Subject: I have found a DVD that I think you would enjoy
Actors: Sam Neill, John Reardon, Miranda Richardson, Christopher Jacot, Meghan Ory
Genres: Action & Adventure, Science Fiction & Fantasy, Television
THIS FINDS CAMELOT IN VULNERABLE DISARRAY SINCE THE THEFT OFTHE HOLY GRAIL. NOW, THE ONLY ONE WHO CAN FIND THE GRAIL &RESTORE CAMELOTS GLORY IS AN IRASCIBLE YOUNG BEGGAR-THIEF WHO DISCOVERS MAGIC WITHIN HIMSELF.
Similarly Requested DVDs
Maybe it will make a good bookmark
Ishak Ivatar | 10/08/2006
(1 out of 5 stars)
"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."
Really bad sequel
Newton Ooi | Phoenix, Arizona United States | 09/02/2006
(1 out of 5 stars)
"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."
Inspiring if you can ignore a little of its cheesiness
Pine Breeze | Washington, USA | 04/01/2006
(4 out of 5 stars)
"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.
Flawed but watchable
J. J Woehr | Lindenhurst, NY United States | 08/19/2006
(3 out of 5 stars)
"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."