Yes, it's a king Arthur story, but it's mainly about Merlin, hence the name of the film. But that what makes it a great film, you get to see all of Merlin's life, from birth to… well, no exactly death, since he's a wizard… I better not spoil the end…

Samuel Neill plays Merlin, the sorcerer, and Miranda Richardson plays the pagan priestess, Mab. She also does the voice for the Lady of the Lake. The cast also contains Helena Bonham Carter, Martin Short and the voice of James Earl Jones for the Mountain King. In front of Merlin's eyes, Arthur (Curran) grows up and pulls Excalibur out of the stone, like the original legend. But before Arthur, Merlin lives his own life. At a young age, he falls in love Nimue (Rossellini), but his love does not stop for her even at an old age. He goes through many struggles with many kings, but finally Arthur is his success.

I got this movie when I was pretty young, and my family and I have also liked this movie. So you should go find it and see it. Yeah, it's worth-watching!

If you are deciding whether to watch "Merlin", my advice would be to ignore all the extreme comments in this section; some would have you believe that this is the worst movie ever and others that it is a film masterpiece. The fact is that it is a well executed but philosophically shallow (family friendly) telling of the traditional version of the Arthurian legends; with some alterations. As you can probably tell from the title, this story is more focused on Merlin than on Camelot and King Arthur. If you ever wondered what it would be like to see William Shatner play a medieval wizard, you can find a close approximation in the way Sam Neill plays Merlin. This is not as bad as it sounds because Neill is intrinsically more likable than Shatner and because ham acting is necessary in his scenes with Miranda Richardson, who gives her usual dominating performance as both Queen Mab and her sister-the Lady of the Lake. Isabella Rossellini plays Neill's love interest, she looks amazingly young considering her high mileage and the viewer has a lot of time to reflect on her age/appearance because her character is staggeringly boring.

Martin Short and Helena Bonham Carter are very effective in comic relief. And comic relief is the real strength of this production as the dialogue of the villains is often intentionally very amusing (don't want to scare the family too much). Unfortunately this makes Mab and her two allies far more likable than any of the other characters.

While "Merlin" is far superior to 2004's "King Arthur", it is not even remotely in the class of John Boorman's "Excalibur". "Excalibur" is obviously a much better looking film but it is also a much more ambitious film philosophically. And "Excalibur" does not have the plot holes that draw attention to "Merlin's" moronically contrived storyline. Basically "Merlin" is dumbed down enough to make good family viewing but has enough intentionally funny performances and subtly humorous dialogue to entertain more sophisticated viewers.

It does not rely on special effects, though the ones it has are quite impressive. As mentioned in the reference it relies on good story-telling. You can also add a bunch of very vivid and weird characters each of whom is an "out-of-controller". The voice of Mab is extremely sweet and unforgettable. The transient effects are very creative. Like for example when a medieval soldier drops dead and the blood makes the snow change its colour around his body in a hyperbolic manner.

It feels like deep satisfaction to have it on DVD in one's home collection. Celtic legends, runes, the Lady of the Lake, Excalibur, and king Arthur – there is much talking about all that stuff now and then and here is a chance to see the whole story properly told.

There is also a strange feeling that it's not just a fairy-tale but a kind of history lesson as well. Even if it's a mistake to say so, this film is not historically empty.

Easily, it is an 8 out of 10. Thanks for attention.