133 reviews
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.
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.
- rev_joe_mama
- Apr 24, 2011
- Permalink
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.
I am so surprised at the amount of negative reviews on this show, and frankly that is what compelled me to write this review. I love this show as a fan of historical dramas be it Rome, Spartacus, this is truly another to add the greats. The storyline so far has been exciting, the acting engaging, the set and scenery and costume, mesmerising and brilliant, I think James Purefroy was especially brilliant in episode 2, watch it and you will see what I mean, but he's not the only one Eva Green and Joseph Fiennes are also excellent throughout, so I implore you fellow viewers out there to give this great show a chance and be witness to one of my favourite TV shows.
- YohjiArmstrong
- Jul 6, 2011
- Permalink
CAMELOT is the latest fantasy/historical TV series to follow in the wake of PILLARS OF THE EARTH. It attempts to breathe new life into the Arthurian legends, making them fresh and sexy for modern audiences. It's not entirely successful – after poor ratings it was cancelled after the first series – but I found it never less than entertaining, even if it lacks the quality of something like ROME.
For much of the running time, CAMELOT plays out like a decent soap opera. There's adultery, murder, love, deceit, rivalry and betrayal, something for everyone. The cast is mostly populated by youthful, up-and-coming actors with a couple of more seasoned veterans thrown in along the way. Many people criticise Jamie Campbell Bower's Arthur for being a young and sickly-looking weed, but I didn't find him too bad at all and his transformation from mild-mannered country boy at the outset to ruthless and cold-blooded ruler at the end is a convincing one.
Surrounding Bower are a bunch of actors seemingly picked for their beauty, but it's fair to say they're pretty good actors too (American Philip Winchester, for instance, delivers a pitch-perfect performance as the loyal Leontes). Bald-headed Joseph Fiennes bags the role of Merlin, and he plays it with a sinister suaveness that doesn't disappoint. The arresting Eva Green stars as Morgan, the villain of the piece, and she shrieks, hisses and plots with the best of them; it's fair to say that Fiennes and Green steal every scene they're in.
Along the way we get some decent cameos (James Purefoy is particularly good as the larger-than-life Lot, while grizzled veterans Sean Pertwee, Liam Cunningham and Daragh O'Malley also appear) and some bloodshed and nudity that push this series firmly into the realm of a fairytale for adults. Historical realism is nowhere to be found but the show looks good, with decent money spend on the costumes. One thing it doesn't do very well is action, with one late-stage battle that looks extremely pathetic – literally half a dozen extras milling around a field. Never mind: CAMELOT works best when it focuses on the likes of Morgan's scheming, an ill-fated love triangle and good, old-fashioned escapism. I liked it, and I'm sorry it won't be coming back.
For much of the running time, CAMELOT plays out like a decent soap opera. There's adultery, murder, love, deceit, rivalry and betrayal, something for everyone. The cast is mostly populated by youthful, up-and-coming actors with a couple of more seasoned veterans thrown in along the way. Many people criticise Jamie Campbell Bower's Arthur for being a young and sickly-looking weed, but I didn't find him too bad at all and his transformation from mild-mannered country boy at the outset to ruthless and cold-blooded ruler at the end is a convincing one.
Surrounding Bower are a bunch of actors seemingly picked for their beauty, but it's fair to say they're pretty good actors too (American Philip Winchester, for instance, delivers a pitch-perfect performance as the loyal Leontes). Bald-headed Joseph Fiennes bags the role of Merlin, and he plays it with a sinister suaveness that doesn't disappoint. The arresting Eva Green stars as Morgan, the villain of the piece, and she shrieks, hisses and plots with the best of them; it's fair to say that Fiennes and Green steal every scene they're in.
Along the way we get some decent cameos (James Purefoy is particularly good as the larger-than-life Lot, while grizzled veterans Sean Pertwee, Liam Cunningham and Daragh O'Malley also appear) and some bloodshed and nudity that push this series firmly into the realm of a fairytale for adults. Historical realism is nowhere to be found but the show looks good, with decent money spend on the costumes. One thing it doesn't do very well is action, with one late-stage battle that looks extremely pathetic – literally half a dozen extras milling around a field. Never mind: CAMELOT works best when it focuses on the likes of Morgan's scheming, an ill-fated love triangle and good, old-fashioned escapism. I liked it, and I'm sorry it won't be coming back.
- Leofwine_draca
- Aug 31, 2011
- Permalink
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.
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.
- thearcher777
- Jul 4, 2011
- Permalink
- wagnerlinda
- Apr 5, 2015
- Permalink
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.
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.
- paul_bibby
- Jun 4, 2011
- Permalink
- highflyer19
- Jun 15, 2011
- Permalink
I thoroughly enjoyed this, and was saddened that it lasted so few episodes. i agree that in comparison to so many similar options at the time it was lacking. I felt on its own it stood up to its expectations. With a cast including Green and Fiennes, I loved it. And felt Arthurs character was well cast, to see his progression from the unexpected. In all this is only my opinion. enjoy or don't enjoy.
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.
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.
"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!
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!
This is my first review on IMDb,i'm a student studying Media Studies and as i am constantly on this website i thought, what the hell, i'll sign up! I had been looking forward to 'Camelot' since i saw the trailer for it, i had seen clips and reviews about it but could never find it(obviously because it hadn't come out yet).
I was so looking forward to it, because my favourite actress,(Eva Green) stars in it, she is totally unrated and i've only seen her in a few films, e.g. Cracks, Casino Royalle, Kingdom of Heaven...
I watched the first episode last night and although it had rather a lot of explicit sex scenes and Arthur was played by the a rather feminine male, i thought it was very interesting and good.
As i was already a big fan of things like Merlin and Robin Hood i thought i would give it a go.
As i said before, Eva Green is brilliant and she suits her mysterious, dark, beautiful and EVIL character very well, i think that the episode itself was a bit of a let down.
But as always patience is a virtue and from the R Rated Age Review i read, i'm sure there is a lot action, love and magic to come.....
I was so looking forward to it, because my favourite actress,(Eva Green) stars in it, she is totally unrated and i've only seen her in a few films, e.g. Cracks, Casino Royalle, Kingdom of Heaven...
I watched the first episode last night and although it had rather a lot of explicit sex scenes and Arthur was played by the a rather feminine male, i thought it was very interesting and good.
As i was already a big fan of things like Merlin and Robin Hood i thought i would give it a go.
As i said before, Eva Green is brilliant and she suits her mysterious, dark, beautiful and EVIL character very well, i think that the episode itself was a bit of a let down.
But as always patience is a virtue and from the R Rated Age Review i read, i'm sure there is a lot action, love and magic to come.....
- b-lawson23
- Jun 11, 2011
- Permalink
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.
There are two shows about Arthur on TV at present. One has as much distance from the legend as if I were Arthur. The other, this version, lacks only a better actor in the role of Arthur. Everyone else is magnificent. Every other role has the right casting with the right actresses and actors playing their parts so very well. Claire Forlani as Queen Igraine is absolutely gorgeous.Eva Green as Morgana is perfect in her role. Peter Mooney, Clive Standen, indeed each and every one of the cast, except for Jamie Bower as Arthur, portrays their part with great style and credibility. And, yes, the amazing Mr Fiennes steals the show with his brilliance. He must receive an award or two for his talented rendition of the great Merlin.
The success of a film or TV series depends not on the storyline but by the actors who have to bring it to life on the screen. As an example, not all Shakespeare-based films have been successful. With CAMELOT, the majority of the cast were either sturdy in their delivery or near-excellent. EVA GREEN is magnificent in her role as the sorceress/evil half-sister. She epitomizes evil and with her excellent acting skills, she practically carries the show. Joseph FIENNES adopted a new approach to the role of Merlin, and it is an acceptable ploy. I enjoyed his depiction of the magician. TAMSIN EGERTON is a tall and willowy Guinevere but she succeeded with what little she was given. CLAIRE FORLANI is very good in her role, both beautiful and involved. The lady has tremendous performance skills and I hope we see more of her. And then we come to the lead role of Arthur. In the history of casting, I cannot think of a worse choice for such a relevant and vital part. Jamie Bower is weak, unattractive and totally lacking in authority as is required. I could not accept or believe in him. For me, he simply spoiled the entire series. Such a shame because the series and its style had so much potential.
- ajepisode13
- Sep 30, 2015
- Permalink
- debashishdas9
- Apr 4, 2011
- Permalink
- nightmare_lady
- Mar 19, 2011
- Permalink
- DjangoBlack
- Jun 11, 2011
- Permalink
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.
- dirtdigger50
- Feb 25, 2011
- Permalink
- henri-979-572302
- Jun 20, 2011
- Permalink
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.
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.
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.
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.
- remcovos85
- Apr 3, 2011
- Permalink
- mtjohnson-18549
- Nov 23, 2018
- Permalink
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.
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.