StunnaKrypto Self-important, over-dramatic, uninspired.

SpuffyWeb Sadly Over-hyped

Bea Swanson This film is so real. It treats its characters with so much care and sensitivity.

Edwin The storyline feels a little thin and moth-eaten in parts but this sequel is plenty of fun.

Discogodfather9622 This is the story of the battle of the Norman Conquest of England as told through the eyes of villagers and farmers that took place in the epic war. For those of you unaware of this war, it was an Invasion and occupation of England by armies of Normans, Bretons & the French led by Duke Williams II during the eleventh century. 1066 sports impressive acting, production value and fighting. This is where I would give the DVD a positive review, that is until the producers or whoever is involved in marketing this decided to pull the wool over the viewers eyes by trying to pass this off as something involved in The Lord Of The Rings universe. Lets start with the whole, "Middle Earth" thing. Upon watching this DVD, the title of the movie was just called 1066, it's clear that after this was made, they threw "Battle For Middle Earth" on the DVD cover. Then there's the cover itself, it looks Exactly like the poster for LOTR. Last but not least, the narrator on this film is no other than Mr. Bilbo Baggins himself, Ian Holm. Sad that they didn't think this film could hold it's own with the subject matter given.

Leofwine_draca 1066: THE BATTLE FOR MIDDLE EARTH is a two-part Channel 4 miniseries that unwisely likens the situation of that year to Tolkien's LORD OF THE RINGS, undoubtedly in a bid to draw in more viewers. My question is: why? There are, I suppose, superficial similarities between the stories, in that rural shires are invaded by enemies, but the effect in whole is to lessen the experience. Why does the film bang on about elves in the wood and orcs when it should really be getting on with telling the story of the three battles of that year? There are some good aspects to be found here. The costumes are authentic and the locales are good too, even if it does look like the whole miniseries was shot in the same forest. The (brief) glimpses we get of Saxon life are intriguing and the recreation of a Saxon village at the opening is promising. Sadly, the film then descends into a load of blokes larking around in the woods, complete with dodgy shaky-cam choreography that really DOESN'T work and a script aimed at the level of soap fans rather than a historical epic.The main problem is the lack of budget, which makes any attempt at depicting the battles of Stamford Bridge or Hastings hopeless; there's no way they can get across the scale and violence of these battles when they're reduced to a few chaps fighting on the edge of a field. Take a classic scene in point: the sole Viking holding the bridge and slaughtering any enemy who approaches him. This is the stuff of legends, yet it's reduced to a fat bloke standing on some wooden planks getting speared by a bad actor. Not good! The frequent quotes and captions that are used to authenticate the story are good, as is Ian Holm's narration. But when they start using maps at the climax to show how the battle at Hastings fared, you wonder whether they'd have been better off making a documentary with staged inserts instead. Certainly the acting is poor, and the use of TV actors explains this. There's no characterisation and no real depth or feeling to what's going on. The tone seems to go all over the place. The Vikings attack, rape and pillage loads of people in the North and are defeated, then one leading Saxon warrior has a crisis of conscience and almost cries when an enemy he's fighting gets impaled. Would he really have acted like this, or would he have hacked his enemy's head off in revenge for the barbarity he's inflicted? I know which one would have really happened. The same goes for the surviving Viking unexplainably joining the Saxons to fight at Hastings.Attempts at humour are lamentable and the efforts to show the battle from all sides only serve to lessen the experience. Sure, the idea of showing epic stuff like this from the 'soldier's eye' view is a good one, but almost everything is done wrongly. The worst bit, for me, is when one group of soldiers form into a 'wedge' to attack the other's shield wall – before the shield wall has even been created! This so-called 'attack' then consists of a group of blokes charging into the others, who instantly break their defensive wall to fight individually. It all turns into a messy scrum, and you wonder if anyone involved had any idea of what they were trying to depict. For a truly authentic account of Saxon warfare, try reading Bernard Cornwell's excellent Saxon stories, beginning with The Last Kingdom. They're set a couple of hundred years before this, but the depiction of Saxon vs. Viking combat far exceeds anything on display here.

rohypgnosis As a reasonably educated Englishman of the 80's, (I scored the highest boy's total in the London Borough of Sutton's 11+ exams in 1978... and then went on to attend the Grammar School with the highest 'O' Level Pass Rates in the UK), I recall a trip to view the tapestry and writing our thoughts on it... scene by scene. We also enjoyed standard, compulsory, Latin and French lessons, alas, subjects now relegated to 'Higher Edukashun'... Consequently I have watched this several times. Most recently I, again, had tears in my eyes for most of the first 2 hours; until, I, too, like Leofric, became hardened to a life that could be considered, back then, 'customary'.I've visited the Battle site twice before... and will be doing so again shortly... as a direct result of this film.What abuses?... What cowardice?...What hardships?... and what joys ALL of our shared ancestors duly orchestrated, enjoyed and suffered to enable eacvh and every one of us to be here now? My mitochondrial DNA shows 'Viknigr' links, whilst my Best Friend has a proved lineage back to a specific '1066' Norman Chevalier... Whilst my Wife has a proved lineage back to Alfred the Great.My Step-daughter asked me..."What's the point of this film"?... and I explained that within a generation of the Norman Invasion no land was owned by an 'Anglo_Saxon' Englishmen and that withiin the same time-frame the 'Top 5' names for boys changed from the traditional Anglo-Saxon ones to 'William' and 'Henry' and 'John' etc... and those 'new' "Top 5" boys' names hardly changed for over 1000yrs!! Just look at how many with Norman names drafted the American declaration of Independence!?! The most poignant point is right at the end: That in 1066 just 190 people were given a 5th of England as bounty... and that now, over 1000yrs later, one fifth of England is still owned by descendants of those very same people. Research a bit more and you'll find they are our bankers, ours politicians, our Town Mayors and our 'Celebs'... The rest of us are, and always will be, just "the little people of the Shire" Alas.. That's why History is now so poorly taught! A subservient, "X-factor" voting, plebeian is SOOO much easier to manipulate :(

ashley wetherall I really enjoyed 1066 the battle for middle earth. I have always wanted this story to be brought to the screen. You may be amazed to learn that their has been no English speaking production depicting that battle of hasting before this production. This is why I can easily forgive the historical errors such as costume and some of the battle settings. 1066 The Battle for middle earth works mainly because it comes at its material for the perspective of the common man. It try's not to get bogged down with the rather complex politics of the time. Of course to a historian or anyone who has read more than 6th grade paper, not showing the politics could be considered a short coming. The basic story of 1066 The battle of middle earth concerns 3 men, a young newly wed 16 year old Saxon called Tofi. A farmer called Leofric and a Housecarl called Ordgar. Ordgar arrives and the small farming shire of Crowhurst on the day of Tofi's wedding to recruit able body men to join the Fyrd ( part time army) on the south coast. From then on History plays itself out though there eyes. Moving from the Sussex coast to the two battles in the north and then back to Senlac hill and the Battle of Hasting. Ian Holm provides a basic history lesson voice over. The Normans are portrayed as vicious invaders who care little about the people of England and only see the wealth to be had. Only one Norman is portrayed in a sympathetic light. The Norwegians Vikings come off in a better light . Men not unlike the Saxon's and after there defeat at Stamford bridge some Vikings are shown joining the ranks of Harold's army. You should remember that 1066 The Battle for middle earth is a very low budget production so things like costumes and weaponry are not always historically accurate. Housecarl's were a full time army and did wear a basic matching uniforms not unlike the Norman battle dress. consisting of mail or scale type armour and battle axes with matching shield's depicting the area they came from or earls symbol. they would have been in the front ranks of the battle. This is not shown in the film. Housecarls were also elite troops, so a farmer and member of Fyrd would not become a Housecarl after one battle as shown on the film. You may notice that the Norman cavalry looks a bit tacky, made up of Pony's and Shire horse's instead of Stallion chargers. This was obviously due to the fact that the battle s were filmed using re-enactment groups to save money. Also it is debatable whether the battle of Stamford bridge played out as depicted in this film. The Viking on the bridge probably did not happen. But it's a great legend. Considering this, the battles are amazing using tactics of the day with CGI bloodletting all filmed with hand-held cameras. Between the 3 battles the story plays out at a fast pace as the Saxon army criss crosses the country with stories jokes and poems along the way. The acting is good with a couple of standout performances from Frances Magee as Ordgar and Soren Byder as the Viking turned mercenary Snorri. I would recommend this film for anyone who wants to get a feel for the time period not as a history lesson . If you want a history lesson read one of the many books on the subject. I recommend Helen Hollick's HAROLD THE KING. But if you want 3 hours of 10th century battles Boar snout charges , blood splattered shield walls you could do a lot worse.