Camelot

:

Season 1
  • Network: Starz
  • Series Premiere Date: Feb 25, 2011
User Score
5.2

Mixed or average reviews- based on 49 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 18 out of 49
  2. Mixed: 19 out of 49
  3. Negative: 12 out of 49
Watch Now

Where To Watch

Buy on
Stream On

Review this tv show

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling

User Reviews

view
per page
  1. chrisking8613
    May 1, 2011
    0
    I loved the trailers!!! The actual series... Not so much. I figured that this would be very entertaining story driven series sort of like a mix of the tutors and Spartacus. Although I didn't work that way, I could somewhat tolerate the poor story and slow moments in the episodes. However, the lack to make this series feel like it happened in the past was just awful.
  2. LonelyBoy1105
    Apr 2, 2011
    4
    The show fails to live up to the Arthurian legends. Overall Morgan La Fey resembles too much on the original character of Queen Mab from the Merlin movie, especially her silly tries to imitate her voice. The rest of the cast is pretty much the same - boring and unoriginal. The plot is even worse, the way Merlin acquires Arthur from his foster parents its so "seen before" moment that willThe show fails to live up to the Arthurian legends. Overall Morgan La Fey resembles too much on the original character of Queen Mab from the Merlin movie, especially her silly tries to imitate her voice. The rest of the cast is pretty much the same - boring and unoriginal. The plot is even worse, the way Merlin acquires Arthur from his foster parents its so "seen before" moment that will make you cry. Harry Potter, Percy Jackson, and any other similar books and films include this introduction. "You are a King", "You are a Wizard", "You are a Greek demigod", "That's not me I am just an ordinary boy", "No you aren't, you are special and destined for something even greater"... Dialog SO REPETITIVE in the modern fiction that makes you wanna die. The only reason I give this show a grade so high is because of the Camelot castle itself and the great visuals. Overall not the worst show on earth, but only because its based on something very popular...… Expand
  3. Dukay66
    Jul 17, 2011
    6
    I wanted to love this show, and really get into it. I have watched all 10 episodes, and i am disappointed. This show has a lot of potential, good actors, and good premise. Its King Arthur, that is enough just to get people to tune in to it. All they have to do is just have a good story. Maybe it will get better with time...
  4. chazah
    Sep 24, 2013
    0
    Just watched first episode of Camelot... won't be watching anymore! Absolute rubbish! The guy playing the role of King Arthur is a joke! A puny, weak little wimp... killed it for me! A complete miscast. He was so goofy and his hair always seemed to be filthy, uncombed, and matted! He was not powerful enough and he just didn't make the role of Arthur believable at all. He's more like aJust watched first episode of Camelot... won't be watching anymore! Absolute rubbish! The guy playing the role of King Arthur is a joke! A puny, weak little wimp... killed it for me! A complete miscast. He was so goofy and his hair always seemed to be filthy, uncombed, and matted! He was not powerful enough and he just didn't make the role of Arthur believable at all. He's more like a gangly awkward teenager with acne. Now his foster brother, Kay, would have made a great King Arthur in this series, as he had more charisma, presence, looked more grown up and manly, and was far better looking too! It badly needed a stronger character for Arthur as the lead character has to be very good otherwise you lose the whole series and its just a flop!… Expand
  5. tr34
    Apr 4, 2011
    4
    Lightweight is the only way to describe this re-telling of Arthur. I was expecting Son's of Anarchy medieval and instead we got BBC's Merlin with boobs and swearing. Oh! Joseph what did you sign up to?
  6. Scarus
    May 19, 2011
    3
    I started watching this to help battle my withdrawal symptoms from waiting for the next episode of Game of Thrones. I'm up to episode 07 now, and I'm finding this increasingly more unwatchable every episode. While the young King Arthur might be good looking, I find his character completely unsympathetic, rather unbelievable and and even somewhat annoying. The thing that bothers me theI started watching this to help battle my withdrawal symptoms from waiting for the next episode of Game of Thrones. I'm up to episode 07 now, and I'm finding this increasingly more unwatchable every episode. While the young King Arthur might be good looking, I find his character completely unsympathetic, rather unbelievable and and even somewhat annoying. The thing that bothers me the most perhaps is that this whole thing has the feel of a cross between Robin Hood and Days of Our Lives, or even better yet, one of the Spanish Novelas that run nightly. Didn't the Knights of the Round Table wear Armor? I haven't seen any yet. I'm watching this on my computer and frequently just skip ahead a bit because what is happening onscreen is soooooo trite.

    I suppose I'll keep watching. I just wish I could find something better to watch.    … Expand
  7. martinex
    Apr 9, 2011
    7
    Two words make this show worth watching: Eva Green is absolutely delicious as the evil Morgan Le Fey. The story of King Arthur has been done to death but the events that led to his crowning is an interesting angle. Definitely interesting enough for continued viewing.
  8. historian
    Apr 2, 2011
    3
    Unlike Spartacus Blood and Sand, this one doesn't even try to sell you that it's a historical reenactment. Morgan La Fay apparently shops for her clothes on Hollowood Blvd., and buys her make up there while she's at it. No matter, there's plenty of sorcery too account for those dominatrix meets party at mom's skimpy clothing, and not too many actual cheap woolen mantles of the timeUnlike Spartacus Blood and Sand, this one doesn't even try to sell you that it's a historical reenactment. Morgan La Fay apparently shops for her clothes on Hollowood Blvd., and buys her make up there while she's at it. No matter, there's plenty of sorcery too account for those dominatrix meets party at mom's skimpy clothing, and not too many actual cheap woolen mantles of the time period, not to mention lots of phrases like The King is Dead, Long Live the King, which wasn't used until the time of Charles VII, which aws in the 15th century, almost 1,000 years later. The show gets a ten for James Purefoy, being all manly and capable, and a -7 for all the other things wrong with it. Hey at lest there
    some improbable female nudify - those hollywood blvd. party outfits that look like a vogue editorial shoot get featured quite a bit, but the plot mking sense? Fuggedaboudit.    … Expand
  9. Cchase
    Apr 6, 2011
    5
    As a huge fan of all Arthurian myths and legends I am hugely disappointed at the lack of any mythology above and beyond what you can find in the disney movie. I was hoping for either a modern retelling ala Jack Whyte's the sky stone or a true to the roots once and future king mythology soaked epic, instead we get main characters that seem better suited to the disney version as well, onlyAs a huge fan of all Arthurian myths and legends I am hugely disappointed at the lack of any mythology above and beyond what you can find in the disney movie. I was hoping for either a modern retelling ala Jack Whyte's the sky stone or a true to the roots once and future king mythology soaked epic, instead we get main characters that seem better suited to the disney version as well, only the villains really shine as intriguing and well acted whereas the rest of the cast and writers seem to squander what is some amazing potential with the budget and channel they have at their disposal. I will watch a few more episodes in hopes that it will blossom into something more mature and deep but in the meantime a have a gut feeling that in terms of acting/writing we should expect more BBC's Merlin than the station's previous Spartacus series or even HBO's upcoming Game of thrones which I think I will be watching instead come April 17th. Manage your expectations accordingly.… Expand
  10. claram
    May 2, 2011
    8
    This show is much better than I expected, based on some reviews and comparisons to Game of Thrones. It does seem to be a notch or two lower in quality (acting, production, writing) than GOT, but it is definitely worth watching and very entertaining. Love Joseph Feinnes in this role. What an improvement over Flashforward.
  11. PumpkinCellar
    Dec 1, 2011
    8
    A sadly unappreciated gem. The first season set off to bumpy beginnings - sadly now that it has found its feet it will not get the chance to achieve the glory it was working toward. It seems like setting up the chess board for checkmate and then scrapping the entire game. At it's weakest it was average - though when it was strong it was very strong. Eva Green is remarkable as Morgan -A sadly unappreciated gem. The first season set off to bumpy beginnings - sadly now that it has found its feet it will not get the chance to achieve the glory it was working toward. It seems like setting up the chess board for checkmate and then scrapping the entire game. At it's weakest it was average - though when it was strong it was very strong. Eva Green is remarkable as Morgan - I would recommend watching this show if only for her performance. Hopefully the decision to not renew for a second season is changed. This show is good enough to deserve a shot at a second season - the season finale is proof of that.… Expand
  12. JennetP
    Apr 4, 2011
    7
    What's with the complaining about historical anachronism? What history is relevant? The 5th or 6th century in which Arthur probably didn't live? The 12th in which his legends began to take shape? The 15th, era of the comprehensive Morte d'Arthur? The figure of Arthur always takes on the ideals of the current age, so it should surprise no one that "Camelot" teems with hot young actorsWhat's with the complaining about historical anachronism? What history is relevant? The 5th or 6th century in which Arthur probably didn't live? The 12th in which his legends began to take shape? The 15th, era of the comprehensive Morte d'Arthur? The figure of Arthur always takes on the ideals of the current age, so it should surprise no one that "Camelot" teems with hot young actors in leather and see-through chemises that magically drop off so they can have sex--bestial rutting for the bad guys and erotic worship for the good guys--before dashing off to kill someone. In that respect, "Camelot" is a lot like "Spartacus." It is, however, cheesier, largely due to its heavy-handed infusion of democratic ideals into Arthur's kingship--a fate "Spartacus" escaped by not managing to get out of the ludus and into the rebellion proper, where stirring speeches about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness would doubtless abound. Also cheesy is the constant reiteration of the wise nurture theme: Arthur was born a barbarian prince but raised by kindly Christians, and that rearing Makes All the Difference, although, as it seems not to have kept Arthur from ravishing the local virgins, I'm not entirely convinced. So what's good about the show? Unlike some others, I like the baby Arthur struggling with a role he never imagined--or wanted--and I think Jamie Campbell Bower is quite good in the part, showing flashes of incipient greatness as well as the insecurity one would expect of a 20-year-old insta-king. I like Joseph Fiennes's hard-assed Merlin, and I'm looking forward to learning more about the magic he abjured, which he recognizes in Morgan. As for Morgan, I wish the show's creators had been as creative in conceiving and casting her role as they were with Merlin, but here she is again with her signature pale skin and long, dark hair plotting the ruination of everything. Yawn. I did like her sparring with King Lot (James Purefoy, amazing as usual), but the solo glowering was a bit one-dimensional and overly indebted to dark eyeliner for its menace. Other plusses include great sets, especially Uther's/Morgan's palace and sections of the ruined Camelot. Oh, and it's nice to see Philip Winchester again, even with the improbable Beatle haircut.… Expand
  13. steeznuts
    Apr 5, 2011
    8
    Quit Whining! Ugh, who cares about the the Aurthur legends? This is a good show, not great, but definitely worth watching. The show is full of action, and if it doesn't follow the legend exactly, it's probably because it doesn't translate well to a series. Aurthur himself is a mediocre actor, but hopefully he grows into the character. This is a well done fantasy series, but if you're aQuit Whining! Ugh, who cares about the the Aurthur legends? This is a good show, not great, but definitely worth watching. The show is full of action, and if it doesn't follow the legend exactly, it's probably because it doesn't translate well to a series. Aurthur himself is a mediocre actor, but hopefully he grows into the character. This is a well done fantasy series, but if you're a real hardcore geek, you may want to check out Game of Thrones on HBO April 17th.… Expand
  14. TheKiddy
    Apr 3, 2011
    6
    I watched the first episode streaming at the Starz website and was pleasantly surprised. I am more Walking Dead than The Tudors -- I assume the latter's is the target audience -- but this is a fun watch so far!
  15. TheQuietGamer
    Jul 5, 2014
    7
    It's no Game of Thrones or even Starz Spartacus series, but there's enough blood, sex, and backstabbing to keep it entertaining. This new imagining of the tales of king Arthur might occasionally lack focus or even intelligence in it's plotting, but overall I never found myself bored with the experience. The twists kept me interested and the actors all fit in well with the showsIt's no Game of Thrones or even Starz Spartacus series, but there's enough blood, sex, and backstabbing to keep it entertaining. This new imagining of the tales of king Arthur might occasionally lack focus or even intelligence in it's plotting, but overall I never found myself bored with the experience. The twists kept me interested and the actors all fit in well with the shows interpretation of the characters, with the standout being Eva Green. I just wish the stakes were higher overall. It never really feels like the fate of the land is at stake no matter who sits on the throne, and that sort of makes it feel like a poor man's Game of Thrones. Overall it is highly flawed and could have used some more work, but what's here was entertaining enough to keep me watching throughout it's 10-episode run. For that I give it a 7.5/10=Good.… Expand
  16. Broyax
    Jan 23, 2023
    1
    Attention, il ne s’agit pas de notre camelote à nous (la connerie de série de merde avec l’autre gros con de connard, là….) mais d’une autre camelote ! un minimum plus sexy évidemment puisqu’on peut se rincer l’oeil de temps en temps (cette blonde qui fait Guenièvre, oh dis donc…) et bien sûr l’atout qui épargne la série de la nullité absolue, Eva Green dans le rôle de Morgane, la sorcièreAttention, il ne s’agit pas de notre camelote à nous (la connerie de série de merde avec l’autre gros con de connard, là….) mais d’une autre camelote ! un minimum plus sexy évidemment puisqu’on peut se rincer l’oeil de temps en temps (cette blonde qui fait Guenièvre, oh dis donc…) et bien sûr l’atout qui épargne la série de la nullité absolue, Eva Green dans le rôle de Morgane, la sorcière !

    C’est hélas à peu près tout, car après trois épisodes (sur une seule saison de 10), force est de constater le caractère résolument mauvais de cet ensemble décidément très mal écrit… et pourtant, il suffisait de suivre les fameuses légendes arthuriennes…! mais que voulez-vous, seul John Boorman dans un film pourtant obscur de 1980 a su retranscrire et magnifier, rendre hommage à cette légende des siècles anglo-saxonne ! et pourtant, les acteurs et les actrices, tous étaient (un peu comme ici) plus ou moins… inconnus.

    Or ici, justement, les moins connus et les plus connus sont plus ou moins décevants, voire pour la plupart carrément nuls à chier… cette andouille qui incarne Arthur par exemple, non mais franchement… quelle tache ! et le reste est à l’avenant, sans compter un problème de diversité qui n’a rien à faire là, parmi quelques figurants… non, messieurs-dames, aucun migrant ne traversait la manche en ce temps-là… aucun !

    De toute manière, la série se traîne et peine énormément à faire ressortir les enjeux de cette saga mirifique… elle ne fait que les effleurer, même le rôle d’Eva Green semble écorné et diminué, édulcoré… un comble quand on y pense ! une camelote de plus, donc, à notre grand dam.    … Expand
  17. FilipeNeto
    Feb 9, 2019
    3
    This series was made following many series and films that flooded the cinema and the TV with medieval themes. Despite their merits, it is impossible for all of them to conquer the audience, and this explains the failure of this series, where the heap of irritating situations and errors led the public to move away. To begin with, the series took the legends of King Arthur (well known) andThis series was made following many series and films that flooded the cinema and the TV with medieval themes. Despite their merits, it is impossible for all of them to conquer the audience, and this explains the failure of this series, where the heap of irritating situations and errors led the public to move away. To begin with, the series took the legends of King Arthur (well known) and altered them substantially to increase the dramatic effects and create a slightly different story, perhaps too unlikely to be "swallowed" by the public. Camelot is a ruined place, a castle from late Middle Ages, far from Roman military architecture. Religious problems surrounding pagans and christians are summed up in the most trivial insignificance, Avalon isn't even mentioned, Viviane is a maid and Morgana is a heartless villain, whose power and magic have a dark origin that's never properly explained. Arthur's knights are a bunch of unpleasant men, extras with half a dozen lines. Arthur himself is a beardless egocentric teenager who hardly has our sympathy and Merlin represses his powers for no reason. Lancelot is nowhere to be seen.

    The way the script and characters were designed was a problem but it works if you decide to forget about the Arthurian legends you've learned. However, the cast can be a problem as well. Joseph Fiennes could have been better in the role of Arthur as he wasn't convincing as Merlin and Jamie Campbell Bower was wooden in that role. Tamsin Egerton was a decent Guinevere but with little things to do... when she wasn't distress about her forbidden feelings she was just a body for the male audience to be glaring at. On the other hand, we have Eva Green. She is the only actress who truly shone, completely dominating the screen for lack of any actor capable to match her. The single bad thing about her was the abusive exploitation of her nakedness. There are also several problems concerning historical accuracy. The events occurs in the first centuries after the fall of the Roman Empire and the truth is that there are moments where we didn't know what age is that. Sex scenes are as hedonistic as in our own time, a lot of objects that would be expensive and luxurious at the time (like feminine adornments) are used even by peasants. Oh, and the end is absurdly open due to the sudden end of the series, cancelled due to it's own failure.

    To summarize: this series is far from matching everything I would expect and is far from faithfulness to the original story or the period portrayed. The cast is weak (Eva Green is the single exception), the characters are uninteresting, the ending is lousy and open. However, it still allows for a few hours of entertainment if you're able to ignore these problems.    … Expand

Awards & Rankings

94
#94 Best TV Season of 2011
57
#57 Most Discussed TV Season of 2011
45
#45 Most Shared TV Season of 2011

Critic Reviews

All reviews »
Metascore
58

Mixed or average reviews - based on 26 Critic Reviews

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 11 out of 26
  2. Mixed: 13 out of 26
  3. Negative: 2 out of 26
  1. Wall Street Journal
    Reviewed by: Nancy DeWolf Smith
    Apr 8, 2011
    70
    Some fans apparently don't think the sloe-eyed blond actor Jamie Campbell Bower is studly and thrusting enough for Arthur. But boyishness gives him room to grow, and there is plenty that's masterly about Joseph Fiennes as Merlin, who is occasionally seen in a studded hoodie and always shrouded in mystery, but other otherwise all man.
    Read full review
  2. Slant Magazine
    Reviewed by: Phillip Maciak
    Apr 7, 2011
    50
    It's not easy, with all the silly one-liners, oddball plot twists, and frat-party ambience, to get terribly invested in who will win the power struggle that Camelot dramatizes. But if Fiennes and Green could stage a coup, wresting control of the show from its tawdrier impulses, then that might just be something worth watching.
    Read full review
  3. Miami Herald
    Reviewed by: Glenn Garvin
    Apr 7, 2011
    80
    Starz, however, has re-imagined the doings of Arthur, Guinevere and the gang as a bloody, bodice-ripping medieval soap opera, and the result is surprisingly satisfying.
    Read full review
See all critic reviews »