| |||||||||||||||||||||
From director J.J. Abrams comes the next installment in the Star Trek saga, Star Trek Into Darkness. See it at Cinemark theaters now and pre-order on Blu-ray, 3D Blu-ray, DVD, and the Exclusive Starfleet Phaser Gift Set. Shop Star Trek Into Darkness and more in the Star Trek Store. Learn more |
Frequently Bought Together
What Other Items Do Customers Buy After Viewing This Item?
Product Details
Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images? |
Special Features
- Interviews with Cast and Crew
Editorial Reviews
Amazon.com
A fanciful sequel to the successful 1998 miniseries Merlin, this 2005 multi-part series benefits greatly from Sam Neill's return performance as the legendary wizard. Taking place some 50 years after the first film, Merlin's Apprentice partners the magician with a young thief with untapped magic powers of his own (engaging Canadian actor John Reardon) in a quest to recover the lost Holy Grail, which holds the key to Camelot's protection and survival. Miranda Richardson, who enlivened the '98 production as the ferocious Queen Mab, also returns to provide some necessary drama as the Lady in the Lake. Solid production values (bolstered by the lovely Vancouver locations), confident direction by Hong Kong veteran David Wu (Bride with White Hair 2), and an abundance of fantasy-action make this a worthwhile adventure for fans of the first miniseries and sword-and-sorcery features in general. --Paul Gaita
Product Description
Sam Neill, Miranda Richardson. Attempting to bring Camelot back to its splendor by finding and restoring the Holy Grail, Merlin returns and solicits the help of a young beggar endowed with his own sense of unruly magic. 2005/color/2 hrs., 56 min/NR.
Customer Reviews
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
31 of 34 people found the following review helpful
By Ishak Ivatar
Format:DVD|Amazon Verified Purchase
I am a huge fan of fantasy movies and am always looking for another. There never seem to be enough out there. I can hardly relate how excited I was to find what I thought was a sequal to Hallmark's Merlin.
This movie is anything but that. I could have forgiven the lack of plot connection to its predecessor, but my problems iwth it don't end there. It was gloomy pretty much all the way through, with almost no special effects (and the few there were turned out to be quite disappointing). The acting, too, was absolutely terrible. I'm usually quite forgiving when it comes to acting -- one has to be if one's into fantasy movies these days -- but the acting in this film was absolutely rediculous. Highschool actors could have done a better job! Especially the guy who played the apprentice... his acting was so hokey I just wanted to slap him.
Most importantly, however, this movie lacks the adventurous spirit and imagination of its predecessor (or of any fantasy film/miniseries that I would consider worth watching). It just drags on and on and on, nothing new happens... I kept waiting for this to get good, but it never did. Half is in the decrepit, dusty Camelot, and the other half puttering around in an ordinary, boring forest. No enchanting underworld realm (as in Merlin), no magical creatures, nothing. And the way the film is shot makes it very claustrophobic... along the lines of Excalibur (though THAT was a good movie).
From reading other reviews here, I get the idea that many others feel similarly to me. Moreover, after watching the special features, I get the impression that Sam Neil was dissapointed with the way this film turned out. I wouldn't blame him. I'd be embarassed just to be in this. For that matter, it's almost embarassing to own it. Maybe it will make a good bookmark.
This movie is so bad it almost tarnishes the earlier one.
This movie is anything but that. I could have forgiven the lack of plot connection to its predecessor, but my problems iwth it don't end there. It was gloomy pretty much all the way through, with almost no special effects (and the few there were turned out to be quite disappointing). The acting, too, was absolutely terrible. I'm usually quite forgiving when it comes to acting -- one has to be if one's into fantasy movies these days -- but the acting in this film was absolutely rediculous. Highschool actors could have done a better job! Especially the guy who played the apprentice... his acting was so hokey I just wanted to slap him.
Most importantly, however, this movie lacks the adventurous spirit and imagination of its predecessor (or of any fantasy film/miniseries that I would consider worth watching). It just drags on and on and on, nothing new happens... I kept waiting for this to get good, but it never did. Half is in the decrepit, dusty Camelot, and the other half puttering around in an ordinary, boring forest. No enchanting underworld realm (as in Merlin), no magical creatures, nothing. And the way the film is shot makes it very claustrophobic... along the lines of Excalibur (though THAT was a good movie).
From reading other reviews here, I get the idea that many others feel similarly to me. Moreover, after watching the special features, I get the impression that Sam Neil was dissapointed with the way this film turned out. I wouldn't blame him. I'd be embarassed just to be in this. For that matter, it's almost embarassing to own it. Maybe it will make a good bookmark.
This movie is so bad it almost tarnishes the earlier one.
19 of 21 people found the following review helpful
By Newton Ooi
Format:DVD
This reviewer is a fan of the King Arthur movies. Having seen the first Merlin, and being a fan of Hallmark movies, I rented this DVD the first chance I got. It was quite disappointing. The storyline does not mesh with the original Merlin and the entire foundation of this movie conflicts with the original. For instance, in this one Merlin wakes up in cave after a very long sleep alone, whereas the original leaves of with Merlin finding his love Nimue. Also, this movie mentions that Arthur had found the Grail, when in the original, Galahad had found the Grail. The castle at Camelot also looks quite different.
Even taking aside the discrepancies in the storyline, this movie is not that good. The music was lackluster and altogether forgettable. Second, the romance scenes between Nimue and Merlin in the first movie were good, but were almost nonexistent here. Third, the dialogue was quite cheesy; especially the part about saving Camelot in the end. Fourth, the sword fight scenes looked all too choreographed. Last, the part about the Grail hidden behind a waterfall was too fake. All in all, not really worth the time to watch this movie.
Even taking aside the discrepancies in the storyline, this movie is not that good. The music was lackluster and altogether forgettable. Second, the romance scenes between Nimue and Merlin in the first movie were good, but were almost nonexistent here. Third, the dialogue was quite cheesy; especially the part about saving Camelot in the end. Fourth, the sword fight scenes looked all too choreographed. Last, the part about the Grail hidden behind a waterfall was too fake. All in all, not really worth the time to watch this movie.
11 of 11 people found the following review helpful
By Bryan Leech
Format:DVD|Amazon Verified Purchase
Having watched Hallmark's 'Merlin' and being impressed by it, I turned to this film, expecting a sequel. This is where most of the other reviews have gone wrong. It most definitely is not a sequel to 'Merlin', but a companion story.
This fact is obvious right from the start, where the Camelot we find is very different to the Camelot at the end of 'Merlin', as is Merlin himself, even though the character is played again by Sam Neill, who handles the role deliciously in both mini-series. So be prepared to see a totally new story which draws on the Camelot legends for its basis, but follows none of them.
This new story starts slowly from a demolished Camelot. Merlin has been in hibernation for 50 years, but a young, undisciplined magician, as yet not very skilled, has appeared to partly fill the gap created by the missing Merlin. Merlin returns and with the remnants of the citizens of Camelot sets out to create a new Camelot. Along the way, he acquires the afore-mentioned young magician as an apprentice.
The story is beautifully constructed, slowly developing, taking on twists and turns and leading to an ending which the cynical might see as corny, but the lover of such fantasies will see as almost inspiring. Some of the dialog can be a little pedestrian, but most is quite competent and at times rises to scenes of near-brilliance.
As in its earlier companion film, 'Merlin', the technical aspects of film making are excellent. The photography is of quite a high standard, as is the editing, but they are both handled in such a responsible way that they do not draw attention to themselves. Color and 5.1 sound on this widescreen film are also excellent. And, an important contribution to most films, it has a delightful music score.
Although a different director to 'Merlin', the direction skillfully draws together all the elements of the film to create a result which I thought was superior to 'Merlin'. Certainly it had less special effects, at least obvious ones. but I don't watch a film for its special effects, I watch for the telling of a good story or the exposition of a good character study. And in this I found quite a good story. As in 'Merlin', neither the story or the film is a masterpiece, but at least there is a solid well-developed story, a rarity in most films.
I was slightly disappointed in the acting of the pivotal character, the apprentice. The character portrayed was exactly right for the story and he looked very good for the part. Unfortunately, his acting was marred by a little rigidity. However, he got away with this failing. Surprisingly, Miranda Richardson, the focus of evil in the story, was unusually bland.
In total, I thought this a good film, not one to go down in history, but superior to most of what we see in our cinemas (this is a TV two-part mini-series). If you like this type of fantasy, buy it. But don't expect a sequel to 'Merlin' or any other Arthurian film you have seen. It is a new story that stands alone from the rest. Approach it as any sort of sequel and you will be disappointed. Approach it on its own merits, and you should experience enjoyable viewing.
This fact is obvious right from the start, where the Camelot we find is very different to the Camelot at the end of 'Merlin', as is Merlin himself, even though the character is played again by Sam Neill, who handles the role deliciously in both mini-series. So be prepared to see a totally new story which draws on the Camelot legends for its basis, but follows none of them.
This new story starts slowly from a demolished Camelot. Merlin has been in hibernation for 50 years, but a young, undisciplined magician, as yet not very skilled, has appeared to partly fill the gap created by the missing Merlin. Merlin returns and with the remnants of the citizens of Camelot sets out to create a new Camelot. Along the way, he acquires the afore-mentioned young magician as an apprentice.
The story is beautifully constructed, slowly developing, taking on twists and turns and leading to an ending which the cynical might see as corny, but the lover of such fantasies will see as almost inspiring. Some of the dialog can be a little pedestrian, but most is quite competent and at times rises to scenes of near-brilliance.
As in its earlier companion film, 'Merlin', the technical aspects of film making are excellent. The photography is of quite a high standard, as is the editing, but they are both handled in such a responsible way that they do not draw attention to themselves. Color and 5.1 sound on this widescreen film are also excellent. And, an important contribution to most films, it has a delightful music score.
Although a different director to 'Merlin', the direction skillfully draws together all the elements of the film to create a result which I thought was superior to 'Merlin'. Certainly it had less special effects, at least obvious ones. but I don't watch a film for its special effects, I watch for the telling of a good story or the exposition of a good character study. And in this I found quite a good story. As in 'Merlin', neither the story or the film is a masterpiece, but at least there is a solid well-developed story, a rarity in most films.
I was slightly disappointed in the acting of the pivotal character, the apprentice. The character portrayed was exactly right for the story and he looked very good for the part. Unfortunately, his acting was marred by a little rigidity. However, he got away with this failing. Surprisingly, Miranda Richardson, the focus of evil in the story, was unusually bland.
In total, I thought this a good film, not one to go down in history, but superior to most of what we see in our cinemas (this is a TV two-part mini-series). If you like this type of fantasy, buy it. But don't expect a sequel to 'Merlin' or any other Arthurian film you have seen. It is a new story that stands alone from the rest. Approach it as any sort of sequel and you will be disappointed. Approach it on its own merits, and you should experience enjoyable viewing.
Most Recent Customer Reviews
2.0 out of 5 stars
Waste of a Sequel
Supposedly this is a sequel to Merlin-a miniseries that came out in 1998. It doesn't follow the time-line from the first one and this story is much slower at developing and... Read more
Published 1 month ago by Rebel G.
4.0 out of 5 stars
A wonderful movie on its own if you enjoy this genre
So, if you have been reading the reviews, you know that this film is very different from its predecessor. Read more
Published 1 month ago by Dave Figaro
4.0 out of 5 stars
Good movie
Its a good movie, especially if you like the Merlin story line. I was disappointed that it didn't have closed captioning, as the dialog was hard to follow when they talk fast. Read more
Published 2 months ago by ShaAnn
5.0 out of 5 stars
really good movie
i really enjoyed merlin and merlins apprentice both really enjoyable movies. i recommend these to all family's and children i think anybody would like them
Published 2 months ago by joshua parsons
4.0 out of 5 stars
It was good
They aren't the best movies in the world, but certainly not the worst. For the price it was worth taking the risk.
Published 4 months ago by Neil Avery
1.0 out of 5 stars
Merlin's Appendix
Merlin's Appendix, oops, I mean Apprentice might have been more interesting had the scriptwriter actually watched the original miniseries and cared about it rather then the number... Read more
Published 8 months ago by Chrome Oxide
1.0 out of 5 stars
Ugh...!
I loved the original Merlin movie/mini-series with Sam Neill and Miranda Richardson, among others. However, this movie is less a sequel and more an insult to the original. Read more
Published 13 months ago by raven
3.0 out of 5 stars
not bad
Decent fantasy films are hard to come by. Either they are unoriginal, poorly acted, or absolutely butcher the book they're based on. Read more
Published 14 months ago by Charity Bishop
5.0 out of 5 stars
Merlin's Apprentice
I have always liked movies about Camelot. Someone leant me this movie, I liked it so much I went to Amazon and ordered my own copy. It has some twists and turns you don't expect. Read more
Published 15 months ago by Donna Pepper
3.0 out of 5 stars
Could have done better could have done worse! But its watchable!
I liked it but this film could have done better. And it was very confusing. Because in the first film The Lady of the Lake was a good witch and she dies at the end. Read more
Published 18 months ago by Bianca Vandenbos
