Leofwine_draca MARCO POLO is a two part Hallmark TV miniseries chronicling the life and times of the famous Italian explorer who found himself at the court of Kublai Khan and famously wrote about his endless travels. Sadly the material is given an insipid, family-friendly feel in this resolutely silly and rather dull evocation of the material.The silliness is to be expected given the pedigree of British director Kevin Connor, who made the likes of AT THE EARTH'S CORE and THE LAND THAT TIME FORGOT back in the 1970s - films that look like masterpieces in comparison to this dull-witted nonsense. The plot sort of slides from scene to scene, with lukewarm melodrama throughout and a distinct lack of realism despite location filming in China.Ian Somerhalder is completely wooden as the uninteresting lead, although BD Wong (the scientist chap from JURASSIC PARK) is a little better as his wise slave. The oddest casting choice comes in the form of the larger-than-life Brian Dennehy, playing Khan; surely the most inappropriate choice for playing a Mongol since John Wayne played Genghis back in the day? For what it's worth, I much preferred the Shaw Brothers martial arts extravaganza MARCO POLO made back in the 1970s, starring Richard Harrison as the erstwhile explorer.

Jean-Mathieu Nichols This movie is so bad. It's seem that nobody in the film crew try or care to read the Marco Polo's book. Everything is wrong. Cheesy romantic and non-sense plot, to many fiction intrigues so badly glued in the script, tons of inaccuracy in facts, use of English for every character, bad casting (Brian Dennehy has Kublai Khan). For example, Marco Polo learn has is wrote in is book Le livre des Merveilles, the dead of Kublai Khan only in 1298, 4 years after is real dead. In the movie, Marco learn the dead of Kublai Khan while escorting the love of his life (awkward). It is easy to get they organized the plot for helping the romantic twist. But seriously, the life of Marco Polo has enough drama, discovery and hole to disorgonize facts in such big way. The movie has that texture of poor b series of the '80. Talking of the 80', the series (1982) made in those year is by miles superior. First, good historians had been hired has consultants with a clear desire to follow what we know about the travels of Polo.Next time, just thing of not using a prestigious name like Marco Polo or any historical name mater of fact just to get viewer interest.

nabilahjean The Travels of Marco Polo is a vast and informative account of a fascinating journey. The book was, anyway. The movie was a pretty film, but I think the only thing it had in common with the original account is some of the character's names and China itself. It was like a PC morality play rather than a portrayal of the events in the book. All the fascinating things Polo did and saw and all we got is that silly movie? I am not going to complain about the acting. There was no soul in the script. I thought the young man who played Marco Polo was as good a fit as I would have expected, physically. I don't know what they were thinking of with Dennehy. He is a fine actor, but I don't think they did justice to the Chinese people by having an Irishman play one of China's major historical figures.

sanduku I'm amazed-- did Dennehy never see or hear of "The Conqueror", starring John Wayne as Genghis Khan? Dennehy never get the belly laughs that John Wayne elicited, but-- why Brian, after such a stellar career???? The rest of the movie seems more than anything else a movie made by committee. My guess: somebody had a really brilliant idea, came up with a great story line, secured some of the greatest filming locations on Earth, and the future was very bright. Then one by one, people in the production process kept altering the plot, putting in formulaic details that were successful in other movies but inappropriate or laughable in this production (the martial arts fighting scenes come to mind), hiring on actors who were not at all fit for the parts, and the end result was this production that nobody actually owns or would really wish to own. It has so many great ingredients, but the movie should be a cautionary tale of just how bad of production can come from such great raw material. My condolences to all involved.(having had a couple of days to think over the post): I don't want to be too hard on the actors in this production. Hollywood is filled with world-class talented actors who will find themselves acting in just about anything to keep working. All the lead actors in this production have shown phenomenal performances in other roles, and likely would have done wonderful things here if allowed. This movie is such a turkey because it's so badly produced and directed (and, yes, acted), and everyone in the production process can probably point out reasons why they personally were not responsible for the parts that suck. I really do offer my condolences to the cast, this could and should have been a world-class production.My social-science take: high-budget turkeys like this are symptomatic of an organization where access to power and resources is become disconnected with any proved talent at using those resources wisely.