Was very fond of Woody Woodpecker and his cartoons as a child. Still get much enjoyment out of them now as a young adult, even if there are more interesting in personality cartoon characters and better overall cartoons.That is in no way knocking Woody, because many of his cartoons are a lot of fun to watch and more and also still like him a lot as a character. This is going to be a reiteration of a lot of my reviews for the later Woody Woodpecker cartoons, but mainly because the later Paul J. Smith-directed cartoons have pretty much the same strengths and faults. 'Saddle-Sore Woody' is better than any of the 1963 efforts directed by Sid Marcus, but it is a long way from great, another example of Woody being past his best.'Saddle-Sore Woody's' best character is Dirty McNasty. Woody has had funnier and more interesting foils that are more individual, but Dirty McNasty is still formidable and amusing. His chemistry with Woody fares better than any of the conflicts Woody had in any of his cartoons from the previous year.If there was a best asset, it would have to be the music score. It is bouncy, energetic and very lushly orchestrated, not only synchronising and fitting with the action very well but enhancing it. There is some energy and a few amusing moments.Voice acting is solid. Grace Stafford continues to prove why she was the best voice actor for the character and the one that understood him the most.However, Woody compared to his original manic personality is just too subdued and his material is too obvious and safe, one misses the manic energy and the risk taking.Generally, the timing could have been sharper and the humour is primarily let down by that it is derivative of better and fresher humour in other Woody Woodpecker cartoons and also the lack of wit and consistent energy. Plus the story is very over-familiar, very few surprises here, and the cartoon could have done with more variety. It would have been easier to invest in too if the horse (apparently Sugarfoot) had more personality.Just as problematic is the animation quality. Time and budget constraints shows in a lot of the animation, which is very rushed looking in the drawing and detail wise it's on the simplistic and careless side like many of Woody's cartoons from this period continuing through to the 60s.Overall, watchable but one-time-only watchable. 5/10 Bethany Cox