Merlin of the Crystal Cave (TV Series 1991– ) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
8 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
7/10
Why only 1 book was filmed, and how it was done!
CharleyAcka17 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
My 4 and 6years old children (in 1991) thoroughly enjoyed the BBC's broadcast of the 6 episodes which make up the UK & US VHS releases, and we bought Mary Stewart's trilogy afterwards, to read the novels. So, DO remember you are watching a CHILDREN'S TV programme, not a $150,000,000 War and Peace starring Armhole BlackEgg, directed by Stefan PlayHill ! and also it was made 15 years ago. The young actors were inexperienced and in awe of the big names, and the post-production had to be rushed to meet a change in transmission dates by the BBC.

The story was originally shot as 6xhalf-hour episodes for UK children's TV on Sunday evenings. BBC-TV Children's Television cancelled the option with Noel Gay TV to fund filming of the next 2 Mary Stewart books, much to the dismay of exec prod. Bill Cotton,jr whose ambition it was to get the 3 books on screen.

I worked on the shoot as the video engineer.It was shot on an Ikegami 55L camera, on UK 625/50iPAL videotape(component Sony Beta-max) ,and the conversion of this to US 525/60iNTSC system did the effects picture quality no favours, especially on VHS releases. I have a tape of each; the photographic effects we achieved were ruined on both versions, compared to the original broadcasts, and the US version is the worst. It looked fantastic at the BAFTA pre-view screening on their video theatre projector in 1991. The shoot was in Wales, near Caernarvon, in May and June 1991, where it rained on 54days of the 56day shoot--there is one scene where you can see brilliant sunshine, while the Fire Service is off-screen drenching the actors/horses/camera for continuity! We all, actors/actresses/techies, worked an average 75hour/6day week for 9 weeks. The "Bull" scenes were montaged in post-production from footage shot during a 19hour day, quite an achievement in the days when digits where what you scratched with or picked your nose, and one's hands had to hold down 3 cameras on sandbags to keep their position "locked-off" at 4am, and there was no "effects preview" to check artist's position against bull position.

A great children's video, but no feature film! Worth a 7.
10 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
A faithful rendering of Mary Stewart's Merlin Trilogy
cjw-420 February 2006
A faithful rendering of Mary Stewart's first volume of her trilogy of Merlin's life and his part in king Arthur's reign. I had been wondering if any of these books had been put to film, sadly only this one work exists. It is a good introduction to Mary Stewart's Merlin; an honest man who is sometimes baffled by his own power and horrified by the consequences of man's misuse of that power. The scenery is beautiful: George Winter and Trevor Peacock do a wonderful job of portraying Merlin and Ralf, his lifelong servant and friend. For those who are not used to BBC low budget, there are some technical problems that would never be allowed in an American production. Cheifly, the soft focus in the beginning that is supposed to let us know that these are future events, and the badly done voice-over of one of the child actors who obviously had the wrong octave to match the adult George Winter's voice. If you have ever wondered about Merlin's childhood and point of view, this is the movie for you. Ms Stewart is faithful to legend, and you can find her major plot points in any historic report of king Arthur's story. If you want to see what happens after the end of the movie, pick up the next book in the series, "The Hollow Hills". Also if you have missed ever seeing Excalibur, that movie also takes up nicely where this one leaves off. Enjoy!
10 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
I loved it
penina4520 June 2007
Warning: Spoilers
I read the other comments. In spite of the transition to tape and low production costs, it brought Mary Stewart's The Crystal Cave to life for me. It was a little hard to see and hear, especially in the beginning, but if you've read the book, don't miss the others in Stewart's quadrilogy. I can now 'see' the characters in my head. Uthur, Nivian and Ambrosius were perfectly casted, in fact, there were none who were not. The scenery and costumes of time and place seemed to be accurate as well. I liked the Roman influence on the nobility fashion. Best is how Merlin uses his wits even more than his magic. I wish I knew what George Winter is up to now. June 2007
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
A Nostalgic Memory From My childhood - IT ACTUALLY REALLY AIN'T THAT BAD !
alleywayambush22 February 2018
OK, so I've heard all these negative reviews on this series, and all I have to say is: I COMPLETELY DISAGREE ! Everyone talking about how tacky and unconvincing the acting is. I mean for Christ's sake, it's fictional fantasy; it's supposed to be cheesy + kitsch ! That's a major part of the appeal ! Likewise, are people actually trying to tell me that Excalibur, The Neverending Story, The Dark Crystal + other fantasy productions are NOT of a cheesy, kitschy style ?? Either way, you'd hardly take something as basically naff as fictional fantasy seriously would yer !

Anyway, a few days ago I had spontaneous memories of watching this on TV back in 1991/2. (Don't know why I hadn't thought about it in so many years; guess it strongly suggests the 'Disposable' nature of TV broadcasting !) I watched it on Youtube later that day for the 1st time in 26 years ! For me it was naturally a quite magical, evocative nostalgia trip. I distinctly remember certain scenes; the poisonous fruit, the erecting of 'Stone Henge' (?) and the glowing vision of the acrobatic warrior + the bull. The scenery is quite refined and extravagant; shot in Wales I believe.

I do consider this a good quality show (for fantasy, obviously !) and a significant production to rank alongside other Fantasy productions from the same era; BBC Narnia, Jim Henson's The storyteller, Willow, Neverending Story, etc. Just ignore the negative reviews; if you like this era of fantasy then watch this !
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Don't Watch This Unless You've Read the Book
totallyswimmer14 April 2006
Despite how much the actors of this movie must have tried, it was not very good. In comparison with the book this movie is based off of, many scenes and important characters were left out. This movie turned many emotional and dramatic scenes into hilarious scenes. My favorite scenes would have to be the ones of "Mithras" being portrayed as a gymnast doing cartwheels over a bull and the scene where Merlin acts as a possessed zombie with his hands in front of him, telling others to follow him. I would not recommend this movie to others, unless they have read the book. It does help you to better understand some of the more confusing scenes of the book, but without reading the book, it is very confusing.
7 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
This movie is Hilarious
mlb8129224 March 2006
This movie, while being a pretty accurate adaptation of the classic novel by Mary Stewart, is terrible. In fact, it's so bad, it's hilarious! From little boy Merlin sobbing hysterically one second and laughing with glee the next to "Mithras" "slaying the white bull (when in reality it looks like he is doing gymnastics), this movie will have you sick with laughter. I would have to say that my favorite part is whenever Camlach is on screen- a short bell is played that sounds rather like music from Psycho. The acting is so bad... words can't describe. The budget was probably a maximum of about $20,000. I would advise you to rent the movie if you need a good laugh!
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
How it compares to other Arthurian movies?
Pellam17 March 2020
Interestingly set in the times before Arthur, this is a bit more serious than the most recent young Merlin series. Historic name-dropping, beautiful Welsh scenery and clunky acting.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
rubbish
yodamyferret10 January 2010
i played a number of parts in this film and the only good thing i can say about it is that i met Trevor peacock and Robert Powell, two very nice people and wonderful actors. as to the actual film, it was utter tripe. the making of it was a farce right down to rafts that wouldn't float. it was a welsh production through and through, most production staff, actors, locations and extras were welsh and what could have been a good film turned into an expensive welsh mess. if you ever have the chance to see this film, which was shown on television in the nineties, then my advice is don't. the reason i say this is because it could very well spoil the story should you ever have the chance to see it done properly. having said all that it would probably fit in very well with all the American cods-wallop we are forced to endure on UK television nowadays.
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed