Ein Ritter in Camelot

Admittedly, I only rented this movie because it was free due to a Blockbuster promotion. However, I generally like Whoopi Goldberg's work so I was hopeful.

Whoopi provides her usual spunk in the movie but she's failed by a pretty insipid script that had gaping loopholes - like Clarence didn't actually defeat Sir Sagramour, and a lack of payoffs - the treacherous 'hos Guinnie and Lancelot didn't get theirs, and Whoopi never gets to deck Merlin.

I was all prepared to give this movie a 6/10, which is a marginal thumbs up for me, since the movie did give a couple of laughs and Whoopi was fun, but then it ended abruptly when it was supposed to deliver the two payoffs stated above. So I'm giving it a 5/10 instead, a marginal thumbs down.

I love Whoopi Goldberg, but this script was beneath her. It was cliche from start to finish, and it had a finale that made no sense at all, just an easy out for the writers, if they could be called that. I must say that my 10-year old daughter laughed throughout this film, and enjoyed it immensely. I guess since that is the target audience of the film, it hits the mark. However, all viewers above the age of 12 might want to give it a miss.

Average comedy with Whoopie taking on the part of the main character from Mark Twain's book "A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court". Goldberg travels back in time and comes face to face with the King and all his minions. About as good as the novel which wasn't the best I've ever read. Not a must see.

It seems many people have slated this movie, and I'm not entirely sure why. As long as one keeps the movie within the context of a film for children, I don't see what the problem is.

I agree that the script is rather weak - there isn't much for the actors to go on. All in all, I think Whoopi Goldberg and Michael York do a good job in trying to bring as much life in to their parts as they can. Let's face it, if you are looking for a great 'emmy award winning film' then, naturally, you won't like this at all.

However, what most people seem to have missed is this very important point - it's a film for CHILDREN. In a world where films/cartoons seem to be incredibly violent, isn't it great to find a movie which encourages us to be open-minded and treat each other as equals - what a great message for children.

As I have read the above comment about costumes, I do have to say that the costumes do not match the time period (I forgot what Clarence said the year was, 750 I believe?). I am studying up on the 14th century clothing for both my illustrations in my book, as well as for my SCA garb. I saw the short tunics with the tights (Most notably with the acrobats), and also the armour. You're probably right that they are just spoofing some medieval movie (or the story of Arthur itself) with the full armour and costumes, but as a fan of medieval movies myself, it kind of gnaws at you about the historical accuracy itself. I like Whoopi anyway, so her performance was her usual self. This movie, in my opinion, parallels Martin Lawrence's "Black Knight" movie. I give it a five because I like Whoopi, and it's one of those movies that doesn't leave you stranded at the end. At least the sword fighting was not half as bad as this one medieval kid's movie (A movie so bad the name escapes me), where the child actor held the sword straight up and down while the henchman strained himself with every blow trying to get his sword past this child's perfect defense by holding the sword up and down, at arm's length no doubt.