Merlin (1998) User Reviews (158)

Merlin relies on good story-telling

[AndreiPavlov · 8/10 · 12 September 2006]

It does not rely on special effects, though the ones it has are quite impressive. As mentioned in the reference it relies on good story-telling. You can also add a bunch of very vivid and weird characters each of whom is an "out-of-controller". The voice of Mab is extremely sweet and unforgettable. The transient effects are very creative. Like for example when a medieval soldier drops dead and the blood makes the snow change its colour around his body in a hyperbolic manner.

It feels like deep satisfaction to have it on DVD in one's home collection. Celtic legends, runes, the Lady of the Lake, Excalibur, and king Arthur – there is much talking about all that stuff now and then and here is a chance to see the whole story properly told.

There is also a strange feeling that it's not just a fairy-tale but a kind of history lesson as well. Even if it's a mistake to say so, this film is not historically empty.

Easily, it is an 8 out of 10. Thanks for attention.

When it's good, it's very very good; when it's bad it's awful!

[ltrachael_starfleet · 7/10 · 6 August 2006]

I've been reading a lot of the comments, and I actually disagree with most of them. I tend to think that Merlin is an average film, but I don't think that any single part of it is average. It comes out as average because it has some aspects which are amazingly brilliant, and others that are horrifyingly awful. The character of Morgan le Fay is a prime example. On the whole, she is very sympathetic, because of how Uther raped her mother and killed her father, but they make her a little too comedic in bits. The lisp really is overdone. On the other hand, her dying scene with Frik is arguably the most affecting scene in the entire film. Now, the special effects are nothing great, but I'll skip over those; they were fine for a 1998 made-for-TV movie, and as such, really shouldn't be judged harshly. The story at times becomes rather far-fetched and somewhat cheesy (the bit with the Mountain King kind of made me grit my teeth). The story also has trouble hanging together (probably because it was originally a mini-series) and some of the dialogue is annoying. The whole Mab thing seems like a hastily put together excuse for a villain. All the same, I would like to point out that I don't think that Mab is particularly evil--she's simply amoral, which seems to make sense; there's a sort of primal touch in her which fits, though I think they really could have come up with a better villain. The ending, I admit, was sappy, but then the movie up until then was so full of death and blood and tragedy that the sap was actually necessary. The two best things about the movie were Sam Neill and Martin Short. Sam Neill runs the gamut of emotions throughout this film, but he always does so in a very restrained manner which brings a humanity to Merlin that he often isn't given in adaptations of Arthurian legend where he is seen as merely a guru, or a mentor. Martin Short is hilariously funny in some scenes, but utterly touching (as I've already mentioned) in the scene where Morgan is dying. Anyways, if you haven't seen it, I'd recommend seeing it, but watch it more for the acting than the story or the special effects.

Can you say Average

[aimless-46 · 6/10 · 3 January 2005]

If you are deciding whether to watch "Merlin", my advice would be to ignore all the extreme comments in this section; some would have you believe that this is the worst movie ever and others that it is a film masterpiece. The fact is that it is a well executed but philosophically shallow (family friendly) telling of the traditional version of the Arthurian legends; with some alterations. As you can probably tell from the title, this story is more focused on Merlin than on Camelot and King Arthur. If you ever wondered what it would be like to see William Shatner play a medieval wizard, you can find a close approximation in the way Sam Neill plays Merlin. This is not as bad as it sounds because Neill is intrinsically more likable than Shatner and because ham acting is necessary in his scenes with Miranda Richardson, who gives her usual dominating performance as both Queen Mab and her sister-the Lady of the Lake. Isabella Rossellini plays Neill's love interest, she looks amazingly young considering her high mileage and the viewer has a lot of time to reflect on her age/appearance because her character is staggeringly boring.

Martin Short and Helena Bonham Carter are very effective in comic relief. And comic relief is the real strength of this production as the dialogue of the villains is often intentionally very amusing (don't want to scare the family too much). Unfortunately this makes Mab and her two allies far more likable than any of the other characters.

While "Merlin" is far superior to 2004's "King Arthur", it is not even remotely in the class of John Boorman's "Excalibur". "Excalibur" is obviously a much better looking film but it is also a much more ambitious film philosophically. And "Excalibur" does not have the plot holes that draw attention to "Merlin's" moronically contrived storyline. Basically "Merlin" is dumbed down enough to make good family viewing but has enough intentionally funny performances and subtly humorous dialogue to entertain more sophisticated viewers.

Great script allows for great entertainment

[krumski · 17 February 2000]

This is one of the best made for TV movies I've ever seen - surprisingly good, in fact. What made it so entertaining was the script. Some people have gone on about the special effects, but they're no big deal - impressive for television, perhaps, but cheesy by any other standard. No, what makes this movie work so well is the unique way in which the familiar elements of the Camelot story have been reconfigured. Using Merlin as a point of departure and actually delving into *his* backstory - rather than Arthur's - I don't think I've seen this done anywhere else (admittedly, I'm no Arthurian scholar, but I have read some of the seminal works, such as Mallory's "Morte d'Arthur," Tennyson's "Idylls of the King," and T.H. White's "The Once and Future King"). "Merlin," from what I can see, tells a story that's totally new, and provides a fresh take on the events and meanings of the Camelot tale. Basically, Merlin's lifelong struggle with Queen Mab here represents the struggle of Christianity to take hold in Britain, versus the influence of the "ancient" ways, such as witchcraft, superstition and local custom. No matter what you think of this as allegory, it provides a useful and intriguing "spine" on which to hang all the other familiar stories from the Arthurian legend, which are well told and presented. Naturally, time constraints prevent the movie from going into detail on any single story - but the piece certainly whets one's appetite for more, and that's perhaps the surest indication of the movie's success.

The lead roles are all well-handled. Sam Neill brings a kind of weary dignity to Merlin; he's champion of the good, but he's tired of it all, longs for the battle to just be over. As Mab, Miranda Richardson camps it up wonderfully, and is truly creepy besides. Martin Short and Helena Bonham Carter have one of the most affecting scenes I've ever seen in a TV movie (if you see it, you'll know which one I mean).

Overall there's a lack of humor, and it sometimes feels as if the piece is rushing ahead just to get everything in, but these are very minor quibbles. The wonderful script holds everything together and keeps you wondering - no matter how well you might know the Camelot story - just what is going to happen next.

If you REALLY love your ARTHUR legend then...

[A_Different_Drummer · 7/10 · 6 June 2015]

Will tell readers of this review upfront that I love the Authur story, there is something visceral about it, something that speaks simultaneously to the best and worst of mankind and human nature.

So, even as a prolific critic on the IMDb, I am going to be especially critical of any attempt to do the story justice.

That said:

1. If you love your ARTHUR go online and find a used copy of THE FOREVER KING by Murphy and Cochrane. Yes, I know, it is a book that has never yet been set to film. But it might be. It is wonderful.

2. Your next stop is the recent TV series MERLIN with Bradley James. It is really amazing. Uneven but amazing. And there are single scenes in that series which, when noticed and appreciated, are better than the entire movie (miniseries) which is the topic of this review.

3. Your next stop is Boorman's Excalibur. Boorman as director is insane but the film remains a "vision" that is worth exploring.

4. This strange miniseries is your last stop. It is wildly uneven with some very poor writing in places and some atrocious acting in other places. In spite of these flaws -- remember, I am an ARTHUR junkie -- I have seen it several times over the years. It contain possibly the best performances ever given by both Martin Short and Miranda Richardson. Richardson's wonderful facial features and strange voice skills have never been used to better effect, nor likely ever will.

The best Arthur film....period.

[Tin Man-5 · 10/10 · 9 June 1999]

How do you pack together centuries of legends about the great King Arthur? It might seem like an impossible task, but Merlin finds a way to make it work: they change the focus.

I have always been a huge fan of the King Arthur legends, and I am familiar with most of them. Some films only cover portions of the legends, such as the disappointing "First Knight" and the stomach-churning Disney crud "Sword and the Stone." I was really wanting a film to come out that would cover all the important legends of the epic story, yet I realized it was a nearly impossible task. An excellent early eighties film did it, which was called "Excalibur," and I was hoping that they could do it again, with a more nineties zing to it, what with the new special effects coming out nowadays that could no doubt enhance the legends onscreen. Before "Merlin" came out, the only real films to come out in the nineties featuring Arthur were "First Knight" (which eradicated all myth and magic and put the legends on the status of Chick Flick) and "A Kid in King Arthur's Court" (which I won't even bring up).

Enter "Merlin." It covers everything, from the affair of Lancelot and Guinevere, to the Lady at the Lake, to the birth of the sword Excalibur, to Morgan la Fay and Mordred, and they even throw in the Lady of Shallot. And the cool thing is, they make it work so that it doesn't seem overplotted. Merlin is also given a side story which is beautiful and well-constructed, about his birth and his love life. It all is webbed together well, and the climax and characters are wonderfully painted.

Before this film, I saw Merlin only as a secondhand character, who is Arthur's mentor and friend, kind of like the world's first Obe Wan Kinobe. But now, I see him in an all new light, and to say the least, it is very effective, and I can say that it is the finest Arthur film ever made (though "Excalibur" is so close, it's barely worth a comparison). If you are interesting in Arthur, or if you are an Arthur fan who was discouraged that there were no good films about his awesome, thought-provoking legends, I urge you to watch this film. It will move you in a way few films can!

10 out of 10!

Logical, but not awe inspiring

[Bob-45 · 7/10 · 11 October 2000]

MERLIN finally makes some sense of the Arthurian Legend. Certainly the liberties taken here answer many of the questions wrought by other tellings of the tale (EXCALIBUR, in particular). Effects, cinematography and sound are outstanding for a TV production. However, key casting weaknesses seriously undercut the effectiveness of the tale. Sam Neil is simply dull as Merlin. It is hard to believe this is the same actor who did such a memorable job in THE HUNT FOR RED OCTOBER. Equally weak (in a small but pivotal role) is Jeffrey Sheffield as Lancelot. Where is the charm and inspiring goodness of other Lancelots? Those qualities are necessary to lend tragedy to the events of Camelot.

There ARE indeed outstanding performances on display. Miranda Richardson is simply fantastic in a dual role (Queen Mab, The Lady of the Lake). Her Mab suffers less from evil than arrested adolescence. Her powers allow her to DO evil rather than BE evil. On the other hand, the actor that plays the adult Modred is deliciously evil. Even when his ethical arguements are reasoned, his evil intent slides through, enabling us to root for Arthur. Billie Whitelaw as Auntie Ambrosia is touching and powerful. Best, perhaps of all is Martin Short, as Frick. His wonderful scenes with the equally capable Helen Bonham Carter (as Morgan Le Fay) are the best of the film. Despite the logical development of the story, I do have one small quibble. From the time of the birth of Merlin to the time of the birth of Arthur is at least 21 years. From the time of the Birth of Arthur to the time of the birth of Modred is at least 17 years. Although Modred is reputed to grow astonishingly quickly, he must have been at least 16 years to challenge Arthur. So Merlin and Nimue must have been at least 54 by the time of the battle between Arthur and Modred. Nevertheless, neither Merlin nor his love Nimue have aged since Neil and Isabella Rosselini took over the parts. Hmmm...

Brilliant performance - Best Merlin ever!

[dirkvh · 10/10 · 5 May 2005]

The way Merlin is portrayed here is the best I have ever seen (and believe me, I have seen a lot, if not all).

Of course the story is great and so are the co-actors but Sam Neill BECOMES Merlin. What someone here described as "dull" is only the result of crawling into the skin of who he thinks Merlin is. Not a great magician that will solve everything(as the king would like), not a vengeful Old-Religion priest(as Mab would have him be) but simply Merlin. We know this man, have seen what happens in his life and it follows he chose the path of wisdom. He was tested by life and sorrow but came out whole and, in the end, wise. And in this calm, for all his wiseness, you still see him fall madly in love, losing this love and then ('nough said...) ...and you believe it! I think only 3 films in my life rated a 10, this is one of them. All because of Sam Neills performance.

Cable level wizardry..

[Thetwocentreviewbot · 6/10 · 13 October 2017]

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.

The best take so far on the Arthurian legend... with a twist

[gheremond · 9/10 · 19 August 2015]

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.

Stellar cast. Poorly aged CGI.

[tsode · 6/10 · 10 November 2021]

The biggest drawcard of 'Merlin' is seeing Sam Neill, Rutger Hauer, Miranda Richardson, Helena Bonham Carter, Martin Short, and even a young Lena Headey, all taking part in this single, lengthy Arthurian TV fantasy.

The biggest deterrant is the running time (3hrs), and a very mixed bag of 1990s TV-level CGI. Think 1990s video game cut-scenes, and you'll get the idea.

Sam Neill lends Merlin his charismatic smirk, while witchy nemesis Mab (Richardson) is a devious puppeteer of Kings, fretting over her waning influence. The two embark on a lifetime trying to engineer the rule of Britain.

Mildly diverting throughout, some of the quirky performances occasionally elevate this familiar material. And unlike some reviewers, I got the impression the cast were likely enjoying themselves, but who knows.

There's nothing especially bad about 'Merlin', and there are even one or two laughs. But it hardly raises a pulse, either.

A minor shame then that the sometimes acceptable, but mostly baffling CGI and some juvenile editing (such as fast-forward effects to make characters appear to move fast) distract from a plodding, but amiable story.

When viewed against the practical effects-driven fantasy films of the 1980s, 'Merlin' hasn't aged well. But this is still worth a look for fantasy film completists.

A Overwhelming and Wonderful Tale of the Old Ways

[claudio_carvalho · 10/10 · 20 December 2003]

An old Merlin (Sam Neill) tells his saga, since his conception through the magic of the evil Queen Mab (the outstanding Miranda Richardson). His love for Nimue (Isabella Rossellini), the discovery of his power, the lessons of Frik (Martin Short), his fight against Mab, his association with Lord Vortigen (Rutger Hauer) and King Uther Pendragon (Mark Jax), the birth of Arthur (Paul Curran), the romance with his sister Morgan Le Fey (Helena Bonham Carter) and the birth and creation of Mordred (Jason Done), the marriage with Guinevere (Lena Headley), Excalibur, the betrayal of Lancelot (Jeremy Sheffield), the fall of Camelot, all of this presented in an environment of magic, action, romance, drama betrayal. For me, one of the best movies ever made. I have watched this magnificent film at least three times on VHS and yesterday on DVD. This overwhelming and wonderful tale of the old ways is unforgettable. My vote of course is ten.

Could have used more magic and less politics

[CuriosityKilledShawn · 7/10 · 29 July 2000]

There have been zillions of incarnations of this particular story and who knows which one tells it in the truest form. In this version the legend is told from Merlin's point of view, from his creation to his old age. There's no way of verifying how much of this is true but I imagine that Queen Mab and Frick are just made up characters.

Originally a 2-parter TV movie, hence the abrupt fade-out halfway through, the three hour running-time is a bit too heavy to take in one sitting so I recommend watching one half, then the other, over 2 days.

Sam Neill is rather good as Merlin but he's acted off the screen by Martin Short and Miranda Richardson (who looks seriously sexy as Queen Mab). Merlin's magic never rises above hand tricks, while Mab and Frick are doing wild, imaginative thingies all over the place. A bit of a bad move in the writing there. Mab is also the main villain (even though I'd be on her side) and she still out-ranks the campy, grown-up Draco Malfoy dude who plays Mordred (who we're supposed to hate the most).

Rutger Hauer, James Earl Jones, Helena Bonham Carter and John Gielgud pop up in smaller roles and they do what they can with the weak script but there is no excuse for Isabella Rossellini being in this. She is absolutely awful! The script does suffer heavily from poor dialogue but good actors can cover this up with good acting, every single word that comes out of her mouth is worse than noise of beating a penguin to death with an old violin. Eesh! While the first half has a fair amount of magic and atmosphere the second half is bogged down in endless 'Arthur' scenes. He's not developed as an interesting character and is it any wonder his wife goes and cheats on him? The secondary female characters seem to be played by the same woman as they all look the same and don't do much than sit around. Even Nimue seems content to sit on Avalon Island forever while her boyfriend Merlin visits her every 30 years or so. And they don't age. Thanks to these implausibilities it's easy to lose the time line.

Steve Barron (who did Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles) does give us some lovely shots and the occasional moment of atmosphere. The sets range from enchanting to plastic and fake (Camelot, whatever it may have looked like, always looks like crap on film-ALWAYS!) and SFX range from convincing to cheap. The one consistent part of the film is Trevor Jones' absolutely great score with makes up for all the magic missing in the talking scenes.

The new special edition DVD has a brand new full frame (as it was shot) transfer that looks bright and colorful. The new Dolby 5.1 soundtrack adds a serious amount of bass to the voices and sound effects but can pronounce the sporadic ADR a bit too much. A new commentary by Steve Barron, a featurette and some SFX breakdowns are also included.

Liked the fish, but the script was groanworthy.

[Tahwail · 4/10 · 23 June 1999]

Enjoyable, and had nice effects (I particularly liked the lady of the lake's fishy necklace). I thought I'd find the reworking of the plot annoying, but it was all right. Myths should grow and change after all. But what was really bad was the script which was in modern English - I understand that this is accessible, and that there's no need to throw in spurious "prithees", "quoths", "welkins" and "zounds" into every fantasy film, but the writers seemed to have forgotten that modern English can also sound magical and poetical. This just sounded a bit naff.

A TV movie that's as good as a theatrical production...

[Trav-4 · 20 September 1998]

I've seen Merlin twice now: once on TV when it originally aired as a 2 part mini-series, and a second time on the DVD I recently purchased. I must admit it was very pleasurable watching the movie without commercials!

I consider Merlin to be one of the greatest TV movies I have seen, even surpassing most theatrical movies as well. I especially liked the camera angles and intriguing scene changes. The story is captivating and blends many different version of the legend.

Highly recommended...

Made in the 1990s, thinking in the 1970s

[flingebunt · 6/10 · 6 July 2005]

So here we go again, the story of King Arthur, told this time through the eyes of Merlin. But wait, this time they have CGI technology, so let's face it, there is not much more to contribute to this story.

Telling the story of how Merlin began and ended, making him human, putting him in the center of what is basically a racist quest to destroy the old ways of Briton (which are portrayed as essentially uncaring for humans and needing hatred, violence and despair to prosper) to replace them with the wonderful new ways of Christianity.

The characters are portrayed in a modern way, making their actions more understandable, but also make them less realistic for the context.

The other problem is the special effects tend to be there so you can look at them, basically a hang over from the 1970s era a special effects. But they are not really worth looking at so it would be more interesting to get on with the story.

It is basically an OK version of the story, which contributes little to reinterpret ting it.

Perhaps only interesting for children, but not for the young at heart.

Imagine a world where dreams come true...and magic is real.

[Lady_Targaryen · 10/10 · 19 March 2006]

''Merlin'' is one of my favorite fantasy movies of all times, and one of the first movies about Arthurian legends I watched! It's just a sad thing to notice how underrated this fabulous movie is, as well as not very well know.(I think I don't know a single person who have watched this movie) Being more focused in Merlin's life instead of Lancelot's life, Arthur's life, or even Morgana's life(like Mists of Avalon), this movie shows how magic was losing it's popularity and power with the time. Sam Neill,Helena Bonham Carter,Miranda Richardson,Martin Short,Rutger Haue(who I first saw in Ladyhawk) and Isabella Rossellini(who is always doing epic movies)are great in their roles. From the epic movies, I guess this one has the bigger amount of beautiful people in the screen,specially women. The scenarios are beautiful, and I also like the special effects and the clothes.

I think this movie should be watched for anyone who likes a great fantasy genre!

Motivation lost in otherwise good, but unusual rendering of the Arthurian Myth.

[Chris-742 · 7/10 · 9 November 1999]

First off, I saw the video release, not the TV series. This film manages to capture the Arthurian myth in a new light, namely from the view of Arthur's wizard, Merlin. As such it also starts before the usual start of such films. In fact it starts before Uther Pendragon.

It does a good job of telling it's story and the acting and special effects are good and many characters are given a good depth. What the film is missing is however a motivation for the main antagonist, Queen Mab. Early in the film there is a short film showing saxons plundering a church, and the film claims also pagan shrines were looted, but we see nothing in this. On one hand it is implied that the christian church is bad for Queen Mab, and on the other it is implied that the rise of Vortigern who defeated a christian king was bad for Queen Mab. She only walks around clamoring "Thing´s must return to the old" But exactly what that is, is lost, perhaps in editing. She just fights the protagonist Merlin because he wont help her. At the end of the film she is perfectly happy to send Mordred to depose Arthur, but I cannot discern how this will help her cause.

It is almost impossible to rate this movie without comparing it to the film "Excalibur". I think it is better, a lot better. Excalibur threads a path very close to that of a turkey film with it's visuals and knights running around in full plate armor. Acting is good in both, in fact I would rate Nicol Williamson's Merlin as a better one, and Helen Mirren is certainly more memorable as le Fey. And the music in Excalibur is certainly better than that in Merlin. But Excalibur fails in scenography and script.

Overall- the best miniseries I have ever seen

[kikujiro1988 · 10/10 · 2 May 2005]

Merlin is an epic story of the legendary merlin set in the knights of the round table era. I believe that the movie is great and I have no idea how Merlin has a 6.7 rating when "The 10th Kingdom" has an 8.1, "The 10th Kingdom" was completely terrible in every way.

Directing 7/10:Merlin is directed by Steve Barron (I believe its his best work) and I think he did an amazing job with the materials he had.

Plot 8/10: The plot is good for people who like fantasy movies. I thought there was nothing wrong with the story at all. Not one of the best plots but still great.

Acting 7.5/10: The acting in this movie has nothing left to be desired. Sam Neill is amazing as the lead role of merlin. Many other great performances are also in this movie.

Art Direction 7/10: All of the costumes and sets in this movie are good, nothing great but for a made for t.v. movie one of the best.

Score 9/10: The music in this movie by Trevor Jones is AMAZING! One of my favorite parts of the movie.

Special Effects 7.5/10(for its time 9/10): This movie even now doesn't look very old. The cgi is extremely good for its time. The only time that the graphics really look bad is the scene with the dragon, all the other times it is great, and subtle. The same digital effects compositor as "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone." Please don't complain about the special effects in this movie when no one complains about the effects in "The 10th Kingdom" which had SOME OF THE WORST SPECIAL EFFECTS I HAVE EVER SEEN! "The 10th Kingdom" was also made in 2000 not 1988!!!

Overall 9/10: My favorite t.v. movie of all time!

A different tale from the days of knights and dragons

[SimonJack · 6/10 · 11 January 2019]

This TV mini-series may be of some interest to young audiences who enjoy the myths of the days of knighthood, dragons and sorcery. It's an okay film made by Hallmark, but nothing special. It's mostly about the magician Merlin and his ongoing battle with an evil witch, Mab. But she's even made up from the original legends of King Arthur and his knights of the round table.

With only one dragon encounter here, and very little hand magic by Merlin, this series is mostly about feuding among clans for the kingship of ancient Britain, and semi-humorous attempts of the evil queen to try to control the history of the kingdom. Miranda Richardson is the best of the cast as Queen Mab and the Lady of the Lake. Martin Short is very good as Frik, and Helena Bonham Carter is good as Morgan Le Fey. Sam Neill seems bored with the whole thing and the rest of the cast are just so-so.

Mabs Voice: a Richardson speciality

[chasboz · 9/10 · 2 March 2007]

An entertaining and idiosyncratic adaption of the fable.

I thought though I would enter this information about this movie into the record while I still remember it.

At the time of the film's first showing on British television, the Guardian's TV critic described Marianda Richardson's Queen Mab as a cross between "Siouxsie Sioux and the Grim Reaper".

Richardson herself said she wanted to project menace through her voice while keeping her volume down to almost a whisper; a cold rasp in fact, like a poorly oiled door hinge.

Whatever it was, her portrayal was wonderful to behold and altogether priceless.

Definitely has its worth

[TBJCSKCNRRQTreviews · 7/10 · 15 April 2012]

Mab(Miranda Richardson, who pwns hard as a witch(when doesn't she? She was the only thing that made that Kristin Kreuk Snow White flick watchable)... if one does continually feel like offering her something for that strep throat; she also does well portraying her sister, The Lady of the Lake, who accepts their approaching fate), Queen of The Old Ways(paganism), finds her existence(and that of all of magic) threatened by the invading force of Christianity(which is sadly presented/hinted at as somehow inherently superior... it's actually the one thing where this takes sides, as it otherwise does an excellent job of highlighting grey areas, with no distinctly and purely good or bad guys), and she creates the titular wizard(Sam Neill, who brings to life the hopeful and determined half-human) to win. It backfires, however, as he vows to defeat her, and a decades long battle between two practitioners of the dark arts ensues. This is a retelling of the legend of King Arthur, told through the perspective of Merlin(with his own love, Isabella Rossellini, who you, yourself fall for), and it fits in much more(people, locations, events) of the original story(and I understand this is pretty accurate to it), and a lot of the elements really come together. The all-star cast are all well-chosen(if Lena Headey, in her one role where she isn't a strong, independent female, is given relatively little to do), with Helena Bonham Carter(looking very Goth, even pre-Burtoning) as the dangerous Morgan Le Fey(who wants to take the throne), a vicious Rutger Hauer as a tyrannical king, a not only obnoxious(...it's the best he can do?) Martin Short as Frik the gnome(who you genuinely do find yourself becoming sympathetic to, as with a solid chunk of the fictional people in this), and of course, the booming voice of James Earl Jones as an ancient living mountain. They tend to deliver marvelous performances. While this is three hours long, it keeps you watching, with great pacing. This is driven by its character studies, the interpersonal relationships, the drama stemming, for example, from tradition(lineage deciding who reigns, etc.). If one removed all the supernatural aspects(that are enhanced by the meaning behind them) or replaced them with manipulation and technology, there would still be a wealth of plot and well-earned moments. The battles aren't bad. And unfortunately, we are thusly out of the realm of positives for this production. Filming can get really strange(I swear, at one point, the cameraman goes completely off the reservation, opting to follow around a flower petal caught in the wind... for a few minutes straight), and frankly never goes above the level of average. It's where you can really tell that this *was* made for television. Another aspect is the weak conclusion(where they really shoehorn in what they wanted(it shouldn't have been a happy one, I guess that's Hallmark's contribution), following its anticlimactic ending(which, frankly, could easily have come much earlier, nothing really happened late in this that enabled it to reach this point). The dialog ranges, and it certainly has its moments... the worst parts are without a doubt when they break the illusion by using modern sayings and pop culture references. Why do such a thing in this, as it otherwise entirely plants itself in the realm of fantasy and the days of yore. And what in the world was up with that brief offensive Chinese stereotype? Was that even a joke? This has that glorious early CGI that we now, at most, smile overbearingly at. Did they just not realize that, just because it's computer-driven, it still behooves you to mask effects that do not hold up to scrutiny? Note that I'm not accusing only this of such, it ran rampant after full, 3D animation became possible. But hey, you can't write "questionable FX" without the word "quest". There is a moderate amount of disturbing, bloody and violent content in this, as well as a little sexuality(not graphic). The DVD comes with the interesting, informational and amusing 19 minute behind-the-scenes featurette The Magical Making of Merlin and a small Photo Gallery. I recommend this to fans of the myth. 7/10

Geoffrey of Monmouth Shire

[peoplesmachine · 9/10 · 29 September 2008]

"I really enjoy this tale of King Arthur from Merlin's point of view. Much of this at times is based upon who invented King Arthur in his History of the kings of Britain Geoffrey of Monmouth Shire. His work was considered the definitive of Britain's history for over 600 years, even though when he found gaps in the information on that history he added what he wanted and derived King Arthur from an amalgamation of different Celtic kings that staved off the Saxon invasion for many years. Sam Neil is very effective as Merlin and Miranda Richardson gives an outstanding performance as well. King Vortigern is wonderfully played by Rutger Hauer an actor I really like and steals any scene he is in. Every character is wonderfully played and although the effects in the film are cheesy by today's standard remember this came out on TV 1998 and CG was in its infancy and cost way more then than now. Never the less this tale is one of the better drawing from all sources including Geoffrey's, and worth the watch. The scenery is splendid and the battles are effective and fairly bloody at times. I haven't watched the sequel but I have been told not to. Merlin himself as played by Sam Neil shows range of emotion and charm and a subtle sense of power that he both uses and possibly fears. Queen Mab as played by Miranda Richardson is both beautiful and dangerous and has some subtle underlying humor to her performance. Martin Short is remarkable as Frik. I also love the scene where Queen Mab visits King Vortigern and he brings her onto his lap in a almost romantic sense and her reaction on her face is both perplexing and she seems almost powerless in his hands. Rutger Hauer again here stealing the scene from an award winning actress. The complexity between the coming one God of Christianity versus the pagan ways of old as an theme here is well done, because that is what happened and played well by all on screen. I think this is a great movie filled with some humor, love, betrayal, battles won and lost of both the physical and mental including the spiritual. There is not many TV movies with kind of heart and soul and is worth the price of admission."

Soft and cuddly and enjoyable

[aramo1 · 7/10 · 16 March 2003]

Based on R1 DVD

Sam Neil seems to carry the lions share of this retelling; or is it reinventing; of Merlin. If you can set the many quibbles over details aside this is a soft sell with some nice special effects.

Well worth watching with kids and/or girl friends. 7/10

Pathetic. Perfect movie for those who do not read books.

[Bickoder · 4/10 · 6 May 1999]

Complete waste of money and efforts - and everything just for the sake of special effects (which are, actually, very good). The main characters of the great legend look like a bunch of losers and the epic side of the story is obstructed by Merlin's love affair - and, be honest, Sam Neill, though a wonderful actor, is not the right choice for Merlin! Nothing to compare with Boorman's "Excalibur" which I strongly recommend to those who really love Arthurian legends.