tazioratnayeke

I remember this series very well, because in the mid eighties it kept me occupied as toddler! As a Uni-History student, and someone for who history is a hobby, I think Voyagers was the best.

It gave to history what no other documentary or series could for a toddler. It let you walk through that era while actually captivating a young mind whose attention span would be hard to grasp on such great historical episodes. Literally seeing a time through the present day eyes of the heroes. Okay I do admit, the kids dodgy stripped t-shirt could have been changed. But it worked, doing assignments and reading books that weigh a ton, my mind still wonders down the streets of whatever era or battlefield, much in the same way that the heroes did. I am eternally grateful to whoever made this series! Its a shame that this series isn't out on DVD. Its an even bigger shame that they don't make series like this or movies like this either. The love of history is all but extinct. Current Cinema and movie makers who concentrate on blood and guts and twisting the historic facts to please an audience of adolescents who know nothing of the rich tapestry of the past is now the norm. Sad!

I do not wish to contradict or to differ with any pundits on the cinematography of this movie and most certainly I have no wish to disagree with the views of fellow brothers of the blade.... yet there is an aesthetic side to this movie.

Rowing, especially highly competitive rowing steeped in tradition, is a concept that can be understood only by those who have actually tasted the bitter gourd of defeat in a race and savoured its hard won victories. That is the essential of this movie.

Indeed the mistakes are fallacious, and sometimes appalling pathetic, especially for those who know their blade work. However despite the blatant technical errors so obvious to a trained eye, as a story that inspires, this fills a much needed void.

As a coxswain, its slightly different to the ones portrayed in the movie. Contrary to popular belief, in some parts of the world where there are traditional races like the Ox-Bridge where old rivals train eleven months of the year for just a single course down, we're not just dead weights in the boat. We actually have to do all the fitness that guys a foot taller and twice our weight have to do, only on one meal a day for weight reasons. Basically everything, ergo, weights, runs etc... except the water training. I found that the camaraderie that I shared with my crews, a thing all coxes will agree with me, was sadly missing in this movie. The 'coxing' in the final race was rather timid to say the least. Although I do confess, in the absence of something better this was a good phyche-up movie to watch before the races.

What I did like about the movie is what it showed. The politics and the desperation to win is universal in every crew. The characters, heroes, villains and bystander can be related to by any oarsman. The best and most profound scene in the whole film, is not on the water, but at the meeting of the boat halls and the priest's take on what rowing for an institution is. That summarises the ethos for many of us. "We are servants to put in, not masters to take out. We owe that to all those before us and those who will come after us." In a Boat Races, to be second is to be last. It is a nightmare from the fall of the flag to the final line. This film shows what an oarsman goes through. Not as brutal as the reality but it is a glimpse never the less. Lines that seem cool yet speak volumes for those who have 'been there' are: "We need good men....not just good oarsmen..." "No one put a reserve sign on your seat...." "You can hear the boat sing...." "....make them feel like they came third...." "It's what we do to win the boat race...." What it shows, what no other film can show is the harmony of a team, and the determination and self sacrifice to win.

For an oarsman who has faced the pain and the exhilaration of victory, this film will break a smile, not a cheer. Yet for the world that has not faced it, its a peek at an oarsman's world.

Remis Insurgite!!!

Tazio Ratnayeke

For a series on 22 Regiment.... its quite good. Yet it has its flaws.

Anyone who has read books by Ryan, McNab, Horsefall (all aliases) and of coarse the legends of 'Paddy' Blair Maine, De le Billiere will enjoy it. Warning, don't expect too much! Firstly some of the technical stuff has been changed for the obvious reason that certain strategic data cannot be revealed on television. Chris Ryan has done a good job as technical adviser and protected the essentially secret and surprise tactics. Anyone who has followed the history of the Regiment or has served know what I mean.

The good thing is, there's no grandiose bravado and over pepped up scenes like in most movies about 'other' special forces...... that make it look like Batman and Robin are kitting up to save the world. The other good thing is, no one on this series is 'invincible' or comes across as a 'super-soldier'..... the directors got one thing right which most others don't get.... special assignment combat troops are not 'The Terminator'. they are flesh and blood, make mistakes, rely on each other..... in short, ordinary men, in extraordinary circumstances, performing the necessary. To those of you who didn't get that, well go watch "The Guns of Navarone" very carefully again.

One thing that most people should take from this series is what it shows in certain episodes. People are over eager to condemn good soldiers as senseless butchers who 'love to kill'. This may be true in some instances, but that's a limited exception. They do what they do because they're trained for it. Guys forgive me for the comparison but, people love Dobermans and rothweilers......despite the fact that they can rip a man apart. yet you have them as guard dogs. Same with special troops. We need them We can afford to condemn them in a self-righteous manner when the goings good. When we're the hostages, we thank God for having men more brutal and lethal that the terrorist. This comes out in the episode with the tribunal. Its easy to talk technicalities when you're safe and not the one looking down the wrong end of a barrel. Who dares wins, yet who hesitates, dies.

As for the characters, its only to be expected that they'll be like this, after all this is a series, not a documentary. So one may have to ignore the mushy stuff and the clichéd character portrayals etc... to comment on the actors would be fruitless.... they did the best job they could so live with it...

Although the traditional aspect of the Regiment were brought out, the close knit bond, closing off your emotions to death so that the job gets done, the difference between officers who look out for their men and the old school 'Ruperts', the devil's in the nightmares, the fear of going 'US' or 'unserviceable', the strain on the home front. These were the real aspects that were brought out. The romantic affairs etc....cest la vie.

One particularly fascinating scene was when the men line up and salute the out-going officer. That whole scene conveys so much as to what the heart of the SAS is about. Now that is the act of gentlemen soldiers. Scenes like that, speak more for the Regiment than the whole series itself.

The plots may seem unbelievable but some of them are very real situations which have come up during the history of the Regiment. The plots borrow heavily from Ryan's books, who in turn has taken the situations from past campaignes. Notice the lack of 'let's stop dooms-day' plots. That's because... they rarely happen. Hostage situations, airline hijacks, embassy sieges, and the various black-ops are part of the Regiments 'legends'.

The woman in the SAS was a nice idea but I wonder how many women can tackle the Brecan Beacons? If there are any, then perhaps 22 should reconsider because 'She dared, she should win'. And speaking of the Beacons... why weren't they shown in the episodes about selections?

In conclusion, it is a shame that the series was limited to the exploits of Red troop. It would have been nice to see both Red and Blue in action together or better still, to see more action from A B or D squadron. I'd love to see "Land of Fire" and "The Watchman" made into a movie! So.... when are they going to do that?

Cheers Gentlemen!!!

It is truly the ignorant that would condemn this film for lack of action and climax, or having the heroine spend too much time having her hair blown in her face......... somehow, one wonder if people do read the little words on the screen saying..... Based On A True Story.

All I can say is, it paid respect to a very harrowing experience.

One must commend the real pilots and the stewardesses who handled such a critical situation with such mettle.

Especially a case where you loose hydraulics, communications and depressurisation..... not easy as those who fly will tell you.

So to the producers and Director who tried their best to re-enact a moment of true heroism........Bravo!

To the fans of action, blood and guts, and cool dude lines out of a modern action movie.....well....here's a Disney ride for you to enjoy and root for.

However, for the select few how love history and carry with them a deep respect for film-makers who take pains when dealing with such a subject....it is disappointing.

Making a historic movie is like handling artifacts at a dig site....you handle what you got with awe and absolute care and then you add a story round it with that little artifact as the germ of the plot.

A wonderful idea........Artorius was a roman centurion, who led a cavalry unit and thus became a legend which in time became the most beloved myth we've all grown to love.

One problem......the script. If I closed my eyes in certain scenes with the knights....I would have had difficulty figuring out if I was watching a Vietnam movie or Die Hard........ that attention to lines and words was missing. Plus a villain with a Texan accent....nice touch dum-dums! The number of historical errors of time and place are endless. Which is what destroys the beauty of the tale. If the story claims to be historical, then that is a claim it must live up to.

In short, you may sell the movie to fools.....but you can't fool everybody.

Harsh as that may sound.....its a pity. There was good acting, and good visual effects and even the plot was not too bad. But, you don't stumble over mountains as they say.

I wish that directors, when they think of taking up the challenge of movies like this.... especially about characters who are so well known and so widely read about....at least have some historians and experts double-check what's planned in the screen play before you start budgeting and then ruining things under the ever-so-easily adapted "Poetic licence" Isn't there something called "Responsibility to Heritage"???

I have to agree! Jeremy Brett is THE Sherlock Holmes. I've seen so many versions of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's most famous character, yet no movie or series gives life to the true spirit of Holmes as does Jeremy Brett.

What I love most about this series is that it is true to the books as is possible. Most other versions either add or subtract for cinematic effect and hereby ruin the purity of the work. For example, most other versions go on the stage stereo type of Holmes in a deer stalker cap and always smoking a pipe at a crime-scene and saying "elementary my dear Watson".....which he never does in any of the books!!! It is in short, a very honourable tribute to that great detective.