Camelot (TV Series 2011) Poster

(2011)

User Reviews

Review this title
116 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
6/10
Strong cast but one
rev_joe_mama25 April 2011
The mix of Shakespeare's "The Winter's Tale" and the story of King Arthur is a new twist on the Lancelot/Guinevere (French) storyline. It would be very refreshing for a King Arthur show not to have the love triangle but I guess you wouldn't have the female audiences watching it if you didn't.

Unfortunately with an Arthur that is a whiny brat it's hard to get behind this one. I love the rest of the cast though. Eva Green and Joseph Fiennes are fantastic as well as the rest of the supporting cast. Fiennes giving a more gritty, realistic feeling to Merlin than just an all powerful wizard is also refreshing. If it wasn't for the way that they wrote Arthur and how Bower plays him this would be an absolutely great show.
81 out of 118 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Morgen Steals the Show
thearcher7775 July 2011
This series was amazing...except for Arthur. It was so enjoyable because it was so true to Sir Thomas Mallory's work while still retaining its own interpretation. I actually appreciated some of the changes to the story they made because it helped to drive the characters more. Eva Green's Morgen was stunning and powerful; she was possibly the best and truest Morgen ever portrayed on the screen. The character was so well rounded and had so much depth left out of previous Morgens. She wasn't just a villain; all of her actions had an understandable justification and the watch can really feel sorry for her (especially when her brother was portrayed as such a irritating jerk). Joseph Fiennes' Merlin was equally as stunning and interesting, bring a delightful, more youthful yet old-aged soul interpretation to a well known character.

But the casting directors did a horrendous job of casting Arthur. I understand they were attempting to make a point that Arthur did not start out as the great king he became known as, but they failed to recognize that despite his initial youth Arthur still had something about him that made people follow him. This Arthur is simply whiny, childish, and truly disappointing. Had a stronger Arthur been cast, I think this show would have enjoyed at least a second season.

Despite the weakness in Arthur though, I really loved this series. It did have some wrinkles that needed to be worked out but I feel that it had a lot of potential and a lot of great storytelling.
33 out of 45 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Camelot for wimps
dan_zr22 April 2011
The biggest problem Camelot has is the lead Actor Jamie Bower, he looks like a feminine underwear model, he has no muscle tone at all and looks like a complete wimp. The only reason I can see casting him is to attract girls who are 14-17 (due to his roles in Potter and Twilight), the problem is, this is not a show for that age group.

Jame Bower brings no charisma or charm to the character Arthur, I find myself rooting for Morgana then I do Arthur. Mr. Bower has such a feminine look to him you can't even tell him apart from Guenevere when they do there sex scene.

He was a major miscast for the role. If the producers wanted to show Arthur as a spoiled self-centered 16 year old then they should of gotten an appropriate actor. The script for Arthur is definitely written for a 16 year old so I'm not sure why they would get someone who doesn't even look the right age, so basically you have someone who looks like there in there 20's but acts like someone who is 16. It all comes off as very annoying.

Other issues the show has is sloppy writing, they don't setup a foundation for the new lore and there scripts are kind of all over the place story wise, they leave a lot of plot holes that never get explained and it seems there trying to cram to much into each episode.

The show would probably be a hit on the CW Network for a much younger audience (remove the nudity), but with Spartacus and Game of Thrones setting the bar very high for premium cable shows, Camelot falls short.
199 out of 315 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Camelot what a disappointment
sonni71 May 2011
I cant get past how wrong Arthur is for the lead role. A scrawny feminine male lead does not appeal to me. His adopted brother would have been a much better Arthur. It is hard to watch this show with such great competition as Game of Thrones to compare quality and acting with. Though I do love Merlin in this version , a very strong character. I cant help comparing Camelot to Merlin... Camelot comes up wanting.. As all these other reviews are saying about the wonderful costumes and scenery and I must agree it all looks great and is a wonderful feast for the eyes. But costumes and scenery will not carry it alone. So I must say I am very disappointed in this version of Camelot. I really don't think I can keep watching this series.
140 out of 219 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Derivative drivel
paul_bibby5 June 2011
This gets 4 stars simply because there are a number of notable cameo performances from a variety of top draw actors as well as charismatic performances from Joseph Fiennes and Eva Green. As for the rest of the cast one can only describe many performances as wooden as the forests in which Britons of the Dark Ages inhabited. Most obvious miscast character is that of Arthur, who not only doesn't look the part but acts as unkingly as is humanly possible, which to be fair is more a consequence of the lamentable screenplays as it is a measure of his inability to pull off a convincing performance.

And this brings me to the script. God forbid the producers of this execrable pile of horse droppings might have deigned it worthwhile to peruse the various medieval writings, or even contemporary re-workings, of the Arthurian Legend for suitable source material but how on earth could they imagine that seemingly making it up as they go along would in any way convince the viewers that the tale is in anyway believable or inspiring.

I have read a few excellent contemporary novels set in the Dark Ages, the best of which is most definitely Bernard Cornwell's Warlord Chronicles series, so it isn't true that there is nothing new to say about Arthur et al. It is a continual disappointment that there are still producers out there who think throwing in a few breasts and pretty faces is all it needs to make a winning production. It does not. We know it so why don't the producers? It takes the sort of source material that is winning fans of Game of Thrones, which though not without it's flaws has a great story, great scripts and great believable performances.

Sadly another missed opportunity.
87 out of 133 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Truly Dire
YohjiArmstrong7 July 2011
Warning: Spoilers
Plot: Blah blah blah King Arthur blah dreadful soap opera blah pseudo- historical rubbish.

King Arthur is the most enduring British myth and the only positive that can be taken from this truly dreadful series is that the myth will survive it and go on to better things. Camelot is a perfect example of how not to make a King Arthur TV series. Arthur and his knights are all played by effeminate looking metrosexuals without an ounce of charisma or testosterone between them (but with plenty of whining). The women all look like they've come from an MTV reality TV show. Guinevere and Arthur both have such long blonde hair that in the (laughable) sex scenes it is difficult to tell them apart. It is set in some pseudo-historical period which means that everyone wears the sort of boring pseudo-medieval clothes worn in every dreadful fantasy film since the 1980s. The script is supposed to be a mix of adventure, intrigue and relationships but it comes off as a bad soap opera instead. The saving graces are James Purefoy (rough, tough, helluva lot of fun) and Eva Green (beautiful) but even they can't save this turkey. Ignore this and read the High Medieval knight errant stories instead.
23 out of 31 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Why is King Arthur such a dick?
DjangoBlack12 June 2011
Warning: Spoilers
I can't stand this version of Arthur. Sure I wondered like many reviewers whether the casting was appropriate, and it's probably not. However, it's not so much the acting that makes him bad, but the writing. I've always been under the impression that Arthur was meant to be the embodiment of chivalry. Obviously I was wrong. It seems that the legend that inspired the beliefs of an overwhelming number of European monarchs and noblemen over the last 1500 years or so was simply an utter tool. It makes you wonder what the various reformists and visionaries were aspiring too. Did Edward I think to himself "how could I possibly be a better king? Oh I know, I shall embody all the dickery of King Arthur and then everyone'll think I'm well good." Did Henry V decide "I know how to inspire my men before Agincourt, act like the once and future prick." I highly doubt it. Wasn't Arthur raised by Ector so he wasn't completely loathable once he ascended?

Sucky lead character aside there's still very little to take many positives from. The knights are more than underdeveloped. One of the great things about the Arthurian legend is that his knights have intriguing and profound stories of their own, enabling strong rounded characters. Not here though. All 5 of his knights (yeah that's right 5, he's running the whole of Britain with 5 men) may as well be turd stuffed marionettes. There's more depth on Sesame Street. If you don't believe me you tube James Blunt's My Triangle. Comparatively it's touching and emotionally fulfilling. Plus, who the hell is Leontes? They just made him up. Really, they weren't able to pick any other name associated with the knights of the round table? And who's Ulfius? He couldn't be more of a stereotype token. He has about one line in the whole season only to be killed. If they had to fill an employment quota regarding ethnic minorities there are about three Arabian knights associated with the Arthurian legend.

Obviously there are conflicting sources so I expected liberties to be taken with the story line. The problem is they've over done it. Certain story elements need to stay canonical, but they've been completely changed. By doing this it makes the story no more about the Arthurian legend than Arthur 2: On the Rocks. Otherwise just make it a sword and sorcery show that's influenced by source material. And if the shows makers claim it's their version of what is essentially a made up story, then I say their version's rubbish. It looks and feels like a children's programme, only with boobs.

Which is really the shows only saving grace, boobs, boobs and more boobs. Tons of them, swinging boobs, pert boobs, groped boobs, big boobs, little boobs, medium boobs and the occasional muff. Actually it's totally possible to play Where's Wally when it comes to lady pubes. They're not in every episode, but if you spot them in amongst the lallies it feels like you deserve a prize.

Well, I've given it 4 stars as I managed to watch every episode and I'm not saying don't watch it. I'm a sucker for sub-par programming, and to an extent it did entertain me. Ultimately it was a strange emotional ride, I detested a great deal, but Eva Green nude simply polished over the cracks.
44 out of 66 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Oh Dear, oh dear, oh dear
dandeanuk11 June 2011
Being currently enthralled and excited by 'Game of Thrones,' which is airing now, I had high hopes for this.

And being a huge fan of the very over acted but great John Boorman 1981 'Excalibur.' I really couldn't wait for this.

And boy was I disappointed. What were the producers thinking??? Arthur is horrible. Completely miscast, Bower is too feminine, too wimpy, and a wholly ungifted actor. His performance is tedious, two dimensional and draining. In scenes with Eva Green he is getting cooked alive. It made for some very uncomfortable viewing. Chanel 4 what were you thinking buying this.

The writing, too simplistic, more suited to a child's version of the Arthurian legend. Flat, flawed, 2 dimensional and hammy to the bone.

Even Joseph Fiennes performance is lacking, he is too intense, trying to portray this mysterious Merlin but just ends up coming across as a ham.

Eva Green is the best thing in it, although the over acting bug seems to have affected her too, but not as much as the rest of the cast. Although she does come across as playing it too evil.

It looks good, but that's about it.

Not a patch on Game of Thrones, which has solid acting, believable characters and strong writing. Stick with GoT and give this one a miss.
81 out of 130 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Worth Watching
highflyer1916 June 2011
Warning: Spoilers
When I first watched Camelot, I went in with doubts. Like many critics have said, Bower is much too feminine a role to play the legendary King Arthur. Putting this into consideration I thought that Camelot would be a pointless show aimed at the same crowd as the Twilight fans. After watching the first episode, I felt myself drawn and completely absorbed into the story. Starz adds a new perspective to the old King Arthur tales. We get a detailed look at how Camelot comes to be and we see how the founding characters influence it's creation. If looked at without bias, I feel Bower does a good job as Arthur as we see a care free boy transform into a fearless leader. Joseph Fiennes does a fantastic Merlin, one I've never seen before, and Eva Green gets "exposed" multiple times in the season for you perverted men out there. Camelot is a show with lots of potential, a good cast, and a strong plot (especially because of a huge twist in the season finale). All in all, if watched without a preformed bias towards Jamie Bower, Camelot is a show definitely worth watching.
52 out of 82 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Mábosta
capblah12 May 2011
Disappointing.

Good photography and locations. Amazing casting, except for Arthur. Nothing against the kid, but he's not suitable for the role. Simple as that.

The storyline is weak. The conversations are mediocre and not deep as needed to bring you to the story. No excitement. You see a full episode and have no clue what they want to show you.

Already on 3rd episode, but being more stubborn, giving a chance for this one, but honestly I've not much hope. My guess is that it won't survive more than 2 seasons if it past the first one.
63 out of 105 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Tedious and hard to watch
JustGotToSayIt26 May 2011
The legend of King Arthur, Merlin, Camelot, and the Knights of the Round Table has been told countless times. So you would hope that in this day and age the story would be told with more sophistication. Unfortunately this is not the case here.

The show is populated with 2 dimensional comic book characters with very little depth, making it very hard for the viewers to relate to. You have a bunch of men blindly giving allegiance to a boy king for no other reason than that he is blood related to the deceased king. King Arthur was portrayed without any exceptional qualities that you would imagine necessary for a leader of men and a creator of a fabled kingdom. Quite the opposite in this show, in fact, he spends most of his time lusting after the wife of one of his champion knights. Merlin was hardly the wise and trusted confidant that teaches Arthur the meaning of Might vs Right. Instead, Merlin just grunts out cryptic remarks trying to appear mysterious and failing badly.

A very disappointing take on a timeless legend. If you are really interested in the Camelot legend, I suggest you read The Once and Future King, by T.H. White, instead of wasting your time watching this show.
24 out of 39 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
And through the field the road runs by to many-towered Camelot. -Tennyson
zaenkney6 March 2011
"Camelot" is literally a feast for the eyes, complete with multi-layers of cosmopolitan benefactions. There is also the absolutely breathtaking countryside cinematography, as well as an occasional glimpse of a dalliance unveiled, exposed, and vulnerable in more than one sense and all in context, of course. Moreover, as far as action, drama, plot structure and pacing is concerned, "Camelot" certainly works. I was interested, drawn in and found it very hard to leave my position on the couch for any reason, until it was over.

With his shaved head, expressive eyes and mercurial intensity, Joseph Fiennes is arguably the finest Merlin I have witnessed in my #$ years on this earth. The persona seems to possess him, or, possibly he has possessed it. Eva Green, as Morgan is simply begirded in the essence and romanticism of that which currently attracts young people to the Goth lifestyle. She is beautiful and mesmerizing in her character. I am a fan of James Purefoy, and as usual, this man can be anybody he wishes. He is a bad boy and carries it very well in "Camelot." Claire Forlani is exquisite and gives us Queen Igraine with a surprising core strength, rather than the pretty little one who must merely be saved. Jamie Campbell Bower, as Arthur, and Peter Mooney, as Kay, are delightful as two young cubs at play who must grow into great men of responsibility.

Between the two creators, Michael Hirst and Chris Chibnall, "Elizabeth", "Tudor", "Spooks", and/or "Torchwood" is firmly tucked under one or the other's belt. I find this impressive! I so look forward to watching the rest of this season knowing their combined genius will guide my viewing experience.

All things considered: the huge body of talent and accomplishment involved, this program being "Camelot" - the story of all stories - now being done on a quality series, along with the fact that we can easily access it on a couple of venues, I find myself looking forward to one, of a very few, exciting shows on the tele this year. Believe me, it's definitely worth your precious time to watch!
82 out of 157 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Arthur, Merlin and Excalibur. The immortal saga in new robes.
debashishdas95 April 2011
Warning: Spoilers
I have always liked watching movies and television shows that involve lost kings and magic and the sort. Call it a Lord of the Rings effect but I do enjoy them.

As for this show, I have seen the first 2 episodes and I have to say it is not riveting, but, sure is enjoyable. The story, well, everybody knows. Arthur is king, Morgan doesn't like it and will stop at nothing to get Camelot, Merlin can not let that happen and somewhere along the way there are knights in battles, bits of magic and the legendary Excalibur.

The characters are well cast. The young Arthur is believable as a boy who is thrust into kingship and battle, except for his few outbursts of "kingliness". Morgan, played by the gorgeous Eva Green, is the definition of Goth. Her acting may not be top notch but, she certainly is sensual. And Merlin , played by Joseph Fiennes, is way over the top. The words sinister and bad ass come to mind. It is a Merlin that we are not used to and it works for me. The rest of the cast is also pretty good and do their job well.

I am currently watching another series with the same background story, called "Merlin", so comparing the two is almost inevitable. I won't dispute the historical detail either of them use, because a bit of literary freedom doesn't hurt anyone. Anyways, where "Merlin" is light hearted, fun, easy paced and bursting at the seams with magic, "Camelot" is dark, sinister, fast paced and only hints at magic being involved.

Final words. There is lot on TV to choose these days. But, if you enjoy old legends or fantasy plots based on historical settings, I suggest you watch Camelot. Just try not to be a stickler for details.
34 out of 61 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
liked it
dirtdigger5026 February 2011
Starz is putting out some really good shows, 2nd season of Spartcus was pretty good. I really liked the Premiere episode of Camelot but then I am a die-hard Camelot fan, always have liked King Arthur and Merlin, along with Robin Hood and his Merry band..the costumes were beautiful,the scenery fantastic,although I haven't quite figured out how Morgana changed her looks and everyone still recognized her, I had to re-wind and watch that scene a few times...also liked seeing Phillip Winchester again as i loved seeing him in Crusoe,it is on pretty late so I'll be "DVRing" the rest of the episodes and watching them more within my time frame..can't wait to see the next one.
65 out of 126 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Could they have destroyed the story line any more?
katykw-216 April 2011
The only reason I gave it one star was for the costuming and the cinematography. The only thing the makers of this travesty stayed true to was the NAMES of the characters. Merlin doesn't seem to be a wizard through most of the first 3 parts - he's scared to use his powers because he can't control his dark side, and he's always getting the snot beat out of him. Arthur looks like he'd be more at ease in a skateboarding competition than in armor. Dude! Guinevere marries someone no one ever heard of in the Arthurian legends- Leontes (who was a character in Shakespeare's "A Winter's Tale") and Arthur acts a spoiled brat because he can't have her. Morgan is the only one who acts even close to the legends as an evil sorceress obsessed with power. Excalibur is not the sword in the stone after all, but Merlin has to have it made for Arthur. Come on!! Why didn't you just tell your brand new story, change the names to protect the revered stories, and play merry hell in the time-honored Hollywood tradition.
36 out of 66 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
AWFUL absolutely awful
ces9313 July 2011
Camelot is SO SO so boring... Arthur is the worst actor ever, his too much of a pretty boy to be Arthur. I have never written a review before but this time I just want to let everyone know- there is no point watching this. Camelot is nothing compare to Game of Thrones.

There's nothing about Camelot that sets it apart as being very original or unpredicted; it's just a competent retelling with a few twists. There's no excitement. The plot is slow. This show is a complete waste of time. Merlin is also a rubbish actor,overacting in every scene. Where is his MAGIC anyway, he could of saved so many lives?? The language is also too modern, full of today's use of English, which made it not believable. Bad Dialogue.
42 out of 79 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
It's a good start !
remcovos854 April 2011
The first two episodes are promising. So far the setting and clothing promises a nice foundation for a realistic representation of the time. In my opinion these kind of series depend on that the most ( when special effects or big battles look fake because of budget it loses credibility ) The nudity people discuss isn't to much in my opinion as long as it is there to strengthen the story and the characters.

The cast is good with some well known names and with a nice mysterious part for merlin so far. Arthur has yet to convince me since he's young and in my eyes not yet 'The King Arthur' you'd expect.

All in all a promising start. Lets hope they have a solid story for at least the season or maybe already a second.
45 out of 86 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Bad made
frenci404 June 2011
A King with 10 people in his Army! A King that is treated like a peasant by his own men. No battle scenes, just a handful of men, farmers for the most part and castles that are falling apart. Camelot is a place in shambles. In one episode Merlin try to take the whole Pendragon castle and make Morgana pay for her betrayal...with two warriors and a woman, the Queen, what a joke!. Acting in several parts is very poor. I just want to ask the producers: what is wrong with you ? Just stop the airing and try to remake it..correctly. If you have budget constraints do not even waste your time putting this junk together people!
41 out of 78 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
They can't be serious!
bobpike5 June 2011
If there was an option for 0 out of 10, then this is how I would score it.

Where do I start? Firstly, Jamie Campbell Bower ( who looks uncannily like Anneka Rice from British TV's "Treasure Hunt", complete with wispy beard!), has to be TV and cinema's worst ever King Arthur. His acting and character portrayal is so weak that that alone would ruin the show but it has to be said there are other factors here that make the series so abysmal. The plots are so simplistic and childish; some of them remind me of pantomimes where the characters are looking for the villains and the audience shout out, "He's behind you!" The dastardly Morgan Pendragon hatches scheme after scheme and always gets foiled only to fawn and scrape before Arthur and swear loyalty and live to plot anew. Episode 9 was particularly laughable; Arthur's forces creep up to Bardon Pass and occupy a tumbled down keep and then run away!

I can't see the film company that produce this series letting it run for another season, other, more worthy series have had the plug pulled on them.
21 out of 37 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
The Beginning of a New Series Based on Camelot
gradyharp3 April 2011
Sturdy as the tale of Camelot is and despite both cinematic versions as well as the now famous musical based on the story, television has now taken on the tale and the results as seen by a solitary episode appear to be entertaining as well as a darker and more earthbound version of the dream kingdom of Camelot. As is usually the case with miniseries the writers vary from episode to episode (Michael Hirst, Thomas Malory, Louise Fox, Steve Lightfoot and Chris Chibnall) as well as the directors (Mikael Salomon, Ciaran Donnelly, Jeremy Podeswa, and Stefan Schwartz), but the cast remains the same and the overall feeling of the series is one that is seductively dark and has a real sense of a mixture of history and legend.

So far we have met King Uther as he dies passing on the crown to the King's unknown son Arthur (Jamie Campbell Bower), heretofore known as a commoner. Arthur's half sister Morgan (a sinister and beautiful Eva Green) is put in place as Arthur's nemesis, Arthur's journey to kingship is nurtured by Merlin (Joseph Fiennes), and weaving in and out of the opening episode are Queen Igraine (Claire Forlani) and the glowing Guinevere (Tamsin Egerton). Thus far the story is focused on a tough battle ahead for the charming young Arthur against the evil vixen Morgan. It seems to be developing well, but time will reveal whether it will be a worthy successor to the many other versions of the story. So far it is worth watching: the setting is gorgeous!

Grady Harp
42 out of 82 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Horrible
drigmy1130 May 2011
When I first heard about this show I was optimistic that it was going to be a darker, grittier take on the legend of Arthur than say the show "Merlin." After 3 or 4 episodes of the show I could not have been more disappointed. The actor who plays Arthur is so bad that he would bring down any show. To see him on the screen trying to act with someone like James Purefoy or Eva Green is like comedy - except it's like hearing the same joke over and over and over and eventually it becomes pure torture.

In the end I had to give up. I can't watch this show anymore. If you're looking for a really good show in the fantasy genre take a look at "Game of Thrones." It is the polar opposite of "Camelot" in that it is actually very very good.
22 out of 40 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
High hopes...didn't pan out
rivenfire7 July 2011
Warning: Spoilers
Coming off of Spartacus Blood & Sand AND THEN Game Of Thrones, perhaps the bar was too high in my mind, but Camelot was pretty bad. The location is nice, but you can feel the cheaper production value (especially after watching Game Of Thrones) and lack of polish in this series. They try to have nudity and sexcapades like Spartacus, but everything else just doesn't "work". Everyone seems well casted EXCEPT for Arthur. Its like they thought to themselves, "Hey what do people REALLY want in a Arthur character??...LETS MAKE HIM LOOK AND ACT like a Boy Band pansy!" Seriously, its really hard to get behind Jamie Bowen (or whatever his name is) as Arthur, hes way to soft and feminine and doesn't inspire me to think, "wow this guy can really take the character all the way". Lastly, i love the genre and want this type of show to do well and in all honestly i could only make it through ONE episode so..maybe i'm missing out...but after ONE episode of Spartacus & Game Of Thrones i Couldn't wait to watch the next one...with Camelot i was glad it was over and felt like i wasted my time.
13 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
awful!
leo_kade2 May 2011
First episode was boring and I LOVE almost everything merlin! I watch the next two and no improvement. Just because people get naked doesn't make it a good show. Actors are terrible, Author is ugly and the show sucks. Also the story line is boring and hardly anything happens. I thought OK maybe they will get better and show more magic but after the lady of the lake episode I was so disappointed I will never watch again. look forward to hearing that its cancelled! what a terrible thing to do to the Camelot legend! I will stick with BBCs Merlin as it at least has a more interesting story line, although the acting isn't much better, also it has more magic.
28 out of 56 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
A new spin on the Arthurian legend that takes quite a bit of creative leeway, which ends up working in its favor.
dnc50319 April 2011
The Arthurian legend has been remade time and time again. While this version bears a little more resemblance than BBC's Merlin series, it's not by much. I enjoyed the changes though and found them refreshing, keeps you wondering what they might change or how a well-known character will fit into their story. It can feel a little low budget at times and some scenes do feel pointless or drawn out which can make for slow episodes where not much happens Also, many feel the actor who plays Arthur was poorly cast; however, he is supposed to be 16 in this show so that helps you get over the fact he is unimposing and the writers make him a bit whiny. That said, the acting by Morgan is superb, Merlin will leave you wondering with those faces-that such a brilliant gift can cause so much angst-, the costumes are great, and the scenery is nice. The plot is, finally, beginning to thicken in an unexpected way too. So if you like this time period, with a little fantasy, and a big twist on the tale of King Arthur then give it a try, it's entertaining.
20 out of 38 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
The One New Show I Loved
apt860914 September 2011
I seriously fell in love with this show. First of all, I have a huge crush on Joseph Fiennes. That man is a great actor and can do no wrong in my eyes. His portrayal of Merlin is dark and intense, but he's not without his odd sense of humour. Next is Morgan, who has always been my favourite character in the Arthur legends). I liked the tension between her and Merlin and how they reshaped her into a kind of early feminist. She has incredible depth and is a strong character. Now as a rebuttal to everyone who has said that Arthur is unlikable, naive, or stupid, HE IS A KID! When he came to the throne he was little more than a teenager. Of COURSE he's going to be awkward and unsure of himself, who wasn't at 17? He really evolves over the course of the series into more of an adult and more of the bearing of the king that he WILL be. You can see the King Arthur of legend in the making, which is one of the most intriguing parts of the show. Guinevere I've always thought was an unbearable character, even when I was a child. But I appreciate how they tried to make her a little more self-sufficient. The episodes were all intriguing and I watched them as soon as they came out. It's a shame that this series was killed in the cradle. It had a lot of potential and I can only hope it gets a revival or a movie.
11 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed