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.
