Mikael Eriksson This films is possibly the single greatest TV-film I've ever seen, and even by big screen stanards this movie is spectacular. First, there is the script. The script is splendid. It focuses not on Arthur, but on Merlin, which in this take is a far more interesting character in terms him being involved on and behind the scenes in Albion for a far longer time period, thus the length of the story is expanded and can cover more interesting points. The characters are generally well fleshed-out and feel very alive. Like in a typical GRRM-book, there isn't necessarily a knife sharp line between good and evil. While queen Mab might seem like a full-fledged witch, you can to some extent understand her desperate attempts to save the world of magic. Morgan le Fay simply seems immature and isn't comparable to the pure-evil Emperor Palpatine. The only real demonic characters are possibly Vortigern and Mordred. However, Merlin, Arthur and the knights are not the diametrical opposite of them. Many of the "good" characters shows flaws from time to time, emphasizing the complex and shifting nature of Man.Second, there are the actors. Sam Neil as Merlin does an outstanding job in conveying a lifetime of experiences as wizard who has seen it all and grown weary of it. Miranda Richardson brings a good mix of hectic and creepy (with her whispering voice) as the manipulative Queen Mab. Martin Short as Frik brings some cheerfulness to an otherwise serious film. Helena Bonham Carter is perfect in playing the spoiled brat.Third, the score. The music by Trevor Jones are simply a m a z i n g and gives the film a very epic touch. Fourth, the setting and the clothing. One particularly irritating aspects of other films based on the Arthurian legends is that they tend to sport late-medieval armor and weapons in an era that is supposed to be 400-500 A.D. This film on the other hand sports leather armor and roman-looking cuirasses. While not 100% historically correct it sure makes you feel a lot more like you are watching the Romano-British era compared to when you see the Gothic armor of other films. There is also the magic – it never feels like "too much". While there are magical creatures a plenty, the magic doesn't overtake the dark age setting. The magic feels more subtle.To summarize, the film is a must watch if you have any sort of interests in epic-, historic- or fanasy films. Ten out of ten.

peacefulwaters001 I don't know why the actors in this movie were chosen, but in my opinion, it was a terrible error in judgment. Not to be nasty, but why would you cast the early Merlin as an effete male? And Isobella Rossellini looks and sounds like a transvestite or a drag queen. Sam Neill has absolutely no business being in this movie as any character. Helena Bonham Carter might have made a good Morgan LeFey had someone told her not to sound like a 10 pack a day smoker and the makeup artist (and I use the word "artist" her only to convey to the reader the person responsible - I would not call them an artist at all) didn't hate her. The soothsayer was played as a buffoon which would not be in real life. A soothsayer was given honor and respect. And Rutger Hauer looks no more like a king than Prince Charles, and his acting was so camp as to be ludicrous. What a huge disappoint the casting was in this movie. It could have been an extraordinary if someone with a clue had chosen the actors -- perhaps, the janitor?

T&R W Another reviewer wrote that this isn't the equal of Excalibur, and while I'd agree with that opinion from the point of view of ambition and production, this remains a more simple, entertaining version of the legend. It's shallower than Excalibur, but still deeper than most productions of its kind, largely because it draws upon a set of myths that have been retold, reworked and re-imagined for hundreds of years, and the movie inherits at least some of that depth.If you like your fantasy a little light-hearted, then you may well find this movie to be the better choice for you. Where Excalibur is a much more serious, dark fantasy (admittedly touched with the wonderfully delivered humor of Nicol Williamson's Merlin), this movie is more cheerful, and a far more family-friendly version of the myth.As a made-for-TV production, you could never expect this to have the same quality of final delivery that Excalibur had. Indeed, it doesn't, and its sparse CGI (although above-average for this grade of production) shows up its low budget when it is on screen. But what it lacks in money it makes up for with ambition. It's clear that this has a real drive to be more than most TV movies, and it certainly achieves that, with an extremely solid supporting cast that adds a lot of color and character to the production.In the end, I suppose it's similar to comparing The Dark Knight to Adam West's Batman. As a pure movie, there's really no contest about which is the better made, the better movie or the better production -- but the charm of Adam West's Batman goes beyond its production, and it's the same with Merlin when compared to Excalibur. Excalibur is, quite indisputably, the superior production, and I'd certainly recommend it if you haven't seen it. But I'd also recommend Merlin -- just for different reasons.

panzerman47 As someone stated before med: Made for TV doesn't bode very well.True enough, this mini-series/film does have several weak moments but also some very strong points. My main problem being the pacing being somewhat uneven and some of the characters.I never could stand comic relief characters I'd say the actors do a job good enough even if some parts seem a bit misplaced in what, to my mind, is a rather dramatic and solemn legend.And it was good to see Rutger Hauer again.I'm an old guy so I tend to whine more over things I don't like than a younger viewer however. hence, if I'd seen it when I was a kid I'm sure I would have loved it despite it's flaws.So if you have kids who are into fantasy and adventures, let them watch this. I'm sure they appreciate it more than I did.But I don't regret watching it.A solid 4 out of 10.