The Incredible Adventures of Marco Polo

This reminded me of the kind of movie that Douglas Faurbanks or Errol Flynn would have starred in years ago and maybe the script has been kicking around that long. Don Diamont has the athletic prowess and good looks as the aforementioned did but his on-screen persona is very different,more low key and California laid back. To his credit, however, he never gets upstaged by either Oliver Reed or Jack Palance,two of the greatest character actors of the twentieth century, a feat in itself. The same cannot be said of the actress who played the Princess, Lara Bobroff. I felt particulary sorry for her because she was in a completely different movie than everybody else. This is a sword fighting adventure romp and Bobroff I got the impression seemed to think she was making a serious historical drama, hence she never got into the swing of things and had the fun with the role that she could have had and would have made her performance more memorable. I split the difference on this one and rated it 5/10, meaning it could have been better and it could have been worse. In conclusion, and I could be way off base here, but I think that even though the movie is entitled "The Adventures of Marco Polo" the character Diamont played was actually supposed to be Marco Polo, Jr. And that is why he makes a number of references to his father's adventures in China and the plot has nothing to do with anything I can ever remember reading about the real Marco Polo and his adventures!

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.

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.

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.

Historical movies always take liberties -- conversations are concocted where no one could actually know what was said, customs are adjusted to be comprehensible to modern audiences, etc. However, historical films about actual historical personages should make at least a minimal nod to history. This film does not. The only scene I actually remember is when our hero surprises an assassin who creeps into his chamber at night. He confronts the dangerous intruder with, "I don't remember sending for room service". The main entertainment value is in its badness; I recommended my local video story put it on the "Turkeys" shelf.