Camelot (2011) User Reviews

Strong cast but one

[rev_joe_mama · 6/10 · 25 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.

A new spin on the Arthurian legend that takes quite a bit of creative leeway, which ends up working in its favor.

[dnc503 · 7/10 · 19 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.

Excellent new show !

[mregory-1 · 7/10 · 18 April 2011]

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.

Truly Dire

[YohjiArmstrong · 7 July 2011]

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.

Youthful, sexy retelling of the Arthurian legends

[Leofwine_draca · 7/10 · 1 September 2011]

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.

Morgen Steals the Show

[thearcher777 · 9/10 · 5 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.

Try not to compare it to others in the genre.

[kazdines · 7/10 · 17 May 2017]

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.

Derivative drivel

[paul_bibby · 4/10 · 5 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.

Worth Watching

[highflyer19 · 10/10 · 16 June 2011]

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.

The Collapse of CAMELOT

[ajepisode13 · 7/10 · 1 October 2015]

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.

Camelot for wimps

[dan_zr · 4/10 · 22 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.

And through the field the road runs by to many-towered Camelot. -Tennyson

[zaenkney · 9/10 · 6 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!

Literary? Not really

[nightmare_lady · 7/10 · 20 March 2011]

I have read most of the Arthurian Legends on the market, starting with Green's (which gave a fairly good rundown of the popular tales), Zimmer Bradley (which gave an insight to Morgan's side of the story, which is often ignored) and of course, Malory. What I am amazed at is that Morgan is suddenly Uther's daughter, not Igraine's; it is my opinion that this father-daughter relationship changed the course of Morgan's psychological formation. I will not go into much details here (as I've only watched two episodes), but Morgan in the texts are drawn as a conflicting character; on one hand she's an evil sorceress (while Guinevere is drawn as a Christian queen - I never understood that, to me she's just a cheating harlot), while on the other she is the only one who can save Arthur from eternal death.

So is this good for a B-rated pseudoliterary/historical drama series? Probably. Should you expect some literary accuracy? No. But then again, this is a TV series, not Documentary Channel, so maybe it is wrong of me to expect some accurate depictions.

Camelot what a disappointment

[sonni7 · 3/10 · 1 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.

Beyond Bad!

[pkcasimir · 3 April 2011]

Only a Canadian production company could have come up with a piece of tripe such as this! A poorly written and at times hilarious script combined with ham bone acting worthy of William Shatner in Star Trek is only surpassed by the bizarre casting of a simpering little wimp for Arthur and a Valley girl Guinevere. Does anyone really believe that battle hardened and cynical barons and knights with their very existences at stake would allow themselves to be led by this skinny little wimp Arthur who looks like he's barely strong enough to lift a sword, never mind wield it? And this Guinevere couldn't launch a row boat, never mind a thousand ships.

Save your time. Clean the lint out of your navel rather than watch this fourth rate production. You'll be better off.

Series should have been called Merlin...

[wagnerlinda · 6/10 · 6 April 2015]

I've read many reviews before I finally watched the show and I kind of knew what to prepare for. I must admit, I am a huge fan of Jamie Campbell Bower, the actor, not the underwear Model and I am not a 16 year old Teenage Girl. So knowing that he is in the series, forced me to watch it and I can sense why many people think he is wrong for the role, obviously they have a specific picture in mind of how a King Arthur has to look like, but I think the producers wanted exactly that look for a him. A man, who doesn't look like a typical Warrior or middle-age man, someone who might be underestimated at first sight but who is strong-minded, the more boyish type of man, who will grow out of that impression in time. but the reason why this series didn't work is not only the Cast of the lead role (which is for me, no mistake, I think Jamie is doing a reasonably good job for what the script offers), it is the plot, script itself. I think the storyline is not very consistent, one episode the mood of one person is superdark, suddenly next episode, everything changed, and then all these plots, that were obviously planned to make everything more exciting, like: hey we need to ride back to arthurs old home and get some books for camelot. great idea, the gang rides off, and then... nothing happens. no danger, no... unexpected turn. they find the books, yeah, mission done. and there are more of these poorly written story lines as well. Its just not very catching, everything has been seen before and even a great Eva Green and a even greater Joseph Fiennes cannot rescue the whole thing. What is really brilliant though, is the Character of Merlin. He, played by Joseph Fiennes, is so different from everything you would expect, the series would have been better called Merlin. I couldn't get enough of him, because he is so mysterious. Where did he come from? Whats the deal with this magic? Is he immortal? Merlin give the viewer a lot to think and I wouldn't mind more of him at all. Also, the Costume Design is astonishing, so even if you don't like the story or Jamie Campbell Bower, you get something for the eye by looking at all the great dresses and armors. The Series could have done much better with better story turners and also better dialogs. (what was that conversation Merlin had with the Blade Smith? horrible...), but it's worth watching just because of Merlin.

Arthur, Merlin and Excalibur. The immortal saga in new robes.

[debashishdas9 · 8/10 · 5 April 2011]

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.

Nice twist on the Arthurian legend

[matthew_hoh · 7/10 · 5 February 2020]

I'm a big fan of T.H. White's Once and Future King and Book of Merlyn. It's why I watched this series when I learned it existed on Hulu. It's not White's book, by any means, it lacks the philosophy, the magic, the wit, the heartbreak and the sorrow. It is a good adaptation of the Arthurian tales though. It keeps some of the major parts of the Arthur story while adjusting and adapting details and it fills in the narrative on how certain events or persons came to be.

The acting is very strong among the lead actors, Jamie Bower, Eva Green and Joseph Fiennes. Bower grows as an actor along with the growth of his character from boy king to leader of united Britain. With the exceptions of Clair Forlani and Sinead Cusack, however, a fair portion of the supporting cast is wooden, some of them don't even seem to attempt to break their characters out of a 2D role. James Purefoy and Sean Pertwee played their roles well for the limited duration they were in the series. At times there are enough extras and at other times there are not. Don't expect battle scenes like Braveheart or Game of Thrones, in fact the battle scenes and fights are the weakest elements of this show as they are not very well done, lack the frenzy and horror of combat, and are small in scale.

Starz had money for this series and it shows with some well done sets and quality filming and editing. The score is not bad and there are occasional Celtic style songs that give the show some additional atmosphere. It's also obviously a Starz production as each episode has nudity, sex and violence - sometimes helpful to the story telling, other times gratuitous.

There are a few rather lame story lines, but there are enough plot devices, thoughtful dialogue exchanges, and explorations/re-shaping of the Arthurian story to have kept me watching through all ten episodes - and wishing the series had survived more than one year (apparently it failed to continue due to casting issues and cost).

If you are a fan of the Arthurian stories give this a try. As long as you can understand the writers' desire to add to the Arthur tales, and are not incapable of enjoying variety and difference, you may like this as I did. And if you have never read The Once and Future King, go to the library now.

Why is King Arthur such a dick?

[DjangoBlack · 4/10 · 12 June 2011]

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.

liked it

[dirtdigger50 · 9/10 · 26 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.

A slightly-above-average drama with enormous potential

[heropeth · 7/10 · 18 July 2012]

It is rather difficult to run into an interesting and well made fantasy show nowadays, especially due to hyper-production regarding knight-and-sorcerer themed shows, but this is certainly one that deserves attention. Joseph Fiennes and Eva Green are great choices for the roles of Merlin and Morgan, respectively, although there is definitely some space for further character development. Green gave the character of Morgan an exact measure of hypocrisy and selfishness as was needed. Fiennes is brilliant as Merlin, knows how to stay mysterious and act as an adviser/father figure to Arthur. The screenplay, in my opinion, is the weakest link of this serial. Too many plot elements revolve around the attempt to have an original approach to the legend itself - the sword, for instance. Murdering his maker by 'accident' and his daughter, also by 'accident', naming the sword after the girl, Merlin's seeming naiveté about their deaths and too little remorse - this is just an example of what I feel is poorly done in the show. Many were skeptical about casting Jamie Campbell Bower for the lead role, but I find it an excellent choice. Peter Mooney would have played a lot more 'classical' Arthur, therefore I salute the producers' boldness an willingness to risk a bit. The supporting characters are great and all in all, I would recommend the show.

Oh Dear, oh dear, oh dear

[dandeanuk · 1/10 · 11 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.

It's a good start !

[remcovos85 · 9/10 · 4 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.

I will continue watching it, but Arthur is such a disappointment.

[b-lawson23 · 7/10 · 12 June 2011]

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.....

Mábosta

[capblah · 4/10 · 12 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.