gheremond Now here's a conundrum: This miniseries/T.V. film is perhaps guilty of every flaw you can think of. And at the same time, it manages to be the best interpretation of the Arthurian legend and a thing to cherish and admire, despite its glaring defects. How can this be?Merlin has the ambition, scope and in many respects, talent pool of a first rate film. You have a great cast with some fine stars and even some relatively unknowns at the time who would go on to gain fame (like Lena Headey), a good director (Steve Barron was an X-Files regular), a first rate composer (Trevor Jones) and a truly great script, that shifts the focus from King Arthur to the wizard Merlin. But... this happens to be a T.V. movie, not a big production and when striving to adapt a tale like this with severe demands on the production level, budget limitations are hard to overcome. This shows in many instances. Make-up is especially problematic, since the story is supposed to encompass events spanning decades, with many characters being played by the same actors with little to no make-up to account for aging. As a result, Isabella Rossellini hardly ages at all throughout most of the film and Paul Curran who plays Arthur goes from puberty to adulthood through the addition of facial hair. Production design can't hold up to the demands of the script either, although there are a couple of battle sequences that are well done given the circumstances. There is also the occasional bad CGI present (those where the late 90's after all).And then you have the performances, that are extremely uneven. Some of the actors are across the board excellent (like Sam Neil as Merlin, Rutger Hauer and Miranda Richardson) and consistent. Others are hit and miss, including some of the known ones like Martin Short and Helena Bonham Carter. There are several instances where the movie isn't certain of the tone it aims for and as a result you get weird lapses into bad comedy with at times cringe- worthy performances. So, with all these problems, how can this thing be worthy of your attention? Surprisingly, what Merlin lacks on the technical/skill level, it makes for in storytelling and heart and for once, the whole is far far more than the sum of its parts, to the point where all the imperfections get eventually ironed out and forgotten. If you can give the movie a break for its occasional CGI dragons and the odd cheesy line, you are in for a spellbinding tale, one of the best you've ever seen. Merlin is also well served by its almost 3 hours of running time and manages to achieve its desired epic scale by using the time available to unfold its intricate plot instead of resolving to grand sets and special effects. Barron may be responsible in part for the uneven tone of the film, but when he goes for tragedy and seriousness (which is thankfully the majority of the time), he delivers in a big big way. We even get to see a prototype of bullet- time photography, one year before the Matrix. What also helps Merlin transcend its humble origins is the majestic score of Trevor Jones, that lends an epic, tragic dimension to the events unfolding on screen.The tale of Merlin and Arthur is very sad and tragic, starting decades before Arthur is even born, with at least two generations caught in the wheels of destiny and by the time all story lines are concluded, no one is left untouched. Especially the story of Merlin and Nimue (ostensibly the main characters) is heartbreaking. A great twist in this take of King Arthur, is that Merlin isn't an all powerful wizard and in fact, he is mostly restrained from using his powers, making all his choices harder and costlier for everyone around him, with his errors often having devastating effects. By the time you reach its unforgettable ending, you will have witnessed one of the best epics ever, if you only are willing to give it the chance to enchant you.

runamokprods I'm shocked to say I found this 3 hour TV mini-series more entertaining, more human, and more emotional, than almost all the huge sword and sorcery epic features of late (Lord of the Rings, The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, etc.). By staying closely to the legend of Merlin and King Arthur, and putting character first and effects and battles scenes 2nd (though there are plenty of both) I felt I understood the story of King Arthur for the first time. I was very caught up and rarely bored, and even quite moved by a fairy-tale which has a happy ending tinged with bitterness and loss. The cast is generally first rate with Sam Neil, Martin Short and Miranda Richardson all doing excellent work. This felt true to the spirit of stories that are not just about good people winning, but also about loss, grief and moral compromise.

peacefulwaters001 I don't know why the actors in this movie were chosen, but in my opinion, it was a terrible error in judgment. Not to be nasty, but why would you cast the early Merlin as an effete male? And Isobella Rossellini looks and sounds like a transvestite or a drag queen. Sam Neill has absolutely no business being in this movie as any character. Helena Bonham Carter might have made a good Morgan LeFey had someone told her not to sound like a 10 pack a day smoker and the makeup artist (and I use the word "artist" her only to convey to the reader the person responsible - I would not call them an artist at all) didn't hate her. The soothsayer was played as a buffoon which would not be in real life. A soothsayer was given honor and respect. And Rutger Hauer looks no more like a king than Prince Charles, and his acting was so camp as to be ludicrous. What a huge disappoint the casting was in this movie. It could have been an extraordinary if someone with a clue had chosen the actors -- perhaps, the janitor?

funkyfry 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.