elnator
I've long been a fan of the various legends surrounding Arthur and Merlin. This movie took quite a different turn on them but did it in a very good way. I've seen many ratings here (I read them all before watching the movie). There are those who rate it highly stating it's an amazing film despite this or that and those who rate it lowly stating the acting is horrible. Neither are completely wrong. The acting isn't the best I've ever seen but it's not awful either. Acting was believable enough to allow you to get immersed in the story and that's all I ever really ask for. The plot was well done though a bit rushed in some places and the overall feel of the movie was excellent. I also really liked that they didn't rely on special effects to tell the story. There were a few... some fog, some smoke... a little fire... but overall the story was done mostly through good storytelling and decent acting.A solid movie. It's not a blockbuster by any stretch but it was a great way to spend a couple hours on a day off.
drjgardner
The story of King Arthur has been told many times, beginning as early as 1904 ("Parsifal"). Usually they focus on the adventures with his knights - "Knights of the Round Table (1953), "King Arthur" (2004), "The Last Legion" (2007) – or the romance – "Lancelot and Guinevere" (1963), "Camelot" (1967). Occasionally there is a focus on Merlin – "Excalibur" (1981), "Mists of Avalon" (2001), "Merlin's Apprentice" (2006).FWIW – my favorite is "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" (1975), but putting that one aside as an exception, I enjoyed "Excalibur" the best.King Arthur has been played by Mel Ferrar (1953), Brian Aherne (1963), Richard Harris (1967), Graham Champam (1975), Nigel Terry (1981), Malcolm McDowell (1985), Sean Connery (1995), Edward Fox (1997), and Clive Owen (1997)Merlin has been played by Nicol Williamson (1981), Edward Woodward (1985), Michael Byrne (2001), and Ben Kingsley (2007). My clear favorite here is Nicol Williamson.The film Arthur and Merlin is a fanciful imagination of how Arthur and Merlin came to meet. It strays considerably from the traditional legend, but there is little fact to base the legend on, so why not this story?The film is a low budget British production, and some people may find it hard to understand some of the dialogue. The actors are relatively unknown to U.S. audiences with the possible exception of David Sterne who plays the King prior to Arthur.Locations were good and the costumes were excellent. The atmosphere of Medieval England is well done here, probably as a result of the low budget.The writer-director is Marco van Belle and this is his first full length film. He does a capable job for a first outing, and some of the plodding might have been avoided with a little more experience. Yet with no cgi and very few special effects, and without showing a breast or using a dwarf, he manages to sustain interest.FWIW – This looks like the show was intended as the pilot to a series, and many of the segues are TV style.Bottom line – a nice addition to the story of Arthur and Merlin.
laststopautosinc
I have seen a lot of low budget movies but this is far the best one very good story line and the acting was very good compared to some big budget movies even the camera work was not bad at all i write this review under my company's name so the stupid idiot that says that only the people that acted in the movies gave it a 10 out of 10 can now truly feel stupid I am sure the movie did not have a big budget but they did a good job I can honest say after watching this movie i felt like I did not wast my time like I feel after watching other low budget movies and some big budget movies to the cast and crew of this movie Great Job
