Merlin

Rating:
Summary: Sam Neal Is Amazing As Merlin!
Review: Merlin is one of those made-for-TV movies I remember well. Why? The performance of Sam Neal alone was worth it. He plays Merlin, as I would have thought him to be like. From young to old - he commanded presence and honor.

The movie tells the life of the King Arthur days through the eyes of Merlin the Magician himself. He loves and heartaches and all the foils that come with growing up as a wizard. There are dragons, evil spells and witches. There is a lot of mystery and magic.

The DVD does have a making of documentary and some interesting insights into reviving the old stories of the Knights In Shining Armor from Merlin's perspective. The creators and producers of this mini series were the same people who did the live-action TV remake of Alice In Wonderland with Martin Short. (Which I also reviewed!)

This is a good movie and you get the entire thing in one sitting you don't have the commercials and you don't have to watch it over two nights! I loved this TV movie and your family will too!

Rating:
Summary: The Best, NO Matter What Anyone Says
Review: Firstly, whoever wrote it was idiotic and plain awfull, definitely doesn't have good tastes, or was in a sour mood when they wrote it. And what they wrote about Sam Neil, that just wasn't nice, and he/she definitely hasn't seen LOTR, or The Matrix, he's an awesome actor! I remember when I first saw this at my friend's house before we went fishing, I still remember how awesome it was! I really like it because it's the first movie that has Merlin as the main character. Sorry I don't really explain what happens in the movie, but that's for you to find out when you buy it!!!!! I think it also does a good description through Amazon one. Anyone who likes magic, or the Medieval Times, this is a MUST SEE!

Rating:
Summary: this is one of my favs!
Review: great movie and i couldn't agree more with livnforchrist's review. i thoroughly enjoyed the story's perspective and it is in my opinion, the best of it's kind. the special effects were great-not overdone. this movie made me interested in checking out other hallmark flicks, which i have found many that i enjoy. there's not much else i can say because livnforchrist said all that i wanted to.

this movie deserves more than 5 stars and i would recommend it-it's one of my favorites!

Rating:
Summary: How to turn King Arthur into an uninteresting movie
Review: This is a painfully bad retelling of the Arthurian Legend. The bad guys look more like the bad guys out of Welcome Back Kotter, The good guys look like a high school production of Camelot. Camelot itself looks like part of a cheap 1970s TV show set.

The story centers around Sam Neill as an unappealing Merlin, Martin Short as Merlin's sidekick stooge Frik and HB Carter(Morgan la Fey) who, despite being the high point of the film, is completely unable to convince us that she has any affection for the bumbling Frik.

Bad guys grimace, music sweeps heroically, rousing speaches and predictability ensue, followed by a forgettable conclusion.

Not worth it even for fans of the genre.

Rating:
Summary: A Lousy Arthur
Review: Recently when at the video store I got "Merlin" mixed up in my head with with a BBC production of the same name, mistaking the former for the latter. When I got home and realized my error I figured, 'Go ahead and watch it, how bad can it be?' Heck, it has Sam Neill, Martin Short, Helena Bonham-Carter, and Rutger Hauer in it!

The answer is that it can be pretty damn bad and a complete waste of time. So much so, that it's difficult to find anything good to say about the movie. Casting: Sam Neill as a believable Merlin? Maybe if the film were made in 1975 and not 1995. Acting: it's as stiff as can be imagined. The actor's have to be treating "Merlin" as just a paycheck. Direction, cinematography, score? Forget 'em, they're no improvement over the casting and acting.

Don't make my mistake; this one is a loser.

Rating:
Summary: Another wasted attempt....
Review: on what could've been something great. I don't mind it when liberties are taken(and there are aplenty here), just as long as they are used to tie up loose ends and/or give the director's theories on why certain things happened. Merlin does neither. I don't understand why they added the characters of Mab, Frick, Nimue, and the talking horse. They have nothing to do with Arthurian myth at all, and take up at least half of the film's time. Instead of being a decent 2 hour TV movie, it became a campy 2-day mini-series with goofy characters. And, the reason for adding in all of those uncessary characters? Just because. this film is so off that the British and American chapters of the Arthurian Archeological Society (organization for lovers of all things Arthurian) refused to endorse the film, and even gave it unfavorable reviews! Until they learn the true meaning of the word "research", Hallmark should stay out of the business of producing historical & literary epics

Rating:
Summary: it's no Excalibur
Review: Well, I don't want to be totally negative regarding this movie. It did have some redeaming features and I've seen much worst. For one thing, this movie had great casting. You really can't blame the actors for a mediocore preformance because I think they did the best they could with the script they were given. Jason Done (Mordrid) and Rutger Hauer (Lord Vortigern - the guy that Uther had to conqure) were my two favorit actors in this flick, but they all pulled off a pretty good job. The dialogue was pretty bad. It also had a rather charming twist ending regarding the narrator, (but then they even managed to ruin that by dragging it out way too much.) The one scene in the movie that I loved was duing the death scene when Morgen Le Fay dies and Frick is standing over her, and they both see each other as they really are because the spell of illusion was shattered. It was a beautiful scene and for that scene alone I gave this movie 2 stars instead of 1.

Excluding what is mentioned above, everything about this movie that you could possibly think of stunk beyond belief!! I would recomend it to small children because they're the only ones I think that would truely like this movie.

Rating:
Summary: Merlin is a great DVD
Review: Merlin showcases a fresh dramatic and deep portrayal of Merlin (Sam Neil). Unlike other versions of the Arthurian legend what just centre on king Arthur's story. Merlin showed the person behind the wizard. Queen Mab was a great antagonist. She was evil but her depth was explored as well and her character had a bit of evil humour thrown in what I think worked quite well.
If you like the fantasy medieval genre you should like Merlin.

Rating:
Summary: Hello?
Review: Can anyone locate a plot for this movie? I won't bother spoiling anything for you because wel...there isn't anything to spoil. Absolutely nothing happens in this movie! Thank god I only watched it with my friends as a joke to add to a school project.

Let's just say there are a lot of lines that bring this movie down a lot. I'm sure all the late night hosts have already summed these up in one way or another. I was lost after the first ten minutes, and it's hard to get through the first five! My advice to you is...if you want to see a movie that is at least remotely watchable...AVOID this one. For the love of God!!

Rating:
Summary: Only Helena Bonham-Carter is worth watching
Review: Well. I am a huge fantasy fan, and this movie was utterly underwhelming. It was perhaps the most passionless movie I've ever seen. Story, writing, acting, directing, production values; all passionless. It succeeded in being almost absolutely devoid of any excitement whatsoever. What was an actress of Helena Bonham-Carter's caliber doing here? More importantly, why wasn't she acting? Remember Jurassic Park? Sam Neill's reaction when he first sees the big dragon? He's so wonderstruck that his legs can't carry him; he falls on his ass in sheer, gawking astonishment. THAT's a reaction!! The actors in Merlin, however, hardly do more than stand around shrugging. It's ridiculous! Like I said, passionless. Nobody involved with this movie appeared to care about it. The story is a tiny one, revolving around a couple of cheap sets. Historical research is an unknown concept. No effort was made to make the language of the 5th century even slightly authentic. And of course the history is inconsistent. *GOD*, the people who write these things are morons!

Anyway, the movie had one thing to like. Helena Bonham-Carter. When I went to see it, I didn't even know she was in it, but it was a very positive surprise (since I'm a big fan of hers). She was the one person who took her role seriously. Unlike the others, *she* was believable in her setting. Because of her, I give this movie 1 out of 5, instead of 2.