Marco Polo

2007
5.9| 2h46m| PG| en
Details

Assigned to accompany two priests on a mission to convert the court of Kublai Khan to Christianity, Marco Polo is abandoned in the mountains when the priests, doubting the very existence of China, turn back. Polo eventually pushes bravely forth alone toward the fabled country where he is accepted as an envoy into Khan's court. Marooned on the far side of the world, Polo, accompanied by his servant, Pedro, advances as a Mongol grandee for twenty extraordinary years. What he eventually brings back with him to the West is a chronicle that changed history forever.

Director

Producted By

RHI Entertainment

AD
AD

Watch Free for 30 Days

All Prime Video Movies and TV Shows. Cancel anytime. Watch Now

Trailers & Clips

Reviews

Mjeteconer Just perfect...
GazerRise Fantastic!
Comwayon A Disappointing Continuation
Lidia Draper Great example of an old-fashioned, pure-at-heart escapist event movie that doesn't pretend to be anything that it's not and has boat loads of fun being its own ludicrous self.
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.
okky-1 I rented this movie as I love history. I had not heard of this made for TV movie and so based on past experience (ie when movies have no reviews or decent advertising campaigns or they go straight to DVD)I did not hold out much hope for it.Unfortunately I was proved right. Whilst I give full marks to the wonderful settings and locations which were extremely good the acting was poor with no apparent eye to detail. It seemed the movie was rushed and what started out as a potentially good premise soon had me cringing. I battled through because I wanted to know more about the adventures of Polo. I have since looked him up on Wikipedia so something positive came out of it :) The person responsible for casting Dennehy as Khan needs to be fired.I thought Khan was from Mongolia and was oriental? It was laughable. Also ethnic Chinese who speak fluent English with an American accent just doesn't cut it. This doesn't make sense when other Chinese characters in the movie spoke speak Mandarine/Cantonese with no sub titles.I am assuming their were liberal interpretations of the truth as to historical accuracy but then most supposedly true stories do this as well so I don't have any issues there.Had so much potential but sadly let down. I guess the production ran out of money.
pwhite60-1 What hope is there when even the films buyer/screener doesn't know the plot as the Plot Summary indicates - "Marco Polo is abandoned in the mountains when the priests, doubting the very existence of China, turn back. Polo eventually pushes bravely forth alone toward the fabled count - Written by Hallmark Channel". It seems they didn't even bother to watch the first 10-15 minutes to know that his father and uncle still accompanied him after the two priests (possibly the worst actors in the whole show) turned back.Like others I agree the script, acting and casting was pretty atrocious for the European and 'name stars' and were mismatched to the possibly great movie that could have been if the production locations and costuming were better matched. I thought the era of trying to pass off Europeans (Dennehy) as Orientals had ceased and it was obvious the Asian actors were far better than the so called stars. At least back in the 50's and 60's all the actors and extras looked fake when playing foreigners of a different race. It is even more glaring when they are used alongside far better actors of genuine racial type.However it did improve a lot after the first 30 minutes which had nearly made me switch it off.
artwk Given the fact that the makers had access to plenty of money, good costuming, and even to the locations (or convincing computer-generated substitutes), this could have been a very good historical movie.Alas,the derogatory comments on this site regarding script, acting, and casting are perfectly valid. Who on earth cast Brian Dennehy as an oriental? There are established oriental actors who look the part — John Lone would be an obvious choice.The real Marco Polo could speak Italian and French, and on his way to meet Kublai Khan may well have learned Turki, the language Kublai sometimes used in his written communications. But the ridiculous scene where they meet bears not the slightest resemblance to Marco Polo's real-life account, in which the great ruler was the soul of courtesy. Dennehy's grumpiness was pure fiction, like so much else in this tedious production.The question that begs to be asked is: if one wants to make a historical epic, why present bad fiction instead of interesting fact?