Self-important, over-dramatic, uninspired.

Overrated

a film so unique, intoxicating and bizarre that it not only demands another viewing, but is also forgivable as a satirical comedy where the jokes eventually take the back seat.

Mostly, the movie is committed to the value of a good time.

A NEW LOOK AT THE CLASSIC ARTHURIAN TALECamelot gives some interesting turns to the classical story we have all known from childhood. Some of these turns , depending on the person, can be good or bad, but as a general commentary I want to say this series is completely worth-watching.In this review that is placed at the level of the general series, I want to give you my general feeling about the series. For more specific comments, please take a look at my reviews for specific episodes.With a "less than perfect" Merlin and a "very less than perfect" Arthur they found a formula for an interesting refresh of the old Arthurian legend. They also showed us the most evil, astute and mischievous Morgan that we have seen in a long, long time; a great villain.Nevertheless, in my opinion the series started becoming less interesting when the imperfections of Merlin and Arthur seemed so big that they did not seem similar at all to the incredibly high standard that we normally have of them.In essence, I would say it is definitely a series worth watching but be prepared if the first episodes make you very enthusiastic and the following chapters don't pay to your enthusiasm properly. Now, in my very personal opinion, I think that they had a chance at the mere beginning of making a very epic series but they only accomplished to give us a more or less interesting variation of a very epic classic story. I give them, nevertheless, a nine out of ten stars because of trying, because I believe that brave new versions most be highly encouraged, even when they don't pay enough; as in classic tales...bravery must be supported!!!Thanks for reading.IMDb review by David del Real Ciudad de México, México. September, 2017.

'Camelot' was not bad, at least I managed to sit through all 10 episodes. However, I wouldn't say it was a series with potential. The cliffhanger ending indicates clearly that a season 2 was planned, but never made. 'Camelot' obviously did not succeed, arguably due to a lack of understanding why 'Game of Thrones' was successful at the same time. The comparison seems inevitable because the outline of both reads similar: a struggle for power after the old king was murdered, bastard children, different religions and magic at work in a barbarian age with new wars breaking out every Wednesday. 'Camelot' even clumsily attempted to add a few sex scenes to be more like HBO productions, I guess. But the recipe for success is not about the sex and violence.'Camelot' has a very simple structure of good king vs his evil sister and their respective allies. Merlin (Joseph Fiennes) is the most interesting character because he has at least a dark side when he steals the sword for his king from a girl's cold dead hands. But Arthur (Jamie Campbell Bower) remains imbecile throughout the series, often doing something stupid to appear reckless, but mostly appearing... well, blond. Guinevere (Tamsin Egerton) is so sweet your teeth hurt. Morgan (Eva Green) and Igraine (Claire Forlani) are played by very good actresses, but they are limited with these characters. 'Game of Thrones' didn't have the dividing line between good and evil characters. A murderer could become a good guy, a dwarf a hero or a good king a fanatic butcher, you never knew which directions they would take, and all characters were capable to do good AND evil things. 'Camelot' holds little surprise though, follows a predictable path and remains a cartoon image without depth. Voted 5/10.

While I can appreciate the concept for this version of the story of King Arthur, I didn't enjoy it. It wasn't the acting, or the actors they chose to play certain roles. It was the clunky dialog. Eva Green was fantastic as Morgan LeFey. This take on Merlin was rather awesome. I also didn't like that they made Arthur whiny so quickly, he got all bend out of shape because some random girl he had a dream about was engaged years before he knew she existed, thats rather childish if you ask me. They also never really make a point to say how old he is supposed to be, the actor sounds really young, but I know he's around my age. I also think its a bit weird that he is so frail looking. Being a farm boy you'd think he would have some muscle definition. There are so many takes on this classic tale and this show had such potential, I just felt that it came up short. I don't know if there will be a second season, but if there is maybe the writers can take notes from disappointed fans and fix the things that need fixing.

The cast for the series is weak, exceptions being Joseph Fiennes and Eva Green, specially Jamie Campbell Bower who simply doesn't fit the role of Arthur. The first episodes were promising (even though Arthur is portrayed like a spoiled brat in the first one) but i soon got bored as there are no real developments and Morgan's machinations seem somewhat idiotic. I stopped watching in the seventh episode when Arthur all of a sudden is left alone in a ridiculous fort to fend off an attack by Morgan's forces. That episode was it for me, couldn't watch it anymore. The writers and directors had to do a better a job. If it's the lack of money that's bringing the show down, then just don't do it. Please don't ruin a good story. The show isn't the worst ever but it's not good either. No surprise about the cancellation.