Marco Polo

Don't you just love the fact that everybody, and I mean everybody speaks English in this movie. Regardless if they're Italian merchants, afghan doctors, poor Mongol peasants, Mongol nobles or even Persian warriors. At first the actors at least speak with an accent. But further into the movie the actors forget to add the accent. I thought that the first problem an Italian guy would have when he arrives in 13th century China is to communicate, but not in this movie. The makers of the movie doesn't even pretend that there are difficulties in communicating, which is common in other movies, even if they both speak English.

To add to the credibility of this movie the roll of Kublai Khan is played by Brian Dennehy. Don't get me wrong, I like Brian Dennehy as an actor. But he hardly looks like a Khan of the Mongol Empire. The makers of the movie, again, doesn't seem to care. At least his character gets old. Which is not something you could say about Marco Polo, played by Ian Somerhalder. The only difference in his appearance is when he's in the prison in Genoa. And the difference? You guessed it! They add more beard to his face.

Overall a very bad movie. It's not worth wasting your time on.

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".

I'm amazed-- did Dennehy never see or hear of "The Conqueror", starring John Wayne as Genghis Khan? Dennehy never get the belly laughs that John Wayne elicited, but-- why Brian, after such a stellar career???? The rest of the movie seems more than anything else a movie made by committee. My guess: somebody had a really brilliant idea, came up with a great story line, secured some of the greatest filming locations on Earth, and the future was very bright. Then one by one, people in the production process kept altering the plot, putting in formulaic details that were successful in other movies but inappropriate or laughable in this production (the martial arts fighting scenes come to mind), hiring on actors who were not at all fit for the parts, and the end result was this production that nobody actually owns or would really wish to own. It has so many great ingredients, but the movie should be a cautionary tale of just how bad of production can come from such great raw material. My condolences to all involved.

(having had a couple of days to think over the post): I don't want to be too hard on the actors in this production. Hollywood is filled with world-class talented actors who will find themselves acting in just about anything to keep working. All the lead actors in this production have shown phenomenal performances in other roles, and likely would have done wonderful things here if allowed. This movie is such a turkey because it's so badly produced and directed (and, yes, acted), and everyone in the production process can probably point out reasons why they personally were not responsible for the parts that suck. I really do offer my condolences to the cast, this could and should have been a world-class production.

My social-science take: high-budget turkeys like this are symptomatic of an organization where access to power and resources is become disconnected with any proved talent at using those resources wisely.

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.