Strictly average movie

disgusting, overrated, pointless

This movie was so-so. It had it's moments, but wasn't the greatest.

it is the rare 'crazy' movie that actually has something to say.

So I found this movie languishing in the 5 dollar bin at the local disc peddler. I would guess they are still trying make their 30 million in 1990s adjusted dollars budget back. In all fairness this is in a sense the most perfect cable/TV movie mini series I have seen , in regards to that now fairly past its time format. The acting cast certainly was not bad , veteran TV personalities like Rutger Hauer and stars like Sam Neill. Even the up and coming in Helena Bonham Carter and Lena Headey found early work here. The writing is probably the best part of the feature , however that being said if you are Not into Arthur lore like this , this movie is way to nerd rage on its plot about it. Not for the casual viewer. It biographically , in the sense of it being a mythical legend like say Dracula , does a great job putting together the story lines of Merlin's life , and very much from Merlin's point of view as in most cases he is a part and not the center of the story. We follow along from the pagans origins of Merlin's creation , to his development and rejection of magical gifts in youth , to his compromises , failures and his disappointments with humanity. All the motivations and aspects of the character are given great depth some times at a cost of marble hardened film flow. Certainly , will reside in cult status to the lovers of this brand of lore. For the average film screen-er I can say there are worse ways to waste a slow day.

Things might have got off to a rocky start the instant they cast the rather pedantic actor Sam Neill as Merlin the Wizard, but he actually did a decent job. Same cannot be said for most of the rest of the cast, or the production in general. Far be it from me to judge a TV movie too harshly, but this one seems to call itself in for extra scrutiny because of the huge cast of stellar actors that are often used rather cynically. For example John Gielgud is 3rd billed, but only shows up for about 30 seconds in the very first five minutes of the movie.This seems (judging from Neill's reappearance in unconvincing old-age makeup) to have been a two part film, encompassing all the major events of Arthurian lore but focusing on the perspective of Merlin. In order to do so, the writers have given Merlin a nemesis played by Miranda Richardson and a lover played by Isabella Rossellini. The film often imitates John Boorman's "Excalibur" instead of the authentic mythology, but unfortunately they didn't develop Merlin's relationship with Morgan Le Fey (Helena Bonham Carter) nearly as well as was done in that film. Poor Miranda Richardson seems to have been the victim of poor decisions that her director should have held in check -- she speaks throughout the film in a sort of whisper that's supposed to be earthy and scary but which is annoying after just a few moments. Rossellini as is her wont injects a minor role with all kinds of false gravity.Although Martin Short makes Herculean efforts to put humor into the story, the only scenes that made me laugh were when Rutger Hauer takes over the film as a blunt and self-consciously idiotic previous King of England. "My opponents think before they act; I act before I think and that gives me my advantage." It's hilarious stuff delivered in a delicious straight manner by Hauer, one of the few actors to emerge from the film richer than he entered it in any but the financial sense.The effects in general are rather poor, looking extremely similar to those used in the "Hercules" TV series. The camera work and direction by Steve Barron is somewhat more accomplished than one would expect. Many faces are familiar from "The Odyssey" miniseries which was made by the same producers apparently.

Another reviewer wrote that this isn't the equal of Excalibur, and while I'd agree with that opinion from the point of view of ambition and production, this remains a more simple, entertaining version of the legend. It's shallower than Excalibur, but still deeper than most productions of its kind, largely because it draws upon a set of myths that have been retold, reworked and re-imagined for hundreds of years, and the movie inherits at least some of that depth.If you like your fantasy a little light-hearted, then you may well find this movie to be the better choice for you. Where Excalibur is a much more serious, dark fantasy (admittedly touched with the wonderfully delivered humor of Nicol Williamson's Merlin), this movie is more cheerful, and a far more family-friendly version of the myth.As a made-for-TV production, you could never expect this to have the same quality of final delivery that Excalibur had. Indeed, it doesn't, and its sparse CGI (although above-average for this grade of production) shows up its low budget when it is on screen. But what it lacks in money it makes up for with ambition. It's clear that this has a real drive to be more than most TV movies, and it certainly achieves that, with an extremely solid supporting cast that adds a lot of color and character to the production.In the end, I suppose it's similar to comparing The Dark Knight to Adam West's Batman. As a pure movie, there's really no contest about which is the better made, the better movie or the better production -- but the charm of Adam West's Batman goes beyond its production, and it's the same with Merlin when compared to Excalibur. Excalibur is, quite indisputably, the superior production, and I'd certainly recommend it if you haven't seen it. But I'd also recommend Merlin -- just for different reasons.

This film was a 4 hour film. I watched it hoping it had a better ending then the previous 3 hours and 58 minutes. I thought the plot of the story was so fragmented. To many so called good men going bad. Same scenario, lust for some other man's wife or girlfriend. There were really no heroes,no one that had honor and nothing to come away with but a lot of fighting. There seemed to be no good against evil like Lord of the Rings. It was evil against the lesser evil. Lord of the Rings had fantasy, fighting, ugly characters orcs etc. Lord of the Rings had soldiers that were courageous, loyal, honorable, fearful, faithful,love and more. Lord of the Rings had meaning. it had good against evil and the good people always resisting even when they were scared and knew that little chance to win. Merlin had people that could not be trusted even valiant names known in other medieval stories. Merlin wasn't a good magician either, so much for magic I guess. This movie also mentions Christians and makes them out to be just as bad as the evil people. The acting wasn't bad but like Mab the evil woman it is time to forget her and it.