Rating: 
Summary: Pathetic. Perfect movie for those who do not read books.
Review: Complete waste of money and efforts - and everything just for the sake of special effects (which are, actually, very good). The main characters of the great legend look as though they were recycled from `A Kid In King Arthur's Court' and the epic side of the story is obstructed by Merlin's love affair - and, to be honest, Sam Neill, though a wonderful actor, is not the right choice for Merlin! Nothing to compare with Boorman's `Excalibur' which I strongly recommend to those who really love Arthurian legends.
Rating:
Summary: Bad, bad,bad!!!
Review: This must be one of the most low-quality movies ever shot. Firstly: It has no resemblance to the actual myth about King Arthur. Second: none of the actors or actresses did a good job except Rutger Hauer. In fact, I don't understand why such fine actors as Sam Neill and Helena Bonham Carter even thought about doing this movie. They have starred in so many good movies and must have been insane to accept this script. Third: The special-effects stink. You must be a complete fool to fall for them, especially the dragon shown in the picture. So my advice to anybody who wants to see a movie about King Arthur and Merlin - watch Boormans Excalibur instead of this. That is a high quality movie with fine actors and, most important, it follows the real myth to almost 100%.
Rating:
Summary: Unbearable.
Review: It has an all-star cast, some superb effects - though also some weak ones - yet Merlin is upsettingly poor. Forgive what sounds like a childish exaggeration, but while I had looked forward to this very much, I came away from it feeling despair. The cast lives up to its reputation for technical quality but there's no feeling of character, no involvement. Everyone says exactly what they're thinking - sometimes even when there's no one around to hear them - and in case you should happen to miss the obvious, it's said to you in speech, underlined with pantomime gestures and then repeated in a voiceover narration. It feels strongly as though the cast were hired, the effects planned and the network broadcast slot arranged before someone realised that there should be a story. They didn't think of it in time. In the UK this show screened in two parts but I didn't even bother with part 2.
Rating: 
Summary: Captivating ! Story - Special Effects - Acting ALL EXCELLENT
Review: My husband and I taped the mini-series and watched it over several nights. The old story, as told by the aged Merlin, is now a family favorite. We bought it thru Double Day Book Club for much more than offered here. My kids love the story line and the special effects. The acting coupled with the special affects were great. The underlying parts of the movie my children are too young to understand or even pick up on. The storyline handles these underlying goings-on well without having to "graphically detail" things. WE LOVE MERLIN and SAM NEILL
Rating:
Summary: An eye-popping visual feast, but....
Review: Despite the stunning special effects, "Merlin" falls short of anything remotely based on Arthurian mythology. Many of the occurences portrayed here are nowhere to be found in any of the numerous books written on the subject of Merlin. Several of the characters aren't even based on traditional sources, but were created by the film's producers because they feel that the audience in general is ignorant enough not to read books to notice the differences. The plot wears thin at times, and there is hardly any significant character development and interaction other than between Merlin and Frick (one of the aforementioned fake characters created by the producers). Such fallicies left me longing for John Boorman's 1981 classic "Excalibur".
Rating: 
Summary: Dissapointment, Only reason for 3 stars in Spe-Fx and Short
Review: THIS MOVIE IS VERY DISSAPOINTING. Bad acting, bad casting (Sam Neil should stick with Jurassic Park) and a awful plot. MUCH OF IT WAS VERY INACCURATE and did not work well with what we had heard about Merlin in the past. THE VILLIANESS WAS STUPID as well. She had an extremely annoying voice and killed the guardian of Merlin. This was a problem because they tried to tye this in with the plot which made it more annyoing that it already was.Ok, now I've griped enough. The reason I gave the film three stars was because I MUST ADMIT MARTIN SHORT WAS EXCELLENT and added some great comic relief to a rather dull and pointless motion picture. But, though he is good, his character is extremely underwritten. The other half of the star goes to the wonderful special effects. The yare very convincing and very good, even if they are added to the stupid and pointless story. I hope the Director comes to his senses and makes the Illiad, because I loved the Odyssey.
Rating:
Summary: Just simply a great movie!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Review: One of the best movies of all times. It brings to life real aspects of the medieval life. It is not just another boring fantasy story. the directing, acting and special effects are just outstanding. the contrasts of light and darkness between Queen Mab and Merlin really bring life to the film. Overall this is just a great movie to buy or rent.
Rating: 
Summary: Merlin was a major disappointment
Review: I strongly advise anybody considering the purchase of the video release for Merlin to reconsider. I don't know if the mini-series broadcast on TV was better, but the video was really bad--probably because it was a condensed version. Though special effects were good, the dialogue was impoverished and the plot was a clunker. The only redeeming aspect of the movie was Martin Short's portrayal of Frick.
Rating: 
Summary: A pretty good movie, but it didn't do justice to King Arthur
Review: Unfortunatly, I have only seen the video of Merlin, not the miniseries that aired on TV, and some of the material on TV was left out of the video, which really ticks me off!!!! Despite that, the video of Merlin was a pretty good movie. It was well-acted and filmed. The special effects weren't really eye-popping, but I didn't really care. (That's not the reason I sat down to watch it.) Sam Neill did a good job, and I wish I'd seen more of Isabella Rosselini. It was nice to have the villianesses have litle imperfections, i.e. Morgan le Fay (well-played by Helena Bonham Carter) had a vewy pwonounced lithp, and Mab, of course, had that raspy whisper. (Miranda Richardson did a good job in the role.) Martin Short realy is a versitile actor, and greatly underappreaciated. My only real qualm about the movie was that the characters in the Arthurian legends had almost no role at all, at least in the video. Arthur, Lancelot, and Guenivere weren't on a great deal, and Galahad, the pure boy that Arthur spent half the show looking for to rule England, was in only one scene! I know this was supposed to be Merlin's story, but he wouldn't be famous were it not for King Arthur, and this version didn't do Arthur justice. That's my only real qualm, aside from the left-out material, of an otherwise pretty good movie. Did the Arthurian characters have larger roles in the TV version?
Rating:
Summary: The mini-series was better.
Review: The mini-series was fantastic, and although watching the version I had taped off of the television took a long time (approx 4 hours) every minute was worth it. The whole thing had a cohesiveness and momentum that is ruined by the cuts made to fit it into the shorter running time of the commercial release. If you didn't see the miniseries, "Merlin" is still a decent movie. For those of you who've already seen the full version of "Merlin" ignore this abridged version.
|
