Camelot - Season 1 [DVD]

"Camelot" is a bit of a mixed bag. It has its good points, to be sure, but it also has its bad points, and whether the negatives outweigh the positives is something that I think is going to be down to individual tastes - already the series is receiving rather mixed reviews. So let's break this down.

The Good:

* The cinematography. Money has been poured into this production and you can really see it here. Sweeping vistas, use of CGI, even the title credits look slick and are thematically and artistically very similar to "The Tudors" and "The Borgias" (not too much of a surprise as some of the same people also worked on "Camelot" and apparently the show was aiming to follow in that vein).

* The cast. Again, one can sense the big spending here. You've got Eva Green as Morgan Pendragon, Joseph Fiennes as Merlin, Sean Pertwee as Sir Ector, and James Purefoy as King Lot. All bring a lot to their roles, putting in layered performances that bring the characters to life. Some of the lesser known, younger members of the cast such as Peter Mooney also succeed in pulling out some good, solid acting here.

* The show isn't afraid to be dark. Unlike the BBC's "Merlin", "Camelot" is much darker and contains a good deal more blood, sex, and language - most definitely aimed at adults, not children. If you felt that "Merlin" was a bit too wet behind the ears, you'll appreciate the darker "Camelot".

The Bad:

* Jamie Campbell Bower has been miscast as King Arthur. Arthur, who is after all the hero of the Arthurian legends, seems to be a whiny teenager here, cast on the basis of his prettiness. The character comes off as basically decent, but careless, reckless, driven by lust, sulky, and totally ignorant of the consequences of his actions. Not exactly kingly material, and not a patch on the legendary heroic Arthur; brave, thoughtful, wise. Also the writers have flipped around the whole Lancelot/Guinevere tale so that in "Camelot" Arthur is "in love" with Guinevere, a woman married to one of his knights named Leontes. I say "in love" but it seems like simple teenaged lust to me - Arthur's off declaring his undying love within a day of knowing Guinevere. My guess is the writers took this choice because they want to make Arthur seem like more of a hero and the guy who gets the girl, not the cuckolded victim as in the legend. The problem is it makes Arthur come off as a jerk for dallying with a married woman - Merlin even tells him to "cover this up" when it threatens to come out or he'll lose his crown. Gee, does this seem like the kind of guy who people would revere as "the once and future king"?

* The writing. Even the good acting from the majority of the cast can't overcome the poor writing. There are plotholes and logic failures everywhere, and more than once the plot relies on character stupidity, when in the real world it wouldn't take a genius to start asking questions and the whole thing falls apart like a house of cards. This was evident from the opening scenes of the series and continues right the way through to the end. Unfortunately for the producers and the tv network, bad writing can kill a series no matter how much money you invest in the show (and apparently that was a lot in the case of "Camelot").

In America the show received underwhelming viewing figures and has been permanently cancelled - the feeling does seem to be that the bad points outweighed the good, and given the viewing figures and the money poured into the project it wasn't making a high enough return. For me, I can definitely see the positives in the show but I did feel that the negatives, mainly the bad writing, simply brought the show down. As the show is so hit and miss with people though I'd advise catching an episode and if you really love it then think about forking out for it, rather than buying it sight unseen. I don't think I'll be adding "Camelot" to my DVD collection, but it has enough positives that it seems to me a good number of people could still enjoy it if it's their thing.

This is an excellent Blu-Ray and very welcome (if late) release for those who thought Starz was only going to put out a DVD. If you're a UK customer, be advised that this is a Region A (i.e US) encoded disc that is unlikely to play on your UK-spec Blu-Ray player. If you have a Blu-Ray equipped PC with a software player that will accept a region code switch, then that's a good workaround.

I love King Arthur and his legendary knights, whether it's gritty "historical" stories or a pile of medieval anachronisms a la Malory.

But the once and future king has really gotten more than his fair share of rotten movies and TV, and the latest disaster is "Camelot." No, not the Broadway musical or the movie adaptation -- this is Starz's attempt at updating the timeless Arthurian legends (which don't NEED updating), which just turns into a silly, sloppy and overly PC mess.

The evil princess Morgan (Eva Green) murders her father Uther, exiles her stepmother, and allies herself with her dad's enemy King Lot. But Merlin (Joseph Fiennes) is having none of this, and hunts down Uther's secret illegitimate son Arthur (Jamie Campbell Bower), who has been raised by an adoptive family in the country. With Merlin's guidance and training (in rock-climbing), Arthur claims the throne --and gains Morgan's wrath.

He also falls in love with Guinevere (Tamsin Egerton), the beautiful young wife of a loyal knight, and is deftly manipulated by Merlin in decidedly unmagical ways, sometimes with bloody outcomes. As young Arthur struggles to unite Britain under him, he must deal with Morgan constantly trying to undermine his rule and his power -- but with little idea of just how far she will go.

The idea behind "Camelot" is not a bad one, and even the rewriting of Arthurian lore (the origins of Excalibur) aren't that bad. The problem is in the execution. This series wants to be a plot-heavy, gritty, authentic "Game of Thrones"-esque story, but it's actually more of a silly, anachronistic BCC "Robin Hood" (complete with multiculturalism and modern feminism, which makes it doubly ridiculous).

Yeah, this is one of those series where the costumes, sets, perfectly-coiffed hair and even some of the beautiful scenery all feel like they were lifted from a Renaissance Faire. There's no feeling of timeless grandeur, epicness or awe -- instead, it sometimes feels like "King Arthur: The Legendary Journeys." Additionally, the main storyline is.... rather weak, especially since the straightforward Morgan's plans for overthrowing Arthur get downright silly.

As for the acting, it's a mixed bag. Fiennes is wonderfully conniving and Machievellian as Merlin, almost to the point of being villainous, Peter Mooney is dynamic as Kay, and Green is brilliantly wrenching as a destructive yet wronged young woman.

However, Bower's Arthur is a massive twerp, with zero presence or charisma. He's a skinny surfer-dudeish kid whose appeal is honestly a total mystery. I mean, his Arthur only decides to become king because HE CAN SCORE WITH GIRLS. Who can take that seriously? As for Egerton, she's painfully awkward and rather flat, and her character is Mary-Sueish to the extreme.

"Camelot" is a painful experience -- not just because it's a lackluster, weakly-plotted series, but because it could have easily been so much more. Give it a pass.