Jonathan Dore 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)

cheesey-1 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.

Blueghost 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.

ashley wetherall 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.