TrueJoshNight Truly Dreadful Film

Evengyny Thanks for the memories!

ShangLuda Admirable film.

Fleur Actress is magnificent and exudes a hypnotic screen presence in this affecting drama.

Thomas Hanhart Recently I watched two blockbusters which I thought to have missed in the cinema: Maleficent and John Carter. Both I haven't watched until the end. Since I'm a big fan of the Arthur saga since my childhood I decided to give this non-blockbuster movie a try for my Saturday night cinema hour. And now I must say there was way more fun and excitement in this low budget production as in the aforementioned ones made by one of the biggest entertainment companies. What did these films cost? How many such great small but fine films like Arthur & Merlin could have produced with this money? My insight from tonight is that I will look much more after such unknown but great productions, than watching ultimately to often the same crap out of the so-called top film league. Sorry, but people who only rate this based on its low production standards are not true cineasts.

Prismark10 Set in the dark ages of an ancient magical Celtic Britain, Arthur and Merlin is an origin story where we see the two characters meet as children before the story goes forward fifteen years when they become adults.Arthfael (Kirk Barker) is a young Celtic warrior from Cornwall who has been banished to his lands and he teams up with the wizard Myrrdin (Stefan Butler) who has been hiding out in the forest utilising his magical powers to defeat a powerful druid who has the attention of the old king and who wishes to destroy the Celtic people.The film has all the elements of a quest and obviously inspired by the Lord of the Rings movies and John Boorman's Excalibur but with an extremely low budget. There are several scenes of an overhead crane camera shot following a group as they run along the hills. However the story is thin and the film is overlong where it starts to drag early on.I was surprised to find that the film was shot in England, I first thought it was one of these films made in eastern Europe and they made good use of the rural/countryside locations.However with the recent popular adaptation of Merlin made by the BBC the Arthurian tales need an extra dimension to attract an audience and unfortunately my young son was never entirely enticed by this film.

Clayton Johnson The story line is awesome. It's not your normal sword in the stone story. It strays in almost every way it can while keeping the same character names.Cinematography is okay. It's no Lord of the Rings. It tries its best to be but you can tell the budget suffered here.Directing is okay. Director had a good vision of the story and did well with what he had to deal with.Acting is TERRIBLE (Yes! I meant to shout. TERRIBLE! It's TERRIBLE!)..... This movie should get a bigger budget, and better actors, and be remade. I'd see it.

shinnstoneer-196-36478 The quality is very high in fair comparison with other indie films. The story is entertaining and kept my attention for most of the movie. Anyone that wants to compare this to the typical Hollywood epic will find it lacking but only because of their own unrealistic expectations.The acting is really above average if fairly compared to indie films as a whole. There are some minor characters who could make you cringe but like the better indie films some stand out. One particular scene was excellently portrayed by the actor playing the role. It is a moment when Merlin/Myrddin encounters someone from his childhood.The story moves along well most of the time and is well paced. I'm mystified at the person who compares the length to a Lord of the Rings movie as this one is an hour and forty minutes. One would have to watch it twice to match the exact run time of Return of the King.Those who want massive battle scenes, high end CGI and typical Hollywood budget films shouldn't waste their time. Someone who appreciates the art of cinema and solid storytelling will most likely enjoy this film as long as they're a fan of the genre.