Camelot : Season 1

  • Network: Starz
  • Series Premiere Date: Apr 1, 2011
User Score
5.4

Mixed or average reviews- based on 47 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 18 out of 47
  2. Negative: 10 out of 47

Where To Watch

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

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. 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
Metascore
58

Mixed or average reviews - based on 26 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 11 out of 26
  2. Negative: 2 out of 26
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.