Marco Polo (2007)
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.
Watch Trailer
Cast
Similar titles
Reviews
Sadly Over-hyped
It's a mild crowd pleaser for people who are exhausted by blockbusters.
This is a coming of age storyline that you've seen in one form or another for decades. It takes a truly unique voice to make yet another one worth watching.
It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.
I find Ian Somerhalder's performance in Marco Polo very refreshing. It's by far his best performance in a movie.The story line is very interesting written, we are following Marco Polo in his quest and the story it's actually accounted to his cell mate in prison.Each scene is filled with all very relevant historical details and Kevin Connor has the full credit for it. The dialogues are sometimes funny, sometimes filled with meaning but most of the time they are filled with history.All in all Marco Polo It's a good movie that can teach you a lesson or two from the world history.Ian can be the guy next door ready to play whatever - from the sexy vampire to the old full of wisdom scientist or adventurer like Indiana Jones or even Jesus of Nazareth.
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.
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.
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?