Alicia I love this movie so much

Fairaher The film makes a home in your brain and the only cure is to see it again.

FrogGlace In other words,this film is a surreal ride.

DipitySkillful an ambitious but ultimately ineffective debut endeavor.

johannes2000-1 I thought this was a fine and entertaining movie and I enjoyed it a lot. So what, if the story (about Merlin oversleeping 50 years and finding Arthur dead and Camelot deteriorated, while the protecting grail has vanished) is far-fetched? Merlin and Arthur belong to the world of legends, so why fret about the script twisting the supposed historical facts? In my opinion every writer has a right to make a go for creating new legends. Sure, I agree the script was like a cauldron over-filled with Arthurian, medieval and fairy-tale cliché's, but the resulting soup tasted fairly good and was served out in a very appealing way. To begin with, the series was shot in beautiful surroundings (Canada, in fact!), the costumes were fine and the movie had a good pace with seldom a dull moment. The CGI-effects were not too bad, and other than some critics on this site, I found the battle scenes (modest as the were) surprisingly convincing. Unfortunately the acting was a bit uneven. Sam Neill seems to be forever Merlin, and he does his professional job as always, but I couldn't help feeling that he more or less just went through the motions, inwardly sighing: "here we go again", probably gratefully accepting his untimely surmise at the end of part I. John Reardon on the other hand radiates with enthusiasm, he's the vibrant center of the movie and especially after the death of his mentor Reardon succeeds in carrying the whole projects on his shoulders. Reardon has charm and buoyancy and he's truly an attractive and talented actor. The supporting roles were less convincing, I especially was disappointed in Miranda Richardson as the Lady of the Lake, who turned out as a rather bloodless creature; on the other hand she wasn't helped by the script that hardly gave her anything worthwhile to do or say. Other supporting roles (the young Lady Yvonne, her guardians, sir Thomas, the young blacksmith, to name a few of the rather crowded list of characters) were played a bit wooden. The Rauskaug character, the leader of a pack of ominous Norman-like warriors, acted almost preposterously over the top, he looked as if he was up for a gig in Wrestle-mania or in some heavy-metal band, continuously distorting his face and grunting and shouting as a wild bore in heat. And then there was Meghan Ory, the love-interest for the young sorcerer's apprentice, she had the misfortune to be confined by the script to a boy's disguise (why do writers keep coming up with that lame concept?! It never ever works, here we could see through it from the very first second he/she appeared on the screen, but in spite of that we are meant to believe that every-one around him/her is apparently blind as a bat!), and they gave her an unattractively short-cutted hair-do to boot, so her natural good looks are totally wasted here and the whole premise makes her character look and sound rather silly, to put it mildly.In conclusion, I liked the series especially because of Reardon and because of the whole Arthurian fantasy-world, that never fails to enchant me, all the more when it's helped by such a fine and convincing setting as here. The bad script and the (apart from Neill and Reardon) mediocre acting are in comparison minor flaws on the whole of the project, and couldn't prevent me from thoroughly enjoying this movie. I rank it 7 out of 10.

mtuley000 The main sin of this production, as I see it is on the part of the Halmi's (Jr and Sr.) By casting Sam Neil and Miranda Richardson as Merlin and Lady of the Lake, they trick all the fans of the first production of Merlin into believing this film to be a sequel. Nothing could be further from the truth. This is obvious after the first scene dealing with the Lady of the Lake and the Fens People. The Lady is a villain now on the same page as Queen Mab and the classic Morgan Le Fey. At first I thought the Fens People were Saxons, but this turned out not to be the case. They don't even exist in the first production. The Camelot of Merlin's Apprentice is a much darker version than in the first. The heroes are much less heroic and the villains much less evil. All have done evil and All have been wronged in certain ways. There is no black and white...only various shades of gray. Those looking for a classic Arthurian tale will be disappointed. In fact, they will probably be offended by all the modern themes (Environmentalism, Class Warfare/Exploitation... etc.) creeping into this production.Those Europeans who are thinking that these actors are Americans are fooling themselves. They were all Canadians (oops with one Australian and one Brit)...not an American among them...I know you just can't tell the difference between one North American from another...can you? All in all, I think it was a good production given the much tinier budget than the first. Most of it was probably invested in Sam Neil's and Miranda Richardson's salaries. Stargate fans (SG-1 and Atlantis) and Andromeda fans will probably enjoy this production and recognize many of the alumni from both series. All in all, I enjoyed this Canadian production.

damiannixon This, in my humble opinion, is one of the worst ever movies. I tried to watch it but the dialogue and lack of it, made me gag. I didn't know whether it was supposed to be tongue in cheek or not. Sam Neil looked like he couldn't give a toss. Reardon was as stiff as you get. (He has to be the producers nephew or uncle or illegitimate kid or...???) Scenery is like something from a sixth form play. Costumes are likewise. Music is insipid. Lighting is excessive (though not as bad as 'Columbo' movies). Cinematography is adequate. Sound is atrocious and totally evenly balanced. Atrocious at both ends that is. Continuity is jumpy, to say the least. The story is not fantastic although it should be. The writer didn't know if it was for kiddies or those who can read and write already. It is bloody awful. end.

ngjcdad After being tremendously impressed with 1998's "Merlin," I was excited to see that a sequel had been made. However, aside from Sam Neill as Merlin (and brief appearances by Miranda Richardson as the Lady of the Lake), there is no comparison to its much superior predecessor! The original had amazing special effects, a great cast, and wonderful performances. This has a handful of unknown and unimpressive actors walking around. (Picture a low-rent "Lord of the Rings"!) No surprises and nothing to impress. I only rate it as high as a "3" because I am such a fan of Arthurian legend, but even Arthurian fans shouldn't waste any time or money here!