Merlin's Apprentice
|
List Price: Our Price: $2.36 You Save: $4.59 (66%) Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days Buy Used: from $0.25 (click here) Category: DVD See more DVD releases |
|---|
Buy this DVD movie at online store in your country
Canada
Canada
Movie Reviews of Merlin's Apprentice
Movie Review: Enjoyed it
Summary: 4 Stars
After I watched this sequel I realized it was not as good as the first but I did enjoy it.Movie Review: Not too bad for a "Return", but was it worth it...?
Summary: 3 Stars
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.
Movie Review: Merlin's Apprentice......
Summary: 3 Stars
Directed by David Wu, Merlin's Apprentice tells the story of Merlin joining forces 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. Thing is, about halfways through, Merlin finds out that this young thief happens to be his son(how is THAT for a plot twist, folks?). As you may have noticed by reading other reviews here, it's storyline doesn't pick up where the first film left off. This movie takes place some 50 years later with Merlin waking from a long nap. It has little to do with the first film and has more of an alternate story timeline.
While this movie is good for a fantasy film by itself, it is not good as a sequel to the first film. I wish I could be more forgiving of this movie but it lacks direction, story, special effects, even acting as opposed to the original. Like one reviewer pointed out, it is a sequel in name only. It was a bit disappointing to me that it was done this way. The only saving grace to this movie is the performances by Sam Neill & Miranda Richardson. As expected, their roles were dead-on to the ones in the previous movie.
I guess what I'm trying to say is, if you can get past the fact that this is a sequel to the first film, overall- Merlin's Apprentice is a watchable movie. If you're expecting it to be as great as the first film, well---it just isn't happening. It doesn't hit that mark of excellence and you'll go away quite disappointed. All I can say is rent before you buy....not unless you get it in a bargain bin like I did.
Let me state one more thing before I close this review, the company that made this movie makes great movies. Their record has more hits than it does misses so don't let one movie blemishe you picking up any of their other movies. I have lots of their movies and this is the first one to disappoint me to some degree.
Movie Review: A victim of the sequel syndrome (details)
Summary: 3 Stars
This film is, of course, a sequel to Merlin (Special Edition), a fine movie. Unfortunately, the sequel isn't all that compelling as its progenitor.
The Story: At the outset, Camelot is up and running, King Arthur and his nights of the Round Table are at their pinnacle, peace flows throughout the land, and the Holy Grail is in place. So Merlin needs a rest and retires to his cave where he pulls a Rip Van Winkle and sleeps for 50 years, (and he doesn't age much beyond growing a long beard.) When he awakes, everything has changed, Arthur is dead, the Holy Grail is lost, pagan scoundrels rule the countryside and a new king (nice guy) is making every attempt to revive Camelot, but without much luck. The remainder of the film is devoted to that end. The afterthought of Merlin's new apprentice presents us with the stereotypical bumbling sorcerer's apprentice.
What wrong with the film? Frankly, it's fairly boring and the comedic slapstick moments aren't very funny. The acting is inferior (stilted) and, given today's technology, the special effects are just so-so. There are additionally lots of redundant script issues, ("Take the spell off the secret tunnel, Merlin!"), and the great numbers of flashbacks to Merlin's earlier days simply manifest a distraction.
This isn't by any means the worst film I've ever seen but, now that I've purchased it, I'll likely give it away because I really don't care to see it a second time around. The camera work is pretty decent and the locations are interesting -- beyond that, you may just wish to rent it and take it back to the video store when you're done.
Not recommended.
Movie Review: Flawed but watchable
Summary: 3 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.