User reviews

As the hype was brewing prior to its initial airing on NBC, I was really looking forward to watching Merlin and what seemed a promising addition to an almost non-existent collection of "good quality" Arthurian films available. High expectations can often lead to big disappointments, and such was the case here. The acting was horrible, the dialogue ridden with cliches/nonsense drivel, and the plot full of holes leaving the viewer with more questions than answers. Even an all-star cast of such legends as Sir John Gielgud, Helena Bonham-Carter, Rutger Hauer, and Isabella Rosellini couldn't save Merlin from becoming yet another casualty of the TV junkpile (`Journey To The Center of the Earth' should ring a bell). I blame this soley on the poor direction of Steve Barron, who blew a golden opportunity to right the ongoing injustice of one bad Arthurian film after another. Rather than taking time out to do the research, it appears that most of the screenplay was borrowed and put together from various Arthurian films, most notably Disney's animated `The Sword in the Stone,', `Knights of the Round Table', and `First Knight'. Sam Neill and Martin Short were both also mis-cast for the title role and sidekick respectively, and it shows throughout the annoying banter between the two. It's like a nightmare of watching a bad Abbott & Costello film, only worse. The only bright spots were Paul Curran, whose portrayal of a weak King Arthur was more an afterthought than anything else, and the talking horse whose voice I could've sworn was the reincarnate of Mr. Ed. The special effects and Jim Henson Muppet Shop also deserve mention, but weren't nearly enough to offset the absence of a plausible storyline and great acting as can be found in `Excalibur' and `Dragonslayer'. Chalk up another in a long line of mediocre outings from Hallmark Entertainment. 1/10 stars

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 is being screened in two parts but there is just no possibility that I will ever stomach sitting down for part 2.

With over-used ideas such as the legends of King Arthur, filmmakers often have their work cut out for them unless they are willing to go the extra mile to be creative. The producers of Merlin are no exception, as they have failed miserably in that aspect. The performances are laughable to say the least. Sam Neill's wiseguy persona seemed out of place for the typically cold and reclusive Merlin. And just when things couldn't get any worse than Helena Bonham Carter's speaking with an annoying lisp, enter Martin Short. As Frik, he delivers line after line of irritating one-line inanities. The producers probably thought it was funny to employ racist jokes, but I sure didn't. What does dressing up in traditional Chinese garb, slanting your eyes and blurting out "Farro mee! Farro mee!" ("Follow me, follow me") in a mock Chinese accent have to do with sword and sorcery in medieval Britain? Absolutely nothing. With a script so trite and meaningless, it's surprising that they didn't even bother to go all out and have the Rockettes perform with Darth Vader in front of Macy's Camelot. Hallmark has done here to the legend of Merlin what they also did to the Bible in the horrible 1999 NBC mini-series "Noah's Ark". They turned it into a laughable Las Vegas nightclub act. Unlike its brilliant cinematic counterpart "Excalibur", Merlin plays like an awful made-for-TV movie because it happens to be just that- an awful made-for-TV movie.

Merlin is the worst fantasy film ever made hands down. It's even worse than First Knight. The original myths were very dark and violent. I can understand the toning down of violence to make it more suitable for children, but did they have to sanitize until it was nothing more than a nursery rhyme fairy tale? The acting was so reprehensible along with shallow character development and a lame plot. It isn't until the very end that you find out Merlin is actually a love story (*chic flick alert*) disguised as a fantasy- a bad one I might add. The pairing of Neill and Short also gave it more of a camaraderie feel similar to that of Carey & Daniels in `Dumb and Dumber' than your typical king-wizard/advisor relationship. The cheesy dialog was just also unbearable. They should find the very person(s) responsible and blacklist them for good. Merlin is no `Excalibur', that's for sure. It's a TEXTBOOK example of how NOT to make a fantasy film, and definitely not worth the price of a rental. Not even on dollar wednesdays.

Sadly dumbed-down, but the Welsh locations are beautiful (unlike the scrawny anorexic-looking actresses).

There's an awful lot of depth to the Merlin legends, and he has been the focus for stories for hundreds of years. There is evidence that Merdynn of Guenedotia was subject of his own myth cycle long before being merged with Arthur's story. Great writers like Mary Stewart in "The Crystal Cave" novels have explored this rich heritage. Even Excalibur, the John Boorman movie, featured a dangerous, edgy Merlin, the true sorcerer of the legends - practising magic makes one dangerous to know! Although Excalibur suffered anachronisms similar to this film (15th Century armour, jousting, none of which existed at the time the Arthur legends were widely told, let alone 600 years earlier when he is supposed to have existed!), it is recommended for at least having a Welsh/British Merlin as he would have been (and he needs a beard!).

I haven't seen the other 1998 Merlin TV movie with Jason Connery, but it can't be worse than this travesty. Why does everyone look like they've just stepped out of a shampoo commercial? One star.

Usually in a film if the acting or writing is bad, it's just boring or unfulfilling, or so stupid it's funny. In Merlin's case, it was painful to watch. I have never been so disappointed in a movie. I did not have particularly high expectations for a TV movie, but I do like the Arthurian legends, and this movie was a butchery. Particularly annoying were Helena Bonham Carter, Miranda Richardson, and of course, Martin Short. Sam Neill did do a reasonable, but not memorable, job.

The Dungeons & Dragons movie, while bad, at least had some redeeming scenes and characters.

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%.

This is one of the worst re-tellings of the King Arthur story.

It is a "made for TV" movie which never bodes well but the cast is so good I expected it to be at least passable.

The screen play is pitiful, the effects are abysmal and the acting pathetic.

For the epitome of weak acting and effects check out the Frick character. Who are Frick and Mabs anyway? This story has been told and retold through the centuries so that any reworking has to be done sensitively. This film takes gross liberties in endeavouring to make Merlin the central character and this makes it only barely recognisable.

Some costume effort was made to align it to the theoretic "historic" period of the tale but then it breaks down with Frick turning himself into an eighteenth / nineteenth century fencer to impress Morgan Le Fay.

The strong cast in no way hold this weak film together or even make it bearable to watch.

For anyone considering getting the DVD, unless it's for children, get Excalibur.

If only The Mists of Avalon had the production resources that Merlin I & II did. Merlin's director should stick to Mutant Ninja Turtle films, and stay away from deep mythological tales. No one should foist this on their children, unless they honestly point out its' major flaws.

The Lady of the Lake and Morgan Le Fay can easily be understood as more complex than in this fiasco of a film. Nothing wrong with humor, but this is just plain silly. I really hope that people read The Mists of Avalon (the film couldn't hold the story since it was Hollywood- produced, rather than British) to counteract the bizarre way the stories of Merlin, Arthur, Guinevere, Morgan and the gang are drawn in over-simplified black and white in this 2-part film. All the female characters are either really bad, or good - and dead.

Like I said, the only value here is what $$ could buy in effects, costumes, etc. It gets a 1/10 for that. I don't understand why Neil, Carter & Rossellini lent their skills to such nonsense. As the last line in the film says: "This is the end of magic". Thank goodness, this must mean there won't be a sequel.