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.

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?

This looks wonderful - great costuming and locations - really impressive.But all horribly let down by terrible acting, script, and above all, direction.The filming looks so "made for TV" both in angles, lighting, but above all in tones: just some filters, and better use of film would have made a huge difference.Historically accurate, this could have been really great: it really looks expensive and expansive; but it is living proof that nothing can cover poor acting.Left me neither wanting more, or expecting less, I cannot recommend this for schools, or homes -- it just is so uninspiring -- and that is unforgivable given the material and the locations.

What is that blue eyed surfer doing playing Marco Polo ? Simple, another Hollywood cheap production directed by budget director Kevin Connor. The actor playing Polo is badly miscast (he looks like Alice Silverstone brother), he's devoid of any appeal and subtlety, Brian Denneny is just laughable has a Chinese ruler. Connor's poor direction doesn't help, set pieces are uninteresting, acting is generally poor and the whole thing is uneventful and lacks passion. Music is by numbers and boring too. If you want to watch the best Marco Polo film available then I recommend you watch Giuliano Montaldo's version starring Ken Marshall, a RAI/BBC production with a great score by legend Ennio Morricone.