IMDb > "Camelot" (2011) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany creditsepisode listepisodes castepisode ratings... by rating... by votes
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratings
Plot & Quotes
plot summaryplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
"Camelot" More at IMDbPro »

Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 1 of 12:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [Next]
Index 112 reviews in total 

182 out of 282 people found the following review useful:

Camelot for wimps

Author: dan_zr
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.

Was the above review useful to you?

132 out of 204 people found the following review useful:

Camelot what a disappointment

Author: sonni7 from Australia
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.

Was the above review useful to you?

70 out of 101 people found the following review useful:

Strong cast but one

Author: rev_joe_mama from United States
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.

Was the above review useful to you?

79 out of 119 people found the following review useful:

Derivative drivel

Author: paul_bibby from United Kingdom
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.

Was the above review useful to you?

70 out of 112 people found the following review useful:

Oh Dear, oh dear, oh dear

Author: dandeanuk from United Kingdom
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.

Was the above review useful to you?

63 out of 101 people found the following review useful:


Author: capblah from Brazil
12 May 2011


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.

Was the above review useful to you?

38 out of 57 people found the following review useful:

Why is King Arthur such a dick?

Author: DjangoBlack from United Kingdom
12 June 2011

*** This review may contain 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.

Was the above review useful to you?

42 out of 67 people found the following review useful:

Worth Watching

Author: highflyer19
16 June 2011

*** This review may contain 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.

Was the above review useful to you?

19 out of 26 people found the following review useful:

Truly Dire

Author: Guy from UK
7 July 2011

*** This review may contain 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.

Was the above review useful to you?

20 out of 30 people found the following review useful:

Morgen Steals the Show

Author: thearcher777
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.

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 1 of 12:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [Next]

Add another review

Related Links

Plot summary Ratings Awards
External reviews Plot keywords Main details
Your user reviews Your vote history