A Kid in King Arthur's Court

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.

source: A Kid in King Arthur's Court

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

I always loved this Movie such a good movie a true childhood classic

A Kid in King Arthur's Court Children make the best time travelers because no one believes the crazy things they say. However, the fish-out-of-water in this family movie is wearing a modern baseball uniform. Little leaguer Calvin (Thomas Ian Nicholas) is thrust back to medieval times when an earthquake causes a chasm to open up on the baseball diamond and swallow him up. While in the dark ages, the regularly overlooked Calvin becomes the star of King Arthur's court. But if Calvin hopes to return to his time he must keep Lord Belasco from usurping Arthur. Besides pre-celebrity cameos from Kate Winslet and Daniel Craig, Disney's 1995 re-imagining of Mark Twain's A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court doesn't have much else to offer viewers. Moreover, the customary frivolity of time travel feels perfunctory, even for a goofy kids' movie. Incidentally, things get real when the shortstop shows the Knights of the Round Table how to dope. Yellow Light vidiotreviews.blogspot.ca

Since Mark Twain's novel A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court is one of my favorite books of all time, I always watch a film adaptation when I can get my hands on it. Unlike imperfect adaptations of The Great Gatsby, which I can't stand to watch, I love watching any version of Mark Twain's comedy, even if it's hardly relevant to the original text. In this Disney version, the brilliant Connecticut Yankee is transformed into a teenaged baseball player from California. He travels back in time and has to help King Arthur, sort out some royal affairs, evade Merlin's evil magic, and show people of the 1500s exciting modern gadgets of 1995, like a Walkman, roller skates, and breakdancing. While it would have been cute if he'd live in Connecticut and belonged to the Yankees baseball team, rather than the Knights, Disney probably wanted to warn people from the get-go that their version was going to be a loose adaptation. I've never found a perfect version, but the concept is such an endearing one that the details sometimes don't matter. If you want to see Ron Moody as Merlin, Kate Winslet as one of the princesses, Joss Ackland as King Arthur, and a pre-Bond Daniel Craig all getting amused by and ultimately learning from Thomas Ian Nicholas, you can try this very harmless Disney version.

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).

sounds good right? Hmmm! If only it weren't the cheesiest of all Disney movies you would ever hope to see. I'm sure this film dropped off of her casting call resume years ago! She plays Princess Sarah, daughter of an ailing King who is being pressured to give her hand away in marriage. But like many of Winslet's characters, Sarah is headstrong and refuses to marry for anything less than love. Okay, you're reading this and wondering, wow! cool right? Well, it would have been perfect if the film were about Princess Sarah's love troubles but it's not. Kate's part is actually a supporting-supporting role and a side story. The main story is the story of a boy called Kevin, in present day California, who gets hit on the head by a fly ball during baseball practice and wakes up in the age of King Arthur. No, I am not making this up. You will have to see the film to verify. It's cheesy but watchable and carries several good messages within its many sub-plots.

A Kid in King Authurs Court is just about the worst Disney movie I have ever seen. The plot was fairly predictable, except for Princess Sarah being the black knight. I mean, come on, a Disney movie where the princess doens't marry her true love? Puh-lease! The acting was okay, Thomas Ian Nicholas was okay, but seemed to be there mostly for eye candy. I thought Paloma Baeza did a good job as princess katy, but wasn't as fantastic as I think she could be in other roles. Kate Winslet, as usual, did completely fantastic as Princess Sarah, as in all her other roles, she added a lot to the movie. If it wasn't for her I wouldn't even have watched the movie anyways. Art Malik was quite good as Lord Belasco, and Ron Moody was a great choice for Merlin. So, mostly good acting, but a not so story.