Customer Reviews

Merlin's Apprentice

5 star:		(7)
4 star:		(9)
3 star:		(13)
2 star:		(4)
1 star:		(11)

 

 

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 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.

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.

Got this as a package deal with the first movie. Didn't really follow the story from the original, but loved Sam Neil as Merlin, so we gave it a chance. Different Lady of the lake, and the plot stalled a couple times. It was pretty good, as a stand alone. As a sequel, not up to par and I'd rather watch "Merlin" instead.

I loved the first one and was pleased to find this at the video store since I didn't even know a part 2 was made. So I rented it hoping for as good of a movie as the first. It's not as good though. Merlin played by the under-rated Sam Neil thinks that everything is going well in Camelot and with King Artur. So he decides to take a nap and when he wakes up 50 years went by and he learns that there's no more Arthur. Which is a flaw in itself since he saw Arthur get killed for himself in the first movie. He didn't just leave him and go for a nap and wake-up to find out he wasn't alive anymore. So this movie pretty much acts like the first never happened.

There's no mention of Mab although Miranda Richardson is back as the Lady in the Water but with her being bad this time and Merlin acting like they never met. Although it was her who gave him Excalibur in the first movie. There's also no mention of Numue who was Merlin's g/f in the first movie or of Martin Short's character Frik. Plus the movie just doesn't have as good of a cast as the first one. It's not even as magical as the first and the effects aren't as good either. So yes Sam Neil back as Merlin had a lot of potential but instead the script was more interested in his apprentice following his footsteps.

I wish the script was more faithful to the original and eventhough it's not, I can't say I didn't watch the whole thing anyway. Or that I wasnt' entertained just a little. I wish it was as magical and well made as the first though but I guess it just didn't have the budget. I mean I didn't even know this aired or what channel it aired on. Was it NBC or just the Hallmark channel ?? Still I can't say I regret that I discovered it.

This film is going to be really frusterating for those who enjoyed the first film. I loved the first Merlin and I couldn't wait to watch this one. I was really disappointed to find that this "sequel" barely acknowledges anything that took place in the first feature. Didn't King Aurther die? Where is Merlin's wife? Not to mention the character of Merlin is highly downplayed to make way for Jack, his apprentice. Sam Neil is one of my favorite actors and could have really saved this movie if given a better script. The effects are cheesy and the acting is terrible. It's almost as if this is an entirely different version of Merlin played by the same actor. If you love the first film, stay away from this one!

Sam Neill returns in this TV movie in his title role of Merlin the Magician and he is the only thing that shines this time (hence my three stars).

Not even Miranda Richardson, as the Lady of the Lake "incarnated" (Queen Mab disappeared in the original "Merlin"), can find any true joy in reprising her former role (which she played well the first time).

All the rest of the cast goes by numbers and are as stiff as statuettes.

The story is original, but that's it. It has absolutely nothing of the enchanted aura that was in the original "Merlin" (despite many attempts to make it so).

Granted, the storyline happens many years after the facts involving Morgain, Arthur and Mordred, but still, although gloomy in scope, it could have been developed a tiny bit better.

Indeed, nothing in this NON-sequel reminds us of what Camelot truly was for those who were involved with it (a few reminder flashbacks could have worked as well). Instead we are treated with a "younger" version of Merlin, who appears to be his very own son, with only a twist, he's also a thief and an adventurer...

The rest is deja-vu, and self-gratifying drama, mixed with some hurried action scene here and there, just to keep audiences from falling asleep in the process.

Some reviewers said that in its own right, this movie is as good as "Merlin". I must strongly disagree.

If it only had been a sequel, I would have praised it, but in the present form, I cannot accept the cheers...

Let's say we had a "recall" of Merlin from his "long sleep", because Camelot, or at least what was left of its glory, was about to be threatened by an adverse magician of equal powers if not stronger (just like in "Lord of the Rings" for instance), to those Merlin had, was about to destroy it and establish a new rule of terror on the Land, then and only then, would I have been interested in the plot.

Let's go one step further. What if as a result of this titanic feat and probable duel, resulted the beginning of the Medieval history of England, with say, Nennius as the ideal successor to Merlin?
Myth tied up with a touch of true history, would have helped things along and would have made this follow-up to "Merlin" even more believable, as well as closing the tale in a tightly knit loop between fact and fiction.

This would have been the movie that would have awakened audiences and would have also brought home some prices and praises.

This instead is only good to satisfy the very young and inexperienced audiences around, but not those who have either studied the tales, or are knowledgeable in the historic backgrounds surrounding the tales.

Nevertheless, after having stated all this, it is still a very watchable movie with some tiny good moments for the entire family, but I repeat, it is not for the very demanding audiences.

As a previous reviewer mentioned, it doesn't really pick up where the last movie left off. In fact, the first movie does a great job of giving you the impression that the story is finished and that there is nothing left.

That aside, the new movie is very enjoyable if you like this type of fantasy legend with idealism. There were many good one-liners and aphorisms one could live by.

Near the end, it's a little too "Cinderella" in its idealism and the special effects look like old Disney effects in a way. But upon watching it for the second time, the message came shining through past some of the little problems.

I am glad I bought it and have the first Merlin as well. It's no Lord of the Rings production, but the story behind this movie is golden and worth pondering.

Very nice.

I'm not going to argue with the people who gave this one star... I'm not even going to say that they're wrong. Actually I read through several of the lower reviews and they make a lot of valid points about the film. However, I liked it - I don't know why I liked it, I just did. Have you ever caught yourself watching a ridiculously stupid television show and you just can't seem to stop watching it... you aren't sure why or how, but even though you know you should dislike it, there is still something about it that is just so entertaining. That's what this movie was like. I just liked it - I'd watch it again. It was just simple, and enjoyable and fun... It wasn't phenomenal, it didn't have great effects, it was just pleasant.

This is a absolutely great movie. I have always been interested in Merlin and the Arthurian legend. This movie portrays Merlin in a way that really is believable. Love it!!!