Camelot

There are two shows about Arthur on TV at present. One has as much distance from the legend as if I were Arthur. The other, this version, lacks only a better actor in the role of Arthur. Everyone else is magnificent. Every other role has the right casting with the right actresses and actors playing their parts so very well. Claire Forlani as Queen Igraine is absolutely gorgeous.Eva Green as Morgana is perfect in her role. Peter Mooney, Clive Standen, indeed each and every one of the cast, except for Jamie Bower as Arthur, portrays their part with great style and credibility. And, yes, the amazing Mr Fiennes steals the show with his brilliance. He must receive an award or two for his talented rendition of the great Merlin.

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.

CAMELOT is the latest fantasy/historical TV series to follow in the wake of PILLARS OF THE EARTH. It attempts to breathe new life into the Arthurian legends, making them fresh and sexy for modern audiences. It's not entirely successful – after poor ratings it was cancelled after the first series – but I found it never less than entertaining, even if it lacks the quality of something like ROME.

For much of the running time, CAMELOT plays out like a decent soap opera. There's adultery, murder, love, deceit, rivalry and betrayal, something for everyone. The cast is mostly populated by youthful, up-and-coming actors with a couple of more seasoned veterans thrown in along the way. Many people criticise Jamie Campbell Bower's Arthur for being a young and sickly-looking weed, but I didn't find him too bad at all and his transformation from mild-mannered country boy at the outset to ruthless and cold-blooded ruler at the end is a convincing one.

Surrounding Bower are a bunch of actors seemingly picked for their beauty, but it's fair to say they're pretty good actors too (American Philip Winchester, for instance, delivers a pitch-perfect performance as the loyal Leontes). Bald-headed Joseph Fiennes bags the role of Merlin, and he plays it with a sinister suaveness that doesn't disappoint. The arresting Eva Green stars as Morgan, the villain of the piece, and she shrieks, hisses and plots with the best of them; it's fair to say that Fiennes and Green steal every scene they're in.

Along the way we get some decent cameos (James Purefoy is particularly good as the larger-than-life Lot, while grizzled veterans Sean Pertwee, Liam Cunningham and Daragh O'Malley also appear) and some bloodshed and nudity that push this series firmly into the realm of a fairytale for adults. Historical realism is nowhere to be found but the show looks good, with decent money spend on the costumes. One thing it doesn't do very well is action, with one late-stage battle that looks extremely pathetic – literally half a dozen extras milling around a field. Never mind: CAMELOT works best when it focuses on the likes of Morgan's scheming, an ill-fated love triangle and good, old-fashioned escapism. I liked it, and I'm sorry it won't be coming back.

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.