1066: The Battle for Middle Earth (2009)

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.

This ' DocuDrama ' follows the battle of hastings through the eyes of the peasants (portrayed brilliantly by their respective actors) and the Huscarl they're forced into following; and where their journey takes them across the UK and tries to show the opinion of what life was like for a lowly foot-soldier of the era.Its nowhere near the high production values of Gladiator or any other blockbuster medieval romp... But it can hold its head high whilst standing next to them.Because they've used their budget effectively and tell the story well...It's not a history lesson.. But it does a great job of being sneaky and educating you whilst you're watching. I completely agree with another reviewers' assertion that it was great to learn how Tolkiens own 'middle earth' tales had taken inspiration and where he had adapted a lot of terminology from.I gave this 9/10 because i thought the acting was brilliant, the story was well told given the obvious budget restrictions (they were clearly trying to show the massive scale of the conflict but didn't have hundreds/thousands of people to work with) and personally i found the music/soundtrack to be icing on the cake.Which is why i'm here 3 years later writing a review.

1066 was broadcast with the subheading The Battle For Middle Earth which probably suggests it's marketed to tie in with LORD OF THE RINGS . Unfortunately when this historical drama was broadcast last year many people had forgotten about the film trilogy . Fellowship topped the IMDb top 250 for a couple of months but had rapidly fallen out of the top ten . Of course the books remain popular but you get the impression the producers are clutching at straws hoping that its flaws will go unspotted by a more critical audience . The sad truth is even Stevie Wonder will be able to see what's wrong with this historical mini-series From the outset we see contrived scenes where olde Anglo-Saxon characters state words like " Elves " and a caption flashes up giving the origin of said words . It becomes very tiresome as well as patronising but I guess it saves on the budget . What budget ? Exactly . Through out the running time you're left feeling that the producers have employed an amateur dramatics company and stuck them in someones garden . It's certainly amusing watching the climatic battle scene at Stamford Bridge take place which is at odds with the on screen verbal warning of" 1066 contains graphic and bloody battle scenes " which confused me since a word seems to missing somewhere and the word is " funny " that should appear between after bloody and before battle in the above sentence . The Vikings stand at one end of the bridge while the Saxons stand at the other . Remember in those old Bruce Lee films where the villain is let down by his guards and the guards undergo a trail of combat where they ultimately pay with their lives ? Well the same thing happens here . One after another a Saxon is forced at the front of the queue who gingerly advances up to the Viking who kills him , but not before at least one Saxon has the famous last words of " Stop pushing at the back there " . Honestly if Stamford Bridge was composed of pink tents it wouldn't have been more camp than what's on screen here Unlike me you may not have fallen in love with Peter Jackson's film version of Tolkien's book but you can appreciate the technical achievements and aesthetic beauty he brought to the cinema version . 1066 can show quiet clearly how easy it is to ruin a historical epic if you don't have much of a budget or directorial skills

A lot of effort went into this production. Just as I think there was too much estrogen in "The Devil's Whore", another UK tail about the English Civil War, so too do I think that this suffers from a bit too much testosterone. Ton's of what veteran period aficionados call hack- n-slash, there's little in the way for much anything else. We see the grim realities of warfare in the purported "dark ages", and some of the pillaging that was characteristic of the period, but little else. The idea here being that since this show is aimed at men, and men like to see violence (and some sex), this film will therefore show lots of sword play violence, and some sex.The truth about the battle of Hastings is that both sides slugged it out on the lower grade of the hill, broke for lunch, then had at it again. The Norman forces feinted back, the English charged, and were defeated. The battle depicted in the film shows the tactics being somewhat more complex.The one thing I really like about this TV mini series are the explanations of Tolkien's inspiration for his own "Middle Earth" saga. The explanation of terms is interesting and adds something to the piece.The acting is what it is, good and passable. No one gives a bad performance. But the material the actors have to work with is a bit spartan. We essentially see a kill or be killed plot line, with little else operating as a story mechanism. That's too bad.The props are okay. The armor worn by the actors looks like the stuff you can buy off any medieval website, and I'm sure that's not too far off the mark. The cloths seem authentic, but don't feel authentic. This is, after-all, the dark ages, and the machine clean linens and overall look to the film seems a bit out of place. Most of the money seems to have gone into staging the battle sequences, and putting sword fighting onto the screen. Again, perhaps there could have been a bit more as to how and why the battle of Hastings was fought. But perhaps that's a job for another production.An interesting miniseries. I'm glad I took a chance on it, but I think it could've have been more than what it ultimately became.