Black Knight (2001) from Johnny Web (Uncle Scoopy; Greg Wroblewski)

Or, as I like to call it, "A Los Angeles Brother in King Arthur's Court"

Although derivative, it isn't a bad idea at all and Martin Lawrence can be funny, so when I saw the premise and the reviews, I thought critics just hated it because they hate all of Lawrence's movies and most lowbrow movies in general. 


possibly a brief breast-flesh from the king's daughter as she got out of bed with Martin Lawrence

DVD info from Amazon.

  • Commentary by director Gil Junger

  • Commentary by scene-specfic Martin Lawrence

  • Theatrical trailer(s)

  • Outtakes

  • Stunt Scenes

  • Choreography Featurette With Paula Abdul

  • Behind the scene featurettes

  • Storyboard to scene comparisons

  • Deleted scenes with optional commentary

  • Widescreen anamorphic format, 2.35

Wrong. It really is not good.

It offers an incorrect mix between the comedy and the corny plot. It allows the corn to dominate instead of letting it simply act as a vehicle for Martin to make fun of silly medieval crackers. He does get a few jabs in now and then, but mostly he gets involved in the sappy plot and the film gets sidetracked with "cute" stuff - gimmicky fights, a black girlfriend in medieval England, and Lawrence teaching 14th century white folks to get down and "donce" to the music.

They made no effort to explore the real comic possibilities of the situation. The 14th century people understand Martin, and they understand him. No problem. You ever try to read Chaucer? It is difficult for me, and I used to teach English literature, so I don't suppose it would be any easier for Martin Lawrence. Imagine how much harder it would be to understand Big Geoff if he tried to talk to you. Of course, these movie Englishmen speak just like Lawrence, except with faint English accents. It's as if he was magically transported to Kevin Costner's house during Robin Hood.

How did Tom Wilkinson get talked into this movie?

The film has a beautiful, rich look to it, in a 2.35 aspect ratio, but that's all just so much window dressing for a comedy if it doesn't deliver the chuckles. And theren't many chuckles here, lads. Move along.

The Critics Vote

  • Berardinelli 2/4

The People Vote ...

  • with their dollars: a bomb. Made for $50 million, and promoted heavily, it grossed only $33 million, despite a 2500 screen rollout.
IMDb guideline: 7.5 usually indicates a level of excellence, about like three and a half stars from the critics. 6.0 usually indicates lukewarm watchability, about like two and a half stars from the critics. The fives are generally not worthwhile unless they are really your kind of material, about like two stars from the critics. Films under five are generally awful even if you like that kind of film, equivalent to about one and a half stars from the critics or less, depending on just how far below five the rating is.

My own guideline: A means the movie is so good it will appeal to you even if you hate the genre. B means the movie is not good enough to win you over if you hate the genre, but is good enough to do so if you have an open mind about this type of film. C means it will only appeal to genre addicts, and has no crossover appeal. D means you'll hate it even if you like the genre. E means that you'll hate it even if you love the genre. F means that the film is not only unappealing across-the-board, but technically inept as well.

Based on this description, this film is a D. It just isn't very funny.

Return to the Movie House home page