|Page 1 of 5:||    |
|Index||44 reviews in total|
28 out of 44 people found the following review useful:
I do not think this movie was a waste of time and money. I thoroughly enjoyed it..., 27 March 2006
Author: Dhanyelle (email@example.com) from United States
First of all, to the person who said they wasted an "hour and a half"
watching this movie...obviously they didn't see the second part. yes,
this is a two-parter. I am an avid Merlin fan. I have read many books
and watched many movies and television shows about merlin...you could
say that i am a bit obsessed. I thoroughly enjoyed this film, from
beginning to end. I do realize, however, that it does not follow
traditional "merlin legend" ...but then again, there isn't much true
fact that we know about merlin, so how can we honestly make a factual
movie...the whole point is that it is a fantasy movie, it is some one
else's interpretation of the legendary enchanter we all know and love.
respect this person's interpretation because it means a lot to that
individual, and to many fans out there. i give much applaud to Wu and
all the other people responsible for this film (not forgetting Sam
Neil...as merlin, i couldn't have picked a better person myself to
portray merlin) and i think this is a great movie...even if it isn't a
multi million dollar film...its a mini series for Christ's sake, use
some imagination and fill in the gaps that the filmmakers couldn't help
thanks a lot for your time Danyelle
15 out of 21 people found the following review useful:
Pleasantly surprised, 21 April 2006
Author: blonde_mobile_nz from New Zealand
I didn't actually think this movie would be that good, but I'm a sucker
for anything Arthurian, so I put watched it. It didn't start so well,
but I find it hard to ever stop watching a movie halfway through, and
it turned around. It wasn't totally clichéd where you know from the
beginning everyone is going to live happily ever after; at times it was
even slightly morbid.
And it wasn't your average Camelot film; it was what happened after the fall of Arthur and the round table, and trying to find out why it did happen.
All in all it's a good film and if you like all things Camelot, like myself, watch it.
16 out of 23 people found the following review useful:
unique look and creative, 18 April 2006
Author: purkntri from United States
I loved the original, and found this sequel quite by accident. Nothing could compare to the first, but this one stands well on its own. I found it hard to follow at first, but if you stick with it, it makes sense. Sam and Miranda are refreshing in their roles which have received a bit of an overhaul. Garwin Sanford (Narim-Stargate SG-1,Simon-Stargate Atlantis) and John Reardon do a really good job in their roles. The pig was funny. It reminds me of the horse in the first movie. Jack's Arcimedes? Who knows. True this one does not match the time line of the first one completely, but if you are familiar with the legend of Merlin, and you have a lot of fantasy creativity you can accept the changes with some stride. Hollywood does not do things in proper order with all the pieces fitting, I learned that long ago and have stopped expecting it. Take this movie for what it is, a unique romp in the world of an exceptional wizard, wisely played by Sam Neill.
20 out of 32 people found the following review useful:
An Unbelievable, Stupid Butchery of a Legendary Figure, 18 November 2006
Author: Xander Seavy (RiffRaffMcKinley) from United States
Merlin has always been one of my favorite characters in all the wide world. I loved the original Sam Neill miniseries. Was I wrong, then, to expect this would be any good? Not at all. The film is a miserable disappointment, and deserves to vanish rapidly into the realm of forgetfulness where Queen Mab (Miranda Richardson in the original) now resides. The new characters are vapid and criminally underdeveloped... especially Brianna. Even Sam Neill seems to have dropped his acting skills at the door. While this story could have gone in any one of a thousand directions that would have been better, it had to be stupidly butchered. Never before have I been so embarrassed to watch anything, and, sadly, this has been captured on film and will now last forever.
15 out of 24 people found the following review useful:
After the initial disappointment come many redeeming qualities, 7 April 2006
Author: maxvaughn from Arizona, USA/Hull, England
Okay, first off, I nearly turned it off when the prologue began and I realized it truly was not a sequel to the beloved made-for-TV movie. The production value is low and the climax is rushed. It is missing the true tragedy and lore of the original Arthurian tales, yet at the same time holds onto the feeling of virtue and the loss of it that ended Camelot in the original legends. You can tell Richardson and Neil aren't as into the roles this time around (hey, a paycheck is a paycheck). There are some good one liners, good magic tricks, and one decent sword fight. John Reardon also stands out as being able to pull off his part with the same emotion as can be seen in the previous Merlin film. I would not call this movie a waste of time, I would call it mindless entertainment for the cheesy fantasy lover. Probably something most would prefer to catch on TV instead of spending money on.
13 out of 21 people found the following review useful:
David Wu and his lack of talent - spoilers, 14 April 2006
Author: 1kirk from United Kingdom
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
'Merlin's apprentice' is a sequel to the slightly better 'Merlin'. In this latest installment, the writer, Wu, decided to ignore most of the themes (and actual plot) of the previous film and add his own unique charm. This takes the form of killing off Sam Neil, to make way for the 'young blood' acting, which is so unconvincing and stilted that the actors seem actually depressed. If you want to see a bunch of Americans, looking young and angry about Camelot (the big computerised castle), running around waving swords in dramatic moments whenever possible, 'hilarious slapstick comedy' with the bungling hero who grows spiritually at the end whilst winning over the brusque female character who is cleverly disguised as boy - oh how we cheer him on, then see Merlin's apprentice. The main villain is Conan with more clothes on, who gets killed in a final climatic battle where everyone dies, but not really as the grail (which glows fluorescent green) makes them all alive again - yay. The meaningless ending which adds a talking pig, to bring back the 'lightheartedness' of the first bit, is about as effective as the script in which clichés, clichés galore, litter the dialogue. My favourites: 'fulfill your destiny', 'pure of heart', 'fate has decided', 'please spare us', and various noises like 'Nooo', the 'I'm-evil-roar'.
13 out of 23 people found the following review useful:
Long, Boring, Confused and Corny, 1 February 2008
Author: Claudio Carvalho from Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
After sleeping for fifty years, the enchanter Merlin (Sam Neil) awakes
weak and returns to the decadent Camelot, where he finds that the Holy
Grail has vanished. With the kingdom under siege by the savage Rauskaug
(Alexander Kalugin) that is helped by the evil sorceress Lady of the
Lake (Miranda Richardson), Merlin seeks help with the thief and
aspirant sorcerer Jack (John Reardon) to find the protection of the
Holy Grail. However, he realizes that corruption has doomed Camelot.
I love movies about King Arthur, Merlin, the Holy Grail and the Knights of the Round Table. I tried to like "Merlin's Apprentice", but unfortunately it is long, boring, confused and corny. The screenplay shows a messy and silly story with many characters, but most of them are not well developed. Due to the restrained budget, the battle scenes are very weak and the scenes supposed to be funny are not. I loved the beauty of the actress Meghan Ory that I have seen for the first time, but her character Brianna should have been better developed and resolved. I did not like the performances of Christopher Jacot, Sam Neil, Miranda Richardson and Duncan Fraser. My vote is four.
Title (Brazil): "O Aprendiz de Merlin" ("Merlin's Apprentice")
25 out of 47 people found the following review useful:
Not Good, 8 March 2006
Author: sean50 from United States
Just finished watching it.. The movie is pretty weak. The original is far better. Sam Neil is barely in this and only in flashbacks. The unknown cast is passable, but nothing in this movie seems to come into focus. Miranda Richardson is really starting to show her age. She's playing the Lady of the Lake character and seems as if she is sleepwalking thru the part. All the characters are very subdued, no passion or emotion is here.. I was expecting this film to contain a lot of magic, however quickly realized there would be none. The film defiantly is lacking the "magical" feel of the first one. Magic takes the back seat to a boring plot. And I think that is really where the movie fails. Now this movie is only 1hr 32mins, so there is far less time to develop anything compared to the 3+ hour running time of the first film. However without Sam Neils endearing performance and and such a throw out plot, this movie is a poor sequel. I would recommend you skip it, or fast forward to the Sam Neil parts.
7 out of 13 people found the following review useful:
3 hours of your life you'll wish you could get back, 16 September 2006
Author: treasuretrove_vip from Virginia
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
Bad is the keyword for this film, and it can be applied to almost every
facet of it. Bad storyline, bad dialog, bad acting, bad adherence to
the Arthur legend and worst of all bad follow-on to the original. In
fact there are so many contradictions to the first Merlin that this
cannot be considered to be a sequel.
Sam Neil (whom I like very much) just mailed this one in. I suspect he demanded his own death scene halfway through as a desperate way to get out of the film.
The writers should have their paychecks seized and donated to a worthwhile charity.
18 out of 35 people found the following review useful:
With all the money that must have been spent it deserved a better director, 14 April 2006
Author: david-mayer from United Kingdom
What a waste of such a good cast. My media students could have directed it better. It is like lord of the rings without the lord or the rings. The script is flaccid and slow. The acting feels like they are completing a contractual obligation. The story line is of course stolen from star wars (she is your Mother Luke) And just who is fighting who? There must be a dozen different accents from English, to Canadian,Scottish, Nordic? The special effects are not up to the 21st century. This could have been filmed just as cleverly at the time of Bewitched(TV 1964). Actually I think I was more impressed by the special effects in that. The shaky camera work is annoying. I presume it was edited for TV. I would hate to watch it on a large screen. The choppy editing made me feel ill most of the time. And what a great idea putting Miranda's voice through vocoder. It does not work at all. I think someone should re-dub this as a comedy.
|Page 1 of 5:||    |
|Plot summary||Ratings||External reviews|
|Official site||Plot keywords||Main details|
|Your user reviews||Your vote history|