Merlin

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.

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.

This movie rules! I don't know how many times I've seen it, but it has to be over 30. I think all of us fans should get together and start a cult like Rocky Horror, for this film! I love the graphics for this movie, and Miranda Richardson, who I normally try to avoid when it comes to movies, was absolutely wonderful, and Martin Short was cool. Anyone who is in to fantasy movies should see it.

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.

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.