Review: 'Camelot' Tries to Find Magic in Arthurian Tales

'Camelot' (10PM ET Friday, Starz) a new retelling of the ancient Arthurian myths, makes some smart choices.

In a terrific performance, Jamie Campbell Bower makes Arthur seem both naive and impetuous, and Joseph Fiennes' Merlin doesn't go in for magical solutions; he's more a political operative consciously building a myth around the untested Arthur as ancient Britain threatens to descend into tribal anarchy. There's even a clever take on sword-in-the-stone tale.

Yet there are some tonal clashes within this handsome series, and there's an unfortunate stop-start quality to 'Camelot's' momentum. The first couple of episodes of the Starz drama have a relatively brisk pace, but the third one has elements of mawkish soapiness that slow down the action considerably.

It remains to be seen whether 'Camelot' will rise to the level of 'Spartacus: Blood and Sand,' another Starz series that overcame some early issues to become must-see TV. But I'm willing to give 'Camelot' a chance, in large part due to Campbell Bower's compelling performance.

His Arthur is well-educated and more or less well-intentioned, but he knows nothing of the wider world when Merlin plucks him from obscurity to make a run at the throne. This is a revisionist take that sees both the pragmatic and noble sides of Merlin and Arthur's quest, and 'Camelot's' depiction of conscious myth-making may be its most interesting element. Though he understands the mysterious, earthy forces that his enemy, Morgan (Eva Green), draws on, Merlin doesn't wield potions or a wand. The quietly driven Merlin is more of a spinmeister than a spell-caster.

That's all to the good, but the downside is that, in the first three episodes of the series, Arthur is the only character who truly comes alive in any meaningful way, and there are some cheeseball elements that undermine the realism that 'Camelot' is clearly trying to establish.

It's not that the cast isn't up to the job -- generally speaking, they're quite good. Fiennes effectively employs his whisper-voice and his mildly aggrieved presence as Merlin, Green burns with interior fire as Morgan, who also makes a grab for the throne, and James Purefoy is particularly lively as King Lot, an Arthurian rival.

(Sidebar: Why isn't Purefoy the star of his own cable drama? He's got terrific comic and dramatic chops and easy charisma, but he hasn't been well used on television since HBO's "Rome" ended four years ago. That is just puzzling to me.)

Despite the uneven aspects of the show, 'Camelot' trundled along in a mostly watchable fashion until the third episode, which dwells more on Arthur's burgeoning romance with Guinevere, who, as English majors may recall, had more than one beau on hand. There's a strange mixture of proper British language and modern-day phrasing in Camelot's dialogue, and I almost cringed when Guinevere said, regarding one of her suitors, "What if he isn't 'the one'?" I appreciate 'Camelot's' attempts to modernize a tale that may seem remote to some viewers, but at times, it goes too far.

Morgan is also a problematic character in the early going; her quest for vengeance is rather one-dimensional and she's a far cry from the much more nuanced character glimpsed in Marion Zimmer Bradley's 'The Mists of Avalon,' a 1982 novel that had an even more revisionist take than the one on display here. Still, you have to give 'Camelot' credit for implying that the use of magic isn't much different from the use of drugs; in this world, it can be an addictive crutch with dark consequences for those who dabble in it.

The main thing 'Camelot' has going for it is a lively, unpretentious desire to entertain. It doesn't take itself overly seriously -- Merlin has a wry sense of humor -- and there are some capable action sequences amid scenes of rustic splendor.

As a drama, it's not quite there yet, but this is a quest tale, after all. I'm willing to give young Arthur and 'Camelot' time to prove themselves.

Follow @MoRyan on Twitter.