Merlin

Rating:
Summary: Excellent film of MERLIN'S story
Review: What most of the unhappy reviewers fail to recognize is that this film is titled "MERLIN" and is supposed to be about that character. I was enchanted with seeing the original TV version and could not wait for the release of the tapes. I ordered it the first night when the ad came on during the show. I received the film on 2 video cassettes plus the printed shooting script that containes scenes not filmed and intoductions by the producer and writer. When I got my DVD player, I got the DVD right away. Forget "Excaliber" which most reviewers seem to think in the best. It is a LONG and mostly boring retelling of the Arthur legend. The acting, especially "Arthur" and "Merlin" is on a par with a high school production. However the "Merlin" tv version is excellent. The viewer is able to see and come to care about a real person who just happens to be able to work magic. The love story beings an added dimenson to a character that is usually shown as a crotchety, old, excentric. While not giving a "showy, hammy" performance, Sam Neill is just right as a thoughful Merlin. The rest of the cast is wonderful and exactly right. Miranda Richardson, Isabella Rossellini, Helen Bonham Carter, Rutger Hauer are perfectly cast. Martin Short, who I usually find over the top and unbelievable, is a stand out. Often, to enjoy a film, a viewer has to suspend belief and accept it for what it is. This was an excellent TV mini-series. It was never intended to compete with film theater products. It is the story of a FICTIONAL character, not a historical "real" person. Arthur, Gunivere or Lancelot are supposed to be background characters. This is about MERLIN and when he has to deal with the other characters more well known, he does it well. I will take this version over "Excaliber", "Camelot" and other versions any day. For other versions of who and what Merlin could be, read Mary Stewart's 4 part book series, T. H. White's "Once and Future King", Disney's take on the first part of T. H. White, "The Sword In The Stone" and Mark Twain's "Connecticut Yankee In King Arthur's Court" then say that this film is not true to the person. Every one of the Merlins in these works is different. Accept MERLIN for what it is, an excellent, well acted and produced FANTASY orignally produced as a TV sereis.

Rating:
Summary: Charming take on the Arthurian Legend
Review: Bottom line: a nice telling of an old story from a less common angle.

While the FXs are not earth shattering and the acting and dialogue are not gripping, these elements *do* play quite well in the context of Merlin telling the story of his life. The quirky FXs and the plot pace give it a dreamy quality appropriate to an old man looking back on his life.

Some of the magic scenes (like the candle flames floating away) or the panoramic scenes, like the tidal flat, are memorable. The setting and costumes are much less anachronistic than most tellings of this story.

It's a good lazy Sunday afternoon watch. And considering the general lack of fantasy DVD titles, a good addition to a fantasy fan's library.

Rating:
Summary: Totally Awesome!
Review: I missed this movie when it was on TV, and I totally regretted it. The next day at school, EVERYONE was talking about how great it is. I resolved to see it when it came out on video. When I did, I was totally blown away! I mean, the acting was spectacular *special kudos go out to Miranda Richardson for her fabulous job as Queen Mab, and Isabella Rosselini, for being an excellent Nimue*, the plot was excellently written, and the setting/costumes were fabulous! Some of you biased reviewers *you know who you are* insist that Merlin "doesn't measure up" to Excalibur and that it isn't "historically correct". Gimme a break! First of all, why does Merlin have to be compared to Excalibur? Why can't you people just enjoy it for what it is? Secondly, let me say this loud and clear: THE ARTHURIAN LEGENDS ARE NOT HISTORY! THEY ARE LEGENDS! THERE IS NO RIGHT OR WRONG TELLING OF THEM! Now that I've said that, I hope that everyone reading this will take my thoughts into consideration. If you haven't seen this movie and you like tales of adventure, romance, and magic, I DEFINITELY recommend it.

Rating:
Summary: VERY, VERY DULL
Review: This film has been described as a "Family Movie" but I can't think of one reason why any kids would want to watch this 3-hour dud. Nothing kept my interest. The film falls flat on almost every level, apart from the music. Trevor Jones' score is some of the best music ever created. It should be up there with the greats like Mozart and Beethoven. Seriously.

When you watch this, remember it is called MERLIN. And what do we associate with Merlin? Magic. Something that this film has NOTHING OF! I don't get it. Queen Mab constantly refers to Paganism as "The Old Ways". I only know she means Paganism because I have knowledge of this subject. But how on earth is anyone else supposed to know what she means? It is not once explained.

All this film is is absurdly lame dialogue (very, very bad) and politics. That's it. For 3 hours! Buy the incredible soundtrack CD but don't watch this movie.

The DVD is in Dolby surround and is in fullscreen.

Rating:
Summary: Pride doesn't go in my way of enjoying a good film!
Review: The fact that this 'film' has caused so much turmoil is a good thing alone, since people who do not agree can, whether they admit it or not, learn a lot from one another.

In my opinion it's understandable that most of the people who like 'Excalibur' from 1981 compare it to this film, but that people can't tear their apparently prideful gazes from that film and give this one an honest and unprejudiced look is a little beyond my comprehension. This is a wonderful and very magical film (surpassed by very few other movies of it's genre, the 10th Kingdom is one), and it's just too bad if people crawl into the 'Excalibur' camp and refuse to widen their view to films that do not correspond to the Arthurian legend.

SO WHAT! That doesn't matter one bit, in my mind, and certainly will not prevent me from having a very good time watching both 'Merlin' and 'Excalibur'. This is an independant film, it doesn't claim to follow anything but itself, and shouldn't be judged as anything else !

Don't rob yourself of a beautiful experience. If your mind is open, enjoys fantasy films and if you can suffer twists to established legend, then you will most likely be very pleased if you buy this DVD.

The acting is good, I think. The longings and hopes of each individual character is made believeable, and so are the characters themselves. Sam Neill is his usual cool, enigmatic self, which he is becoming very good at being. Rutger Hauer is EXACTLY the way he should be, a shallow almost soul-less being, with ambition to get the crown and keep it. Other actors do a great job as well, worthy of mention is the actor who plays Uther, father of Arthur.

Advanced technology made this film possible, in ways of special effects, which are wonderful, with very few exceptions. Two creatures are the dragon and the griffons, which sadly looks rather artificial.

On the downside, this movie is (of course, as all Hallmark films) in 4:3 format, which I personally dislike, since I have a widescreen TV.

Other than that not many elements drag this film down. Don't hesitate to buy this, if you can keep an open mind and see things for what they are, not what you want them to be.

Rating:
Summary: Hogwash
Review: Not very good at all. I wouldn't have minded the cheesy special effects, were it not for the hokey acting that accompanies it. This is a very whitewashed, politically correct fabrication of the Arthurian legend--they've been very careful to politely downplay the elements of magic and witchcraft so as not to offend any Christian viewers. I usually respect Sam Neill's work, but his Merlin was very lackluster, and not at all the type of swaggering, bold and complex magical being you might expect. Blame it on the writers, and the production team. This is a tepid, mediocre made-for-tv production with a gooey heart, relatively wimpy even within its own genre. Just say no!

Rating:
Summary: Not even worth buying on DVD.
Review: Wished I had watched it on TV instead of wasting my money on the DVD. Sam Neill plays a great clown-magician but there's never any real chemistry between him and Paul Curran like there was between Nigel Terry and Nicol Williamson in "Excalibur". The plot stretched credibilty to the point of comical proportions. The film had a very Disney-ish make believability about it, the kind where you'd leave the theatre were it not for your 3-year olds tagging along. The effects were so-so and obviously more money was spent on them than a good script. Hopefully, Neill, Short, and Rossellini will be more discerning in their next film roles.

Rating:
Summary: No EXCALIBUR, that's for sure....mediocre at best.
Review: "Excalibur" proved that a movie can provide the setting for a spellbinding/magical story, action, intelligent character interactions, and nail-biting suspense. Unfortunately, "Merlin" fails miserably on all four counts. The culprits here are obvious plotting, mediocre acting, and pedestrian direction. The film has one legitimate surprise (no plot spoiler here), but it's way too easy to figure out the rest of the action before it happens. Martin Short fares the best of the cast, but he's stuck with the stereotypical role of the bumbling side-kick often found in most slapstic comedy films. Sam Neill shows no screen presence as the main character of Merlin who has to make things right. As for the direction, the film moved too slowly (especially at the beginning). Since I was always sure of MERLIN's outcome (unlike "Excalibur"), the special effects were the film's only lure, and they were poorly done at best.

Rating:
Summary: DERIVITIVE, NOT ORIGINAL.
Review: With "Merlin" what we have here is a continuation of the Hollywood standard that a good story and character development doesn't matter, just as long as you can put together something to fill up the timeslots during May sweeps. Not only does the poorly-written script for Merlin look as though it were put together in five minutes, it was done in a hasty 5 minutes without any consideration for research.... other than the fact that Steve Barron got most of his ideas from watching other sword and sorcery films (i.e. Excalibur, Knights of the Round Table, Dragonslayer). I would hardly call such a DERIVITIVE end result "ORIGINAL". There's nothing that we already don't know about Merlin from previous cinematic ventures into the Arthurian realm- his approachable & regretful human side (Knights of the Round Table, Excalibur), Paganism vs. Christianity (The Mists of Avalon), Lancelot and Guenivere (Knights of the Round Table, Excalibur, First Knight, and virtually every other Authurian movie/book). It should also be noted that the character of Mab was never "elevated" because it doesn't exist in Arthurian mythology. Steve Barron actually got the idea from his niece whose "magical" stuffed chinchilla happened to be named "Mab". Arthur's importance to the story is significantly compromised in favor of the mediocre special effects(just watch as the castle stones disappear into the bluescreen instead of tumbling down! ), that he is reduced to little more than a backdrop for the Mordred/Morgan Le Fay scenes. Even Lancelot & Guinevere had more screen time, as small as their roles were. The love between Nimue and Merlin was also added in not because it was central to the tale, but because Hollywood requires that a film must not go without at least one "I love you, now let's have a kiss kiss" scene. Never has there been such a mass gathering of the biggest names in the entertainment industry only to give one of the most disappointing collective performances ever assembled in the annals filmmaking. Sam Neill was mis-cast for the role of Merlin, Helena Bonham-Carter & Miranda Richardson have done better in lower budgeted films. Bringing his SNL routine to the set by cracking one bad joke after another, it's no surprise as to why Martin Short was "robbed" of that "well-deserved" emmy. So unwatchable was this film that by the 2 hour mark the viewer is left wondering whether or not they should've called this film "The Return of Mr. Ed" instead, because the talking horse was the real star of show. In a nutshell, avoid "Merlin" at all costs for the brighter pastures of "Excalibur". 1 out of 5 stars.

Rating:
Summary: For Effort Alone...It Rules
Review: In an age when Hollywood (particularly--but not limited to--televised Hollywood)churns out script after script that was written in five minutes by a group of apparent hacks, this film excels for a number of reasons. We have before us an ambitious project, one that attempts to amalgamate a number of disparate Arthurian, medieval legends into a cohesive whole, and present it in a watchable three-hour film. A daunting task, but 'Merlin' succeeded with aplomb. It even dared to be so bold as to be ORIGINAL. 'Merlin' presented its own view of the myth: making our wizard a very human, regretful, yet approachable character; elevating the shadowy figure of the legendary Queen Mab to highlight the Paganism Vs. Christianity saga; brushing aside Lancelot and Guenivere as incidental adulterers(a fine dismissal, if you ask me, and a brave move); preserving the centrality of Arthur; emphasizing the threat of Mordred; making the love between Nimue and Merlin central to the tale. This film WAS, after all, entitled 'Merlin.' The script was fine in every facet; never brilliant, but never stilted, and imbued with RESPECT for the mood of mythology and the average viewer's sensibilities. It was thoroughly accessible and elegant, never degenerating into the triteness that disfigures so many films. The performances were very worthy, indeed, and never over-the-top. Sam Neill was quite competent as Merlin (nothing more), Miranda Richardson was spectacular as Mab (this is a real triumph, in a role that other actors could have easily turned into a piece of pure Hickory Farms Ham), Martin Short was an absolute joy and robbed of an Emmy for a marvelous performance as Frick...never muddying the character with slapstick or lack of grace, despite his costuming. Issabella Rosselini was a delight as Nimue. The effects were marvelous and appropriately scattered throughout the story. Cinematography was spell-binding and haunting in most cases. This was, all in all, a thoroughly enchanting venture in every way. For packing so much legend into three hours running time, the creators of 'Merlin' have done a job that will resonate with far more people than the equally fine (but dated) Excalibur ever shall. It seems that the peole bothered most by this film are purists who mistake their pre-conceived notions about Arthurian legend as being Biblically infallible tenets. The truth is, the seminal legends were notoriously complex and pliant, and there is really nothing technical or substantial to criticize about 'Merlin': not script, not cinematography, not perfomance, not effects. It is quality film-making in every fasion. Naysayers may wish to reconsider, or conjure up "a clue," as they say. Four Big Shooting Stars.