1066: The Battle for Middle Earth (2009) User Reviews (12)

Intriguing but misleading

[CherryBlossomBoy · 6/10 · 23 September 2013]

This is a very interesting and very well made reenactment of the famous Battle of Hastings and the events around it. It takes its time to bring the whole medieval period closer to the viewer, introduces various characters that may or may not have necessarily existed but are here very useful in conducing the sentiment and the point of view of a common man of the ages.

Acting and cinematography are very good. Directing not so good. Obviously great effort was undertaken to conceal the low budget, which is a good thing, but it also gives a pretty claustrophobic viewing experience (for instance, there are too many close-ups) and at times unconvincing and static battle scenes.

What is really annoying, however, is the bias the story of William's conquest is told with. It paints pictures of poor "true Englishmen", Saxon Englishmen, suffering horrors of defeat at hands of merciless, almost inhumane, Norman invaders who came uninvited to harass peaceful sedentary civilization. As if Saxons themselves, a couple of centuries prior, didn't do exactly the same thing to Romano-Celtic population on the Island. Should we pity them? I'm not quite sure.

But the series wants us to do just that - to identify with one side. And while it makes for some really poignant scenes worth watching, it also makes for a poor history show. The dialog is also sometimes abhorrently naive or inane, completely devoid of humor at that. It would have been so much better show if they didn't turn it into a litany of a loser.

THey are trying to sell this as something from Tolkien

[Discogodfather9622 · 6/10 · 7 March 2015]

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.

Historically, it's a mess

[Leofwine_draca · 3/10 · 10 January 2015]

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.

Brilliant Historytelling for a TV production.

[wiltvid · 10/10 · 1 June 2009]

The angle of telling the historical story from the fighting man's perspective, was suspensefully implemented. I witnessed the view of the invading Vikings, shared their long journey via the North Atlantic , the excitement of pillaging the anglo -saxon villages, and their thirst for a adventures battles. The main focus however was on the anglo - saxon peasants, who had to leave their homesteads and their loved ones behind, to fight the invaders. Expecting an attack from William the Conquerer from Normandy they had to guard the Sussex Coast. When News arrived, that a mighty Viking force was attacking the Midlands, 200 miles north. Imagine untrained farmers turned soldiers with few professional soldiers (the Kings Guard)commanding them, it was quite an archivement to cover that distance in 4 days, with only dirt path's in that direction. The old roman cobblestone streets run mostly east - west. The hardship of it, is illustrated in great detail, specially when you have watched the extras of the DVD, before you have watched the movie series. This is what I recommend to all viewers. After having seen the extra features, you will appreciate the movie more. Footwear, food, clothing and weaponry really round up the " you have been there " feeling. No Superheroes, or corny over-dramatized characters, just real people trying to survive. The battles however are graphic, nothing for the fainthearted. With fear, panic, cut of limbs, the movie is also not without humor. I remember the Stamford Bridge Battle scene, where eager soldiers from the rear ranks and file pushing the frontline without caution, where an "ole battle hand" in front kept swearing at them, going into certain slaughter. I haven't seen anything like that, so authentic in a period peace battle. King Herold,King Harald and William the Conquerer, take a backstage in this film, it's all about the common fighting man. A very interesting approach, that worked very well in this movie. A refreshing detour from the "300" type of making history movies. The movie is 4 hours short, more than 2 hours are of it spend for the 3 great battles: Midland, Stamford Bridge and Hastings. Yes, the anglo - saxons had to march all the 200 miles back to meet another enemy at Hastings, telling more would spoil the movie. I feel fortunate to own a region free DVD player, otherwise I couldn't see all the great historical movies from europe. There is nothing like this movie here in north America.

Interesting Effort

[Blueghost · 18 December 2009]

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.

Amateur Dramtics Meet Monty Python

[Theo Robertson · 4/10 · 19 August 2010]

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

Gobsmacked

[rohypgnosis · 10/10 · 9 July 2012]

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 :(

A very good first attempt.

[ashwetherall1 · 8/10 · 28 September 2009]

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.

Great Docudrama from the BBC.

[cheesey-1 · 9/10 · 19 June 2012]

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.

Describes Anglo Saxon succession law incorrectly

[random-70778 · 6 December 2019]

Anyone else a bit shocked to see this: "In doing this, King Edward disregards his earlier promises to give the throne of England to one of his legitimate successors from among his Flemish, Viking or Norman relatives.As a result of this unwise decision, a contest for the English crown begins. "

Uhm, succession to Anglo Saxon ingship was NOT inherited not conveyed by the prior monarch. It was decided by a Witenagemot ("Witen"), and Harold was chosen by the witan. Harold was the "legitimate successor" to Edward.

Now to be sure we need to put the context of invaders into its historic frame, The Celts invaded and dominated the prior populations, the Aglo Saxons invaded and dominated prior populations, and so to did the Normans. So one can say that no one is truly legislate or illegitimate because no population is truly "autochthonous" and every single place on earth is dominated by invading populations who simply invaded prior invading populations and that no population on earth is actually "native."

BUT the Normans were different than what had happened in the British isles beforehand. The pre Celtic populations were settlers, the Celtic populations were settlers, the Anglo Saxons were settlers, all bringing in 25% or more added population in a "demic" movement, ie a mass immigration of men women and children. The Norman invasion by William was not demic nor did it include settlers. it was soley a foreign military war-lord class.

As far as the the pair of films that comprise 1066, given it appears to be low budget, is ok. the battle scenes are cheap but in many ways better than high budget but historically completely bogus ones you would see on "Vikings."

An excellent documentary and movie

[altquark · 9/10 · 24 June 2009]

I'm going to give this 9 out of 10 - only because I'm unsure how exactly historically accurate this was - but it WAS about 90% accurate. I'm also knocking some off for being a little strangely anti-norman - I'm not sure exactly what that was all about, but I'll explain this.

However, first of all - who ever is wondering why there are no Lord of the Rings elves or wizards - this is a HISTORICAL DOCUMENTARY. Its not a fantasy, and it portrays the MIDDLE AGES (though why the History Channel calls it "Middle Earth" is a little strange). I'm also unsure with the "Orc" references - it seemed a little bit of a stretch and lots of wikipedia editing it seems to get those references.

However, as a student of the run-up to the Battle of Hastings, I found the movie entertaining and certainly an interesting perspective. There are a number of books - one of which is called "1066 the Battle of Hastings" which talks about the battle in the perspective of an average commoner of Anglo-Saxon England - and to be honest I was hoping for a little more of that perspective BEFORE the battles. But I guess that would have made the movie a little longer and a little drier.

Now, the battle scenes aren't exactly totally gruesome - but they are gruesome enough. What comes across is that this is a violent time and men were thrust into battle with very little training or expectation of what to expect.

Not sure with the portrayal of either of the Kings - one wasn't even shown, and the other was really very strange - a little too fantasy-like...

OK - spoiler alert, for those who don't know the history of England and Great Britain...

Yes, the Normans were French. Yes, they invaded and beat the Anglo-Saxons. Yes, they were brutal and "laid waste" villages and towns. Yes, they ended up "owning huge tracts of land for the next thousand years" etc etc But what was PAINFULLY missing from this documentary was the fact that the Norman Invaders became so INTEGRATED with Anglo-saxons that within one lifetime, England was changed forever. What was missing was the fact that prior to 1066, England was a number of warring shires - and that William, by conquering Britain, united the people under a single banner and created the first true monarchy of England, which links the British Monarchy for the next 1,000 years. What was missing was the fact that 1066 was the last time anyone successfully invaded England - that all technology, tools and foundations of defense stemmed directly from this new "invader".

I missed the politics of what led up to the Battle of Hastings. What should have occurred was that they should have followed the tapestry from beginning to end. I was saddened to not see Halleys Comet even make an appearance in the movie (one of the most important "portents" and one which was in the Bayeaux Tapestry).

I'm giving this a high mark, because more historical based movies should be made - knowing where we come from is always important. But, like my old history master used to say on my report card "could do better"...

A noble and mournful epitaph

[Jonathan Dore · 8/10 · 23 December 2012]

For me, this film was a success because it captured that horrified sense of loss not only of a battle, or of lives, but of a whole culture and the 650-year history that had produced it. The decision to focus only on the ordinary foot-soldiers (to the extent that none of the three leaders had a single line to speak, and William did not even appear on screen) was a good one, since it allowed the story to represent the fate of peoples instead of just the fate of kings. The narration, in a good imitation of the style of Anglo-Saxon epic poetry, was mournful and measured, and the revelation of the narrator's identity at the end nicely rounded out one thread of the story. Despite the constant bloodletting, the characters were attractive: Leofric the happy-go-lucky coward who does the right thing in the end; Hrothgar the weary general always trying to rally his weary men for one more fight; and Snorri the captured Viking who becomes a mainstay of the English at Hastings. The final stages at Hastings reminded me of the poem commemorating another English defeat, 75 years before:

"Thought shall be harder, heart shall be keener / Spirit shall be greater, as our might lessens." (The Battle of Maldon, 991)