Kattiera Nana I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

Comwayon A Disappointing Continuation

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

Abbigail Bush what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

innocuous While the original mini-series was more charming and quirky than an actual Arthurian epic, "Merlin's Apprentice" doesn't even rise to that level. Don't misunderstand me...I have a genuine fondness for "Merlin" and own the DVD, watching it at least once a year. But "Merlin" had a tone and a theme that make it a pleasure to watch."Merlin's Apprentice" has competent cinematography, good lighting, decent editing, competent sound, and a lot of other qualities that are too often overlooked in recent films.The script and direction, however, leave a lot to be desired. The story itself really does seem to have come from an after-school special. There's a heavy-handed politically-correct attitude that is definitely intended to teach kids some lessons about life as it should be. (The character of Brian is an egregious example of this, and it is an example of outright pandering to the PC crowd.) One thing that is sadly lacking is any sense of grandeur. The magic barely rises to the level of parlor tricks, making objects fly around the room or stopping an arrow in flight.The direction of Wu leaves a lot to be desired as well. The actors are capable of much more, but Wu fails to bring it out for the camera.Overall, though, it's worth watching, especially if you enjoyed the original.

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.

apetreiadriana it was awful, without a good script, the acting was awful, and i don't care about the budget of the movie. if the film was expected to be a sequel for hallmark's production i am vary disappointed to say that they got it all wrong! it was just awful!when i first found out about the movie i was anxious to see it! i thought to myself that it must be a good movie, and definitely a sequel, because of Sam Neil performance, but just from the beginning i understood that i was very wrong. pity for the music which was pretty good, but not breathtaking.i also didn't like the cameras position and some stupid jokes placed badly in some scenes. sorry, but a very very bad movie!

brvhrt777 Just finished watching just like first reviewer had started. Not sure if he had seen another version but the version I just wathed was 3hr+. Of course the first was much better but that is a given with many sequels. Only watch this if you have nothing else of importance to do or are looking for it to be as good as the first. There is quite a strange story line (plot) but hey what can you do! Miranda Richardson looks quite well as The Lady of the Lake. She is turning 50+ so "showing her age" is bound to happen. If any of us look as good as her when we are her age, knock on wood, I wouldn't argue! Anywho the acting is par to sub-par and the quality of the film is poor but again compared to the DVD of the first one! Be your own judge and watch to enjoy not to nit-pick!