Someone actually said this, in an outburst of sophomoric exuberance during the Trial By Movie called "The Black Knight". This picture is shot through with banal dialogue and is typical of what you can purchase on the cheap in Hollywood. The alternative is to hire a screenwriter. It is a comic book movie about coming of age to win a fair lady's heart, but suppose you are pretty old to start with? Alan Ladd, who was so handsome and vital in "Shane", looks lined and puffy here as a blacksmith trying to woo Patricia Medina, who is above his station. But he is undeterred, and sets out to 'prove himself'. The movie is riddled with two-dimensional characters and situations full of contrivances, and if you are older than 14 this picture is probably not for you. The star rating is in the heading. The website no longer prints mine.

THE BLACK KNIGHT is a colourful British swashbuckler from 1954, starring the vertically challenged Alan Ladd who plays an impoverished blacksmith. Ladd comes into contact with some nasties involved with a Viking attack, learns swordplay and then becomes the helmeted Black Knight (a la Zorro), dishing out retribution to those responsible.On the face of it, this is entertaining enough, a fast-paced adventure packed with swordplay and battle sequences. I have to admit though that half of me was laughing as I watched. Ladd doesn't really make for a very convincing hero and is indeed doubled in all of his action scenes, like an olden-times Steven Seagal. He's given a ridiculously tall helmet to make up for his lack of stature but it just looks, well, ridiculous, plus he's too old and too out of shape to convince as the hero.The narrative, sadly, is complete nonsense. The heroes are supposed to be Saxons, fighting off a Viking invasion, which is fair enough. Except the various castles used in the film (none of which match architecturally) are all made of brick or stone, and only the Normans built stone castles some centuries after this film's setting. Plus they bring in the mythical King Arthur for no real reason, along with a ridiculous scene of human sacrifice at Stonehenge. What Celtic druids have to do with all this I don't know...Cast-wise, there are some familiar faces in support, including Harry Andrews as the put-upon Earl of Yeonil (a misspelling of Yeovil?). Peter Cushing is the villain, but fails to convince as a blacked-up Saracen, while a youthful Patrick Troughton also enjoys some screen time as the Cornish king. Watch out for Andre Morell, playing a hulking knight. THE BLACK NIGHT is far from a great film, having more in common with B-movie fare like SIEGE OF THE SAXONS than anything else, but it passes the time for fans of '50s cinema.

Ah the swords and shields movie, a once thriving genre of film from yore where big bucks was thrown at the productions, and spectacle was unleashed. There were one or two exceptions, mind...Directed by Tay Garnett, produced by Irving Allen and Albert R. Broccoli and starring Alan Ladd, Peter Cushing and a whole host of British thespians lining up for some costume shenanigans. Story is a reworking of Arthurian England, with Ladd as a brave blacksmith who reinvents himself as the Black Knight to foil a dastard plan to overthrow King Arthur, and of course to impress the Lady Linet (Patricia Medina) who he has the major hots for. Sword play, fights, swinging about, jousts and Royal machinations do follow.In the context of its budget it's hardly the awful stinker some have lined up to proclaim it as. Oh it definitely has problems, not the least that Ladd is badly miscast and Medina just isn't good enough, but there's a great sense of fun about the whole thing. One only has to look at Cushing's performance as the villainous Sir Palamides, he's having a great old time of it prancing about in tights and smothered in so much make-up he looks like a Satsuma! If you can get into Cushing's mindset then there's fun to be had here, intentionally or otherwise!It's very colourful, costuming is impressive and with Garnett the wise old pro not wasting any chance for an action scene - or to encourage his male cast members into macho posturing - it's never dull. True, the editing is shoddy, the script (Alec Coppel) poor and some of the choreography is amateurish, but this is medieval malarkey 101. A film for the forgiving genre fan whose after a simple hour and half of robust swordery and chastity belt tamperings. 6/10

This may be Alan Ladd's worst film, I have not seen them all, heck, I was named after the guy and he starred in at least two great films and supported others, so you can't call me biased against him. Of course, one could argue that it was just bad casting as his "type" did not match the film, but the film is so terrible on so many levels that it is almost as if it was done for a purpose other than making a film, just thrown together in haste, perhaps to fulfill a contractual obligation but done so in order to perhaps kill a contractual relationship. Obviously money was put into the film, not "Hollywood" money, but where a decent film might have been made with normal across the board talent. Incredibly amateurish, and one wonders the dynamics involved with Tay Garnett, who had done much better in the past. There is no redeeming quality to this bizarrely bad film. It does have some so-bad it can't be serious funny moments, perhaps these moments are "statements" of protest or perhaps deliberate attempts to make this film as badly as possible, perhaps a real inspiration for "The Producers". The film is so badly done on ALL levels which makes it hard to criticize the parts. I've seen low-budget British films that scrimp on props and special effects to the point of absurdity and feature little talented supporting acting, but still deliver fine lead acting performances and scripts that overcome the obvious deficiencies. In this case, it would have taken a masterful over the top enthusiastic lead to overcome the so many flaws in the film (even with the at least three supporting actors in the film with talent), but Alan Ladd's performance wasn't even "dialed in". He apparently just did the"minimum" he was directed to do (or maybe he was ill), or perhaps just horrible casting. Peter Cushing at least tried to be the nefarious bad guy despite the total ridiculousness of his role. I try to find good in films, but it just isn't here. This is not a film that deserves preservation.