Le kid et le roi

Watched A Kid In King Arthurs Court Featuring Thomas Ian Nicholas(Rookie Of The Year) as Calvin Fuller, Paloma Baeza(Joseph) as Princess Katey , Kate Winslet(Sense And Sensibility) as Princess Sarah, Danie; Craig(Zorro) as Master Kane, Ron Moody(Unidentified Flying Oddball) as Merlin, Art Malik(True Lies) as Lord Belasco, and Joss Ackland(The Hunt For Red October) as King Arthur.

I enjoyed this I remember seeing this is as a kid and being disappointed by the lack of the fantastical elements as Opposed to Fantasy Epics like Dragonheart at that time also my first memory of Subversion but after I rewatched i enjoyed the romance between Calvin and Katey as well, Sarah And Kane even Aged King Arthur goes through his own character struggle after falling out with his own people and remedies by giving power back to them I enjoyed this film even though it was modern at the time Has A great Message of Anyone can be a Hero .

Cinematography by Elemer Ragalyi(Catherine The Great), Amazing Writing By Michael Part(Starbird's) and Robert Levy(Smokey And The Bandit), Amazing Score from J.A.C. Redford(Newsies) and Direction By Michael Gottlieb(Mannequin) Anyone Can A Be Hero in This Romance Of Arthurian Legend. 7/10

Look as an adult this movie is definitely not something of great value or quality. This movie came out when I was 4 and I loved it more than anything. I couldn't tell you how many times I watched this by the age of 10. I wanted to learn everything there was about King Arthur, Camelot, and Merlin as a child. This movie was the first thing that ever truly got me into history. Yes King Arthur and Merlin are fiction but the historical aspect of their time intrigued me for years to the point that I now have a degree in history. Is this the best movie you or your children will ever see, no. However, it definitely left an impression on me as a child.

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).

Hey, this is a kids' movie and a good one. I like time travel movies a lot especially when the traveller takes stuff with him (like inlines).

There a couple of real cool parts that I think stand out to make this movie appealing. The wooden bicycle is awesome even if it didn't last very long. The kid taking the knight's place in the jousting near the end was predictable but satisfying. And King Arthur and the princess coming to the future at the end made for a good windup.

Now I watch movies like this for pure enjoyment and never (on purpose) look at technicalities. I've spoiled several movies for myself that way. This is one of those movies that probably won't stand up to dissection very well. But, it made me laugh and it gave me a feel-good ending so I feel it did its job. People seem to dis a lot on predictability in movies, but if it works, why not use it. I like a nice happy ending. Movies are something I watch for pure enjoyment anyway. If I want reality, I watch the news.

This kid did two time travel movies that I know of (this one and "A Kid in Aladdin's Palace." I liked em both. Another nice time travel movie for kids was "Durango Kids".

This movie was in no way original as there have been a whole lot of movies based on "A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court". Still, it had enough unique parts to make it worthwhile. Most kids should like this one.

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.