Le kid et le roi

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.

It sounds stupid to try and dissect a film like this that was made for pure amusement of children and families alike. But, it's not at all unreasonable. Sure it's quirky, stupid, and laughable. But, the manufactured King Arthur's Court supplies the setting for a young man's triumph over his battle with his own self esteem and lack of dignity. In an our era where we would call Calvin (Nichols) a geek, dweeb, etc. But, when he is transformed into another world where he is feared, respected, and set on a high honor for his vi rage of instruments, (Rollerblades, Mad Dog Bubblegum, Rock N Roll) and his curious language (cool is hot?). But, in the end he comes to grips with reality, and with himself. He comes to realize that he is more than what people may think of him. He gains courage and self respect. Now, even if that is done in a pop culture/bubble gum sort of way, it should be respected.

Plus Kate Winslet looks just as hot now as she did ten years ago.

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.

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

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.