Camelot

Only a Canadian production company could have come up with a piece of tripe such as this! A poorly written and at times hilarious script combined with ham bone acting worthy of William Shatner in Star Trek is only surpassed by the bizarre casting of a simpering little wimp for Arthur and a Valley girl Guinevere. Does anyone really believe that battle hardened and cynical barons and knights with their very existences at stake would allow themselves to be led by this skinny little wimp Arthur who looks like he's barely strong enough to lift a sword, never mind wield it? And this Guinevere couldn't launch a row boat, never mind a thousand ships.

Save your time. Clean the lint out of your navel rather than watch this fourth rate production. You'll be better off.

The Arthurian legend has been remade time and time again. While this version bears a little more resemblance than BBC's Merlin series, it's not by much. I enjoyed the changes though and found them refreshing, keeps you wondering what they might change or how a well-known character will fit into their story. It can feel a little low budget at times and some scenes do feel pointless or drawn out which can make for slow episodes where not much happens Also, many feel the actor who plays Arthur was poorly cast; however, he is supposed to be 16 in this show so that helps you get over the fact he is unimposing and the writers make him a bit whiny. That said, the acting by Morgan is superb, Merlin will leave you wondering with those faces-that such a brilliant gift can cause so much angst-, the costumes are great, and the scenery is nice. The plot is, finally, beginning to thicken in an unexpected way too. So if you like this time period, with a little fantasy, and a big twist on the tale of King Arthur then give it a try, it's entertaining.

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.

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.

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.