
192 Reviews
Shambolic film still worth seeing
beatlesguru126 March 2006
"The Black Cauldron" provides us with "Exhibit A" of the disorganized nature of the Disney organization from the mid-1970s through the mid-80s. The company's feature films were attracting smaller and smaller audiences, and no real creative force had emerged since Walt Disney's death in 1966. By the mid- to late-70s, it was clear that new ideas needed to be tried. The phenomenal success of "Star Wars" appeared to offer a sure-fire way to box-office success: sci-fi/fantasy movies. At the same time, Disney Studio's full-length animated features continued their descent from the heights scaled in 1959's "Sleeping Beauty", at first downscaling the subject matter, then progressing to less and less impressive animation, and finally combining the first two trends with boring storytelling (see "The Fox and the Hound" - 1981).
It was in this context that pre-production began on "The Black Cauldron" in the late 1970s. From an artistic standpoint, its goals were two-fold. First, the film was to recapture the lead in animation quality that Disney had traditionally held, while the second goal was to incorporate the advances in animation and subject matter made in the 1970s (i.e., playing "catch up"). Some early decisions were good: the source material was top-notch. Lloyd Alexander's "Chronicles of Prydain" are fantastic works of fantasy for the young adult - I loved them as a middle-schooler in the mid-80s, and the choice to film the story in 70mm widescreen harkened back to the glory days of "Sleeping Beauty." Unfortunately, not much else worked. The studio's writers did a terrible job of condensing the first two books of Alexander's series, and we end up caring little for the characters that emerge, or for the plot as it unfolds. Also, the movie's tone is uneven. Overall, the work is very dark and un-Disney, which would've been fine had it been executed better. Further, the grimness of the plot doesn't mesh with occasionally clumsy and earthy attempts at humor, and the character animation fluctuates between sober naturalism and exaggerated, cartoonish mannerisms (stretching ears, gaping mouths, etc.) Still, some of the shots are stunning and rank among the best in the history of hand-drawn animation (e.g., multiplaned exterior shot of the Horned King's castle, beautiful backgrounds within the same, Hen-Wen's capture by the Horned King's creatures). The result of this mish-mash was a box-office flop ($25 million to make, $5 million in ticket sales upon its 1985 release).
In short, see this film for its often-impressive animation and intermittent charm. Be sure to get the newly-available widescreen version on DVD. Bemoan the end of the era of stunning hand-drawn animation (Disney has closed up its shop; "Home on the Range" was its penultimate hand-drawn feature). Don't expect a classic, but appreciate the vision of its artistry - even if the final product didn't quite mesh satisfactorily. "The Black Cauldron" is a noble failure.
It was in this context that pre-production began on "The Black Cauldron" in the late 1970s. From an artistic standpoint, its goals were two-fold. First, the film was to recapture the lead in animation quality that Disney had traditionally held, while the second goal was to incorporate the advances in animation and subject matter made in the 1970s (i.e., playing "catch up"). Some early decisions were good: the source material was top-notch. Lloyd Alexander's "Chronicles of Prydain" are fantastic works of fantasy for the young adult - I loved them as a middle-schooler in the mid-80s, and the choice to film the story in 70mm widescreen harkened back to the glory days of "Sleeping Beauty." Unfortunately, not much else worked. The studio's writers did a terrible job of condensing the first two books of Alexander's series, and we end up caring little for the characters that emerge, or for the plot as it unfolds. Also, the movie's tone is uneven. Overall, the work is very dark and un-Disney, which would've been fine had it been executed better. Further, the grimness of the plot doesn't mesh with occasionally clumsy and earthy attempts at humor, and the character animation fluctuates between sober naturalism and exaggerated, cartoonish mannerisms (stretching ears, gaping mouths, etc.) Still, some of the shots are stunning and rank among the best in the history of hand-drawn animation (e.g., multiplaned exterior shot of the Horned King's castle, beautiful backgrounds within the same, Hen-Wen's capture by the Horned King's creatures). The result of this mish-mash was a box-office flop ($25 million to make, $5 million in ticket sales upon its 1985 release).
In short, see this film for its often-impressive animation and intermittent charm. Be sure to get the newly-available widescreen version on DVD. Bemoan the end of the era of stunning hand-drawn animation (Disney has closed up its shop; "Home on the Range" was its penultimate hand-drawn feature). Don't expect a classic, but appreciate the vision of its artistry - even if the final product didn't quite mesh satisfactorily. "The Black Cauldron" is a noble failure.
A Uniquely Brave Disney Movie
ghbarratt-111 February 2019
I personally really appreciate the interesting story, tone, and mood this movie conveys. Disney took some interesting chances with this film, and financially it did not pay off, I assume because Disney's audience in the '80s could not appreciate the slightly darker tone of the film, then again, if you compare this movie with the likes of The Dark Crystal or Labyrinth, this movie is mild in its creative weirdness. The story feels like a rushed epic, but in the end, the movie remains as something that, in the world of animated films, Disney never attempted again, and it is a shame.
worth seeing, not for children at all. Really fun.
PlanNine14 December 2001
"The Black Cauldron" certainly doesn't fall into the genre of animated Disney family favorite, but instead feels much like the more grim and complicated fantasy films that were made in the eighties. Does it stack up to such films as "Return To Oz" and "The Dark Crystal"? Well, although not as complex as the aformentioned, this film is not without its charm.
The story of Taran, the pig-keeper's journey from gawky boy to gawky boy-hero apparently works better as told through the course of five books, and indeed it is the plot that feels put together, with a lot cut out of it for it's slim 1:20 running time. Also suffering because of the short time is any character development, or a reason why the charcter of Dallben (an old minstrel) are in the film at all. However, this film still has a lot going for it.
The film has a wonderful pacing to it with some fantastic action scenes. It is adventurous and fun. An engaing film for any fantasy fan. What really makes the film though is it's terrifying and dastardly villain, The Horned King. He is basically a Skeletor knock off with absolutely no sense of humor. He looks like he stepped right out of an Iron Maden album cover, and that is a monumental good thing. The true threat felt by the presence of this decidedly un-Disney character keeps the tension of the film high.
It is this contrast, between the unconventionally ghoulish villans (definatly enspirered by Bakshi's animated adaptation of "Lord of the Rings") and the stock Disney characters makes the audience care more-so for the cutesy characters than usual. This is especially true for the cutsey character of Gurgi, who is much more tollerable than almost all other Disney sidekicks and especially more tollerable than a certain J*r J*r B*nks that we have all been over exposed to lately.
So I would recommend "The Black Cauldron", it's a fun and well animated adventure film. Compleatly scary and strange for Disney to make, but still very very good for other reasons nonetheless.
The story of Taran, the pig-keeper's journey from gawky boy to gawky boy-hero apparently works better as told through the course of five books, and indeed it is the plot that feels put together, with a lot cut out of it for it's slim 1:20 running time. Also suffering because of the short time is any character development, or a reason why the charcter of Dallben (an old minstrel) are in the film at all. However, this film still has a lot going for it.
The film has a wonderful pacing to it with some fantastic action scenes. It is adventurous and fun. An engaing film for any fantasy fan. What really makes the film though is it's terrifying and dastardly villain, The Horned King. He is basically a Skeletor knock off with absolutely no sense of humor. He looks like he stepped right out of an Iron Maden album cover, and that is a monumental good thing. The true threat felt by the presence of this decidedly un-Disney character keeps the tension of the film high.
It is this contrast, between the unconventionally ghoulish villans (definatly enspirered by Bakshi's animated adaptation of "Lord of the Rings") and the stock Disney characters makes the audience care more-so for the cutesy characters than usual. This is especially true for the cutsey character of Gurgi, who is much more tollerable than almost all other Disney sidekicks and especially more tollerable than a certain J*r J*r B*nks that we have all been over exposed to lately.
So I would recommend "The Black Cauldron", it's a fun and well animated adventure film. Compleatly scary and strange for Disney to make, but still very very good for other reasons nonetheless.
Doesn't deserve to be dismissed as harshly as it has been
Articulated_Jaw27 June 2006
Always curious about The Black Cauldron, I finally got around to it after seeing a DVD at the rental store. Despite a lot of grating elements, I ended up liking it overall.
The movie starts off on the wrong foot. The voices come across as recorded at low fidelity, and when combined with the sometimes hard-to-understand British accents, can be somewhat off-putting. Issues with voice and script become even more pronounced with characters such as Gurgi and his Gollum-esquire speech patterns. Indeed, the second time I watched the DVD I threw the English subtitles on, and not just for Gurgi.
Other problems with voicing include an exceedingly dull lead actor for Taran (he simply can't emote), and an overly chirpy female lead for Eilonwy.
Most other elements of the film proved passable if predictable in the Disney mold of plot, hero design, sidekicks, etc. Where it branches out for the better is in avoiding any and all musical interludes and along the way offering some scenarios and graphic effects that are more mature than most other Disney animated feature films (though later in the '90s the likes of The Lion King, Hunchback, and Tarzan would also tangle with mature themes).
Animation is also spectacularly mixed in quality, an odd distinction among Disney films but a distinction nonetheless. Usually solid, there are high points such as external shots of a dark castle or a visceral chase sequence. There are also low points such as unnatural shifts in hair color that overemphasize different environments, or obvious spots where animation was rushed (a rock slide sequence).
Yet for all these lows and highs, as an animation fan I ended up siding with the high points. Many sequences are inviting to re-watch, even if the entirety of the movie may not be. For all the talk of failure that continues to surround this movie, one can see in the film itself elements of a more mature Disney that could have been extremely promising with a more seasoned batch of animators and a world less hostile to PG animated fare.
The movie starts off on the wrong foot. The voices come across as recorded at low fidelity, and when combined with the sometimes hard-to-understand British accents, can be somewhat off-putting. Issues with voice and script become even more pronounced with characters such as Gurgi and his Gollum-esquire speech patterns. Indeed, the second time I watched the DVD I threw the English subtitles on, and not just for Gurgi.
Other problems with voicing include an exceedingly dull lead actor for Taran (he simply can't emote), and an overly chirpy female lead for Eilonwy.
Most other elements of the film proved passable if predictable in the Disney mold of plot, hero design, sidekicks, etc. Where it branches out for the better is in avoiding any and all musical interludes and along the way offering some scenarios and graphic effects that are more mature than most other Disney animated feature films (though later in the '90s the likes of The Lion King, Hunchback, and Tarzan would also tangle with mature themes).
Animation is also spectacularly mixed in quality, an odd distinction among Disney films but a distinction nonetheless. Usually solid, there are high points such as external shots of a dark castle or a visceral chase sequence. There are also low points such as unnatural shifts in hair color that overemphasize different environments, or obvious spots where animation was rushed (a rock slide sequence).
Yet for all these lows and highs, as an animation fan I ended up siding with the high points. Many sequences are inviting to re-watch, even if the entirety of the movie may not be. For all the talk of failure that continues to surround this movie, one can see in the film itself elements of a more mature Disney that could have been extremely promising with a more seasoned batch of animators and a world less hostile to PG animated fare.
Well-done overlooked Disney film
dwpollar3 October 2004
1st watched 10/2/2004 - 7 out of 10(Dir- Ted Berman & Richard Rich): Well-done overlooked Disney film. This is one of the movies that came out before "Little Mermaid" in 1989 similar to "The Great Mouse Detective" that didn't get much attention but nevertheless was a well-done story & production. This may have been the first animated Disney film to be rated PG as well, which may have kept people away. The PG rating may have been given for a small blood being shown on the mouth of our hero or the very scary zombie-like "Horn King" who has to rate up there as one of the truly scary villains in the Disney films. The story revolves around the Horn King's reign and his attempt to have greater reign over the world by finding the Black Cauldron. An enchanted pig that is able to see the future is also much wanted by the Horn King in order to find out where the Black Cauldron is. What makes this movie good is the story, the animation, the music, and the overall presentation. I also like that it didn't follow other Disney films and became it's own entity. This may be another reason it's not associated with Disney often. Overall this is a very groundbreaking Disney film, but it was so forgotten that it's not had any impact on the future of Disney.
The weakest Disney movie is still pot-boiling stuff
TheLittleSongbird24 February 2009
This is definitely one of the weakest Disney movies, and it certainly didn't help that the Disney studios were on a low. It is worse than oliver and Company, which I liked. I liked this one too, but it is not for children. I haven't read the books, but even without reading them, you could tell the voice actors weren't given much to work with. The characters are likable but badly underdeveloped, especially Taran, who I thought was a little bland. There were some truly splendid animated sequences, but most of them were inside the castle, like the death of the Horned King(highlight of the film for me), as well as Morva, and the Fairy Kingdom. Creeper and Gurgi were a little annoying at first, but I definitely preferred Gurgi. The music by Elmer Bernstein was very dramatic, such a shame because the story didn't match that. However, on a positive note, the most impressive elements of the movie, were the scene of the cauldron destroying the Horned King, the wonderful sombre intonation of John Huston in the prologue and a sinister voice-over by John Hurt as the Horned King(who was really frightening). Speaking of John Hurt, I have an issue with Roger Ebert rating this film over The Elephant Man(Hurt's best film). In my opinion The elephant Man is much better than this, which is a 6.5/10 from me. Bethany Cox
It didn't work...
MyNeighborFanboy19 November 2010
Of all Disney's failures, none are quite so infamous as The Black Cauldron. Based off material that was in the talks for decades, it was a property that was whispered about around the Disney studios for quite a few years before its conception (Ollie Johnston was an especially great fan of The Chonicles of Prydain). When Disney finally put the rights to use, they pumped oodles of cash into what they hoped would be the harbinger of a new age of Disney animation, one of darker, more mature storytelling. Not a single Nine Old Men put an ounce of work into this (okay...so Milt Kahl did some preliminary character designs...) and it seemed to be the consumation of the arrival of the new guard of Disney animators.
What went wrong? Well the studio made the disastrous choice of handing off sections of the film to individual teams without giving them any interaction between each other, leading to some odd continuity and a total lack of a compelling throughline. Secondly, ambitions for a darker film were rather bipolar, leading to some odd inclusions like graphic gore and partial nudity and unfortunate omissions like a number of fascinating Tim Burton designs which were jettisoned for being too twisted. It doesn't help that the animation looks floaty and bland, some of the weakest in any Disney film up to then, and that heavy cuts under Michael Eisner removed said gore and nudity, only adding to the disconnected nature of this film. They made a few interesting choices, like reviving multi-planing (a very good idea) and using widescreen for the first time since Sleeping Beauty, but these don't make up for all the other blunders made by this film.
The story is quite typical of Tolkien-inspired fantasy. An evil Sauron figure has returned to seek a magical item that will restore his power and send his armies across the land to conquer everything in existence. That item is a pig. I know, John Huston says he's seeking a cauldron, but he's actually trying to steal a magic pig from this film's Frodo Baggins, Taran, in order to find it. The one pig to rule them all. I'm not sure if that was in the book, and it's probably handled better in the book, but that's just a goofy sounding concept. Of course, our hero Taran, who's such a wimp that he's easily dispatched by the local goat (I know, that's what character development's for, right? right) loses the pig and has to go rescue him from the Horned King (who looks suspiciously like a demon from Night on Bald Mountain). Taran rescues the pig, but gets himself captured. With the help of a few fellow prisoners and a magic sword, he escapes, and it then becomes a quest to seek the Cauldron before the Horned King finds it.
As animation, this is even more of a dark pit than The Fox and the Hound, which had a few real standout moments. There are no moments of excellence here, just floaty, weightless motion and an over-reliance on reaction shots that just looks awkward. Characters are thrown off-model in strange ways, and very little of the performances ring true. The backgrounds do have a nice atmosphere to them, but are also pretty smudgy. Design wise, very little stands out here, and I can't help but wish they'd incorporated things like Tim Burton's idea for flying hand monsters (not ripping off J.R. Tolkien enough?). The color design looks hollow and lacks any sort of warmth or emotion, as if drab colors were what was hip in the eighties (not that I blame them for thinking such). Lamentably, the best animation is Hendel Butoy and Andreas Deja's for Gurgie, a hapless character that they nevertheless lend some much needed life to. Otherwise, I can only point to The Secret of NIMH, made for less than half the money, and sigh at how the biggest animation studio in the world could have made a film that looked one-tenth as good. Not that Bluth hasn't made the mistake of failing to smell a bad concept, but even he must have gotten bad vibes from what Disney was about to do.
One has to wonder how a studio with so much riding on this film could have gotten it so wrong. The failure very nearly drove Disney into folding its animation company, and so many potentially lucrative animators were driven into better careers elsewhere. It's a shame, but, thankfully, Disney did hold on to make a few more films. What's more, their very next project would be honest-to-god decent. It's a shame we didn't see a solid genre picture from this studio, though. We can only look at the disastrous final product and wonder what could have been.
What went wrong? Well the studio made the disastrous choice of handing off sections of the film to individual teams without giving them any interaction between each other, leading to some odd continuity and a total lack of a compelling throughline. Secondly, ambitions for a darker film were rather bipolar, leading to some odd inclusions like graphic gore and partial nudity and unfortunate omissions like a number of fascinating Tim Burton designs which were jettisoned for being too twisted. It doesn't help that the animation looks floaty and bland, some of the weakest in any Disney film up to then, and that heavy cuts under Michael Eisner removed said gore and nudity, only adding to the disconnected nature of this film. They made a few interesting choices, like reviving multi-planing (a very good idea) and using widescreen for the first time since Sleeping Beauty, but these don't make up for all the other blunders made by this film.
The story is quite typical of Tolkien-inspired fantasy. An evil Sauron figure has returned to seek a magical item that will restore his power and send his armies across the land to conquer everything in existence. That item is a pig. I know, John Huston says he's seeking a cauldron, but he's actually trying to steal a magic pig from this film's Frodo Baggins, Taran, in order to find it. The one pig to rule them all. I'm not sure if that was in the book, and it's probably handled better in the book, but that's just a goofy sounding concept. Of course, our hero Taran, who's such a wimp that he's easily dispatched by the local goat (I know, that's what character development's for, right? right) loses the pig and has to go rescue him from the Horned King (who looks suspiciously like a demon from Night on Bald Mountain). Taran rescues the pig, but gets himself captured. With the help of a few fellow prisoners and a magic sword, he escapes, and it then becomes a quest to seek the Cauldron before the Horned King finds it.
As animation, this is even more of a dark pit than The Fox and the Hound, which had a few real standout moments. There are no moments of excellence here, just floaty, weightless motion and an over-reliance on reaction shots that just looks awkward. Characters are thrown off-model in strange ways, and very little of the performances ring true. The backgrounds do have a nice atmosphere to them, but are also pretty smudgy. Design wise, very little stands out here, and I can't help but wish they'd incorporated things like Tim Burton's idea for flying hand monsters (not ripping off J.R. Tolkien enough?). The color design looks hollow and lacks any sort of warmth or emotion, as if drab colors were what was hip in the eighties (not that I blame them for thinking such). Lamentably, the best animation is Hendel Butoy and Andreas Deja's for Gurgie, a hapless character that they nevertheless lend some much needed life to. Otherwise, I can only point to The Secret of NIMH, made for less than half the money, and sigh at how the biggest animation studio in the world could have made a film that looked one-tenth as good. Not that Bluth hasn't made the mistake of failing to smell a bad concept, but even he must have gotten bad vibes from what Disney was about to do.
One has to wonder how a studio with so much riding on this film could have gotten it so wrong. The failure very nearly drove Disney into folding its animation company, and so many potentially lucrative animators were driven into better careers elsewhere. It's a shame, but, thankfully, Disney did hold on to make a few more films. What's more, their very next project would be honest-to-god decent. It's a shame we didn't see a solid genre picture from this studio, though. We can only look at the disastrous final product and wonder what could have been.
Still a piece of art in animation! To be seen despite bad critics!
repetto-riccardo6 January 2012
Warning: Spoilers
I recently spot into the Black Cauldron again after having seen it for the first and last time in the mid 80's. Two things to say:
First, this would have been a Don Bluth Studios production, nobody would have never shouted at it. The Black Cauldron do not follow the Disney philosophy at all and we almost all agree on that point. This movie is dark on its overall at a point that we can barely think it is targeting a very young audience. Dark movies were certainly a trend in the 80's, "The Dark Crystal" or "Legend" are very good examples of how this ambiance was present and used into the movie industry at that period of time.
Second, the movie is not bad at all! Try to see it from a different perspective. Animation is just a piece of art and at first glance we can easily guess this is a Disney. Characters are nicely drawn, the princess is very cute, Taran is a teenager full of energy and willing to do well....the villain is freaking frightening, probably the most scary Disney villain of all times! But it is true something is weak in this movie : the plot and roles of some of the characters. What is the one of Helowny for example? Apart bringing the required cute female presence in the story what does she add? Giving advice or supporting Taran in his quest? More drama would have been created if she was the one to jump into the Cauldron! Taran and Helowny both feel attraction for each other...the movie is dark enough to let the cute princess die bringing the dramatization level a notch up (and bring her back to life for the happy ending). Just an idea but this makes more sense to me than Gurki sacrifice.
There are also a lot of discontinuity in the animation reflecting production issues this movie ran into (team changes). I have the feeling sometimes that pieces of the storyboard have been stitched together without a proper transition.
On the overall we feel something is missing in the story to be convincing but we can't judge it like a total garbage. This is a classic animation movie which used also new features for an outstanding result on the screen at that time!
It is a controverted one for sure but still a classic to have in your Disney collection!
First, this would have been a Don Bluth Studios production, nobody would have never shouted at it. The Black Cauldron do not follow the Disney philosophy at all and we almost all agree on that point. This movie is dark on its overall at a point that we can barely think it is targeting a very young audience. Dark movies were certainly a trend in the 80's, "The Dark Crystal" or "Legend" are very good examples of how this ambiance was present and used into the movie industry at that period of time.
Second, the movie is not bad at all! Try to see it from a different perspective. Animation is just a piece of art and at first glance we can easily guess this is a Disney. Characters are nicely drawn, the princess is very cute, Taran is a teenager full of energy and willing to do well....the villain is freaking frightening, probably the most scary Disney villain of all times! But it is true something is weak in this movie : the plot and roles of some of the characters. What is the one of Helowny for example? Apart bringing the required cute female presence in the story what does she add? Giving advice or supporting Taran in his quest? More drama would have been created if she was the one to jump into the Cauldron! Taran and Helowny both feel attraction for each other...the movie is dark enough to let the cute princess die bringing the dramatization level a notch up (and bring her back to life for the happy ending). Just an idea but this makes more sense to me than Gurki sacrifice.
There are also a lot of discontinuity in the animation reflecting production issues this movie ran into (team changes). I have the feeling sometimes that pieces of the storyboard have been stitched together without a proper transition.
On the overall we feel something is missing in the story to be convincing but we can't judge it like a total garbage. This is a classic animation movie which used also new features for an outstanding result on the screen at that time!
It is a controverted one for sure but still a classic to have in your Disney collection!
A very different, but weorthwhile Disney film
jonconnormustlive-462983 December 2018
After his beloved pig is kidnapped, a young boy enters the kingdom of the dreaded Horned King, he meets a princess and must save everyone from the King's wrath.
The Black Cauldron deviates entirely from any other film from the Walt Disney Animated Studios canon. It features dark imagery (hence the PG rating for "some scary images"), a creepy atmosphere and exciting adventure scenes.
The main downfall I had with this movie was it's pace, it felt a tad slow at times. Also you'll probably want to keep young children away from this one, as it will frighten them.
But all in all, The Black Cauldron is a darkly fun venture into a much different realm then Disney has previously gone down. Definitely worth the watch!
The Black Cauldron deviates entirely from any other film from the Walt Disney Animated Studios canon. It features dark imagery (hence the PG rating for "some scary images"), a creepy atmosphere and exciting adventure scenes.
The main downfall I had with this movie was it's pace, it felt a tad slow at times. Also you'll probably want to keep young children away from this one, as it will frighten them.
But all in all, The Black Cauldron is a darkly fun venture into a much different realm then Disney has previously gone down. Definitely worth the watch!
Pot calling the kettle.
southdavid28 August 2022
Perhaps not unsurprisingly, given its troubled releases, I've never seen "The Black Cauldron" before. But it is on the old Disney Plus and, alphabetically was the highest film suitable to watch with my son, that I hadn't already reviewed, so, one lazy weekend, we fired it up. I have thoughts.
Taran (Grant Bardsley) learns that his pig has the power of foresight and, fearing that it will fall into the hands of The Horned King (John Hurt), is sent away to hide by his master Dalibem (Freddie Jones). Unfortunately, they are soon captured by the self-same King who is trying to find the location of the mythical black cauldron, which he wants to use to raise an undead army. Though they manage to escape and locate the cauldron themselves, the Horned King's minions are in pursuit.
Maybe because Disney lost faith in this project and ended up cutting out scenes but the story of this film it's where it's really lacking. There is the source novel to work from, but that seems to have been reduced to just meeting characters as they wander about and forming a team, but then not really doing much with it. Visually it's not very impressive (or at least this version on Disney Plus isn't that good). Though there are a few notable names in the cast, there isn't that much impressive work done in the vocal performances either.
Oddly I did feel like it repurposed effects and score moments from "Ghostbusters" but I don't seem to be able to find anyone else talking about that online.
I do feel that rather than making live action versions of their classic films, this is the sort of film that Disney should be revisiting and producing new film about. Imagine a life action version of this, authentic welsh actors and time to tell the stories properly. It has potential. This, however, whether through bad writing of the loss of faith in the project is a bit of a mess.
Taran (Grant Bardsley) learns that his pig has the power of foresight and, fearing that it will fall into the hands of The Horned King (John Hurt), is sent away to hide by his master Dalibem (Freddie Jones). Unfortunately, they are soon captured by the self-same King who is trying to find the location of the mythical black cauldron, which he wants to use to raise an undead army. Though they manage to escape and locate the cauldron themselves, the Horned King's minions are in pursuit.
Maybe because Disney lost faith in this project and ended up cutting out scenes but the story of this film it's where it's really lacking. There is the source novel to work from, but that seems to have been reduced to just meeting characters as they wander about and forming a team, but then not really doing much with it. Visually it's not very impressive (or at least this version on Disney Plus isn't that good). Though there are a few notable names in the cast, there isn't that much impressive work done in the vocal performances either.
Oddly I did feel like it repurposed effects and score moments from "Ghostbusters" but I don't seem to be able to find anyone else talking about that online.
I do feel that rather than making live action versions of their classic films, this is the sort of film that Disney should be revisiting and producing new film about. Imagine a life action version of this, authentic welsh actors and time to tell the stories properly. It has potential. This, however, whether through bad writing of the loss of faith in the project is a bit of a mess.
Very underrated!
ravsten4286 October 2011
I get tired of hearing people say that this is one of the worst Disney films ever. This film is energetic and action packed.
Simply because the movie is on the bleak side it has gotten unjust criticism. Sure Disney was not at a high point during this time but this movie was better than many others made during the 80's. Oliver and Company is good and I like it more than this but that's because I have more memories from it than BC. The Great Mouse Detective was alright but not anywhere as remotely good as these two films.
I haven't seen The Black Cauldron many times but it is a good Disney film. People who have a problem with the darkness of the film let me put it this way, "Don't watch it and don't show it to your young children!" If you think they can handle it later on than go ahead but don't knock the movie just because it's not what you think Disney should be.
The Black Cauldron is geared more towards a male audience but I am sure some girls may enjoy it as well.
If you haven't seen The Black Cauldron and your a big Disney fan at least give it a shot.
Simply because the movie is on the bleak side it has gotten unjust criticism. Sure Disney was not at a high point during this time but this movie was better than many others made during the 80's. Oliver and Company is good and I like it more than this but that's because I have more memories from it than BC. The Great Mouse Detective was alright but not anywhere as remotely good as these two films.
I haven't seen The Black Cauldron many times but it is a good Disney film. People who have a problem with the darkness of the film let me put it this way, "Don't watch it and don't show it to your young children!" If you think they can handle it later on than go ahead but don't knock the movie just because it's not what you think Disney should be.
The Black Cauldron is geared more towards a male audience but I am sure some girls may enjoy it as well.
If you haven't seen The Black Cauldron and your a big Disney fan at least give it a shot.
Another overlooked cult classic.
datautisticgamer-748531 May 2016
Warning: Spoilers
The Black Cauldron is given a bad name by even Disney itself for nearly destroying their animation studio (it was a major flop at the box office, comparable to their films in the 1940s) and for being a departure from the typical Disney format of either musical or just light-hearted joy (for the most part), but the truth is, it only recently got the warm cult reception it deserved back in 1985. Despite having some dull moments, the acting is top notch (especially John Hurt's Horned King), the horror scares, and there is enough action (including a shockingly crude joke that left my mouth wide open) to enjoy it as much as Lloyd Alexander's series. In fact, on Rotten Tomatoes it has a higher rating than Robin Hood or a few of Disney's early-mid 2000s films (55%), which I guess can be agreed with seeing how many critics didn't appreciate the new format, though its execution is not something to be glossed over. See it for yourself; I enjoyed it, but I can't guarantee, especially if you like older Disney films, that your rating will be just as or more favorable.
Tragic spoiling of a classic tale (Includes spoiler)
Blodwyn20 December 1999
Warning: Spoilers
I must admit that I always feel those who praise this film haven't read the book. The story is told so much better there. The animation isn't up to Disney's usual standard, but far more importantly the entire story, including the noble and tragic ending, has been disneyfied, because we can't have people sacrificing their lives for their friends in a kiddie's movie. Oh no. It might upset people. They didn't want to tell the wonderful story which is there, and instead produced a drab, flat throwaway filler piece before their next big film. The only consolation is that there's no songs.
Read the Chronicles of Prydain. Read Lloyd Alexander's 'The Black Cauldron'. Tell me I'm wrong.
Read the Chronicles of Prydain. Read Lloyd Alexander's 'The Black Cauldron'. Tell me I'm wrong.
Excellent animated classic.
Logic111 December 1998
I first saw this movie when I was a kid (probably 7 or 8) and I loved it. After that I didn't know what happened to it. Then last year (or so) it appeared on video. Naturally I snapped it up.
Well? Had the years been kind? Somewhat. Of course the build-up I had given it could never have been lived up to, but I enjoyed it. Watching it again, without the preconceptions, I thought it was wonderful. Maybe not as good as I thought as a kid, but still great.
Sure, some of the animation isn't as polished and crisp as the likes of 'The Little Mermaid' or 'Beauty and the Beast' (2 of my favorites) but it still looks great (especially the cauldron scenes near the end). And the team didn't feel the need to squeeze songs in where they would have been unwelcome. There are NO songs in this movie.
Overall, I can see why some people don't like it, but that's surely true of any movie. This is an atypical Disney release, but a classic. One of my favorites.
Well? Had the years been kind? Somewhat. Of course the build-up I had given it could never have been lived up to, but I enjoyed it. Watching it again, without the preconceptions, I thought it was wonderful. Maybe not as good as I thought as a kid, but still great.
Sure, some of the animation isn't as polished and crisp as the likes of 'The Little Mermaid' or 'Beauty and the Beast' (2 of my favorites) but it still looks great (especially the cauldron scenes near the end). And the team didn't feel the need to squeeze songs in where they would have been unwelcome. There are NO songs in this movie.
Overall, I can see why some people don't like it, but that's surely true of any movie. This is an atypical Disney release, but a classic. One of my favorites.
Interesting, getting a bit scary there though!
robyn-710-76716725 November 2011
Warning: Spoilers
For a Disney film, this is one of the first I've seen where the badguy isn't a comical human or something... it's an actual ghostly skull who we meet very quickly. The scenes with him start out very intense and scary (for a Disney movie mind you) and then start to get just more intense and more adventurous as the kids make their way through the castle and stuff.
The idea of sacrifice is introduced and used in the movie. Not sure if that's the best thing to have considering that this is a Disney classic. However, the thing that gets sacrificed survives... but I found a flaw. I do believe the witches who made the trade said that only a HUMAN could sacrifice himself into it. While the thing which did wasn't human... yet it still stopped the curse in the end. -confused-
But anyway, it was okay, and I have to give they some points for surprising me with the kiss near the end. Wasn't expecting it the way it was done.
Anyway, I rate this 7/10.
The idea of sacrifice is introduced and used in the movie. Not sure if that's the best thing to have considering that this is a Disney classic. However, the thing that gets sacrificed survives... but I found a flaw. I do believe the witches who made the trade said that only a HUMAN could sacrifice himself into it. While the thing which did wasn't human... yet it still stopped the curse in the end. -confused-
But anyway, it was okay, and I have to give they some points for surprising me with the kiss near the end. Wasn't expecting it the way it was done.
Anyway, I rate this 7/10.
An unconventional Disney animated film.
OllieSuave-00728 July 2015
The Black Cauldron is a Disney film that is not based on a well-known fairytale nor is it an original Disney story. Instead, it is based on a novel by Lloyd Alexander, a story about pig-keeper Taran who attempts to find his future-foretelling pig so that the evil Horned King would not capture and use her to pinpoint the whereabouts of the Black Cauldron. The Horned King plans to use the Black Cauldron to spread untold evil and power.
The film has splendid hand-drawn animation and a catchy music score. Also, the plot has steady pacing to it with some adventurous and exciting action scenes, and the villainous Horned King is also one of the more scarier-looking Disney villains out there. However, I thought much of the characters lacked any development or chemistry, particular that of Taran. He wants to experience more in his life than just settling as a pig-keeper, but his purpose and goals were not fully developed throughout the rest of the film. He also didn't have any chemistry with the heroine, Princess Eilonwy, whose purpose in the movie was also very vague. She along with the wide range of characters including the flying trolls didn't contribute much to the plot; it was as if they were just placed in the movie for window dressing.
But again, there are quite a few actions scenes that made the film at least somewhat exciting, and the sacrificing elements, lack of comedy, and dramatic characters made this a pretty dark and un-conventional Disney film. It's not one of my favorites, but is watchable at least once or twice.
Grade C+
The film has splendid hand-drawn animation and a catchy music score. Also, the plot has steady pacing to it with some adventurous and exciting action scenes, and the villainous Horned King is also one of the more scarier-looking Disney villains out there. However, I thought much of the characters lacked any development or chemistry, particular that of Taran. He wants to experience more in his life than just settling as a pig-keeper, but his purpose and goals were not fully developed throughout the rest of the film. He also didn't have any chemistry with the heroine, Princess Eilonwy, whose purpose in the movie was also very vague. She along with the wide range of characters including the flying trolls didn't contribute much to the plot; it was as if they were just placed in the movie for window dressing.
But again, there are quite a few actions scenes that made the film at least somewhat exciting, and the sacrificing elements, lack of comedy, and dramatic characters made this a pretty dark and un-conventional Disney film. It's not one of my favorites, but is watchable at least once or twice.
Grade C+
so much promise, only some of it seen through
Quinoa198417 January 2017
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.
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.
Pretty to look at, but so, so boring to watch
MissSimonetta2 April 2013
Warning: Spoilers
The Black Cauldron is a far cry from most films of Disney's dark period (1961-1988) in terms of aesthetics. It is a beautiful film to look at with its dark fantasy world, appealing character designs, good score and lush backgrounds that remind me of the detailed backgrounds for Sleeping Beauty. And that is about all the good I can say about this film, which is a dreadfully boring narrative mess.
The plot has little direction to begin with. There is no focus or clear goal to propel the story forward. None of the characters are interesting. Taran might be the weakest of Disney's animated leading men, having virtually no personality traits other than his cockiness and desire to be a great warrior. Love interest Princess Eilonwy is the same. Fflewddur is mildly entertaining comic relief, but aside from that he serves little purpose and could have been cut from the film with no consequence. Gurgi is to this film what Jar Jar Binks was to the Star Wars prequels. There are pathetic attempts at character development, but Taran and Gurgi's arcs are so weak that they leave little impact. The Horned King could have been an awesome villain, but he barely DOES anything, leaving most of his work to the ever annoying Creeper, who manages to liposuction all the coolness from the Horned King's scenes.
I doubt I'll be watching this again anytime soon. It's looks are nice, but the story and characters are not emotionally resonant enough to make the whole product memorable. It's sad, because I love it when Disney delves into dark territory. Such a shame.
The plot has little direction to begin with. There is no focus or clear goal to propel the story forward. None of the characters are interesting. Taran might be the weakest of Disney's animated leading men, having virtually no personality traits other than his cockiness and desire to be a great warrior. Love interest Princess Eilonwy is the same. Fflewddur is mildly entertaining comic relief, but aside from that he serves little purpose and could have been cut from the film with no consequence. Gurgi is to this film what Jar Jar Binks was to the Star Wars prequels. There are pathetic attempts at character development, but Taran and Gurgi's arcs are so weak that they leave little impact. The Horned King could have been an awesome villain, but he barely DOES anything, leaving most of his work to the ever annoying Creeper, who manages to liposuction all the coolness from the Horned King's scenes.
I doubt I'll be watching this again anytime soon. It's looks are nice, but the story and characters are not emotionally resonant enough to make the whole product memorable. It's sad, because I love it when Disney delves into dark territory. Such a shame.
Very Entertaining for Kids and Adults Alike
Mike-4698 January 1999
I saw "The Black Cauldron" when it first came out. I was about six at the time, and ever since then, I had always wondered why I had never heard about it again. I only had vague memories about it, but I remembered enjoying it. I had heard somewhere that Disney was so ashamed of the film that they had promised never to release it. However, upon viewing it today, I have no idea what they were so ashamed of. The movie is very entertaining in its own way; yes, it's very dark, and maybe not appropriate for young children, but I enjoyed it. There is some excellent bits of animation in it, and it's a pleasure to see some vintage Disney before it started churning out the overblown, empty films it has made recently. The movie is able to keep a quick pace so that you never get bored. All in all, I would say that it is not one of Disney's best efforts, but it is certainly nothing to keep hidden away for 10+ years.
True to 80s style animation, but the theme was simply too dark
ganymedes19854 May 2019
Visually this movie is true to its 80s animation style, the color use isn't as vibrant as it would become during the "renaissance" era and the general vibe it gave me was mostly the opposite to The Sword in the Stone.
But things probably progress too fast to make sense to young minds.
All in all, it's not bad, but I feel like this isn't a "kids movie", more like a "story for early teens watered down for kids" and it might have benefitted from 20 to 30 extra minutes to more properly delve into the story.
All in all, it's not bad, but I feel like this isn't a "kids movie", more like a "story for early teens watered down for kids" and it might have benefitted from 20 to 30 extra minutes to more properly delve into the story.
BLAH! And YUCK!
Dossbehr13 August 1998
OY! Is this a stinker of a movie! I'm telling ya...I don't know how I missed this movie in 1985 but I'm kind of glad I did! I had heard really great things about it and was really looking forward to watching it. Well I rented it... BLAH! It was a major disappointment! First I guess the Horn King looks scary but then Maleficent from Sleeping Beauty was more so. And I'm sorry but I felt no chemistry between the pig boy and the Princess. I have to say this is on of the few Disney movies where I think they totally missed their mark.
Can't help but love....
lisak-219 August 2007
This was the first new Disney film I saw as a kid. I was 6 when it was released and absolutely loved it. I still love it to this day. I wasn't at all scared by it so why it got a bashing for being considered too dark I'll never know. I love it because it is so different compared to the other movies Disney did at that time, and the animation is lovely. The characters are wonderful too. I had this obsession with the film when I was a kid, and bought the story book with clips from the film and everything (which is sadly lost now) so it had a real impact on me. I think that is partly the reason I love it so now. The nostalgia of the old Disney. Compare Cauldron to something like 'Home on the Range' and Cauldron really becomes a classic. They don't make 'em like that anymore. I think The Black Cauldron is a little gem. Nothing for Disney to be ashamed of.
Could have been better
briancham19942 June 2020
This film has a distinct style - it's like the medieval England of The Sword in the Stone but updated for the tastes of dark 80s fantasy like Labyrinth, Willow and The Dark Crystal. This is the best part of it, and it starts off with a lot of potential, but it is anticlimactic.
cutesy rewrite shocks readers of the book
mbloxham9 October 2000
harmless enough, but it lets the cat out of the bag: Hollywood scriptwriters only pretend to study literature on their way to the big bucks. Otherwise they'd have known the dollops of Disney cute that are larded over characters of ambiguous appeal could only choke the message. To Disney, the Ugly Duckling is a cuddly pet.
An echo of some greater work is here, though, in the classical score.
An echo of some greater work is here, though, in the classical score.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
