The Incredible Adventures of Marco Polo

As long as you go into this movie with the understanding that it's not going to contain any historical fact whatsoever, it's not bad.

It's on par with Sam Raimi's "Hercules: The Legendary Journeys", as far as plot, acting, humour, and production values are concerned. You'll see the similarities at several points. Most of the fight scenes are not as good however and the film suffers from that.

Jack Palance commands the screen as well as ever, and at no time do you have the impression he's giving anything less than his level best. Same for Oliver Reed. The problem is that their strong performances make square-jawed Don Diamont's less-than-stellar acting skills seem even more awkward. Perennial bit player Cas Anvar was very good as well, playing a character much like Salmonius in the aforementioned Hercules.

If you enjoyed the low budget swords-and-sorcery movies of the early 80s, you're probably going to enjoy this show as well. It's actually a shame they attached the Marco Polo name to it. It really has nothing to do with Marco's life, contrary to the expectations of most of the people who will want to watch this movie.

Historical movies always take liberties -- conversations are concocted where no one could actually know what was said, customs are adjusted to be comprehensible to modern audiences, etc. However, historical films about actual historical personages should make at least a minimal nod to history. This film does not. The only scene I actually remember is when our hero surprises an assassin who creeps into his chamber at night. He confronts the dangerous intruder with, "I don't remember sending for room service". The main entertainment value is in its badness; I recommended my local video story put it on the "Turkeys" shelf.

As far as TV movies go i thought this was really good. I've seen it twice and wouldn't mind a third viewing. Although it is historically flawed did not matter to me. I view this as more of a fantasy movie than being a historical account. I don't believe it was meant to be taken seriously as a true account of Polo's stories (which many are doubtful or stretched themselves).

The acting throughout the picture, for the most part, is surprisingly good and well executed. The set designs and backdrops are excellent and quite colorful. I won't get into the fact that the costumes are also historically inaccurate, i could care less truthfully.

Check it out, you may just like it...just don't expect Polo's real life adventures (fantasies?) on the screen.

This film has its moments and Don Diamont makes a good swashbuckler. However, it is extremely low budget and very slow at times. I watched this film because I am interested in history and Marco Polo's adventures in China, however, he doesn't get anywhere near china in the film.

The only recognisable actor in the film is Jack Palance. Obvisiously he owed someone a favor.

This is a film with plenty of flaws that manages to entertaining in brief moments. Still i can't recommend it. It is a turkey.

This would be best viewed on Mystery Sciece Theater 3000.

This obviously was a "Made for T.V." movie. We rented this movie because there was not much we hadn't already seen. My wife thought that this movie looked good, judging only by the outside cover. Once again, the old cliche comes into play, never judge a DVD by it's cover.

I'm not going to be too harsh on this movie because it IS a "Made for T.V. movie." They could have spent a little more money making the older Marco Polo really look old. What they did, instead, is make the young Marco Polo look like a young Marco Polo with a fake beard on.

The action was really kind of dull witted. I know that scenes need to be choreographed to look real, but the movements were almost robotic. There was no realism in the fight scenes.

There was also no real story.

Well so much for not being too harsh, but in reality I could really tear this movie apart. So, I guess I was being pretty nice overall.