$11.98  In the Name of the Father - DVD |
$17.99  Bloody Sunday - DVD |
$9.99  The Boxer (Collector's Edition) - DVD |
$13.48  The Field - DVD |
$9.98  Waking Ned Devine - DVD |
 [Larger view] | Michael Collins
| ||||||||||||
| |
Average user rating:  | |
 Mish-mash of genres kills story | |
| First of all, a few misunderstandings which a few previous reviewers highlighted:
The Old IRA of the War of Independence were not 'terrorists', as you may find out by looking up definitions of terrorism. Guerrilla wars may involve terrorist actions; however, the war is not directed against the population (naturally enough, because they are supporting the movement) but against the force of occupation. There is (contrary to the assertions of some posters here) no comparison to be drawn with September 11. However, this film blurs these obvious distinctions. Collins was never, as Jordan misleadingly implies and indeed declares, the leader or creator of the IRA, neither was he the inventor of modern guerrilla warfare. His role in the Irish war of liberation was certainly considerable, but considering the nature of the guerrilla campaign in Ireland, one man was never likely to control it. This film cannot decide whether it is a 'biopic', a drama or a thriller, and the story, burdened with this indecision, becomes sloppy, confused and sometimes ridiculous. Jordan appears to think that the period of 1919-21 is directly analagous to the later war in Northern Ireland. He seems to suffer under the apprehension that he cannot sympathise with the IRA who fought one of the 20th century's most notorious terrorist gangs, the Auxiliaries/Black and Tans, because to do so would be to sympathise with the modern-day Provisional IRA. On the other hand, he sympathises with his protagonist. Much of the story's confused feel is owing to this; some also to the fact that he also feels that the antagonist demanded of a drama cannot be English. Hence the raw deal served out to de Valera. It has been suggested that making de Valera's character so despicable eliminates the chance that both Collins's and de Valera's characters would become more complex in relation to the other's. If de Valera is a one-dimensional villain, so Collins too remains static, never generating much sympathy in spite of Liam Neeson's admirable attempts. Similarly, characters such as Harry Boland and Cathal Brugha are mere ciphers of Collins and de Valera's conflict. The decision to exclude negotiations with the British, possibly necessary in view of Jordan's decision to prevent anyone other than de Valera becoming an antagonist, is a serious gap in the audience's understanding of the issues involved. (You can't just say: "Ah Mick, you signed the treaty! You accepted partition!" and leave it at that.) Jordan's portrayal of the decision by Collins to accept the treaty as a heroic attempt to promote peace merely adds to the confusion. He apparently has no problem in using English heavy artillery against his compatriots (and on the order of the British government, let us not forget), but when they fight back, it is a dreadful crime, laden with furtive connivings and hints of murder. Jordan's claim that he did not intend to link de Valera with Collins's death is unconvincing. If the character termed 'Collins' Assassin' is seen acting with de Valera's permission and under his orders, what conclusion does he expect the audience to draw? There is a frantic energy to the direction which engages the attention, and occasionally the admiration. It raises the speculation that had Jordan (evidently following genre conventions, but not sure which one to stick with) made a decision as to what kind of film he was making, and perhaps decided not to try to explain 20th century Irish history in the gaps between intelligence intrigue and an appalling love story, we might have had a decent film. As it is, the good scenes are too few and far between to make it worth watching, unless some nice cinematography can be said to rescue it. | |
 The World's First Terrorist | |
| Michael Collins is a fine historical film that essentially captures the life and times of the Irish hero who founded the Irish Republican Army and became the first man since George Washington to force the British Empire to the negotiating table. The production values are very high and the acting is very good. There are a few liberties taken with historical accuracy but most of these are for dramatic effect and do not detract from the overall historical perspective of the film.
The film has gained additional importance since 9/11 and for this reason should be viewed by all Americans concerned with our current conflict in the Middle East. There is no way of getting around the fact that Michael Collins was a terrorist and that he founded the first modern terror organization. The film can be used as a study of how terror can successfully be used to obtain political ends, in this case independence for Ireland. It also demonstrates just how difficult it is to defeat an insurrection of this kind, even for the greatest military power on Earth. The film thus becomes a very important warning for the American public, and policy makers in Washington, concerning our current war in Iraq. Collins is presented as a sympathetic character who most Americans will root for; certainly not a bad guy like Osama bin Laden. But remember, there are a large number of people in the world, especially in the Asia, for whom Osama is a sympathetic hero. Both he and Collins fight the same kind of war against similar enemies. Will Osama, like Collins, win in the end? I certainly hope not, but then I am speaking from the perspective of a 21st century American. And if I were an early 20th century Englishman or American, having just fought a bloody world war to make the world safe for democracy, I certainly might have regarded Collins as representing the antithesis of my values. So my advice is definitely to view Michael Collins. It is an excellent and exciting action film with a very sympathetic hero who was largely responsible for founding the Republic of Ireland. But then keep in mind that we are now engaged in a life and death struggle with enemies that have similar aims, use similar tactics, and, like Collins, will stop at nothing to achieve their ends. A little bit about my own background, I am a non-Irish American (unless you go back about 300 years) who has lived and traveled in Ireland and has close ties with that country. I have also read a great deal of Irish history. I think this gives me a different perspective on Ireland's conflict with the British Empire from someone who is either Irish or from a family recently immigrated from Ireland. Having read the other Amazon reviews of this movie, I am somewhat amused with those (few) who seem to have hated it. They seem to fall into two major categories. The first are the die-hard Sinn Fein-IRA types who cannot forgive Collin's compromise with the British. The other categories are those die-hard Unionists who cannot forgive the fact that Collins beat the British Empire! Get a grip guys! | |
| A Solid 4 | |
| This movie was one of the suggestions I selected from an Amazon "page I just created" list. Having an Irish background, I am sad to say I did not know who Michael Collins was before I purchased this movie. So I took a look at it from both an educational and entertainment point of view. In the end I felt it did both, educate and entertain.
Overall I thought the casting was just OK. I liked Liam Neeson and Aidan Quinn, however I didn't care for Julia Roberts as the Kitty Kiernan character for some reason. I liked the story-line, but I am not sure as to the historical accuracy of this portrayal. The overall story seemed to have a few gaps in it. If you enjoy movies like The Patriot, Braveheart, and Gladiator and are looking for entertainment versus authenticity then this is a movie for you. |
