Rating: 
Summary: A Fine Example of Geneva Conventions and War
Review: Set near the end of the Boar War, Breaker Morant follows the careers, battles and finally trial of three Australian Officers. The Boar War was fought on several shadowy fronts with proxies representing major combatants. With British, German, Dutch and even Portugeuse economic interests at stake, all had their hands dirty to a greater or lesser extent. The Boers often fought as irregulars and the British countered by adopting methods that were not totally sanctioned by the (later) Geneva conventions, such as interment of civilians and shooting suspects if not in proper uniform.As a soldier and instructor of military law and ethics, I study the legal and moral application of force, and attempt to convey to my students which orders are ethical or not. Of course there are always grey areas that change with the situation, time, and seriousness of the situation. In light of the recent Iraq war and friendly fire deaths there still exists a need for this education. About ten years ago the diaries of Lord Kitchener were released. He had died at the end of WW I and the 75 year period protecting his documents expired. It clearly states that he had issued the order to shoot prisoners found wearing British Battle Dress (not "only if attempting to deceive" as in the movie). This fact alone clearly exonerates the three of legal if not moral responsibility; the current Geneva Conventions clearly state that for protection soldiers must fight in uniform of their own side with clear insignia and under proper authority. Various other movies are also excellent studies of the laws of war including Cross of Iron and Platoon. If only as a 'law study' Breaker Morant whould be great movie. An excellent cast, great directing and script and wonderful scenary (if not entirely accurate) make this a keeper and one of my top 20.
Rating:
Summary: Superb wartime courtroom drama
Review: The question raised in this film is the same as that raised in the Nuremberg trials following World War II and at the trial of Lt. William Calley during the Vietnam War, namely should a soldier be punished for following orders? The answer to that question depends not only on what the orders were--that is, were they legitimate orders consistent with the "rules of war"--but also on who is asking the question and why they are asking it. After WWII the Allies asked the question and the reason they asked it was because so many people were horrified by Nazi atrocities and wanted someone to punish. If the Axis powers had somehow won the war they might have tried US President Harry S Truman and others for the atomic bombings of the Japanese cities, or indeed for the fire bombings of Dresden. In Vietnam we asked the question of ourselves during the war because our government and military were being accused both at home and abroad of waging a unjustified war and going against our own value system. Here the story goes back to the Boer War a hundred years ago in South Africa, as the British command for political reasons puts Lt. Breaker Morant, an Australian soldier fighting with the British forces, and two of his fellow Bushveldt Carbineers on trial for shooting Boer prisoners. Their defense is the same as the Nazi soldiers and that of Lt. Calley: they were just following orders. The superb direction by Bruce Beresford (from the play by Kenneth Ross) makes us identify with Morant (Edward Woodward), Lt. Peter Handcock (Bryan Brown) and the third soldier because we can see that the horrors of war pervert the usual logic of right and wrong so completely that we can appreciate what drove them to do what they did. Jack Thompson, playing defense attorney Major J. F. Thomas, expresses this when he tells the court that war changes us and that therefore the usual rules of conduct no longer apply. Incidentally this film is based on actual events. Regardless of which side of this very vexing question you come down on, I can promise you will enjoy this outstanding film, winner of 10 Australian Film Institute Awards. In the annuals of war films and courtroom dramas this ranks with the best of them.
Rating:
Summary: One of Beresford's best
Review: I have seen this movie so many times, I can just about quote every line from it. The movie made in South Australia near the town of Burra, is about a group of Australians from the Bush Veldt Carbineers who were Court Martialled for shooting POW's during the Boer War. The movie however has so many flaws as to actually what happened, I can't name them all. Firstly the major point is that the movie shows 3 prisoners being court martialled when in fact there was 4, I don't know why they left out Lt Picton. Witnesses for the defence who stated they were on firing parties were never there. Hancocks alibi for the Hesse murder, the 2 Boer females, actually testified in the proceedings, not sign a Statuary Declaration. There was other charges to which the men were being charged but the movie only stopped at 3. The Boer attck on Pietersburg halfway through the Visser trial, incorrectly portrays the prisoners fighting the Boers from the ground using a machine gun etc, they actually went to the roof and fired from there using rifles. But the favourite quotes are all there "They were shot under Rule 303", "Shoot straight you bastards, don't make a mess of it" etc. However the blemishes mentioned don't wreck the movie, and I'll watch it time and time again as I still totally enjoy it even though I know the real story of the court martial. Get the movie you will love it, Australian film making at it's best.
Rating:
Summary: Countroom drama based on true event. Magnificent!
Review: This 1979 Australian film is based on a true story which took place during the Boer War in South Africa from 1899 to 1902. The British fought to keep their colonial empire going; the South African settlers who were mostly of German or Dutch origin fought for their independence. It was a guerilla war with atrocities on both sides. The British brought in Australians to do the actual fighting, and, when a German clergyman who was a Boer spy was killed, the Brits wanted to assuage the Germans. And so they put three Australian lieutenants on trial for shooting Boer prisoners, an act that had been accepted by them all along. These three men were scapegoats. This is their story. Most of the film takes place in the courtroom, which is supposed to be a place of justice. Instead, it become clear that the three Australians, played by Edward Woodward, Byran Brown and Lewis Fitz-Gerald are being used as pawns for British politics. Their attorney, played by Jack Thompson, has only been given one day to prepare his case. And yet he presents some masterful legal arguments as he cross-examines the witnesses and puts the three accused men on the stand. There is much tension, a lot of surprises and constantly fascinating. There was also excellent character development as little by little the audience discovers who these men are and the untenable situation in which they were thrust. The name "Breaker Morant" is the name of one of the accused. His nickname is "Breaker" because he was a horse breaker before he was in the military. It's a good title for the film, and made me think about all the "breaking" that goes on in the military. The morality of following orders gets explored in all its various forms, and the fact that is a true story made it even more interesting. When it was over, it gave me much food for thought. And I was so intrigued that I barely noticed how good a screenplay it was and how well it was paced. For those who like courtroom dramas as well as war movies, I give it a high recommendation as a classic in its field.
Rating:
Summary: Perfect
Review: This film is far more complex than one might think. Apart from its perfect cinematography, sharp acting, and efficient script, it also illuminates history past and present. The court martial system depicted here was reality, gloriously marred by its inherent biases (that today would not survive the first glance of judicial review). More tellingly, the film's production represents a seminal forward step in modern Australian nationalism. Its triumphant yet sublime statement of Australian independence should not be lost on the viewer.
Rating:
Summary: "Buy this movie!"
Review: If you are interested in military history or enjoy movies with a good story line, than this is the film for you. This movie is based on a true story that took place during the "Anglo-Boer" war (1899-1902).The acting is incredible, the story line is gripping and this is the type of film you never get tired of. I highly recommend it.
Rating:
Summary: A very under-rated film
Review: This is an outstanding movie. Firstly, I am an Australian, so maybe I'm biased, as it is about Australian soldiers treated poorly by their British commanders during the Boer War in South Africa (1899-1902). It is a military courtroom drama which deals with complex issues of guerilla warfare, off-the-record orders, political expediencies, honour, obedience, inconsistent treatment of allied soldiers from different countries, and a host of other complex military and civilian issues which examine just how messy and terrible war can be. The epitaph of Mr Morant, at least in the film, quotes Matthew 10:36: "And a mans foes shall be they of his own household". At one point, Mr Morant and his 2 fellow Australian soldiers- who are on trial for executing Boer prisoners-even though they were ordered to do so-their defense attorney points out that Mr Morant, on trial for obeying these orders, disobeyed these same standing orders previously, but which was at the time accepted- and agreed by witnesses for the prosecution- but was now on trial for *obeying* those same orders. A veritable mess. Basically, the British denied such orders were ever given, so that they could use these Australians as political scapegoats, of how bad and irrelevant the war had become, and therefore have an excuse to get out of their war-the Australians were thus sacrificed as "scapegoats for the Empire". "A sideshow of the war", it is stated. Or was it the war that was a sideshow in the first place? If you don't understand, don't worry, neither do I-it was a sham of a war, but then war often is. I have heard some reviwers mention that the film was not entirely accurate-that is one for the historians-although others who seem to be in the know are adamant that it is accurate-but it is clear that these issues are universal, and can't be far from what happened. People died terribly and needlessly, on both sides and from their own side-and that is ugly and messy enough. If the film does nothing else, it educates one on the messiness of war, and gives one respect for the soldiers and civilians who get caught up in them. The film deals with the tragedy of war, but also on human tenderness, poetry, love, obedience, political expediency, and on a low budget and a great script, brings out some of the best and worst of the human spirit. Highly recommended for anyone interested in complex military issues, Australian and British history, or just a very good, well acted, and well written legal drama. One for the collection.
Rating:
Summary: "We caught them, and shot them Under Rule .303!"
Review: The spirited white settlers of South Africa of Dutch descent, The Boers, put up a stiff resistance to the British colonialists, fighting an unconventional and inventive military campaign reminisecent of the American revolutionaries. In order to supress the rebellion the British Army creates an elite group among the Australians of crack shots and skilled horse men who fight the Boer on their own ground - out on the 'Velt'. Renaisance man, Poet and skilled wild horse "Breaker" Harry Morant is one of the most effective. In possibly Edward Woodward's greatest role he plays Morant who has had the bad (political) taste to execute some Boer prisoners he suspects of mutilating Empire Officers. As the British seek a negotiated end to the hostilities a trio of Officers find themselves offered up on a sacrificial alter in the form of a military tribunal. Their defense attorney puts up and unexpected stiff defense causing the British more embarrasment then they had planned. Tense courtroom drama, fine acting, and lush photography of the South African outback make this a memorable and yet sadly too seldom seen film.
Rating: 
Summary: historical note
Review: i enjoyed this movie tremendously. the acting was superb. there is little to add to the other reviewers' comments about the film. however, about five years or so after the movie was released, i happened to read an article in the Los Angeles Times, an interview with the man who wrote the book on which the movie was based. between the time he researched, wrote and published the book, and the release of the film, the time limit set by the british secrecy acts on information about the boer war expired. the author then had access to materials that had not been available when he was writing his book. in the los angeles times interview, he stated that the then newly released information proved that the trial was, in fact, completely necessary and not, as he had originally supposed and as had originally seemed, without the military information, a political or expedient act. i believe he even called morant a psychotic. none of which detracts from the film as a film.
Rating: 
Summary: Good
Review: This is a film about a trial of three Australians who were accussed of shooting Boer prisoners and also the murder of a minister. The trial is interspersed with flashback scenes of the actual conflict.
In short the Boers after some initial successes were defeated by the more numerous British forces. They however did not accept defeat and mounted groups of Boer farmers continued to fight a guerilla war. The Boer war was notable for a number of things one being the invention of concentration camps. The British locked up the wives and children of the Boers so that they could not be supplied while carrying out raids. Some 20,000 women and children are said to have died in the camps. This film centres on some Australian troops who followed orders to shoot captured Boer commandoes. One of them Breaker Morant was a noted poet of the time who in Australia had contributed to the Bullutein Magazine for some time. He volunteered with an Australian unit to fight in the war. The film is largely about the hypcrosy of the British High Command who were willing to order the killing of prisoners and then to deny it when their actions in South Africa were causing a stink. Some territorials were put on trial to play the role of sacraficial victims. The problem with most Australian films is that they have poor scripts. Great photography and composition is no substitute for a tight script. The virtue of this film is that it is one of the best scripted Australian films released. It is also noteworthy as a film which is critcal of the Imperial tradition. The cast is very good with Edward Woodwood, Brian Brown and Jack Thompson. One of the better Australian films made.
| 
