SpuffyWeb Sadly Over-hyped

Curapedi I cannot think of one single thing that I would change about this film. The acting is incomparable, the directing deft, and the writing poignantly brilliant.

Humbersi The first must-see film of the year.

Zandra The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

robdrummond I have seen half of series one so far (so my review cannot be complete) but:its nice to see a 'Warts & All' of the IRISH Soldiers (Yes agreed: in the British Army) and what they did to their fellow IRISH citizens. Up until this point its always ''The British Army'' getting full blame in almost any history book you like - certainly in St Stephens Park! .('British Army'' suggesting it was something completely remote and nothing to do with The Irish of course) The Irish were also British at the time: same as The Scots are British as are the English & Welsh (not to mention some Irish people too!)It was even more interesting to see how how the 'Oppressed Irish Republican Movement' (but I didn't see much of that oppression), turned against anyone in civvy street they found that disagreed with THEM! - Talk about turning the Tables! We saw these 'Soldies' Shooting dead their own unarmed IRISH Citizens that got in their way, to get their way, against the vast majority of the rest of The Irish population wishes AT THAT TIME.Maybe this is why some of the reviews on here are very negative. They didn't get taught this bit at school and think ''An Irish (film) Director'' would have done a better job.The series casts a new and hugely interesting perspective on the whole subject. I am guessing some people don't like it because it does not chime with ''their truth''.

Sean O'Neil When I saw the ad for this series, I was hopeful that it would do a good job with an incredibly interesting piece of Irish history. Being Irish/American, I have visited Ireland 10 times and I am a keen student of Irish history. I have been to all of the locations where the 1916 rebellion occurred and stood in the jail cells and at the location of the executions. I also attended a lecture tour by a Trinity College professor through the streets of Dublin including Glasnevin Cemetery where I met the grandson of one of Michael Collins assassination squad members. So I find it remarkable how people can make a picture like this and choose to rewrite the history in ways that do little to enhance the story, when the actual story is more interesting. An example is the story of Elizabeth O' Farrell . Her real story is much more interesting than the distorted soap opera they made of this remarkable woman. There are some saving graces in the series such as the very fine acting by Brian Gleeson, Charlie Murphy, and Barry Ward to name a few. There was also some effective use of the actual locations in Dublin. The combat scenes were well done and at times very powerful. However, too much of the narrative was spent on meaningless story lines like the wastrel brother of Elizabeth or the pregnancy of May, while diluting the most important elements of the actual story. People like Eamon DeValera and are poorly fleshed out and many of the other principal leaders are left out for the sake of tedious love stories and other inane side stories. They had five episodes to portray one of the most important events in modern Irish history and all they made was this glossy soap opera. The film Michael Collins which also contained historical inaccuracies was a much better effort, helped I suspect by having an Irish director. Better luck next times guys with this story.

thesbrian It's an entertaining story, but it feels like the characters are stereotypes, not real people. Perhaps more grating is the fact that inaccuracies and anachronisms abound. The time is 1916, but there are several terms used which never appeared in English at the time. The character of May uses the term 'brainwashed', which first appeared - in the US - in the early 1950s during and after the Korean War; an apparently British character says 'lootenant' when the correct British pronunciation is 'leftenant' (for some mysterious reason, but that's another discussion). When giving absolution, the priest uses 'Holy Spirit', which only came into use after Vatican II around 1963; 'Holy Ghost', was the term used by Catholics until that time. These are just the things that jumped out at me in the first two episodes.

xxharrison The Easter Rising of 1916 seems perfect for an exciting television dramatisation. Sadly, this isn't it. Telling the story from the perspective of smaller players might have served a human interest story well, except there's little of interest on that front. Instead, the central characters deliver speeches explaining their motivations and actions. This prevents the emergence of any engaging narrative, and doesn't help in explaining a complex situation either. I had hoped the commencement of hostilities might shake things up a little. Again, Rebellion disappointed. It utterly failed to capture the scale of the uprising, making it seem more like a series of side-street skirmishes. Why did the director feel that such a key moment as the storming of the GPO be shown as a peripheral dumb-show to the main action of a minor character being ejected from her taxi? The Proclamation was similarly trivialised. Meanwhile, the various narratives were unraveling as the unfortunate actors confronted ever more implausible plot developments.