A Kid in King Arthur's Court

Dreadful film. Everything about <em>'A Kid in King Arthur’s Court'</em> is just so poor, the whole feel of the film is extremely low-budget and limp. The writing is substandard, while the dialogue ... Dreadful film. Everything about <em>'A Kid in King Arthur’s Court'</em> 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 <em>'Unidentified Flying Oddball'</em>, 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.