Marco Polo

What is that blue eyed surfer doing playing Marco Polo ? Simple, another Hollywood cheap production directed by budget director Kevin Connor. The actor playing Polo is badly miscast (he looks like Alice Silverstone brother), he's devoid of any appeal and subtlety, Brian Denneny is just laughable has a Chinese ruler. Connor's poor direction doesn't help, set pieces are uninteresting, acting is generally poor and the whole thing is uneventful and lacks passion. Music is by numbers and boring too. If you want to watch the best Marco Polo film available then I recommend you watch Giuliano Montaldo's version starring Ken Marshall, a RAI/BBC production with a great score by legend Ennio Morricone.

This looks wonderful - great costuming and locations - really impressive.

But all horribly let down by terrible acting, script, and above all, direction.

The filming looks so "made for TV" both in angles, lighting, but above all in tones: just some filters, and better use of film would have made a huge difference.

Historically accurate, this could have been really great: it really looks expensive and expansive; but it is living proof that nothing can cover poor acting.

Left me neither wanting more, or expecting less, I cannot recommend this for schools, or homes -- it just is so uninspiring -- and that is unforgivable given the material and the locations.

by Brian Dennehy? You've got to be kidding me... Worst casting than the actor that played Charlie Chan... Don't get me wrong, I think Brian is a great actor, just the wrong guy for this movie.

As others have said, beautiful locations, costuming, good camera work... The casting was about the worst ever. Is then no Chinese or even an Asian actor that could not have been cast for Khan?

BD Wong was okay for his part.

I wished they'd show more of the culture, the food, the dance, music the art. It would be a lot cheaper to produce than big war scenes. Marco's lady is beguiling and more of a romance developed would certainly have been an improvement to the movie as well.

As a Chinese American I was hoping to see more historically interesting facts, weaponry, food, scenery, art and culture. Oh well...

Such as shameful waste...

Given the fact that the makers had access to plenty of money, good costuming, and even to the locations (or convincing computer-generated substitutes), this could have been a very good historical movie.

Alas,the derogatory comments on this site regarding script, acting, and casting are perfectly valid. Who on earth cast Brian Dennehy as an oriental? There are established oriental actors who look the part — John Lone would be an obvious choice.

The real Marco Polo could speak Italian and French, and on his way to meet Kublai Khan may well have learned Turki, the language Kublai sometimes used in his written communications. But the ridiculous scene where they meet bears not the slightest resemblance to Marco Polo's real-life account, in which the great ruler was the soul of courtesy. Dennehy's grumpiness was pure fiction, like so much else in this tedious production.

The question that begs to be asked is: if one wants to make a historical epic, why present bad fiction instead of interesting fact?

It obviously isn't a historical movie, nor a movie that should be taken as "educational" material either. It's just a plain fiction on Marco Polo, a very free adaptation of his travels, the four points are for locations and sightings. Yes, the acting is really bad, some characters era annoyingly out of character, (sorry for the repetition). Though, I think the costume and production is very good, alas, the script is not. Even though, if you want to see a cheesy history of a guy that can make his way into a society by accepting the system in a supposedly "rebel" way, definitely, you'd like to see this one, it's message is simple "obedience pays".