Leofwine_draca ARTHUR & MERLIN is an indie-budget retelling of the Arthurian legends, in which the heroic Arthur and Merlin must join forces to tackle an evil druid and King Voltigern. What I can say in this film's favour is that it's actually set in the Dark Ages unlike most Arthurian retellings, so it looks good; the costumes and wooden huts all have that air of authenticity to them. Unfortunately the film itself is clumsily plotted and quite boring, lacking the most basic elements of structure and narrative to make it remotely watchable. The cast give bored performances, there's no attempted characterisation, and the story just drags and drags.

florencealison It's very worrying that such a dreadful, completely awful film has been given decent reviews. I can only imagine that people associated with this feeble production or relatives of the actors have been busy giving it good publicity. It's a slow moving take on the Arthurian legend, clumsily filmed and badly acted. I am trying to be kind, but as others have said, the scenery is the films best feature. It really is painfully bad. The people from the dark ages are clean, some have modern haircuts, the Wench's make up is full on, complete with false eyelashes, lipstick, highlighted hair and curls straight from her heated tongs. The new wicker fences surrounding the pathways are a dead giveaway that this is a low budget film. Add appalling acting, grimaces and gruff voices trying to convey urgency or danger, accompanied by a dreadful score and you have what amounts to an hilarious parody of the genre. It really is bad. There are no special effects, no magic, no mystery, nothing. This is a very poor man's attempt (think poorer than a Big Issue seller) at a Lord of the Rings type film. You'd be hard pressed to know it was about Merlin and Arthur. The people writing favourable reviews must have seen a different film. This really is very poor. There is nothing to recommend it. However, if you need a 'bad film yardstick' this is the one to watch.

Clayton Johnson The story line is awesome. It's not your normal sword in the stone story. It strays in almost every way it can while keeping the same character names.Cinematography is okay. It's no Lord of the Rings. It tries its best to be but you can tell the budget suffered here.Directing is okay. Director had a good vision of the story and did well with what he had to deal with.Acting is TERRIBLE (Yes! I meant to shout. TERRIBLE! It's TERRIBLE!)..... This movie should get a bigger budget, and better actors, and be remade. I'd see it.

johnno1969 Considering the reviews so far are either 'zeroes or heroes', I thought I'd offer a middle-of-the-road approach.This movie is by no means horrible. It reminds me of a better than average pilot for a TV series (albeit one made in the 80's), or could even pass as 'part-one' of a mini-series.The leads are unknown, but solid without being brilliant. David Sterne who plays King Vortigern is a better than average TV actor, and he was very believable. Charlotte Brimble who plays Olwen (the lead female) does a very creditable job, and she didn't have to get her kit off to do that job either!Special Effects were very, very, simple and wouldn't have over-stretched the budget, eg the occasional fog machine got switched on, but that worked in the movie's favour, as it meant that nothing was done 'badly'. ie there was no need to cringe at poorly constructed monsters.The Story was also very, very, simple, but that meant that it wasn't as rushed as B-Grade movies can often feel, as they try to pack a script worthy of War and Peace into 90 minutes. The last 12 minutes were 'so-so', as endings go, but once again, 'not horrible'. In summary, you wouldn't pay to go see it at the movies, but you wouldn't regret watching it, if it turned up on Netflix either.It's not worth much more than an honest 5, but it's definitely not a 1!