calgarywino I tried to watch this movie because I love the Merlin legends but it's just doesn't ever catch fire much less show a faint spark. With all the good series, mostly Sci Fi, that have come from the studios and locals in British Columbia I had hoped for more but this movie was only mildly more entertaining than watching paint dry.The acting is wooden and there are no facial expressions or ease in the exchanges between actors and James Callis seems to have taken his character hints from Joe Cocker or maybe it's the directors fault but all the same surely some sort of expression other than a wide eyed stone faced monotone delivery would have been possible ?! Please, Space Channel, stop showing it frequently (or totally would be better) and find something better even it is a repeat of something that will engage viewers and inspire more than a '?$%* why did I waste my time' response ! It's a pity that someone didn't have a match so set light to the reels....it would have at least been pretty to watch the flames of destruction.

Tyrssen-282-277645 First of all, this is NOT a re-telling of the Arthurian legend. Set in a later time, when the knights' children are grown, this is a fantasy piece that merrily mixes a lot of different sources, with little regard to historical or mythological accuracy. Nor does it matter; it's jolly good fun.Unfortunately, it suffers from bad sound; James Callis remains largely mumbling and unintelligible throughout. A pity, since we know from "Battlestar Galactica" that he has an excellent voice and good delivery. I can only conclude that the grumbling and mumbling were his choice, and the poor recording makes it even worse. Apart from that, it's one of the best of Sci-Fi's "made for TV" movies. Special effects are several cuts above average, which is a breath of fresh air in such pieces.

pontram Despite this is a TV movie, I thought, it should have some quality, as James Callis, who was great as Gaius Balthar in Battlestar Galactica re-imagined, plays here the said Merlin.It's the story of an old magician/warrior who turned his back on the world, but has to fight a last time against a young, but well-known enemy, together with the daughter and sons of his former comrades of the Artus-saga.So far so bad, because it turns out that the plot, which has some potential for an entertaining fantasy movie (remember 'The Raven' with Vincent Price), is executed in a very cheap and unpleasant way, the directing has no feeling for unintentionally ridiculous moments, which are happening astonishing often.James Callis as Merlin is completely out of place, he overacts far too much, maybe he tried to save the movie, but he hasn't yet the caliber to save a lost production, regardless how wide he opens his eyes, how heavy with meanings he dons his hood.The rest of the crew is trying hard, but also fails against ridiculous dialogs, pathetic scenes and a script apparently from a children's book author or even his/her teen progeny - no pun intended.From a children's view the movie may be entertaining, but I don't think it was intended for this audience, which should not be older than, say, 10 to 12 years. And if it did, I wouldn't welcome to see my children watching a movie made that sloppy...

Paul Magne Haakonsen "Merlin and the Book of Beasts" was actually a surprise of a Sci-Fi Channel movie. It took me by surprise, but then again, I didn't really have high expectations to it, given the previous works aired on this channel.The story told in the movie is very easy to follow, and it sure had some interesting adventure and fantasy elements to it. However, I must say, there were moments in the movie where the plot was on thin ice. But overall, the story worked adequately enough for the movie.What amazed me in "Merlin and the Book of Beasts" was the sets and the details they put into the sets, from the village to the castle of Camelot. And the costumes and outfit worn by the people in the movie was actually also good. Nothing flashy and shiny, so it had that medieval-feel to it. Thumbs up! I read some reviews where the effects were slandered. I, however, found the effects in the movie to be alright. Sure, they weren't award-winning, but for a Sci-Fi Channel movie, then they were really good, because they are not known for their amazing CGI effects. The movie wasn't loaded with CGI effects, but when they did use some they were actually alright.One thing did puzzle me, why did they chose to put elements from the Greek mythology into the British mythology? That was sort of a weird mix. Now, I am not saying that the medusae were crappy or anything, just that they seemed a bit out of place in medieval Britain.As for the cast, well I think that Patrick Sabongui (playing Tristan) was the most memorable of all. He did a good job. Laura Harris (playing Avlynn) also put on a good performance. And now on to the bad part of the cast, James Callis (playing Merlin), wow, why him? He was speaking with such a strange voice, and there were times I didn't even understand what he said because of the low voice and the way he fumbled through the words. And sometimes he would speak with a Scottish accent, then other times he sounded Jamaican. What was up with that? Hand on heart, then this was the worst interpretation of Merlin I have had the pleasure of seeing. Callis' appearance and outfit was good though, but the rest was not.Given the benefit of the doubt, then Sci-Fi Channel made a good TV movie here, and if you like adventure / fantasy (or play Dungeons & Dragons like I do), then you might want to sit down and watch this movie. Forget all about Sci-Fi Channel's reputation and be willing to look past James Callis' performance, then you are in for an adequate adventure movie.