Review: Starz's 'Camelot' & Showtime's 'The Borgias' tell history/mythology as soap opera
Some fine actors, lots of nudity, and fairly dull shows
Jamie Campbell Bower as King Arthur in "Camelot."
"The Tudors" is dead, but its history-as-soap-opera style lives on with two new series debuting this weekend: Starz's "Camelot" (Friday at 10 p.m.) and Showtime's "The Borgias" (Sunday at 9 p.m.). "Camelot" borrows "The Tudors" creator, Michael Hirst, while "The Borgias" airs on "The Tudors" old channel, and both are very much in the same spirit, where history or mythology are largely excuses for whispered palace intrigue, love triangles and as much nudity and simulated sex as pay cable will allow while still leaving time for a story.
There's definitely an audience for that approach, but lord did I find both of these shows tiresome.
"Camelot" is probably the better of the two, though it also has the handicap that there have been so many King Arthur-themed projects lately (including the BBC's "Merlin," which currently airs here on Syfy) that virtually none of it can possibly be new, or surprising.
Still, Jamie Campbell Bower (Caius from the "Twilight" films) isn't bad as the young king, whom we meet as he's having the crown thrust upon him by Merlin (Joseph Fiennes). Hirst and co-creator Chris Chibnall ("Torchwood") have conceived of Arthur at this stage as a wide-eyed kid learning as he goes, and Bower sells both that and those brief moments where Arthur is able to dig deeper and inspire his new army of knights.
And Eva Green is quite good (and also frequently nude, this being a show on the same network as "Spartacus") as Arthur's treacherous, magic-wielding half-sister Morgan. Her character has to constantly shift back and forth between insanity and cunning, charm and anger, and Green makes it all work as a whole, demonstrating the charisma and screen presence she showed back in "Casino Royale."
Fiennes, unfortunately but unsurprisingly (if you've seen him in virtually anything he's done since "Shakespeare in Love," including ABC's "FlashForward"), is a blank, choosing the play the mysterious Merlin largely by growling. And the series as a whole seems much more interested in the love triangle involving Arthur, his bravest knight Leontes (Philip Winchester) and the beautiful Guinevere (Tamsin Egerton) than in actually showing the growth of a king. It doesn't help that parts of that story are bizarrely anachronistic, like a scene where Guinevere says of Leontes, "What if he isn't... the one?" (I presume a later episode will feature Merlin telling Leontes, "She's just not that into you.")
Still, the ongoing identity crisis of "Camelot" is a tiny bit more entertaining than the more consistent tedium of "The Borgias," which tells the tale of the infamous 15th century Spanish family, whose patriarch Rodrigo became one of history's most controversial popes. That show has a more impressive pedigree - created by "The Crying Game" director Neil Jordan, and starring Jeremy Irons as Rodrigo - yet it would be hard to imagine a Hirst-penned version being any different, and Irons seems surprisingly bored by the whole project.
Irons briefly lights up on occasion when he's asked to deliver a joke, like his incredulous reaction when his wife (Joanne Whalley) suggests he will have to stick to a vow of poverty once he becomes pope. A black comedy version of this story, about an incredibly selfish and cruel man somehow ascending to the holiest job on the planet, would be a lot of fun, but those moments are few and far between. It's a very straightforward, sincere, dull accounting of all the trouble caused by Rodrigo, son Cesare (Francois Arnaud, frequently nude), daughter Lucrezia (Holliday Grainger) and company cause with their newfound power and station.
Of course, I felt exactly the same about "The Tudors," and that show ran four seasons. I'm not the target audience for either of these new series. But when I saw that Jordan and Irons were involved, I allowed myself a scintilla of hope for "The Borgias," only to be rewarded in much the same way the College of Cardinals was when they wound up anointing Rodrigo.
Alan Sepinwall may be reached at sepinwall@hitfix.com
News From Our Partners
-
The Telefile - Modern Family: The Best Lines of the Night
The Telefile - Fall TV 2013: What's On When
The Telefile - TNT & TBS Upfront 2013: Reaping What Other Networks Sowed
-
Crosstalk: A fan and a newbie catch up on the first season of The Venture Bros.
AVQ&A: What are your favorite and least favorite cultural baits and switches?
Podmass: The Dice Man infiltrates podcasting, Casey Wilson chokes up on The JV Club, and Kumail vs. Maron
-
Who Won 'American Idol' 2013?
'The Office' Finale: Michael Scott's Surprise Appearance
And Your New 'American Idol' Is ...
-
'The Office' Series Finale Review: "Finale"
'Anger Management' Review: "Charlie and the Break-Up Coach"
'Hannibal' Review: "Fromage"
-
'Pacific Rim' Trailer Surfaces: Watch Now!
'Star Trek Into Darkness': The Reviews Are In!
Emma Watson In 'The Bling Ring': The Early Reviews Are In!
-
Critics Consensus: Star Trek Into Darkness is Certified Fresh
Red Carpet Roundup: Star Trek Into Darkness Edition
Video Interviews with Katie Aselton & Lake Bell of Black Rock
-
What to Watch This Weekend: The Season Finales of Nikita, Doctor Who, The Simpsons, and Family Guy
What to Watch Tonight: The Office's Big Farewell and the Season Finales of TVD, Elementary, and Five More
Supernatural Season 8 Finale Review: It's Raining Angels
-
'Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon II': The Oscar-Winning Movie is Getting a Sequel
'The Bling Ring' Cannes Premiere: Emma Watson Steals the Show (PHOTOS)
Why Brad Bird Turned Down 'Star Wars: Episode VII'; Talks 'Incredibles' Sequel
Get Instant Alerts on What's Alan Watching
Latest Posts
-
Dwight gets married and the staff revisits the documentary in a lovely farewellThursday, May 16, 2013
-
Lecter becomes interested in a local killer, and Will begins hearing thingsThursday, May 16, 2013
-
A show that shouldn't have worked instead became a great, popular, influential oneThursday, May 16, 2013
-
Some experimenting, but mostly the same old, successful CBSWednesday, May 15, 2013


Comments
Option 1
Comment instantly as a guest GuestOption 2
Option 3
Login or create a HitFix account Login SignupSloshkosh
March 31, 2011 at 9:25AM EST Reply to CommentAs a professional historian I always get half excited for this shows before I remember that they really just exist for the soap opera drama. That said - my fiancee loved The Tudors and Spartacus. My guess is that this weekend will make her very happy!
Stiffythekid
March 31, 2011 at 10:20AM EST Reply to CommentI believe you buried the lead. "And Eva Green is quite good (and also frequently nude)" is the phrase that will bring more folks to the show that any discussion of the plot. We know all about Aurthur, less so about Eva...
echos myron Just watch The Dreamers. She shows more in that movie than she ever will in Camelot.
April 1, 2011 at 3:31AM ESTnikadum
March 31, 2011 at 11:07AM EST Reply to CommentI tend to think of these pay-cable shows as "porn opera."
Nilo190b
March 31, 2011 at 11:25AM EST Reply to CommentI saw both pilots and I must say, Camelot is by far the lesser show, the acting in camelot is bad and the cgi looks awful.
The borgias I found very entertaining and Irons is as always great, the look and style of the show as a whole is wonderful and while some may find sex shocking, it hardly is what the show is about.
guestyear I agree. Camelot was so cheesy, despite great acting on Eva Green's part. Borgias was quite compelling.
April 3, 2011 at 6:15AM ESTmojo
March 31, 2011 at 11:54AM EST Reply to CommentBummed you didn't like The Borgias. I thought the pilot was gorgeous and the acting top-notch, especially from Irons. And having recently read a few books about the family, the show isn't doing terribly with the history either. But if it's not your cup of tea, that's totally understandable. I do feel like you overstated the amount of sex...in the pilot at least.
Interested in seeing Camelot but thinking I might also be suffering from Arthurian legend overkill. Still Eva Green is flawless so I'll give it a shot.
echos myron She looks like a bug with tits.
April 1, 2011 at 3:32AM ESTblinky
March 31, 2011 at 2:10PM EST Reply to CommentThe Tudors was a great story because it was, to a large extent, true. And it had the space to tell a story well and in depth unlike the movie, The Other Boleyn Girl which told the same story but was like a Cliff Notes version.
I can't understand why they can't find historical stories that have sex and violence rather than have to resort to mythical crap that has been retold a thousand times. OH LET'S DO ROBIN HOOD AGAIN! So disappointing...
Chris I
March 31, 2011 at 2:27PM EST Reply to CommentI'm surprised you didn't mention HBO's Rome, Alan. I would argue that Rome started the whole "history-as-soap-opera style", since it completed it's entire run before The Tudors even began.
Personally speaking, I very much enjoyed both Rome & The Tudors, so I'm looking forward to The Borgias.
Sareeta
March 31, 2011 at 6:48PM EST Reply to CommentHaving seen seen the pilots for both, Camelot was quite entertaining while The Borgias bored me to death.
Camelot is fresh and full of energy. There's magic, but with a darker twist. Eva Green as Morgan stole the show in the pilot. I can tell she's having fun with the character. Fiennes is much better cast than he was for Flashforward. He definitely has an agenda. James Purefoy was the best thing about Rome (a series I did not like) and he is great in this series, though he's playing a similar type of character. A lot of people take issue with Jamie Cambell Bower as Arthur since he's kind of scrawny, but I like the idea of him maturing throughout the season and eventually embracing his destiny. If I had Starz, I'd definitely watch this one. If you like the campiness of True Blood, the energy of Spartacus, and generally enjoy medieval fantasy with swords, horses, and magic, you'll probably like this.
The Borgias was really boring. I guess period costume dramas aren't my thing. I didn't like The Tudors either. Hypocrisy in the Catholic church has been done so many times it's nothing new. I guess they're trying to shock us showing a pope who has a family and extramarital affairs, but it's not that shocking considering everything we read about in the news. Plus the way they give the background of the characters or explain the election process is unnecessary. Most of all, none of the characters are particularly interesting. I won't be watching this on on a weekly basis, but those who liked The Tudors and have an interest in this part of history might like this one.
Angela Just wanted say I enjoyed reading your take on these 2 shows. I didn't have any interest in watching these when I first read about them, and now you've confirmed it again for me. Maybe someday....
April 6, 2011 at 8:33PM ESTmike
March 31, 2011 at 10:36PM EST Reply to CommentAlan, I'm curious if you watched Spartacus, and if you did what you thought of it.
My experience with it started (as starts are wont to do) in the pilot, the worst thing on TV I have ever sat through. Absolutely the only reason that I watched any past it was I was so livid with my friend who had talked me into giving it a shot that I wanted more ammunition to arm my attack of "this is why I will never watch anything you recommend to me ever again" that I planned to launch at him. If I hadn't been watching it on Netflix and been instantly able to put on the next episode it never would have gone past that pilot, just a memory of something horrible that had happened to my sensibilities at one point.
However something had happened at the end of the pilot, which was, again, I can't stress enough, one of the worst things I have ever watched that didn't have a black silhouette of a man and two robots at the bottom of it: two actual actors (something that the show had apparently decided to forgo for the first hour of it's existence) showed up on screen. John Hannah as a greedy, ambitious and fairly desperate owner of a ludus and Lucy Lawless as his two-bit Atia of the Juilii knock off of a wife brought some light to the end of that dismal episode. A strange thing happened as I started hate-watching the second episode. The quality of the second episode was such a jump up from the first that, being the sucker for training/origin stories that I am, I stuck around for the third as well. That episode maintained the higher quality of the second, and then the fourth episode was an even larger jump, and became the point I will always point to as the “Hell yes I will watch this show†line.
Somehow the show became amazing while never really rising about the level of pulpy trash. Screen chewing performances, devious plots, the utmost in puerile violence and nudity, twisted betrayals and backstabbing double-crosses, it all melded into this gripping and hyperkinetic fable whose allure was impossible to deny. The first season ends in one of the most over the top and horrifyingly satisfying finales I have ever had the pleasure of enjoying.
I am still shocked by the level of excellence the show ended up attaining after the absolute revulsion that I felt towards it at the beginning. I mean it makes the season one to season two transition of Parks and Recreation look like a consistent quality level. Everywhere I look I see other people and critics having the same “I started out hating this, but there’s really no way around admitting that it pretty much rules†reaction to it.
I know you have a very busy watching schedule, and there would have been little reason for you to give this show a second look, but if you actually did give it a shot I’d love to hear your opinions on its radical improvement.
mike well that lost my formatting in the cut and paste, and now just looks like an awful wall-o-text. Sorry all.
March 31, 2011 at 10:45PM ESTHollywoodaholic Don't worry about it, you were right on. I had the same experience. Why am I watching this trash, oh gee, this trash is getting pretty damn interesting; wow, that was some amazingly entertaining trash! Why did it have to end?
April 5, 2011 at 10:26AM ESTD1B
April 1, 2011 at 1:07PM EST Reply to CommentThe Borgias were Italian, not Spanish.
Don't have cable so can't watch the show, but I doubt they switched their country of origin.
sepinwall They lived in Italy but were of Spanish origin. It's one of many reasons Rodrigo's appointment to the papacy was so controversial: no one expected an "outsider" to get the big job.
April 1, 2011 at 1:10PM ESTM13 Rodrigo was born in Valencia, Spain. The family name was originally "Borja".
April 6, 2011 at 8:16PM ESTPretto
April 1, 2011 at 5:00PM EST Reply to CommentThe Borgias needed to be funnier and more entertaining. Aside from J. Irons, it lacked any sense of humor at all. Which is wrong since that family were all party animals anyway. As it is now it is as depressing as an orgy where nobodys enjoying themselves.
InstaFlicka Podcast
April 2, 2011 at 12:11AM EST Reply to CommentI pretty much feel the same way. I wrote a similar review on my InstaFlicka Blog. Eva Green is also and J-Fiennes is the opposite.
guest111
April 2, 2011 at 5:51AM EST Reply to CommentQuoting Alan Sepinwall "And Eva Green is quite good (and also frequently nude, ... Green makes it all work as a whole, demonstrating the charisma and screen presence she showed back in "Casino Royale."
Eva Green is really the only reason to watch "Camelot" And she was already great (and nude) in Bertolucci's "The Dreamers", long before that James Bond flick. The underrated "Franklyn" and even "Cracks" are also worth mentioning.
timb
April 2, 2011 at 2:15PM EST Reply to CommentAllen always hates shows with nipples in them!
Sarah The Wire had some nipples. :)
April 3, 2011 at 2:35AM ESTironyisoverrated
April 3, 2011 at 1:16PM EST Reply to CommentWhat I find annoying is that the Tudors and likely these two shows as well, will get more coverage and perhaps even acclaim than the two Spartacus series that were summarily dismissed as nothing more than sex and gore despite being masterfully plotted and vigorously acted.
April 3, 2011 at 7:03PM EST Reply to CommentIf you aren't the target audience, and you know this ahead of time, then why the heck do you think your opinion and critique of the two shows count.
Maureen
April 3, 2011 at 7:17PM EST Reply to CommentI have to agree with the opinions of the author regarding Camelot. I love period dramas, if done well, but this medieval Arthur/Merlin stuff is very over done. A commenter claimed this show was fresh? What was so fresh about it. There was so much gratuitous sex, put in just to get viewers looking for some soft porn. The Arthur actor didn't look at all like he would be Kingly and was probably put in to draw the Twilight audience. The only thing I enjoyed about the first two ep's was James Purefoy and Sean Pertwee (even though he was hardly in it). I suppose they didn't want to spend much on salaries so those two had to go early on. Overall, it was cheesy, badly written, and badly acted. The cgi was cheap and ridiculous. I hoped foe more from Joseph Fiennes but he really had little to say and we were supposed to read those long dark stares of his...and who the hell is Eva Green? Never heard of her before. I suppose she is in it for some young man's wet dream fantasy. I hope for more from The Borgia's. The Tudors first and second season had way too much sex, but then they toned it down and it had some great actors in it. That can make up for the lack of some things. Camelot didn't even have those. With all the porn available these days on the net, why must we have it in every tv program too. Too bad Shameless is over for the season and Masterpiece is in a small hiatus I think. Sunday nights use to be great entertainment night and belonged to HBO, not anymore.
Chase
April 5, 2011 at 6:58PM EST Reply to CommentThe Borgias would be a lot better if Ezio Auditore da Firenze was a recurring character who occasionally showed up and tried to assassinate people.
April 5, 2011 at 11:57PM EST Reply to CommentWow, I found The Borgias a lot better -- and I liked Camelot... for it's potential as a wacky soap-opera though. The Borgias had much stronger direction, writing and acting. I also found the show quite tense, as opposed to boring which a lot of people found. Nice looking but cliche opening credits though. It seems all of 'these' shows have the same opening credits.
sharonk funny, the opening credits on Borgias annoy me too!
April 18, 2011 at 2:24AM ESTsharonk
April 18, 2011 at 2:23AM EST Reply to CommentI am the audience for this stuff, and am finding the Borgias at least interesting, if a bit lurid--beyond entertainment value, it was a world-changing and fascinating period, and it was the era (with Machiavelli and all) that still defines political, military and clerical intrigue. We'll see how it continues. I HATED, HATED, HATED The Tudors--to me an historically inaccurate bodice ripper of zero interest. Watched part of season 1, went back for 2 episodes in season 2 because I couldn't resist checking out Peter O'Toole (I'd watch him in anything), and then dropped it again. I still resent the time I wasted on it!