Camelot

Sturdy as the tale of Camelot is and despite both cinematic versions as well as the now famous musical based on the story, television has now taken on the tale and the results as seen by a solitary episode appear to be entertaining as well as a darker and more earthbound version of the dream kingdom of Camelot. As is usually the case with miniseries the writers vary from episode to episode (Michael Hirst, Thomas Malory, Louise Fox, Steve Lightfoot and Chris Chibnall) as well as the directors (Mikael Salomon, Ciaran Donnelly, Jeremy Podeswa, and Stefan Schwartz), but the cast remains the same and the overall feeling of the series is one that is seductively dark and has a real sense of a mixture of history and legend.

So far we have met King Uther as he dies passing on the crown to the King's unknown son Arthur (Jamie Campbell Bower), heretofore known as a commoner. Arthur's half sister Morgan (a sinister and beautiful Eva Green) is put in place as Arthur's nemesis, Arthur's journey to kingship is nurtured by Merlin (Joseph Fiennes), and weaving in and out of the opening episode are Queen Igraine (Claire Forlani) and the glowing Guinevere (Tamsin Egerton). Thus far the story is focused on a tough battle ahead for the charming young Arthur against the evil vixen Morgan. It seems to be developing well, but time will reveal whether it will be a worthy successor to the many other versions of the story. So far it is worth watching: the setting is gorgeous!

Grady Harp

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.

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.

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.

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.