Black Knight

I understand that movies are shot out of sequence and that the scripted work is sometimes altered under the director's guidance. The plot required not just the suspension of disbelief, but no belief system. I considered leaving and seeing something else, and regretted staying in the theater to see this movie (for lack of a better term.) The only thing good I could say about this effort is that the lighting was good.

The ending seemed to be an omen for Black Knight 2 -- I would beg the powers that be in Hollywood that this was only my fevered imagination. It will be a sad day if something like that was forced onto innocent moviegoers.

I don't think that this film was even one tenth as bad as many of the reviews I've seen. First, it should be taken in the spirit of which is was obviously made, fun, light comedy. Certainly, it didn't break any "new ground," and I doubt that it will be remembered along with "Some Like It Hot." As much as I initially wanted to HATE this film, I thought it was a noble effort by the star, who was wise enough to surround himself with supremely talented British actors (many from the legitimate stage) who both accurately embodied the realism of the time, and possessed the chops to pull it off. Yes, it used all of the typical ghetto dialogue and Hollywood plots, but it did it with such clever wit and attitude that I wound up being quite charmed by the film. Again, if you're looking for "Malcolm X," don't bother. But for an afternoon's amusement, good, clean fun. I have no qualms about saying that I enjoyed it.

There are movies that are absolutely stupid, and yet incredibly funny; Animal House and Caddyshack come to mind. Black Knight is absolutely stupid and incredibly UNfunny. Along with black holes, quarks, and the meaning of life, the greatest mystery of the universe is why Martin Lawrence has a career: The guy is not only not funny, but manages to be truly pitiable -- shucking and jiving like an nineteenth century minstrel. I'm surprised the NAACP doesn't protest his performances, or this movie for that matter.

It's hard to find a redeeming virtue in this movie -- the script seems to have been lost by all indications, the "acting", even using the word in quotation marks gives too much credit, is lousy; and the sets look like they were worked up in a high school basement for a student production.

I'm not sure what audience the makers were going for; Martin Lawrence is often marketed to black audiences, but in this movie he and the love interest are the only blacks in the movie. Of course all the whites are depicted as complete idiots, but Lawrence out-idiots them all.

Another example of Hollywood's contempt for the movie going public. They think they can trowel out any sort of bilge and make money. Let's hope they wake up soon, and if they're going to give us silly movies, make them funny.

This movie was tolerable at best. Not bad considering the circumstances behind Martin Lawrence traveling back in time. That was a little unimaginative. This one makes A Knight's Tale seem like a medieval masterpiece.

(3 out of 10)

I actually paid $4.20 to watch this movie, and the only funny things were a few cute lines and that was it. Martin Lawrence tried his best, but he's made far better movies.

And the time. This movie hardly lasted 90 minutes (which is actually a fortunate thing). Usually, movies that short have poor plots and little humor. This movie is no exception.

The idea is so silly. Jamal falls into a pond, trying to retrieve a necklace, and he appears in 14th century England? That sounds like a day dream to me. I guess it doesn't matter to Lawrence, who only wants to degrade people and show how much better he is than others.

Kevin