A Kid in King Arthur's Court

A Kid in King Arthur's Court, which has a zesty, lilting score by J.A.C. Redford, is enlivened by solid portrayals all around, headed by the likable Nicholas and the veteran Ackland, whose imposing presence and majestic voice make both a credible yet wistful and vulnerable Arthur. [11 Aug 1995, p.F4]

Kids 6 to 9 years old will probably enjoy this fare, but as a Hollywoodized classic, it doesn't quite wear the crown. [11 Aug 1995, p.41]

A Kid in King Arthur's Court - more precisely A California Mallrat at the Round Table, in which a contemporary Little Leaguer time-travels to the 11th century and teaches Arthur how to chew bubblegum - works too hard for its occasional laugh. [11 Aug 1995, p.05]

Watered-down versions of once-winning formulas, with recycled charms best suited to snowbound preteens. Read full review

Lame and surprisingly awkward from start to finish. Read full review

Because of the square, lackluster way that director Michael Gottleib has staged his material, the whole production seems sort of limp and perfunctory. Read full review

Run-of-the-mill modern retelling in which a schnooky kid is transported to days of yore to revivify the glory of Camelot. But the juvenilization of the hero turns into an ill-fitting concept that unbalances an already fragile fantasy. Read full review

Saddled with a script full of lifeless, mock-clever ideas (such as having the local blacksmith make a pair of Rollerblades), Gottlieb can only do his best to mollify his audience with a few fleeting hints of the movie's untapped potential. Read full review

Sluggish and low-energy. Read full review

Rarely do the well-financed wizards at Walt Disney Pictures cook up a movie this badly written, acted, and directed. Read full review

There's nothing particularly wrong with A Kid in King Arthur's Court and nothing right with it, either. Parents will take their kids to see it and suffer, but the pain is mild. Read full review

It is difficult to decide what is more annoying. The complete lack of execution in this film, (despite the presence of some very talented actors), or the realization that these lame screenwriters were so devoid of original ideas, they resorted to picking at the carcass of a tale that has been done and redone to death. [11 Aug 1995, p.28]

There are simply not enough sparks here to fire the imagination. Read full review