Merlin

Rating:
Summary: Prepare yourselves with low expectations!
Review: As much as I don't care for this or any other Hallmark production, I will have to be honest and say that it's not entirely their fault. NBC had to go and plug their miniseries months in advance with TV ads. These spots featured actors Sam Neill and John Voight(Noah's Ark) praising Hallmark's upcoming series as "events not to be missed", even touting them as good as movies seen in theatres! For those of us who still remember, placing such high expectations on below average fare led to much disappointment. With Mostly music videos to his credits, one shouldn't expect much more than feasty visuals and thin storytelling from a mediocre director like Steve Barron. What really irritated me were the factual errors often identical to those found in previous films(Queen Margawse was Modred's mother, not Morgan Le Fay!). So little regard has been given to the production of Merlin that they couldn't even make their own mistakes; they had to borrow them from other films like Knights of the Round Table! Unless you're not a stickler for such gross inconsistencies, I would suggest that you look elsewhere for good Arthurian legends.

Rating:
Summary: The William hung of Arthurian Fantasy
Review: Like the American Idol reject, Merlin is chock full of SFX to wow the pre-schoolers for its obligatory 15 minutes. There isn't much beyond [that] the stale script and wooden acting can save from the rubbish heap. The one-dimensional storyline appears to run in circles. Sam Neill's portrayal of Merlin doesn't develop much, as his disposition at the end of the film is almost the same as it was in the beginning. In every good story there is a protagonist and antgonist who struggle against each other until an end is met. Britain was still no better off after the people decided to turn against Mab, their designated villain. Now, I wonder how many brilliant minds it took to brainstorm such a lame plot. Probably the same people who came up with the carbon copy ending in The Karate Kid 2.

Rating:
Summary: FAILS TO BE CONVINCING
Review: THIS FLIMSY AND SCHLOCKY FANTASY ADVERTISES ITSELF AS THE TRUE STORY OF MERLIN. A COUPLE OF PROBLEMS HERE. THE STORY IS NOT BASED ON ANY OF THE TRADITIONAL MANUSCRIPTS WRITTEN ABOUT MERLIN, BUT THE PENNINGS OF THE CREATIVELY IMPAIRED ED DHARMA. THE CHARACTER OF MERLIN IS ALSO ABSENT THROUGHOUT 1/2 OF THIS INCORRECTLY TITLED FILM. IN SITUATIONS WHEN I THOUGHT HE WOULD SHOW UP TO SOLVE A PROBLEM, HE'S NOWHERE TO BE SEEN. MERLIN FAILS TO CONVINCE, MAINLY BECAUSE IT SEEMS UNSURE OF ITS OWN OBJECTIVE.

Rating:
Summary: Tired and Overdone....
Review: Yet another version of the tired and overdone tale of King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table. This time the story centers around the life of Merlin, but not actually based(not even loosely) on anything we know which has been written about him. The movie is a 2 part mini-series originally presented on NBC over 2 days in 1998. That part is a mystery, but everything else is tedious and predictable. If you need a sorceror's fix, rent Willow or Lord of the Rings instead.

Rating:
Summary: DUMB and DUMBERER - PART DEUX !
Review: This one is so bad that I need not go into detail and spoil what isn't worth spoiling over. UNORIGINAL, bad script, bad direction, and bad actors who are given acting jobs only because their parents were famous actors themselves- Isabella Rossellini, need I say more? More importantly was the fact that Sam Neill had originally filed a lawsuit against Hallmark to back out of his contract after discovering just how awful the screenplay was. It was evident in his performance that he just really wasn't into it, seeming as though he wanted to get it over with as soon as possible. This debacle, unfortunately, translated into poor figures as 'Merlin' received the lowest Nielsen ratings of any miniseries ever for the decade of the 1990s. There hasn't been any good movies about King Arthur and Merlin before or since 'Excalibur'. Why can't they get it right? Are film makers so stupid that they're unable to put together a half-decent Arthurian production from time to time? Lesson learned here by Hallmark? Apparently NONE, since they continued releasing low-rated bombs after this turkey.

Rating:
Summary: NOT GOOD AT ALL
Review: GEE... I wonder about the so-called "sources" people here have been talking about. Poor acting, writing, and the absence of "sources" fans claim it was based on makes this one fall short of its mark. "Merlin" ranks way down there with the likes of "A Kid in King Arthur's Court", and "Arthur the King"....maybe even lower. If you want to learn about the real Merlin or anything Arthurian, I'd suggest that you watch "Excalibur" and read the following books: "The History of the Kings of Britain" by Geoffrey of Monmouth, "Arthurian Romances" by Chretien de Troyes, "Le Morte d'Arthur" by Sir Thomas Mallory, and "The Traveller's Guide to Arthurian Britain" by Geoffrey Ashe. It sure beats the comic book "sources"
of "Merlin".

Rating:
Summary: A shining example of how to turn a classic into crap.
Review: Don't believe it when reviewers claim that this is the closest film to any of the sources thay've read about Merlin. It is so far off the beaten path that the filmmakers don't even credit the sources from which the screenplay was adapted. First of all, Merlin and Nimue were never lovers who lived happily ever after. They were bitter enemies with Nimue finally killing Merlin trapping him under a rock. There was no Mab, Frick, old crone, or loveable talking horse. These were all the creations of screenwriter Edward Dharma. Nor were there any muppets during Merlin's time. Fans of "Merlin" have also criticized "Excalibur" unfairly for its historically inaccurate use of armor. I guess those people aren't really fans after all. Paying close attention to "Merlin" they would've noticed the armored knight being unhorsed during the jousting scene! "Merlin" is such a flawed and poorly executed film that I can't think of any good reason to recommend it other than for the muppets and special effects. Chuck this back on the shelf and grab a copy of "Excalibur", instead. 1 out of 5 stars

Rating:
Summary: Very Original and Inspirational
Review: Those familiar with the Authurian Myths will either hate or love this movie. Those that are obsessed and see it as heretical to change the story in anyway will hate it. Those that understand that Myths and Legends are stories that are very much open to reimagining and interpretation will love this movie. I belong to the latter. This reimagining of the precious legend will give you a fresh look at the struggles of our heroes at the same time explore their many weaknesses, humanizing them, including our venerable wizard; even making us appreciate the driving force behind the villains. Exploring the transition from the "Old" and "New" ways is mirrored in many major cultural, religious and historical changes. This is great love story, a great fantasy movie and great study into human nature. I've always loved the legend, but this movie gave me a connection to the character and the story that went farther than the what, where, who and why of it all. Sure it wanders quite far from the "accepted" story. But it made it much easier to like the people and believe the plot.

Rating:
Summary: Idiotic and Just Plain Awful
Review: This (along with First Knight) has to be the worst Arthurian myth film I have ever seen. True, one can only expect the mediocre out of a made-for-tv film but this is just beyond bad. So much of what we know as Arthurian legend was changed in this film, I wonder why they even bothered basing it on the Arthurian myths in the first place. Sam Neil as a Merlin was simply an awful choice (in my opinion an awful choice for any role): is it just me or has anyone noticed that he presents exactly the same pompous and contrived personality in every single film or commercial he has ever made (Jurassic Park, Restoration, Event Horizon, The Piano, etc., etc.)? Can this guy ever act as something other than himself? In this film Merlin is reduced to being merely a magician to the likes of Houdini instead of a legendary sorcerer. By definition, a sorcerer prepares spells and conjures spirits, a magician is just a cheap illusionist with no real power at all. Where in Arthurian legend does it say that Merlin was the Camelot buffoon and court jester? As for the other actors, their overacting jerks the emotions out of the audience like a bad pupeteer.

Shun this garbage film like the plague! For a dramatic and more compelling rendition of the myth, watch "Excalibur" with Nicol Williamson as Merlin instead: now there's a true actor! Nicol Williamson is by far a more experienced and talented actor than Sam Neil will ever be.

Rating:
Summary: Merlin
Review: This move is about the wizard Merlin. It has all the well known characters of Merlin stories - Arthur, Morgan la Fay, Mordred, Guinivere, Lancealot - as well as some not as well known characters - Vortigen, Uther, Cornwall - and some that are entirely new to me - Queen Mab, Frick, and Nimue. The special effects in this movie aren't the best, but they aren't bad. The costumes and voices of the characters is one of the best things - the best one being Queen Mab. The evil queen of the Old Ways is the one who created Merlin, but whom he turns against. Her costumes and make-up are neat, as is her voice.
With wonderful acting by great actors, a great plot, and a wonderfully portrayed story and characters, this is a highly entertaining and pleasing movie.