Merlin

Yes, it's a king Arthur story, but it's mainly about Merlin, hence the name of the film. But that what makes it a great film, you get to see all of Merlin's life, from birth to… well, no exactly death, since he's a wizard… I better not spoil the end…

Samuel Neill plays Merlin, the sorcerer, and Miranda Richardson plays the pagan priestess, Mab. She also does the voice for the Lady of the Lake. The cast also contains Helena Bonham Carter, Martin Short and the voice of James Earl Jones for the Mountain King. In front of Merlin's eyes, Arthur (Curran) grows up and pulls Excalibur out of the stone, like the original legend. But before Arthur, Merlin lives his own life. At a young age, he falls in love Nimue (Rossellini), but his love does not stop for her even at an old age. He goes through many struggles with many kings, but finally Arthur is his success.

I got this movie when I was pretty young, and my family and I have also liked this movie. So you should go find it and see it. Yeah, it's worth-watching!

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.

Growing up watching the "Hallmark Hall Of Fame" TV movies, I was very surprised by the time and expense that obviously went into this Hallmark production. Odd camera angles, wonderful effects, brilliant color all add to this magical story. Any director facing such a lush story as this with just a limited amount of time has to make cuts here and adjustments there to make the story have some sense. The first half of the movie concerns the birth and growth of Merlin, ther second half with the birth and growth of Arthur. The friendship between Merlin and Arthur really does come across in a way that few "King Arthur" movies have shown. The casting of major celebrities in this movie were all on the money, Martin Short is surprisingly good in his role as Flick, Queen Mab's servant, a creature that lives outside of time. You see him suddenly switching costumes and accents as he does various things. The role reminde me loosely of Tony Randall in "Seven Faces Of Dr. Lao". Very much recommended if you are a fan of Arthurian fantasy or just like a good epic.

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.

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...