Merlin and the Book of Beasts (2009 TV Movie) User Reviews (31)

What was Merlin saying?

[paul_haakonsen · 5/10 · 17 February 2011]

"Merlin and the Book of Beasts" was actually a surprise of a Sci-Fi Channel movie. It took me by surprise, but then again, I didn't really have high expectations to it, given the previous works aired on this channel.

The story told in the movie is very easy to follow, and it sure had some interesting adventure and fantasy elements to it. However, I must say, there were moments in the movie where the plot was on thin ice. But overall, the story worked adequately enough for the movie.

What amazed me in "Merlin and the Book of Beasts" was the sets and the details they put into the sets, from the village to the castle of Camelot. And the costumes and outfit worn by the people in the movie was actually also good. Nothing flashy and shiny, so it had that medieval-feel to it. Thumbs up! I read some reviews where the effects were slandered. I, however, found the effects in the movie to be alright. Sure, they weren't award-winning, but for a Sci-Fi Channel movie, then they were really good, because they are not known for their amazing CGI effects. The movie wasn't loaded with CGI effects, but when they did use some they were actually alright.

One thing did puzzle me, why did they chose to put elements from the Greek mythology into the British mythology? That was sort of a weird mix. Now, I am not saying that the medusae were crappy or anything, just that they seemed a bit out of place in medieval Britain.

As for the cast, well I think that Patrick Sabongui (playing Tristan) was the most memorable of all. He did a good job. Laura Harris (playing Avlynn) also put on a good performance. And now on to the bad part of the cast, James Callis (playing Merlin), wow, why him? He was speaking with such a strange voice, and there were times I didn't even understand what he said because of the low voice and the way he fumbled through the words. And sometimes he would speak with a Scottish accent, then other times he sounded Jamaican. What was up with that? Hand on heart, then this was the worst interpretation of Merlin I have had the pleasure of seeing. Callis' appearance and outfit was good though, but the rest was not.

Given the benefit of the doubt, then Sci-Fi Channel made a good TV movie here, and if you like adventure / fantasy (or play Dungeons & Dragons like I do), then you might want to sit down and watch this movie. Forget all about Sci-Fi Channel's reputation and be willing to look past James Callis' performance, then you are in for an adequate adventure movie.

Really...gorgons?

[corey-cwarrior · 4/10 · 19 May 2011]

I think they tried to make Merlin look like Jesus in this movie in hopes of redeeming their own souls for creating something so beautiful and terribly foul. I have composed a small list of why you should/should not watch this film. Who am I to say what tickles your fancy…

1. The most ridiculous writing/acting paired with epically dramatic music to really push it to a level of nonsensicalness I wasn't sure could be possible.

2. Merlin sounds like someone who has inhaled a lot of exhaust fumes and looks like Jesus. His acting in this movie reminded me of the heartfelt and emotional acting Arnold did in Terminator.

3. The princess receives the legendary Excalibur sword not from the Lady in the Lake…but from the sword in the stone in the middle of lake After battling a clone of herself. Huh…? (It was a very Zelda: Ocarina of Time moment)

Finally the director had a shimmer of hope - a decent looking girl in the middle of lake, wearing a white shirt battling her clone in hand-to-hand combat. That's how memories are made! Hormone driven teens everywhere were on the edges of their seats with their fingers poised over the pause button. But no joy on that one…fail.

4. FLY…FLY…FLYYYYYY!!!!! (When you see this, think Fear and Loathing and I believe you will enjoy that insane close up of our diabolical villains face)

And what did he summon from the evil depths of hell?! BLACK Dragons?! Demon HELL bats?! Those creeper wraith guys from Harry Potter?! No, instead he summons Eagles…EAGLES! PUHLEEASSEEE!!! Everyone knows eagles are not for bad guys to use.

I will give you two reasons why; first of all, Gandalf uses eagles in Lord of the Rings and obviously he was a good guy. Secondly, America. If you are a bad guy and you try to use and eagle for gain, as soon as you summon it, it will find an American flag, burst through it and rip your face off. I've seen it a million times.

5. Try to think of something that wouldn't belong in a movie about Merlin and the Knight of the Round. Did you think of gorgons? You know, Medusa? Well if you did good on you, if you didn't welcome to the club.

If you enjoy suffering through B-Movies as much as I do, then sit on down and kiss a piece of your life goodbye. If however, you were hoping to see a really good movie about Merlin then you should steer clear.

All dressed up and nowhere to go

[neil-476 · 4/10 · 28 July 2009]

My first impression was "This is handsomely mounted." But after the 9th time our adventurers had ridden across the same forest clearing I began to realise that production value alone - not that I'm decrying it - is not enough.

The film is slow. When stuff does happen it's done quite well, but heaven's above, there are some fairly long waits for something to happen.

Merlin himself is difficult to understand, difficult to warm to, and either written or performed badly.

The story is dull and underwritten.

The characters were unmemorable. They did nothing to etch themselves into my memory and I didn't care what happened to them.

It made a nice change to hear some English accents, though.

Don't Bother

[randallrayusa · 2/10 · 8 June 2009]

SCI-FI Channel continues to go down hill. They take good actors and make stuff I can't make it all the way through without changing the channel. They kill decent shows like "Dresden Files" and deluge you with reality shows like "Ghost Hunters". Maybe they should change their name to Reality-FI :). Don't waste your time with this movie. The movie is slow paced with poor special effects. The story line is mediocre at best. None of the characters full develop. The move is a real bore with no substance or any real entertainment value. SCI-FI really need to rethink there approach to entertaining sci-fi fans. They have fallen off the mark and don't seem to be able to get on track.

Wasn't good enough

[britmike-1 · 2/10 · 18 July 2009]

The Arthur legend has led to some great movies and stories. This retelling of the story doesn't work. Not good mythology or good narrative. The script could have been pared down considerably. If Arthur is Celtic make the girl a red-head, not a Swedish blond. If Merlin is Welsh, he would have come from Noth Wales, not Swansea. What an accent. Merlin would have been more believable if he had used his beautiful spoken English. What are the Greek Gorgons doing in England, they belong in Greece. How did the sword get away from the Lady of the Lake? Try T.H. White's Once and Future King or try Geoffrey of Monmouth for better versions of this story. There is enough material in the Arthur legend without the Greek improvements. The Disney cartoon based on White was a much better story than this version.

another variation on merlin and the round table

[tom-rusch · 2/10 · 20 July 2009]

i'm a sucker these costume rehashes of Merlin and the knights of the Round Table. not much in the way of character development in this film - i guess you're required to know the general story well enough to understand who/what the characters reference.

Merlin, who i guess is supposed to be one of the leads, plays the character like a homeless person who's inhaled too many dangerous chemicals and is permanently deranged. 'daisy,' from Dead Like Me, tries to provide a moral center for the film, without success.

the rest of the cast stays in the background. even the 'bad guy' has minimal screen time and doesn't make much of an impact.

made it too the end only by using the 'fast forward' function of our DVR.

Wow why does SciFi Channel put stuff out like this?

[meldaviszoo · 1/10 · 31 May 2009]

Next question, why do I keep tuning in thinking they might actually do a good job with one of these movies? James Callis is cast into this role of Merlin and was made to use his voice in such a way that you want to smack the director. This is terrible... acting, the story could have been slightly interesting. But the acting, the direction, the music.. all of it horrendously reaching, indulgent crap. I feel terrible for the actors that signed on for this piece of network nightmare. It will now be reran on SciFi channel for the next few years, and now I know that when this is up on the TV's guide, I now how bad of a waste of time this is. This is as shallow as a drop of spit on a hot day in the desert.

SciFi needs to get someone to look at Eureka to see quality and try to scrape up a portion of it to get any future productions into any form of good film-making decency. The music... uggh I've heard video games with better soundtracks!

Funny...but unintentionally

[pontram · 25 April 2011]

Despite this is a TV movie, I thought, it should have some quality, as James Callis, who was great as Gaius Balthar in Battlestar Galactica re-imagined, plays here the said Merlin.

It's the story of an old magician/warrior who turned his back on the world, but has to fight a last time against a young, but well-known enemy, together with the daughter and sons of his former comrades of the Artus-saga.

So far so bad, because it turns out that the plot, which has some potential for an entertaining fantasy movie (remember 'The Raven' with Vincent Price), is executed in a very cheap and unpleasant way, the directing has no feeling for unintentionally ridiculous moments, which are happening astonishing often.

James Callis as Merlin is completely out of place, he overacts far too much, maybe he tried to save the movie, but he hasn't yet the caliber to save a lost production, regardless how wide he opens his eyes, how heavy with meanings he dons his hood.

The rest of the crew is trying hard, but also fails against ridiculous dialogs, pathetic scenes and a script apparently from a children's book author or even his/her teen progeny - no pun intended.

From a children's view the movie may be entertaining, but I don't think it was intended for this audience, which should not be older than, say, 10 to 12 years. And if it did, I wouldn't welcome to see my children watching a movie made that sloppy...

Not worth your time.

[Hodagz · 1/10 · 11 April 2010]

So, I finished watching this movie today, and the only thing that was even half decent about it was the soundtrack. The acting was sub-par, the script was abhorrent, and the characters were more shallow than a kiddie pool. The effects were terrible, and all around I feel like I should be paid for even watching this movie. I was originally interested in this movie because the actor who plays Merlin was the actor for Baltar in Battlestar Galactica. I remembered how good of an actor he was in that television show, but sadly he was terrible in this movie, especially the accent he adopted for the role. All in all, don't waste your time.

What a shameful waste of time...

[calgarywino · 2/10 · 15 June 2012]

I tried to watch this movie because I love the Merlin legends but it's just doesn't ever catch fire much less show a faint spark. With all the good series, mostly Sci Fi, that have come from the studios and locals in British Columbia I had hoped for more but this movie was only mildly more entertaining than watching paint dry.

The acting is wooden and there are no facial expressions or ease in the exchanges between actors and James Callis seems to have taken his character hints from Joe Cocker or maybe it's the directors fault but all the same surely some sort of expression other than a wide eyed stone faced monotone delivery would have been possible ?!

Please, Space Channel, stop showing it frequently (or totally would be better) and find something better even it is a repeat of something that will engage viewers and inspire more than a '?$%* why did I waste my time' response !

It's a pity that someone didn't have a match so set light to the reels....it would have at least been pretty to watch the flames of destruction.

Unwatchably Bad

[Westcoastal · 1/10 · 22 November 2012]

I had to take the time to write a review of this movie, in the hope that it might save someone else who may be sucked into watching it. My clear advice here is to stay away from it - it's a dismal waste of time. I am someone who loves fantasy, who loves swords and sorcery, who loves Merlin and King Arthur, who should have loved this movie or at least found it enjoyable. I have no issues with low budget production or crude effects. I have imagination enough that stuff like that does not bother me at all. What I do have a problem with is bad writing and wooden, laughably bad acting. That is what killed this movie. The concept was fine, but the execution was terrible. I really felt like I was watching some terrible cosplay event among amateur roleplayers. Not recommended. Unless that's your thing.

Not as bad as some are saying ...

[thelordofexcess · 8/10 · 30 June 2010]

I think the people who are ranting against this film are missing the point. Yes .. clearly this was a very low budget film. It was a film comprised of about 10 actors ... with two scenes with some extras. The special effects were basically theatrical quality (as in a stage production). However, I would argue that a film with those things running against it ... the acting was far better than the overall production ... as was the script. Was it a "masterpiece" I think that is clearly not the case ... but was it the worst film of all time? Not at all. It was a delightful little film that was entertaining. If you are someone who likes fantasy, sword and wizardry stuff, a geek who likes Lord of the Rings or Dungeons and Dragons ... you might enjoy this film. If you are not either of those things ... you probably want to take a pass. Don't expect a big budget epic adventure ... if you go in with modest expectations you might enjoy the film. If your looking for super high quality, big budget Hollywood entertainment ... take a pass on this one. For what it was ... the film was good ...

Good movie, bad sound

[Tyrssen-282-277645 · 6/10 · 12 February 2012]

First of all, this is NOT a re-telling of the Arthurian legend. Set in a later time, when the knights' children are grown, this is a fantasy piece that merrily mixes a lot of different sources, with little regard to historical or mythological accuracy. Nor does it matter; it's jolly good fun.

Unfortunately, it suffers from bad sound; James Callis remains largely mumbling and unintelligible throughout. A pity, since we know from "Battlestar Galactica" that he has an excellent voice and good delivery. I can only conclude that the grumbling and mumbling were his choice, and the poor recording makes it even worse. Apart from that, it's one of the best of Sci-Fi's "made for TV" movies. Special effects are several cuts above average, which is a breath of fresh air in such pieces.

Spare yourself 1:32h of agony!

[gaia86 · 1/10 · 16 December 2011]

This movie is so awful it hurt! Unfortunately I committed myself to knowing any King Arthur related publication... Hence, I read all the original books of the Arthurian canon. A thing, I am sure, none of the people who worked on that movie did.

If you have never heard a thing of the Arthurian legend and just want to watch an uncomplicated fantasy movie, this could be right for you. But anybody else will cringe in agony.

The wardrobe, the lines... argh everything is just so wrong Also I'm pretty sure that the score is stolen, heard it somewhere else before!

But now for some details:

• Tristan & Yseult's son is called Tristan? seriously?

• Galahad's son is called Lysanor? A pretty French name, considering the story SHOULD be set somewhen in the late 6ths/early 7th century

• where did they get those cheap porn-stars who played the Gorgons?

• why in the world would Mordred refer to himself as "The Arcadian"? The Arthurian world had nothing to do with ancient Greek! (If you put aside the theory that all great British kings descended from the Trojan Brutus)

• and even more why the eff.. why would this great evil Mordred want to kill people with the brutal force of BUTTERFLIES? o_O

Besides these points which bothered me factually, the movie itself had nothing, really nothing like any tension coming up. Everything was extremely predictable, and predictably bad. What they probably considered funny one-liners made myself want to bang my head against a wall.

Some people here wrote about their great special effects, well, they were okay. I've seen worse, and it was only a TV production. But great is something else.

If you want so see a really great Arthurian movie watch the 1998 Merlin with Sam Neill!

In my opinion, a waste of time

[arbiter366 · 3/10 · 25 December 2010]

I seriously disagree with the other review. I honestly suspected this movie was going to be bad before I got into it, so I wasn't expecting much to begin with. That being said, They talked too damn much and did too damn little. There were very few action scenes and those that were were pretty lame and didn't seem well thought-out. It was a classic sci-fi channel movie, completely lacking in real plot development or ability to draw in the audience.

I enjoy sci-fi movies a lot, but only if they aren't garbage. I have watched a lot of garbage, and a lot of fairly good sci-fi movies, including Lord of the Rings and Star Wars of course. I have also watched and loved the Star Trek TV show and movies. I honestly have to say that I would prefer to watch In The Name Of The King, and that movie was terrible. The problem with this movie is that it was boring and did not engage the audience in the least. There was too much talking, especially with big fantasy words that were unnecessary aplenty. It almost seemed as if it was trying too hard. I would rather watch a Dungeons and Dragons movie, because at least they do enough to keep me involved.

I give it a chance and.... well

[ventrux · 1/10 · 8 December 2010]

I can say that I saw all absolutely all the movies on the genre, Merlin is one of my beloved characters and this guy James Callis -who is not that bad in Battlestar- is the worst Merlin that I ever saw, I mean it. His accent is so horrible, not enough old, not enough wise, terrible.

The blood in the movie looks like grasp berry juice.

There are some scenes so slow and useless like the one in the fountain.

What the heck is doing Medusa in UK?

Excalibur is not any sword is "The Sword" and it looks like any sword.

What the heck happened in the eagles scene?

The rest of the movie is like a big chapter of Xena or Hercules, not that bad.

Apart from the locations and the soundtrack not worth bothering with

[TheLittleSongbird · 2/10 · 10 September 2012]

I was expecting little from Merlin and the Book of Beasts in the first place, but you always do get that hope that it is at least watchable. Apart from some lovely locations, and a rousing and sometimes sparkling soundtrack, Merlin and the Book of Beasts is a disaster on all levels. The acting feels very stilted, nobody looks properly comfortable and a fair number overact. James Callis especially is so bad that you actually wonder why he was cast in the first place. The characters are underwritten and never likable too, while the effects are amateurish and the camera work is often haphazard. The sword and sorcery elements are clumsily choreographed and the story is constantly dull and the Greek mythology elements with the Gorgons are ridiculously out of place in a film about the Arthurian legend, further proof that the Sci-Fi channel don't do their research properly before producing their films. In conclusion, not worth bothering with. 2/10 Bethany Cox

silliest movie

[meena84 · 1/10 · 13 November 2013]

wow.... this movie is bad although the special effects aren't too bad for a "B" grade film the acting is disastrous, Merlin practically shouts the script at you the whole time in some weird half English half Jamaican accent, in some parts he mumbles the script like his drunk which is hilarious, the " bad" guy looks like he just came off the centre piece of vogue and all the other character members well you really don't notice them much its like the breakfast club reunion but medi-evil style everything is predictable through the entire movie, and what makes it the number one don't watch for serious viewing vote goes to the killer butterflies at the start of all things carnivorous and nasty killer butterflies, enjoy if you dare.....

Ah come on, it's not that bad.

[bigsumo1967 · 5/10 · 22 April 2011]

Compared to the likes of High Plains Invaders and Beyond Loch Ness, this is high art. As I write this I am sitting through this for the second time. Watching the Snooker on streaming video so the Mrs found this on Syfy HD. As aficionados of the whole Arthurian mythos and having just had a trip to Broceliande in Brittany, we were happy to watch this again. As a detour from the conventional myth it is o.k. James Callis' performance is pretty good, and whilst it does not carry the whole movie it is worth the effort of watching. Some of the acting is a little wooden but compared to say Kim Cattrall in, well everything she has ever done, Laura Harris gives an adequate turn. As for the comments on the threads and previous reviews regarding her hair, the poor props, sets etc. bear in mind that this was produced for the cost of the catering budget on Battlestar. Accept that this was made for a genre TV station on a shoestring budget and limited release, and willingly suspend your disbelief, you might actually enjoy it.

What?

[kalebmcpherson · 3/10 · 16 May 2022]

This movie is just plain weird. Merlin's voice is so off it's all you can notice most of the film. In parts he's like Christian Bale's batman, with a weird raspy whisper but not good and other times, it's just weird. Some type of accent with a forced rasp, I don't know how to explain it.

The villain is dumb. Evil comic book laugh, I'm doing this because I hate everything kind of attitude.

This is one of the worst movies I own. It's not really worth watching but if you're bored it's also not going to cause you any harm.

I would say that any of the 10/10 reviews are either fake or are only there to try and counter the bad reviews when they really thought it was 5/10 or something. It's just not a good movie

The Villain and James Callis' voice in the movie are why I don't like it.

Some people complain about x person being in x place and maybe that's off but I really don't care about that. The script is bad, the voice is bad, the movie is bad.

Watchable but not great.

[Hhibrit · 5/10 · 2 December 2012]

This is definitely not the best "Merlin" movie ever made. Low budget it certainly is, but the movie is not terrible! James Callis is an English actor trying to replicate a Welsh accent and not very successfully. (I am Welsh so I am reasonably well qualified IMHO) Merlin would have probably been a Celtic Druid, and as the Celtic tribes occupied most of Britain and Europe until the Romans conquest, it is highly likely that most of the mythology which the Romans absorbed from the Greeks would have been incorporated into Celtic religion. They certainly absorbed several Roman gods into their daily religious practices. This would explain references to Medusa etc. I hope this explains some of the apparent plot anomalies. Getting back to the movie, I gave it 5 stars because it is watchable. It is what it is..... The sort of movie to watch if you don't want a complicated plot. I can understand US viewers having problems with the welsh accent!

Merlin and the book of Awesome!

[maxcooley · 10/10 · 10 August 2010]

Let's be honest; If you were wondering if this film is for you, the answer is yes! It's got something for everyone. If you're looking for romance, family feel good, or even action, then this film supplies it. James Callis' new spin on the legendary wizard of Camelot was surely Merlin's most prestigious return to the silver screen. If you want to hear Merlin's famous gruff welsh accent then look no further. We all know that part of his mysterious persona is not being able to hear or understand at least 50% of what he says.

I almost believed I was part of the action. In fact, yesterday, In a brawl with myself in a local mirror, I tried to hug myself to diffuse the situation. Clashed heads though, blood everywhere, not as effective as Merlin's cast. of course though, they are trained professionals, what do I know.

The film is packed with morale fibre. It says to its audience, "we're going to mention some disturbing incest, and then not really discourage or even repress the idea."

What more could you want. Merlin's ever lasting wisdom and combat efficiency is astounding. Truly an unforgettable ending. I'll never forget the... book.man.?being stopped? or something. yeah, brilliant.

I have to say I loved the way in which Medussa's powers varied in strength from person to person. Slow creeping stone or instant rock form. Take your pick.

The music carried the characters into further intense spirals of truly record breaking writing. Who knew a WOMAN could touch Excalibur.

I would say this film rivals LOTR in depth of character and story progression.

Please, watch this film. 10/10

Misson to Camelot is a Camelittle clunker

[Chase_Witherspoon · 1/10 · 6 February 2024]

Made for TV 'Merlin' clone is a drab fantasy-drama with too much melodrama and not enough fantasy. Bust out the dry ice to create some ambience, fill some sets with era-appropriate props, and let CGI take care of the rest seems to be the casual approach here with predictably poor results.

The acting is over-wrought and at times comical as the gruff Merlin throatily delivers his words of wisdom (he looks possessed most of the time, like he's consumed some bad forest mushrooms), whilst the plot so laboured and interminably tedious, it's a struggle to persevere for almost 100 minutes.

Battles with beasts are clumsily staged and lacking suspense (the encounter with the Medusa witches had potential but was marred by the ridiculous CGI), and then the soap opera-styled melodrama is pointless padding to fill in the time when nothing happens (which is most of the time).

As Merlin defiantly announces to his bunch as they approach the castle 'it's not Camelot, it's an abomination!' and that could equally be the byline for this medieval misfire.

Excuse me, Merlin, but what did you say?...

[paul_haakonsen · 5/10 · 7 June 2018]

"Merlin and the Book of Beasts" is not the best of fantasy adventure movies available, as it had a rather mundane and slow paced storyline which really wasn't particularly interesting.

The special effects were semi-adequate, which was a shame because a fantasy movie needs to have proper special effects to really carry the movie. The atmosphere of the movie felt half-hearted, and you never really immersed yourself into the world.

The characters were adequate, but I can't grasp why they hired James Callis to play Merlin in this movie, as he wore a constant scowl and a lot of his dialogue was mumbled so you couldn't properly hear what he was saying. And the way that he was talking in general, made it seem like Merlin was suffering from constant constipation. It felt like it was a cartoon version of the Merlin character.

There might be a bit of enjoyment to be found in "Merlin and the Book of Beasts" if you, like m,e are a big fan of the fantasy genre, but don't get your hopes up.

Mystery Science Theater could make this movie good actually.

[eapplebaum · 1/10 · 14 January 2013]

This is SO bad it's not even "kitch". The thing that seals the deal is the atrocious acting. who's worse Mordred, the knights or Merlin in this joke? I think Merlin wins for the worse acting ever!!! The others follow close behind. Who ever cast this film should render their salary back to the crew, because they did the best job I'm sure. Costume and Production design is pretty good. Oh!! The horses were great!! Really Sad. I mean the actor who plays Merlin has played in some pretty good shows and probably did well, I guess his terrible acting in THIS inferior piece of work could be blamed on the Director and Producers. I must add that I rarely write such bad reviews of film/TV because I feel everything is a work of labor & few people can pull off anything, but this is ridiculous, everything about this production is pathetic, not campy, but truly lame. I want to know WHO were the people making this?