johnstonjames EEK! a mouse! this movie is so off the wall and gets trippier every time i see this weird little piece of Disney nostagia. it probably doesn't deserve 10 stars like 'Fantasia' or some of the other Disney feature length classics from the 40's, but it's so good and such excellent cinema, not to mention a classic gem, that i had to give it the very best rating.this film really is a pseudo tour of the original Burbank studio (i consider the Burbabk studio to be Walt's first because he didn't create the Hyperion building he only leased it). it's not a real documentary or actual tour, it's really live-action, animated entertainment in disguise. it's main goal seems to be to entertain the viewer than actually inform them on the real life workings of the studio. almost every process they depict is fictionalized to some degree.and the whole effect is very entertaining. not to mention very magical, whimsical and colorful. they really make the 1940's Burbank studio seem like a fairy tale fantasy world. the film even has a magical switch from B&W to color a la 'Wizard of Oz'. and the scene where Clarence Nash and the voice of Clara Cluck perform is hilarious and fun. the film's central character, Robert Benchley playing himself, is bumbling and funny doing his usual comedy routines. and of course, there is an appearance by a thirtyish looking Walter E .the title cartoon 'Reluctant Dragon', is some of the funniest and best animation ever produced by the studio. the animation is every bit as accomplished and imaginative as any 'Silly Symphony'.every Christmas (dont know why xmas)i sit down and watch this and am always amused. it's one of cinema's best photographed and clever, psychedelic mind blowers.

nycruise-1 After filming the live-action sequences of "Fantasia" and hurting for a "feature release" following the financial fiascos of the aforementioned feature, presumably Disney rushed this into production (with most of it live-action, it not only cost less than a fully-animated counterpart of equal length, it took much less time to complete).It purports to tell the story of how Disney animated cartoons are made, but, courtesy of a disclaimer at the beginning of the movie, it turns out to be more fiction than fact.Various processes - like sound recording, paint-mixing, cell-photographing, multi-planing, etc - are all upended for the sake of humor (in one instance, a complete cel of Donald Duck comes to life, in another instance, the sound effects crew creates an "unplanned" cacophony by knocking over all the equipment).More to the point is that the sequences are not just staged, but they employ professional actors (such as Alan Ladd!) portraying Disney animators and other staff (although in certain instances, actual animators such as Woolie Reitherman and Ward Kimball make appearances).The "Baby Weems" sequence is often commended by many for being innovative and the forerunner of the UPA-style that would dominant the art of animation in the 1950s, but the fact is that "Weems" is nothing more than a sleek, streamlined version of a "leica reel" (a film which combines the pre-recorded soundtrack with the animators' storyboard sketches, as a way of assessing how story pacing and timing are before *before* any time and effort are spent creating fully-animated sequences). The story is cute, the drawings are more fully- rendered than they would be in a genuine Leica reel so they are nice to see, but "innovative"? I don't think so.The Goofy "How-to" sequence is okay (I never cared for the "How-To" series, but I know a similarly-themed version in "Saludos Amigos" with Goofy trying to be a Gaucho is funnier).The title short - "The Reluctant Dragon" - is cute and funny. I don't think it rates as a classic, but because it is such a rarely-viewed piece it needs to be watched by all Disney-philes.Considering its historic value, this movie is hardly a waste of time. It's just not one that deserves repeated viewings.

P-Mac-2008 I enjoyed all the Disney cartoons when I was at a really young age. I used to rent the Mini Classics out of my local video store. As soon as I saw this particular cartoon, I knew that this would be the all-time best in my opinion. It's a fantastic cartoon.The characters breathe life into the story, and are not what you would expect. If you think the Dragon is going to be a ferocious beast, you're wrong. He's just a shy, fun and flamboyant creature who loves to recite poetry, drink tea and sing songs. He steals each scene. Sir Giles and the Boy are also brilliant supporting characters.The animation is a sight to see. There is so much detail. It's extraordinary to see a cartoon from the Forties that has amazing colour. It's very good for its time.The most important thing about this cartoon is the message of not putting people into their anticipated stereotypes. Just because the main character happens to be a dragon doesn't mean he will be ferocious. The same goes for Sir Giles. He is apparently a dragon slayer, yet he is portrayed as an old man with the same interest as the Dragon, which is poetry. He seems like someone who has never slain a dragon before, yet is praised for being something he is not.I really recommend this. It's warm and funny, and will entertain people of all ages. I'm 16 now, and I am still in love with this film. The Reluctant Dragon is the best of the Walt Disney Mini Classics, and if you want to see it, I can happily tell you that it is now part of the Disney Fables DVD series, paired with Mickey and the Beanstalk.

John Ruffle "The Reluctant Dragon" is one of the most fascinating "one off", genre-bending children's films ever made. The historical aspect of the film, giving as it does, an insight into the 1940s Disney studio empire, sets it apart, with the actual appearance of Walt Disney himself really topping it off. The colour sequences are a (deliberately) totally stunning example of the Technicolor process.I've seen it several times, normally with my young children as an early "rite of passage". This time, however, I'm digging it out to show my film students, who are looking at CGI. Not all things filmic change, as a side by side comparison of this film with "The Making of Ice Age" can verify, for instance. Maybe I'll make some more in-depth comments once I've seen the film again.Meanwhile, all I have to do is actually locate my video copy of the film... lurking not too reluctantly, I hope, in the storage space under my stairs...Two years later, and I have finally located my VHS copy of this film! Now to watch it with my 8 year old son, and then maybe I'll add some insight from his perspective here in this review! If you found this 'mini-review' helpful, then please checkout my full length IMDb reviews, written for post-viewing discussion with live audiences. This postscript added 21st June 2006.