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!

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.

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.

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.