Michael Collins (1996) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
117 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
7/10
Flawed but a good film nonetheless ....
lorraineesimpson12 April 2015
What worries me about films based on historical characters and events, is that a lot of people take them at face value and accept them as fact whereas very few of them are completely accurate, and this film is no exception. However, despite the inaccuracies and speculations, it's a good film. Liam Neeson in particular gives a great performance in the title role, really bringing the complexities of the character to life. Rickman is also good as DeValera. Julia Roberts is horribly miscast and I can only think she was in it to boost box office ratings - although I would have hardly thought that necessary with Neeson and Rickman as the main characters. To be fair her character was pretty superfluous anyway and only included to add some romantic interest.

Overall it's worth a watch, although if you really want to know about the British/Irish conflict read a book!
14 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Liam Neeson powerful
SnoopyStyle15 May 2016
In 1916 Dublin, Michael Collins (Liam Neeson), Harry Boland (Aidan Quinn), and Éamon de Valera (Alan Rickman) are among the captured rebels in the Easter Rising. After being released, they are politically active. De Valera and the political leadership get arrested. Collins is tipped off by double agent police detective Ned Broy (Stephen Rea). Collins goes into hiding with his best friend Boland. He meets his love Kitty Kiernan (Julia Roberts). Collins and Boland lead a guerrilla war against the British forces. De Valera takes Boland with him to work diplomatically. Eventually, the Brits relent and De Valera sends Collins to negotiate. Collins returns with home rule and splitting off Northern Ireland with De Valera opposing him. In 1922, the Anglo-Irish Treaty is approved. De Valera and his men resign taking Boland with them. They start their own revolt against the Irish Free State Army headed by Collins.

This is an expansive epic historical drama. Liam Neeson leads this with his powerful presence. He looms over this movie like the leading man that he is. The actors are all great although Julia Roberts does stick out a little. It would have been more fitting to have an Irish lass. The movie does try to fit a lot into two hours. Some of it can feel a bit disjointed. Liam Neeson is big enough to tie it all together. It would also be nice for him to have a constant foil. Whether or not he deserves it historically, the movie seems to make De Valera Collins' foil. It would be great to fully embrace the conflict and give De Valera more screen time. Make this Collins versus De Valera.
17 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Underrated
mswjr29 March 2008
This is a very touching film. I was shocked to see the IMDb score of 6.8. The only major fault of this film is Julia Roberts. She really takes a wonderful film and turns it down a few notches. She can't keep an Irish accent, switching back and forth with her American accent throughout the duration of the film.

Anyway, Michael Collins is great to watch. The story is heartfelt, and the nuances between personal battles and patriotic duty are displayed in a very mature fashion - - to what extent will you go for your country? What will you lose? Who will you fight? Why will you do any of it? Who are your true friends? etc.

The music is FANTASTIC. Worth renting just for the listen. Of course Neison is great. So is Aidin Quinn (when I first saw this movie I thought Quinn was Irish given his name and his performance here). Alan Rickman is Alan Rickman - - which is great, though he doesn't pull off the Irish thing too well. However, given his character, Eamon de Valera, it isn't really a miscast, just takes time to get in.

If you can ignore how horrible Julia Roberts is and think about the heart and emotion behind this film while enjoying the awesome score you're in for a treat. A jewel in the rough. (my favorites)
41 out of 54 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Deeply flawed but compelling
poc-16 March 2006
I saw this first in the now defunct Capitol Cineplex in Cork. I was surprised to see so many senior citizens in the cinema. The cineplex was so scummy it had to be something special to draw them in. Some of them might have been old enough to remember the civil war or at least to have had a close family member killed in it. Many of them were clearly moved by it particularly the end with its archive footage. It is a moving film, but you have to be careful.

One should never confuse history with entertainment and this is not a history lesson. All the major events are there, but there is a horrible bias from the director. I don't like DeValera or what he stood for, but what was hinted at the end in this movie is a travesty. If such a thing is true, you have to prove it, you can't slyly hint at it. There are other insidious things such as mortars and car-bombs which are clear reference to the 1970s-90s Northern conflict. Such weapons did not exist in 1916. To me this is an oblique way of implying that the Provos are somehow the legitimate heirs of the IRA in 1916 which of course they are not.

Despite this I enjoyed the movie a lot. The production values and acting was so good, it really felt like a timewarp. Neil Jordan is a great director, Neeson and Rickman are superb in their parts. Rickman looks so much like DeValera it is uncanny. I even liked Julia Roberts. It looks like she made a fair attempt at a Dun Laoghaire accent and of course it sounded phony. Southside Dublin accents all sound phoney to me anyway so I didn't mind. The best moment was the scene where Collins starts the civil war sitting behind a howitzer aimed at the Four Courts and fires. You can see a huge explosion and bits coming out portico. I actually felt scared that they had damaged this famous Dublin landmark. This won't mean much to someone from overseas, but anyone familiar with the Four Courts and the resident lawyers (sorry "barristers") in their eighteenth century costumes would surely enjoy firing an artillery piece at the overpaid clowns. I wish I had a howitzer like that.
62 out of 90 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
"There is no history, only biography," Ralph Waldo Emerson.
Pedro_H24 October 2004
Fiction heavy bio-pic of the man who lived and died for Irish independence.

History on film is a difficult beast at the best of times and no one - and I mean no one - could produce an uncontentious film about Michael Collins: The Irish rebel rouser and politician who helped (the key word) form the first Irish Free State.

Sadly writer/director Neil Jordan takes the view that the history book can be tossed away if it goes against his own agenda or hampers audience sympathy. He created a stick for reviewers to hit him with - and boy did the blows rain down on his head. These blows, alone, might have killed any chance this "difficult" film had at the box office.

(It went down like a lead balloon in America which shows that behind the bluster and flag waving most Irish-American's aren't really interested in their own history.)

If only they had stuck more closely to the uncontested facts film writers would have focused on the good things. Which include excellent cinematography (good use of filters) and first class performances from all bar the all-at-sea (and mostly unneeded) Julia Roberts.

A perfect example of the Hollywood of today: All perfect teeth and good looks, but no ability to do characters or accents. I actually cringed while she was speaking in her "Irish" accent!

(The producers don't help much either by dressing her in a range of expensive outfits that change between shots: Destroying any sense of her being a poor country girl! Indeed scenes of poverty seems to be avoided rather than played upon.)

Liam Neeson was born to play Collins both physically and temperamentally, a dream part for him. There isn't a second that I don't believe in him. Shame there isn't more parts like this for him to play.

I don't mind my country being the bad guy in this movie, because we deserve it. What we did in Ireland will always be a stain on our history, but where is the context? The two countries have always been closely intertwined - not only due to geography but also due to wealth and technology reasons.

Also to be understood is that British troops had no experience of civil war or terrorism. They had been fighting wars against a uniformed enemy that stood in front of them. The people that joined up were often criminals or people that couldn't find alternative employment; or even wanted a bit of adventure in their lives.

Here their enemy dressed in civilian clothes and shot at them in the street (often from point blank range) and then ran. The people they killed were often Irish police or suspected informers. It was very ugly, but it was ugly on both sides.

There was also plenty of infighting (of the literal variety) that was more about gangsterism than Irish politics: A side road this film doesn't want to wander down.

The film also takes the view that "violence was the only path." South African apartheid crashed without the blacks winning any kind of civil war - indeed theirs probably extended the run of the white elite. Times move on, to quote Ghandi, "all tyrannies must fall.... however strong they appear at the time."

Despite everything this is an important film and Neil Jordan's best so far. It has too many little truths about power and real politics to be ignored easily and it does expose one "Irish hero" as a weasel. Watch the film to see which one.

A lot of responsibility fell on Neil Jordan's shoulders making this. It is a one-off deal. It isn't like a book, there won't be another Michael Collins film next year. More people - world-wide- will gain information about him from this film than any other medium. Therefore the hodgepodge mix of fact and fiction makes me uneasy - especially when so many of the debates and politics that are raised here are still ongoing.
25 out of 37 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Beautiful Cinematography Highlight This Biography
ccthemovieman-126 June 2006
I didn't know if Hollywood was distorting history but someone who knows the story of Michael Collins assured me this was a pretty accurate portrayal of him in here, which makes this film go even higher in my ratings, because it's definitely entertaining and is spectacularly photographed. There is more blue color in here - beautiful blue - than in any movie I've ever seen. It looks just gorgeous on DVD.

Liam Neeson's charismatic portrayal of Collins keeps you riveted to the screen, even though it's a fairly long movie. Julia Roberts and Alan Rickman seemed a bit miscast. Being American and British, respectively, they weren't quite believable as Irishmen, perhaps because I'm used to hearing them as they normally talk. I also don't like to hear the Lord's name in vain so often as what was in here, but that seems commonplace among the Irish, at least in all the movies I've seen and books I've read (and my relatives, half of whom are Irish!)

Anyway, this is a very interesting story with a nice combination of drama, action and romance. Very much recommended regardless of anyone's stance on Irish-English relations.
33 out of 55 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
A great movie
MrVibrating4 September 2006
This movie is an excellent portrayal of the brutal and often non-conventional Irish freedom struggle. The movie has several great strengths. The biggest strength is Liam Neeson in his tour-de-force. His acting in this movie is as good as it gets. His personality changes subtly throughout the movie, becoming increasingly affected by the changes of the world around him. The supporting cast is also excellent, with Rickman in one of his best roles.

Cinematography is very nice, capturing everything from the hopelessness of the defeats in the ashy cities to the beauty of the Irish landscapes. The pacing is very good as well.

If you saw this movie with no opinion on the Irish history, you will have one when you leave the theater. This shows to me how powerful this movie is. After all, Michael Collin's tactics were not pretty, everything from car-bombings to mob-style executions. Yet we still care for him, we want him to succeed, even if he himself isn't sure he wants to.

Without it's politics, this movie is still excellent. It's a great piece of movie-making, it's involving, sad, funny and sometimes tense. One of the movies I consider classic.
61 out of 77 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
very interesting film
Geordie-419 March 2000
I really enjoyed this film. I didn't enjoy Julia Roberts in it and thought that was about the worst attempt at an Irish accent I had ever heard. Being British and a Protestant, I didn't know how I would feel about the film, but I found it very enlightening. It has really changed my views on the British position on Ireland. The bloodshed and death seems so wasteful. Michael Collins seems like a very brave man and I think the worst decision De Valera made was not going himself and negotiating for the independence of Ireland. That was a very cowardly decision to send Collins. He was not a negotiator and De Valera would have done better, and that seemed like a very cowardly move. Anyway, the film really opened my eyes and gave me some perspective. I lived in Northern Ireland for five years and I am a Protestant, but to see what my people did in Ireland is really shameful. Nevertheless, a very enjoyable film.
12 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Historical and rousing film about an Irish revolutionary that led his country to independence
ma-cortes26 March 2022
An epic movie about the hero of the Irish revolution that commanded a guerrilla war and led an army against the British . It is set in Ireland 1916, Michael Collins uses terrorist tactics and organizing political assassinations . By 1921 The British are willing to negotiate. But Sinn Fein President , Eamon de Valera , doesn't accepts the result of the complex negotiation. As Collins is unwillingly drawn into a stateman's role as negotiations for an Anglo-Irish treaty begin in1921, ultimately dividing the country in two and leading to Collins to fateful consequences. As Michael Collins' dreams inspired hope. His words inspired passion . His courage forged a nation's destiny.

This is an epic tale of passion and fate whose starring has to face off several dangers , treason, and extreme difficulties to get his purports . The picture gets great production design , spectacular scenes , impressive movement of masses and a cast of thousands. Based on historical events about a revolutionary leader with the Irish volunteers, a guerilla force , an early version of the IRA, dedicated to freeing Ireland from British rule by any means necessary. Interpretations are pretty good , such as Liam Neeson giving a nice acting as the stubborn Michael Collins , Aln Rickman as the cunning Eamon de Valera and Aidan Quinn as Harry Boland . Accompanying the starring trio, there's a good support cast, such as : Julia Roberts, Stephen Rea, Ian Hart, Sean McGinley, Brendan Gleeson, Charles Dance, Stuart Graham and Jonathan Rhys Mayers, among others.

It displays a luxurious and colorful cinematography by prestigious cameraman Chris Menges. Likewise, an emotive and sensitive musical score by great composer Elliott Goldenthal, adding catching Irish songs. The motion picture was competently directed by Neal Jordan (Danny Boy , Mona Lisa , In company of wolves , Crying game , Breakfast on Pluto, Greta, Byzantium). Rating : 7.5/10 . Better than average . Essentian and indispensable seeing for historical cinema fans and Liam Neeson fans.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Great historical piece
Maniac-92 February 2012
Anyone interested in history especially that pertaining to how Ireland broke away from the United Kingdom and became it's own country definitely should check out this movie.

Liam Neeson was born to play Michael Collins, can't think of any other actor who would've been appropriate to play this role. Aidan Quinn and Alan Rickman were both also great in their roles. Julia Roberts gets way too much hate for her role in this movie. She was perfectly fine in her role and if anyone else without the attention that she brings had been in that role it wouldn't have gotten all the negative reaction that it had gotten.
17 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Effective recapitulation of Irish struggle for independence but British point of view is sorely lacking
Turfseer29 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
Director Neil Jordan was at the height of his fame following his great success with "The Crying Game" when he was finally able to convince film investors to fund "Michael Collins," a project which was 10 years in the making. I knew little about the history of the struggle for Irish independence but after seeing this film, it propelled me to do a little research. As a history lesson Michael Collins does well in covering the main historical points but Jordan does little in presenting the British point of view.

The film begins with the Easter Rising of 1916, a violent protest in Dublin which resulted in the defeat and arrest of the leaders amongst the Irish rebels. What Jordan doesn't let on here is that the rebellion was not at all popular with the Irish people and the tide didn't turn until the British executed the majority of the rebels following the rebellion.

Liam Neeson does well in playing Collins as a dynamic, strong character but Collins was around thirty when the events of the film takes place and Neeson was about 14 years older. If you're willing to forgive the age difference, Neeson is quite believable as the fiery Irish leader who is still regarded as a George Washington figure amongst the contemporary Irish populace.

Jordan is at his best when he dispassionately regurgitates the sequence of events that led to the establishment of Ireland as a free state and the resulting civil war. Of particular note are the gripping scenes of escalating violence: Collins is a beaten by the Royal Irish Constabulary after speaking at an election rally; Collins recruits a squad of killers who murder 14 members of the MI5 "Cairo Gang" and the ensuing act of genocidal revenge taken by the "Black and Tans" paramilitary force at a soccer match; the IRA attack on the Custom House which Collins opposed as he knew the British would easily win; the attack on Collins after the treaty with the British, at an anti-Treaty Republican rally; the offensive against the "The Four Courts" by the anti-Treaty side of the IRA, despite Collins' bitter opposition; and the ambush of Collins, resulting in his death.

Also of great interest is the conflict between Collins and Eamon de Valera (played by an effective Alan Rickam) who early on felt that Collins was acting on his own. The actual split between the two leaders is foreshadowed when de Valera goes to meet President Woodrow Wilson in order to gain recognition of the IRA's objectives and takes Collins' best friend and constant companion, Harry Boland, with him. Eventually de Valera orders Collins to negotiate the treaty with the British over his objections that he's not a diplomat. And it was de Valera who split with Collins over the terms of the treaty which broke Ireland into two and still had the new Irish Free State swearing allegiance to the Crown.

What's most fascinating about Collins is that initially he was regarded as a terrorist by the British but after negotiating the treaty between Ireland and the UK, he was now regarded as a "moderate." In fact, during the Irish civil war, the British supplied arms to Collins' forces who eventually defeated the anti-Treaty faction. Jordan argues that Collins' targets were either brutal forces of the British intelligence service or Irish collaborators, not innocent civilians. Whatever the case, Collins, who was yesterday's terrorist now became today's dignified statesman.

Jordan unfortunately leaves out the British side of the story. Instead, they're all evil or supporters of evil. Jordan is not adverse to twisting historical facts to make the British seem worse. The scene of the massacre at the soccer match is exaggerated—no armored vehicle entered the premises and machine gunned people in the stands. A British Court of Inquiry found that the actions of the paramilitary group "was carried out without orders and exceeded the demands of the situation." The commander of the Dublin District stated that "the firing on the crowd was carried out without orders, was indiscriminate, and unjustifiable, with the exception of any shooting which took place inside the enclosure." Nonetheless it was also true that this inquiry was suppressed by the British government. The King of England and some British politicians expressed their horror at the Bloody Sunday massacre and such a public relations disaster did much to strengthen the hand of de Valera's government, eventually leading to the peace treaty between Ireland and England.

The killing of the double agent Irish detective who aided Collins, Ned Broy, also appeared to be designed by Jordan to manipulate the audience into hating the British even more. Broy is actually a composite character of three people. While people were tortured by the British (particularly those who were involved in the assassinations of British intelligence agents on Bloody Sunday), Broy lived well into his 80s.

Jordan's decision to take a few liberties with historical events and characters doesn't seem so bad in light of his overall success in depicting the chronology of events in the Irish fight for independence and its aftermath. Nonetheless, aside from Collins (and perhaps de Valera) most of the other characters in the drama are unremarkable and certainly Julia Roberts has little to do as the love interest between Collins and sideman Boland.

While necessary, after a while, many of the violent goings on in Michael Collins, felt more like a docudrama. Only when the conflict between de Valera and Collins heats up, can one say that the narrative becomes truly compelling. Again what's missing is the British point of view (and perhaps a singular antagonist) which could have added to the efficaciousness of this well staged period piece.
9 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
One of the most important Irish films...
Ethan_O_Mordha13 December 2021
Michael Collins is one of the most important figures in Irish history, and the film captures his life almost perfectly. With a few historical inaccuracies it tells his story, from the end of the Easter Rising (1916) to his death in (1923). Liam Neeson is perfect for his role as Collins and Alan Rickman is a very good choice for Eamonn De Valera. It fully captures the brutality of the Black & Tans, who committed numerus war crimes during the War of Independence (1919 - 1922) and the tactics employed by the Irish Guerilla forces. The whole movie is very much enjoyable from start to finish, a must watch.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Well intended biopic movie about an Irishman and political activist
jordondave-2808521 May 2023
(1996) Michael Collins BIO-DRAMA/ POLITICAL

Written and directed by Neil Jordon, and I must say that I was only interested about what made "Michael Collins" so infamous rather than seeing all the pointless killings and slaughtering's as I do not have to see every single detail, but rather felt that his life was too long without getting it to the point. And the other unsatisfying thing is that we the viewers were never shown what he looked like in real life. Biopic movie about an Irishman and political activist Michael Collins (Liam Neeson) standing up to the British and attempted to fight for Ireland's independency. Julia Roberts also star but is unconvincing in it as the person he was supposed to marry, Alan Rickman as the other IRA leader.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
In spite of the controversy, an orthodox view which still fails to convince.
theglen323 November 2001
As a student of history in Ireland, I was both amused and annoyed by this film. On the first viewing I was confused: much of it was very powerful, especially the 1916 and civil war scenes. My confusion related o the treatment of de Valera, who I have always regarded as displaying great integrity, and the portrayal of Collins's terrorism, which I will come to in a minute. The following fact displays the dubiousness of the basis of this film: Director Neil Jordan displayed on the screen a quote, supposedly made by de Valera about Collins in 1966: "in the fullness of time, history will record the greatness of Collins, and it will be recorded at my expense." This quote is contained only in Tim Pat Coogan's 1990 biography of Collins: he heard it from Collins's nephew, who heard it from Joe McGrath (a former intelligence operative and sometime Minister) who supposedly heard de Valera say it. A third-hand quote produced verbatim after two or three decades. Someone else below has mentioned historical inaccuracies. I would say that what is more important is that history as it was is presented in a manner similar to the presentation of the quote - half-digested, misinterpreted and as orthodoxy. For example: the notion presented by the film that Collins started and organised the highly successful 'flying columns' which carried out devastating ambushes of enemy troops, is erroneous. The officers of the East Limerick Brigade started it, and it spread to the renowned South Tipperary Brigade, and on from there. Then there is the issue of the terrorism practiced by Collins. Was it a characteristic of the War of Independence in Ireland, and was it necessary?

Shooting of spies was certainly carried out in Ireland. It wasn't initiated by Collins, who became Minister for Finance in 1919 (NOT Minister for Intelligence, though he was Director of Intelligence in the army), in Ireland's first independent representative assembly in 750 years. Terrorism? No, it was a widely practiced act of war. The two countries were at war. But Collins, according to one intelligence expert, carried out assassinations of people whose status as spies or traitors has still not been proven.

In fact, his tendency to target his politcal opponents with his gangs during the civil war calls his whole War of Independence status into question. These facts have a tendency to be brushed under the carpet by his legions of fans and consequently by this film. So too his role in the treaty talks. It is not widely known that the terms accepted by the delegates, or terms so similar the difference is hardly worth discussing, were already on the table when the negotiations began by virtue of preliminary talks by de Valera & others. In other words what was accepted was a travesty by any standards. It not only legalised partition (and was the source of 80 years of further bloodshed) but accepted that the rest of Ireland only had status as it was conferred by Britain. Some still believe that de Valera knew that more couldn't be achieved, but there is no basis for this, and having looked at his papers, I believe this is nonsense. Indeed, there are indications (see Hopkinson, 'Green Against Green') that Collins and the head of the delegation Griffith were happy enough with the terms to conspire with Lloyd George and Churchill to blackmail the other delegates into acceptance. What is clear is that both originally favoured acceptance of the original offer - Collins because it allowed the Free State to raise an army (yippee!).

This is a technical discussion, but I wish to demonstrate how the blurring or ignoring of facts can create confusion in a historical film. A lot of people had a problem with the film but just couldn't put their finger on it. It just doesn't add up. I've no problem generally with artistic licence, but where the morality of a film rests on its facts, it needs to make sense and have logic. Overall, the acting was quite good, with one or two exceptions - the obvious one being Julia Roberts. Alan Rickman is always a shade over the top for me. Characterisation, even of Collins, was shallow. Motives weren't really explored, except to the extent of Collins saying, more or less, "I am noble because I want peace even though I am a bloody murderer but that is the Brits' fault not mine," the Brits saying "Look how evil and/or incompetent I am," and de Valera saying "I lack the courage to do what is really necessary, I am also weak and feckless and the nemesis to the charismatic hero." The film also does a grave injustice to Harry Boland, who was a far more capable and intelligent character than he was made out to be here. There's no denying that the film has power, but it's undermined by the script, which sometimes borders on the ridiculous, and seems to try to cater to the American audience (who didn't go to see it in droves). There hasn't been a film made yet about Ireland's past (that I have seen) which I would recommend, so I don't want to be too hash. But if you want to be informed about the time, read Macardle's 'The Irish Republic'.
76 out of 135 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Begob, another Oirish cliché
clmcgrat22 June 2001
It all looked so promising - at last, a big-budget movie about Ireland's history and actually directed and screenwritten by an Irishman! Tax breaks from the Irish government and thousands of Dubliners willing to work for free as extras gave it an added boost.

So what went wrong? First of all, we have the Oirish cliches. Take this one. Mr Collins makes a speech on a donkey cart. There were such things as platforms in early 20th century Ireland, but let that pass. Then the polis come. Collins gets down from the cart and headbutts someone. Mob take out many hurleys and start headwhacking. The whys and wherefores are a mystery here. It's the modern version of the obligatory barfight scene. For a sense of the lost dramatic potential of such a scene, read this report from England's 'Daily Mail' about a mass meeting in Ennis, Co. Clare addressed by de Valera, in 1917: "De Valera's arrival on the platform...was the signal for shattering cheers. In the square and its converging streets he faced 10,000 men; the remainder stood 'on guard' beyond the range of his commanding eye...As the cheers roared around him, De Valera held up his hand. There was instantly a dead silence...[He] himself said very little. 'I am not here to speak,' he cried. 'The time for speechmaking is over. The time to act has come!'"

And then the story. It is well known that most real lives don't translate very well to the screen, so subtelty and imagination must be applied liberally. Unfortunately, Collins's true story doesn't lend itself very well to a movie, as the story of, say, Patrick Pearse or Éamon de Valera would. Their lives had a real straightforwardness that is lacking here. Instead of fictionalising the character, which is always necessary in movies, Jordan used the actual facts and twisted them, which only usually works in history, when the historian isn't very particular about the truth. Thus, instead of being a valuable asset to the republican movement, Collins *is* the republican movement - so much for poor aul' Cathal Brugha, who organised the War of Independence, with the assistance of Richard Mulcahy and the constant involvement of de Valera, who was the senior surviving commander from the 1916 Rising. (Brugha was also a prominent 1916 survivor.) Believe it or not, Collins *was* just the 'head of a subsection', as Cathal Brugha (portrayed as a raving lunatic, naturally) famously said. One doesn't wish to underestimate Collins's role, but it was almost exclusively in intelligence. Think of how interesting a film based on Collins's espionage might have been, instead of the fruitless insistence that he was the Big Fella, he really was!

Instead of the statesman that he was (recognised all but officially as the President of the Irish Republic in America, where he toured and raised funds in 1919-20), de Valera 'becomes' a mere conniver, whose only interest is...well, it's not explained, really, but we just *know* he's evil. He also had a much greater involvement in the War of Independence than he's given credit for, and neither he nor Brugha approved of Collins's occasional 'revenge' killings. And so on.

As for the cast, the standard was poor. Neeson was alright, but the others were, frankly, atrocious. (Poor aul' Harry Boland, portrayed as a weakling by Quinn, was most definitely *not* killed in a sewer but gunned down in a hotel room by a murder gang. And why was Dev, in his 30s at the time, made to look old enough to be a grandfather? And let's not mention the woeful miscasting of Julia Roberts...)

Such a pity, really. I'm just waiting until they make a film about someone such as Dev. Someone of such real integrity, political wisdom and statesmanlike qualitites deserves a better showing than this, as do most of the other people portrayed in a skewed light by Jordan in this film. (And by the bye, merely from a dramatic standpoint, why was de Valera the principal villain, and not the British, apart from a couple of evil soldiers who were got rid of by bloody assassination or imollation? Err, weren't the Irish supposed to be fighting the British?) I think we all deserve something better, really, after so much Hollywood misinterpretation of Ireland.
17 out of 41 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Michael Collins
jboothmillard12 September 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Director Neil Jordan (The Crying Game) has created a very interesting biographical drama about the 'Lion of Ireland'. Michael Collins (Golden Globe nominated Liam Neeson) is the man leading the IRA, determined to stop the British ruining the establishment of the Irish Free State (Eire) during the the 1920s. It is quite struggle to get freedom, and there are many Irish people joining in with his large campaign for freedom, but don't worry, there is always a happy ending, isn't there? Also starring BAFTA nominated Alan Rickman as Eamon De Valera, Julia Roberts as Kitty Kiernan and Harry Potter and the Philosopher Stone's Ian Hart as Joe O'Reilly. It was nominated the Oscars for Best Cinematography and Best Music for Elliot Goldenthal, it was nominated the BAFTA for Best Cinematography, and it was nominated the Golden Globe for Best Original Score. Liam Neeson was number 15, and Alan Rickman number 6 on The 50 Greatest British Actors. Very good!
6 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Unspectacular
redkiwi3 May 2003
Better when viewed a few years later, now the controversy about the accuracy otherwise] of the film has died down, this is one of Neeson's better performances, regardless of what your views are about its portrayal of the facts.

Rickman is surprising mediocre as Eamon DeValera, and there are some other reasonable performances from the usual suspects.
4 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Good, but not great film
SilencioDrive22 August 2003
It has it's moments and is beautifully photographed (by Chris Menges), but it still has script problems as well as false history. Ned Broy was not killed during the upheaval after the Irish Republican Brotherhood's formation; he lived long after. Many historical facts were sacrificed for the film. While they did make sense, they didn't make this movie a classic. Still, the character of Michael Collins is inspirational, especially if you have an interest in Irish history or are Irish yourself. The performances are first rate all around, except for Julia Roberts who I thought was expendable. In real-life history her character wasn't very important and is no more important for the film. Still, writer/director Neil Jordan makes a movie that is difficult to stop watching. I give it 7/10
4 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
great acting - very emotional - a touching piece of contemporary history
Streaming-Kati28 July 2023
For me as a fan of Ireland, having read the history of the Irish and having visited the island several times, this is a compelling piece of contemporary history. With a cast of names, all quite a bit younger, it was nice to see it again. The film reflects the true story quite well, and is grippingly directed to boot.

Since the whole story is set in the years (1916-1922), the film doesn't seem dusty either, despite being 28 years old by now. Liam Neeson and Alan Rickman are convincing all along the line, Julia Roberts is more of a supporting character who doesn't leave a lasting impression. But it is also more about politics, patriotism and the great dream of freedom. A detailed examination of the person Michael Collins, in which the early phase of the "IRA" is retold with good action and archive footage worth seeing. It moved me and gave me interesting background knowledge.

Anyone interested in contemporary Irish history should not miss this highlight.

------------ Conclusion: Excellent.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
jesus Wept!
richardpickren13 March 2022
A worthy yet historically romanticized uneven film. A wonderfully understated performance by Alan Rickman as de Valera. Possibly Neeson's best performance as Michael Collins. As always, Stephen Rea turns in a masterful performance. Unforgivably marred by the miscasting of Aidan Quinn and Julia Roberts; both who can't string together one authentic sentence of believable Irish dialect.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
One of the greatest films of the past few years
joe_courtney_uk23 April 2001
This film is a brilliant account of the life of Michael Collins. It starts with the Easter Rising of 1916 and ends with his death in 1922. Between that time he managed to negotiate the first treaty of Independence for Ireland. Liam Neeson does brilliantly as "the big fella" and Aidan Quinn also is brilliant at portraying Collin's best friend Harry Boland. Apart from these other great stars in the film are Alan Rickman, Stephen Rea, Charles Dance, Ian Hart and Julia Roberts. Unfortunately some events portrayed in the film are historically incorrect and you get the feeling they were only included to add more drama to the film.

This is definetly a film worth watching and the DVD is even better, featuring a documentary on the real Michael Collins.
19 out of 34 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Neeson
IrishLumog7 January 2005
I'm surprised to see so many praise Neesons work n this film. He wasn't that good & his Cork accent leaves a lot to be desired, Brendan Gleeson did a far better job at playing Collins in the film, The Treaty( a must see for anybody who enjoyed Michael Collins). It is also by Neesons own admission that Gleeson portrayed Collins better. I recall reading at the time Neeson said " Gleeson was the true Michael Collins" or something to that effect. Also, I do not feel that the film goes overboard with its views of De Valera. The one scene that it maybe does is when it is strongly suggested that he plays an active role in the killing of Collins. It is widely believed in Ireland that De Valera did not have an active part in his killing. But other than that, there is little that could be faulted with his treatment of DeValera. It is true that he left Ireland during the bloodiest stages of the war & that he refused to negotiate the treaty himself without giving a satisfactory explanation to his people.
4 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
History Illuminated
sweiserw30 March 2022
Warning: Spoilers
I watched this film as an introduction to modern Irish history, in preparation for a forthcoming Ireland trip. The movie fascinated me from its opening scenes to its bitter and unexpected ending. Since then, I've read Tim Pat Coogan's biography of Collins, and I'm surprised at all the claims of historical inaccuracies. Coogan has his biases, but the movie is a faithful rendition of that book. Liam Nelson is outstanding. Although taller than the real-life Collins (and with better teeth), he captures the restlessness, the unfailing drive, and the charisma of his subject seemingly without effort. Collins doesn't walk into a room; he explodes into it. He is something of a controlled volcano, always aware of his potential for violence but managing to divert it into - into the violent murders of others under his control? Maybe, but it is difficult to feel any sympathy for the British occupiers we see here. Charles Dance - aka Tywin Lannister - brings the veiled menace that made his GOT villain so bone-chilling to his role as a UK police enforcer here, and I don't think I was the only one who cheered when he met his wholly deserved demise. There are echoes of other 20th century histories, too, as Collins basically invented modern-day guerilla warfare. My parents lived in Palestine under the British Mandate, and I grew up hearing stories of the Irgun blowing up the King David Hotel in Jerusalem and employing other Collinsish tactics to harass and eventually end UK control. I'm always delighted to see cinematic Nazis die (loved Inglorious Basterds), and from Neil Jordan's POV the Brits are the baddies in this scenario, and they get what is coming to them. Later I learned that future Israeli prime minister Itzhak Shamir studied Collins' methods and used the code name "Michael" while fighting with the Irgun before 1948. Apparently Fidel Castro was also a fan ... Many reviewers complain about Julia Roberts, and of course one can't help but see how the love story has been shoehorned into this film, but it did happen, and Kitty Kieran was in fact shopping for her wedding gown when Collins was assassinated. Frankly, she didn't bother me, but as a Yank I didn't notice her accent, or lack of it. For me, the only jarring note was Alan Rickman as DeValera. "OMG it's Professor Snape!" It is difficult to overcome the image of him as the ominous but also somewhat silly cartoon menace from the Harry Potter movies. I kept wanting to giggle whenever he spoke - until the end, when his contrition over what he, intentionally or not, set into motion lent his character some necessary dignity and grace. We see Collins as a spontaneous, uncensored, and ultimately overly trusting character, while DeV is a buttoned-down, rather prissy sort who reprimands Collins' frequent profanity. Nice touch, Mr. Jordan! A riveting, fast-moving illumination of a man whose.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Very hard to follow.
aaronkavo-117 September 2007
The movie was good but the story is very hard to follow. When I read about Micheal Collins in my history book in school it was easy to follow. This film makes all of that hard to follow. Another thing is why is there so many non-Irish in this film? Julia Roberts is from America (I guess they put her in so it would a worldwide release), than Alan Rickman who is from the UK. I also heard Tom Cruise and Kevin Costner were considered for this film. Even Micheal Collins is played by a guy from Northen Ireland. I have to respect this film because it's my country's history. But after 5 minutes I lose the plot. And another thing is PG? What the heck? Even though the IFCO rated it PG because of the historical matter this movie has strong language and violent scenes. Not one for the kiddies.
4 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Fiction
clonion19 November 2002
After reading through the comments here, I am appalled at the number of people who are willing to take this as gospel - please don't!! The scenes of the Rising and the Civil War are quite accurate (barring such things as carbombs, which someone else has already mentioned) though grossly oversimplified. Kitty Kiernan does not deserve the major part she has been given in this film - Michael Collins was never that interested in women. I have to stress, as someone else has, that there were the Auxiliaries as well as the Black and Tans (so called incidentally, because there were not enough field uniforms to go round, so they were a hodge-podge of different uniforms), and the Auxiliaries, the officiers, were discernably worse than the rank and file. Also, the fighting did nto affect most of the country. A note on the casting - the character of Kitty Kiernan was nto that big, though I think she was given more screen time as she was played by Julia Roberts. Someone tell this woman that she CANNOT do accents. Alan Rickman was more Sheriff of Nottingham than de Valera. Aiden Quinn as Harry Boland wasn't bad, though I would have to quibble about the character, but I feel that is more the fault of the writers than him. And lastly, sorry though I am to say it, Liam Neeson doesn't even compare to Brendan Gleeson's performance as Collins in 1992's The Treaty, even his accent wasn't quite right. For those who would like to know what really happened, I would recomment 'The Treaty', Tim Pat Coogan's biography (though he is a tad biased) and T. Ryle Dwyer's 'Big Fellow, Long Fellow', which is a joint biography of de Valera and Collins. This film is a real disappointment. I would have to repeat Bono's statement - 'I'm sick of Irish Americans come up to me, and tell me about the Revolution back home ... that the majority of people in my country don't want', which, unfortunately are the kind of sentiments that this film has engendered.
24 out of 41 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed