A Kid in King Arthur's Court

I thought this movie was cute when I was about 10, but now that I look at it i realize how stupid the whole thing is. there is not an educated person alive that can honestly say that they could walk back into the middle ages and save an entire kingdom all by themselves, theyd get there ass kicked. First of all, if this kid managed to survive the first 5 minutes without getting an arrow put through him or beheaded by a broadsword, and he managed to avoid being taken prisoner and made a gay soliders plaything, he would most likely die of many diseases that his body wasn't accustomed to. Also, even you do have a magical place to plug in a stereo you play rock and roll for guards at a middle age castle, youll be labled as a heritic and executed. but dying aside, the middle ages just werent that cool, disease and warfare were everywhere, people lived in disgusting conditions that even mother theresa would run away from, and there was no place for the weak, you either fought or you died and if you werent tough, you were probably killed. But enough about that, what i have to say is for young kids that enjoy the "kids outsmarting the stupid grownups" genre, like home alone (that ones off the hook though, still entertains me even at 19 and will continue to) go see it, but for older people that know what the middle ages were really like, dont bother.

If you want a closer to real life version of what a person time traveling would be like, read the scottish highlander book series (highlander, the fiery cross, etc) or listen to the recorded books tape or cd

I watched this movie during the school holidays at my grandparents, solely for the reason that it had the very cool Ron Moody in it. Poor guy. He must have been desperate to star in this shocker of a movie. The only reason I finished watching this was so I didn't have to talk to my grandparents. I mean, honestly, you'd think that the producers would just be a little bit more worried about setting the medieval scene as opposed to having modern day attitudes with some cheap old costumes thrown in. When that kid played his music to the court, anyone who knows any vague something about that period would know that they probably would have KILLED him, thinking he was the devil or something. Plus the fact that women were allowed to fight, to talk to young men alone, to marry who they wanted to... I know this is meant to be a kids movie, but Disney has really underestimated the intelligence of the younger generation with this shocker. It's a miracle Kate Winslet became a star after this.

I remember seeing the trailer for this film back in 1995, when I was just under nine years old, and was interested in seeing it for a while, but never did for some reason. I guess I forgot about it after a while, and didn't think about it for a long time. Well, it's been over a decade now, and I've finally seen it, not that it was really worth it. I probably would have liked it to some degree back when it was released, whether in theatres or in stores, but unfortunately, it's too late for me now.

Calvin Fuller is a fourteen-year-old baseball player who lives in Reseda, California. One day, while up at bat during a game in the park and not doing so well, an earthquake hits! Calvin falls down a chasm in the ground, and after long fall, he finds himself in an unfamiliar place! It turns out he has been pulled back in time to the mythical Camelot! The now elderly King Arthur is losing his power, and the evil Lord Belasco is determined to to take over the throne, so the kingdom is in danger! The 20th Century baseball player doesn't know at first that he is here because Merlin has called for a worthy fighter from another time to save the kingdom, but was Calvin really the one he was looking for?!

Around the beginning of the film, before the earthquake, I already noticed some cheesiness, especially with Calvin's younger sister razzing him by saying if he dies, she will get his room. Secondly, I don't think I have EVER seen a movie rush into the story so quickly! "A Kid in King Arthur's Court" certainly doesn't take much time to introduce the main character and his life at all. After that, more problems definitely follow, including some rather cheesy quotes and/or scenes. Also, this movie is supposed to be a comedy, but nothing made me laugh or even smile! Now, there may be some reasonable moments in the film, and I would be lying if I said I never felt any suspense throughout. It definitely could have been worse. However, it is still a fairly unfocused family movie overall, and I MIGHT be able to give it a 6/10, but no higher.

"A Kid in King Arthur's Court" was aimed at kids, and since I was in my childhood when it came out, I'm obviously not anymore. If it wasn't for my interest in seeing it all those years ago, I highly doubt I would have ever ended up seeing it at all. Watching it in my childhood may have been a missed opportunity for me. Since I see a fairly low IMDb rating for this live action Disney fantasy, but one that doesn't suggest that it's generally considered abysmal, I'm sure many kids would enjoy it, and maybe their parents as well. However, if you don't fall into either of those categories, I suggest you skip this movie and watch a more widely appealing fantasy film (if you're into that kind of thing).

Dreadful film.

Everything about 'A Kid in King Arthur's Court' is just so poor, the whole feel of the film is extremely low-budget and limp. The writing is substandard, while the dialogue is actually terrible; it forces the 'present day vs. old days' theme way too much, it needed more to it.

The casting can make such a difference in how your film comes out, you can have a load of crap but if you get a strong cast you can still produce something good. This simply doesn't do that, though there is an interesting caveat - as both Kate Winslet and Daniel Craig incredibly appear, in just their third and second films respectively - huge credit to the Hubbards & Co., the UK casting directors.

The premise is just so dumb and uninteresting. Disney already adapted the Mark Twain novel in 1979 with 'Unidentified Flying Oddball', which I didn't love, so it's bizarre they chose to go back to it. As noted earlier, they try to make it noteworthy by colliding the two differing eras but it just comes across as lazy.

There's one, very minor, part I did like and that was King Arthur's little story with the Excalibur sword. It's nothing amazing, but I could appreciate what they were trying to do with that at the very least.

Entirely forgettable, one of Disney's worst live-action offerings up until 1995; from the ones I've seen to date, which is the majority, it's in my bottom six in fact.

Obviously this movie is made for kids and its full of bad special effects and silly plot lines. That being said, it has continued to be entertaining over the years and as an adult I still think its worth a watch. Nostalgia aside, some of the humor is genuinely clever, and it really is a cute story. It feels like a cinematic time capsule.