Kattiera Nana I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

Hellen I like the storyline of this show,it attract me so much

WillSushyMedia This movie was so-so. It had it's moments, but wasn't the greatest.

Ogosmith Each character in this movie — down to the smallest one — is an individual rather than a type, prone to spontaneous changes of mood and sometimes amusing outbursts of pettiness or ill humor.

Livewire242 As long as you go into this movie with the understanding that it's not going to contain any historical fact whatsoever, it's not bad.It's on par with Sam Raimi's "Hercules: The Legendary Journeys", as far as plot, acting, humour, and production values are concerned. You'll see the similarities at several points. Most of the fight scenes are not as good however and the film suffers from that.Jack Palance commands the screen as well as ever, and at no time do you have the impression he's giving anything less than his level best. Same for Oliver Reed. The problem is that their strong performances make square-jawed Don Diamont's less-than-stellar acting skills seem even more awkward. Perennial bit player Cas Anvar was very good as well, playing a character much like Salmonius in the aforementioned Hercules.If you enjoyed the low budget swords-and-sorcery movies of the early 80s, you're probably going to enjoy this show as well. It's actually a shame they attached the Marco Polo name to it. It really has nothing to do with Marco's life, contrary to the expectations of most of the people who will want to watch this movie.

diggler_inc This film has its moments and Don Diamont makes a good swashbuckler. However, it is extremely low budget and very slow at times. I watched this film because I am interested in history and Marco Polo's adventures in China, however, he doesn't get anywhere near china in the film. The only recognisable actor in the film is Jack Palance. Obvisiously he owed someone a favor.This is a film with plenty of flaws that manages to entertaining in brief moments. Still i can't recommend it. It is a turkey.This would be best viewed on Mystery Sciece Theater 3000.

Katatonia As far as TV movies go i thought this was really good. I've seen it twice and wouldn't mind a third viewing. Although it is historically flawed did not matter to me. I view this as more of a fantasy movie than being a historical account. I don't believe it was meant to be taken seriously as a true account of Polo's stories (which many are doubtful or stretched themselves).The acting throughout the picture, for the most part, is surprisingly good and well executed. The set designs and backdrops are excellent and quite colorful. I won't get into the fact that the costumes are also historically inaccurate, i could care less truthfully.Check it out, you may just like it...just don't expect Polo's real life adventures (fantasies?) on the screen.

elwinter Historical movies always take liberties -- conversations are concocted where no one could actually know what was said, customs are adjusted to be comprehensible to modern audiences, etc. However, historical films about actual historical personages should make at least a minimal nod to history. This film does not. The only scene I actually remember is when our hero surprises an assassin who creeps into his chamber at night. He confronts the dangerous intruder with, "I don't remember sending for room service". The main entertainment value is in its badness; I recommended my local video story put it on the "Turkeys" shelf.