Once upon a time, there was a stirring and delightful movie named "Merlin", which gave us yet another perspective of the Arthurian legends, from the viewpoint of the wizard Merlin. It was great fun.Then there was a so-called sequel, called "Merlin's Apprentice". This film, in fact, has a lot more to do with Lloyd Alexander's stories of the "Prydain Chronicles" than it has to do with either Merlin or Arthur. And as a sequel, it is appalling. A proper sequel would tie directly into a previous movie, and this one simply doesn't. "Merlin" has its own story and as such the sequel should have stayed true to it. I could have believed it a lot more easily if, in the last scenes of the movie, I had seen a white-haired, bearded old wizard in the background telling tales to the kiddies. Fans of the original know what I am talking about.It was not what I'd call a bad film, because it was interesting and at times amusing, but it still felt all wrong. And the star of the film often seemed to be the Pig. I liked the Pig.

This three hour film is presented in two distinct parts - and I mean very distinct.The first part is actually rather charming in a dumb TV fantasy sort of way; Sam Niell is very winning as Merlin, and the story has some neat twists and turns, some predictable, but one or two unexpected; certainly we are left hanging over what might possibly have destroyed Camelot and erased its connection with the Holy Grail.But the second part - my God!, this is bad! Slow, completely predictable, a mind-numbingly ridiculous happy-ending, wretchedly hammy acting, a script that no longer remembers it's set in the Middle Ages, fight-scenes that are meaningless even when not confusingly disjointed - no one could imagine a worse second-half of any movie or TV series.So how the heck did it get imagined? My guess is, they started with half a script, got paid up front for the second half and decided, 'screw it, we got the money, let's take a vacation'. Either that or they just went suddenly psycho half-way through production.Don't share that fate (or mine, who wastefully kept watching, expecting - hoping - that something interesting might happen). Avoid this tripe at all costs.

Merlin has always been one of my favorite characters in all the wide world. I loved the original Sam Neill miniseries. Was I wrong, then, to expect this would be any good? Not at all. The film is a miserable disappointment, and deserves to vanish rapidly into the realm of forgetfulness where Queen Mab (Miranda Richardson in the original) now resides. The new characters are vapid and criminally underdeveloped... especially Brianna. Even Sam Neill seems to have dropped his acting skills at the door. While this story could have gone in any one of a thousand directions that would have been better, it had to be stupidly butchered. Never before have I been so embarrassed to watch anything, and, sadly, this has been captured on film and will now last forever.

Sequel to the 1998 TV-Movie "Merlin", "Merlin's Apprentice" sees original cast members Sam Neil and Miranda Richardson return for what is a well meant but incredibly poor tale of a quest to return the Holy Grail to Camelot.Neil and Richardson provide quality performances and several of their co-stars are acceptable, especially when having to deal with a confused and, at times, dreary script. However, it is obvious that, unlike the original, this movie has been shot outside the UK and therefore resorts to awful "English" accents that range from Dick Van Dyke to Keanu Reeves in "Dracula". The visual effects are average and the direction is run-of-the-mill, smacking of a TV Movie rather than a grand cinematic adventure.More than anything, this sequel lacks the warmth, magic and epic qualities of its predecessor. Perhaps it's a different director, writers or the absence of the Jim Henson Company that reduce this movie to a very average and uninspiring story.Merlin's Apprentice…. You're Fired!