Rating: 
Summary: Wrong title, no storyline...
Review: Merlin is more fluff than substance. Overlong and drawn out, it could've done without many of the scenes. Like When Frik was demonstrating his shapeshifting powers to Merlin during what seemed like an eternity. Or, like When Frik was demonstrating his shapeshifting powers to Morgan during what seemed like an eternity. Or, like When Frik was demonstrating his shapeshifting powers throughout the entire film. Without much of a storyline, "Frick Teaches Computer Animation 103" sounds more like an appropriate title.
Rating:
Summary: It could've been better
Review: Merlin could've been a better movie. I could point out all of its faults from beginning to end, but that would be wasting my time. There's enough here to add a commentary audio track on the subject alone. Unlike many bad fantasy films that are awful from the get go(DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS to name one), Merlin could've been one of the greatest fantasy films ever made. That's what really burns me up inside. The pieces to the puzzle were definitely there, but never quite fitted together. To make matters worse, Kathryn Bigelow(the talented director of POINT BREAK, and the horror classic NEAR DARK) was originally slated to direct Merlin. But negotiations fell through, and they had to settle for Steve Barron(who?!?!?). For NBC, the rest is "kick yourselves in the head" history. For viewers, another waste of time.
Rating:
Summary: A classic case of budget mis-management
Review: It's mind-boggling as to why this tele-movie was ever made, for it is full of ambiguities. On the one hand it boasts the best actors in the world that money can buy, and yet the performances were tepid at best. Looking pale and sickly, Paul Curran was annoying as King Arthur throughout this 3-hour snore. All he ever does is complain about his problems to Merlin(Sam Neill) who is unsympathetic and wishes that he were elsewhere. Then there were the maginificent special effects and costumes, only to be offset by the cheap-looking sets. Camelot resembles a large converted farmhouse furnished with just the bare necessities. The Round Table itself is situated in one of the many small rooms, looking as though it were made of the same material as wine bottle corks, and decorated over with water color paint. Being slightly larger than a home poker table, I wonder how it's supposed to seat 1,600 knights as described in mythological sources. Couldn't they have just CGI'd the set and save themselves the time and money? Unfortunately, I guess the film-makers have fallen victim to a classic case of budget mis-managemwent. It's a shame, because Merlin had potential.
Rating:
Summary: Awful, but good for a few laughs
Review: This one won't go down as one of the classics based on
literature. Somehow I wasn't surprised by the forgettable writing, directing, and acting. Knowing how many bad King Arthur movies have already been made, I didn't expect much from this
one. I don't mind if liberties are taken when making screen
adaptations of books, just as long as it is done so with
respect and retaining the flavor of he original. Merlin does neither, merely proceeding to distort the facts.On the flip side, there was a lot of comedy to go around. Talking animals, Neill & Short seeming more at home with the Laurel and Hardy crowd than anything else. Merlin, however, was never intended to be a comedy making it all the more frustrating for viewers who are expecting good sword and sorcery.
Rating:
Summary: Very lame
Review: This movie is just very lame. I mean the actors themselves are actually quite good, but the story line development is lame. Character development direction is virtually non-existent. The lines are poorly crafted that even people with the most juvenile sense of humor will cringe in pain as each line is delivered. I forced myself through the whole film to ensure I was not judging a book by its cover, but with the exception of a few rare moments this movie is surely one that you will want to forget. This a movie should have been left on the shelf. Don't feel like you've missed anything if you haven't seen this one.
Rating:
Summary: An unbelievably poor attempt to follow a classic
Review: While "Excalibur" sits atop my all-time movie list, this sucessor finds its way to the bottom. Sam Neill couldn't even save this horrendous movie. The acting was about the quality of modern soap operas, and the script was just pitiful. I felt I would be wasting my time as I stuck the disc into my DVD player, but I choked in utter disbelief. The only part that I liked made me laugh=the reunion of Martin Short and Mr. Ed. Ok, I forgot the horse's name but it sure sounded a lot like him. Apart from this, the film sickened me, and it saddened me that they couldn't come up with something better after many previous attempts. The only thing this movie accomplished was that it made me appreciate "Dumb and Dumberer: When Harry Met Lloyd" a whole lot more. Now, that was a masterpiece.
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: Barely Watchable
Review: This is a pretty worthless movie; it pretty much only succeeds in turning the story of King Arthur and Camelot into a sappy romance. I can only say one positive thing about the movie at all; the fight scenes were sometimes well-choreographed. Apart from that, everything in the movie is incredibly average; the acting is wooden, the cinematography is daft, the plot is uneventful... I could go on. As said, the only good thing about the movie is the sword fighting scenes, and they're not great. I guess the story is not accurate to the original source material, but if you just want the story, you might as well just read a book about it; or watch one of the other movie versions, as I think most of them are a lot better. As for the actors chosen in this one... Sam Neill is not a bad actor, but he's not old enough to play the role, especially with most of the knights being about his age. Martin Short... eh, I've never been a fan of him, as he mostly does slapstick comedies. In this one he plays exactly the same role as he usually does in his other comedies, only with a slight "lonely cowboy" touch to his character, for no apparent reason. I don't know any of the other actors, so I can't compare them to any of their earlier work, but I can't say that any of them did particularly good jobs portraying their respective characters. I wouldn't recommend this movie to anyone, except for people who like the story, love at least one or more of the main actors or seriously dig sword fighting... normally, I would fall into the last category, but it wasn't enough to save it for me.
Rating:
Summary: Don't get caught in this 3 hour bore!
Review: "Merlin" is so terrible, I can't help myself from laughing at people who say they liked this film. This is one of the worst mistakes ever made in Hollywood. I had an inkling of what the end result of this film would be; however, I wanted to give it a chance. The first problem is the lack of plot to accompany the numerous action sequences. It seems to me that the action was supposed to be the main draw. I can only assume the writer forgot that there are people who actually like to see a film with BOTH action and story when they see a film. In addition, the cause of fighting the villain is so stupid; who cares. The second problem I see is casting. Combine an unestablished actor with little film experience and zero talent with a very talented veteran, Sir John Gielgud and you have a disaster for a film called "Merlin." "Merlin" should have stayed locked in a dungeon in a far off place so nobody has to go the suffering I did when I saw this film. If you see this film, good luck.
Rating:
Summary: Slop-Fest '98
Review: Very sloppy, indeed. This show could've done without half of the sequences filmed. At 1 1/2 hours I would've given 2 stars for a much better film. Now I have no choice but to grade it 1 star. English-speaking horses + toe tapping broadway numbers in a castle hall is not my idea of a medieval fantasy. It's bad enough with Camelot and Kid in King Arthur's Court that we don't need anymore new additions to the ever-growing list of cheesy fantasy flicks. Bypass this one if you can. Movies with the best portrayals of Merlin that I can recommend off the top of my head are 1) Excalibur, 2) Merlin of the Crystal Cave, and 3) Any of the numerous documentaries on Merlin available.
|
