Customer Reviews

Merlin: Season 1, Volume 1 (Region 2)

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

I saw this aired on TV not expecting too much, but as I'm fond of fantasy, dragons and magic, thought it worth a try. The Arthurian legend is basically thrown into a blender, and comes out bearing little resemblance to the original, except for the names. Nevermind that Merlin, as an old wizard, teaches young Arthur (who doesn't know his heritage until much later)And Morgana, Arthur's half sister, is a witch, and Uther dies before Arthur meets him. And Gwen is a nobleman's daughter. And Camelot does not exist until Arthur builds it as a young king.

I don't care. Throw out the expection of accuracy entirely and enjoy it. That's what I did. Now I'm hooked into watching every Sunday. I enjoy the acting, and really think Merlin is played by an actor worth watching. He is very engaging. Also, Arthur and Gwen are well played. I think this show will appeal to young people, and the young at heart.

From the first episode, I was captured. This is a brilliant new series from BBC. It is for young and old. It is for those who like the fantasy stories with magic(sorcery), dragons, and the like. The characters that play Morgana, Gwen, Merlin and Arthur are so likable that you can't help but fall in love with the show. I also love that they characters are all British (as it is about King Arthur). It is a breath of fresh air in world of television. Something new and different. It is unique to television and very entertaining. It keeps you wanting more. A definite must see for anybody who likes the fantasy world, Robin Hood type of movies or the like.

This is a really great series. The show is great in that it has really talented actors and actresses that are unknown. I agree that it was surprising to see a black Gwen. No offense, as she fits the role well, it was just unexpected.

I don't like the fact that there are only 13 episodes in the first season, but am glad to hear that there will be a Season 2 of Merlin. Hopefully, it will have more episodes and we will learn more about the characters.

I have to say I think that BBC is out doing US TV. This series is excellent! No there is no nudity, no vulgar language, no massive bloodshed. Just Arthur and Merlin as they would have been when they were still young and trying to find themselves. All in all an excellent Family TV show and worth every minute you watch it. As a Medieval reenactor I enjoy very much the jousting and sword fights, but the intrigue as well as the fantasy (magic) should appeal to those seeking more.

Well done BBC, maybe Hollywood can learn something from you!

Valid fot the whole first series.

All in all I enjoyed this first season quite a lot.

Professionally scripted, filmed and acted, it heavily relies on the charm of the Arthurian myth and on the free use of magic so fashionable these years providing the viewer with hours of easy entertainment. A little TOO easy at times.

Said viewer could be even a child of about 10 if a parent is there to do some explaining.

It was only halfway through it that I began to wonder and doubts are now rooted and disturbing.

That the main purpose of this series be entertainment is perfectly legitimate, but I am convinced things could and should have been done better even within this limited scope.

First and foremost there are heavy qualitative differences in the 13 episodes: scripted and directed by different people they are remarkably different in achievements. Take for instance the episode before the last: throughout there is great attention paid to lighting, to framing and composition. The result is that this episode is vastly superior from every point of view. And it shows, it really does. Why was this attention not paid to all of them?

Another irritating problem is the actors' diction: in the first episode it is very theatrical, cristal clear, perfect. Elsewhere, but not everywhere, the same actors slur whole sentences forcing me to use subtitles. Why? Have the creators not established guidelines?

They should have. The series is full of inconsistencies (and sketchy plots/characterization/ethics). For example at the start Merlin is said to be capable of making spells with no mouthed incantation. Elsewhere he has to pronounce it just to open a closed door. Sorry, but these mistakes irritate me a lot.

To talk about some inconsistencies forces me to introduce others that may be less relevant if one accepts this series were originally meant for entertainment only. I can see that it might as well be only me who wishes more attention paid to details, even in entertainment.

The Arthurian myth is extraordinarily confused and I would love the support of an expert before stating my doubts, but I have no expert handy and will have to rely on my knowledge only.

If I am not wrong the life of Arthur is supposed to be set in the first centuries A.D. when the Roman army was retiring from Britain and the Latin-Celtic world was collapsing into small states, often at war with each other and facing the first waves of the Anglo-Saxon invasion.

I might be wrong but this series seems to be set much later, when Anglo-Saxons were already established and mixed with the rest: Arthur's father is called Uther, for instance, and there are runes -which are Germanic only- everywhere. I am under the impression that most incantations are pronounced in Old English instead of some kind of Celtic. Camelot itself is an enormous, full fledged castle, something I would expect in the X century or even later and several details in the scenes appear to be wrong.

Another point is the choice of black actors. Those playing Gwen and her father especially, but there were quite a lot of extras too.

Do NOT misunderstand me: they are fine professionals, I loved them, but I somehow doubt that in V century Britain there were so many people of colour, not to mention among the knights.

A further point is that the dialogues/gestures and even ethics sound too modern for the time. Was this really necessary for entertainment's sake? Was it not possible to fetch an historian and have him revise the production?

There are several other points I could make but I shall leave it to you to decide for yourself, but allow me to stress that a little more accuracy would have been welcomed.

Some less sketchy dialogues would have been too: all actors do a decent job and could surely afford better lines and deeper ethics/attitudes.

An interesting issue other reviewers have pointed out are the homosexual undertones in the series, especially -and understandably- in the relationship between Arthur and Merlin. Nothing for prudes to worry about though, there is nothing explicit as there is nothing sexual of any sort in any line of the script for any character in the whole first season. It is just a texture, a feeling. An interesting one.