As Aventuras de Marco Polo

OH MY GOD.... i thught i was like 50 mintues into this movie, thats about an hour and half, and i was only at about 30, so slow, slow boring, mind numbenly painfull, no no no

OH MY GOD.... i thught i was like 50 mintues into this movie, thats about an hour and half, and i was only at about 30, so slow, slow boring, mind numbenly painfull, no no no

OH MY GOD.... i thught i was like 50 mintues into this movie, thats about an hour and half, and i was only at about 30, so slow, slow boring, mind numbenly painfull, no no no

OH MY GOD.... i thught i was like 50 mintues into this movie, thats about an hour and half, and i was only at about 30, so slow, slow boring, mind numbenly painfull, no no no.

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 movie began as a historical account and then degenerated into a very poor adventure tale with ridiculously choreographed fights and no plot whatsoever. It's historical accuracy is non-existent. However, if you like Jack Palance or Oliver Reed their performances attract the only attention this movie deserves, even if they had utterly stupid lines. I couldn't finish this movie and returned it without even rewinding it.

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.

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.