User Reviews

In shades of blue the story begins with Mary Broad (Romola Garai) running from the law after stealing a bonnet through the bleak English landscape. For her crime she is sent to Botany Bay as a convict on the First Fleet and it is on this journey that the story begins. It is here she meets the British Naval Officer Clarke (Jack Davenport) and William Bryant (Alex O'Loughlin), whom she later marries.

Garai (as always) is mesmerizing as the desperate Mary Bryant, with an indomitable will to protect the futures of her children from poverty at all costs. The determination of this character is supported with strong performances from O'Loughlin and Davenport. But it is Alex O'Loughlin who remains, in my mind, a stand out.

He is truly captivating as William Bryant, a man that is quietly unsure of him self. He is to a degree searching for self validation in the most masculine sense but this is somewhat complicated by living his determined and strong willed wife Mary.

Directed by Peter Andrikidis (who also directed the Australian two part movie 'Jessica'), there has in many ways, never been a more confronting imagery presented on Australian screens. Particularly the scene whereby Andrikidis captures the terror and brutality reaped on the women convicts by the men while the British Officers passively look on. Trust me when I say that the poignancy of this scene will stay with you forever! Acting to dispel any romanticized ideals (and we all have at some time or another) of early settler life in Australia, especially for women.

Despite these accolades there is something amiss in this account of Mary Bryant's story which I can not exactly pin point. Perhaps it could be something of a naivety in Garai's portrayal, an innocence which acts to unintentionally undermine the veracity of Mary Bryant. Or maybe it is Sam Neil (who I think was better left at Jurassic Park!) as a Governor Phillip that fails to evoke any real emotion within the audience towards his character.

At the same time there is this sense that the story was cut short before it was ready. There is not real detail into Mary's trail when she returns to England, despite is importance to the story. It almost seems as though the producers got to the end, ran out of money (which would not be surprising considering the current state of the Australian Film Industry!) and had to rush the ending, leaving the audience feeling somewhat let down.

Yet, while there is faults in this interpretation (lets not forget the pearly whites of our convicts, a very unlikely depiction!) there is no doubt in my mind that it is worth seeing. In reality it is as much an English story as it is Australian. So if you're looking for some great performances and want to enjoy a great story of, love, betrayal and determination, Mary Bryant is well worth watching!

It is a story based on true events, but when I saw the trailer I thought it was a story about a female pirate or something. Starring Romola Garai as Mary Broad/Bryant, it is the story of one woman's journey as a slave/prisoner, then an island villager, then mother and wife, then escapee, and finally near criminal. She started out on a boat run by Lt. Ralph Clarke (Jack Davenport, Mastercard's "Priceless" voice). When the boat found an island where they started a new life and village, she met Will Bryant (Alex O'Loughlin) who she married and had her second child with. But they soon got sick of their life on the island and escaped with four other companions. Towards they "film" they become members of a class, but are found guilty in court. Mary is courageous and says she will face the consequences as she lost her children and husband, but the other two she wanted to be released. Also starring a quite good Sam Neill as Governor Arthur Phillip. Very good!

This stirring but harrowing adventure was wonderfully produced, directed, filmed and acted. Credit must also go to wardrobe, make-up, and design crews. The sets could not have been bettered. Outstanding work. And of course the music behind it all must not be forgotten.

Romola Garai in the title role played it to perfection, likewise in their roles did her two co-stars, Jack Davenport as Lt Ralph Clarke (the colony's military CO), and Alex O'Loughlin as Will Bryant, and were each more than ably supported by the whole magnificent cast of which special praise has to go to the performance of Tony Martin as his namesake (surname) character. Slightly on the downside I did feel that the highly talented Sam Neill as the colony governor was somewhat under-used, and probably as a consequence a tad under-par. But I think maybe I'm being a little over picky.

It is based on the true story of young convict Mary Bryant's (nee Broad) transportation to and escape from the Botany Bay penal colony. This included a little matter of giving birth on board ship, and marriage to fellow convict William Bryant after disembarkation, in between.

This two-part mini-series was gripping from start to finish. However as usual in this type of production there were a few historical mistakes and omissions in the story.

A good deal of the drama centred on Mary's divisive use of the unwitting Lt Ralph Clarke (a fictional character) both for her own convenience, later for escape purposes, and his unrequited jealously obsessional love for her. Why it was deemed necessary to put this extra and completely false complication into the story I'm not sure, because the true saga stands on it's own merits without interference. It was an interesting complication nonetheless, but this coupled with his pursuit across land accompanied by marines were pure fabrication.

William, as a sailor, albeit smuggler, was certainly put in charge of the fishing boats. However in no way was he given a percentage of the catch, but the black-market opportunities were too good for him to resist. He was caught selling some of the fish on the sly, and received 100 lashes for his efforts. It was at this point that William (not Mary) decided to initiate an escape attempt. And he had all the needful at hand.

Once away from the colony in a cutter stolen from the Governor, the escapees were never pursued either on land or by sea, and the only skirmishes they encountered were not with the militia but with the aborigines. In fact a great many of the guards were sympathetic to the escape.

This notwithstanding, the unfolding events depicted were all fairly (although not entirely) accurate until Lt Clarke landed at Timor and discovered that the escapees were there. This is where the story, historically-wise, went a little further awry.

William Bryant did in fact have words with his wife, after which he informed against himself, Mary, the children and all the other escapees, whereupon they were all immediately taken prisoner, detained in the castle and strictly examined. But it was not, in the true events, the said fictional Lt. Clarke who then arrived on the scene, but a certain Captain Edward Edwards, who had been pursuing the Bounty mutineers in the Pandora. He had captured some of the mutineers at Tahiti, but then his ship was lost after it ran against a reef just south of New Guinea. He and 120 survivors escaped the wreck, and in a longboat and two yawls, had managed to reach Timor, and it was there that he was told about Mary and her comrades.

Captain Edwards clapped the Bryant party in irons, put them on board the Rembang, a Dutch East Indiaman, and they were transported to Batavia where just before Christmas I791 both William Bryant and his little son Emanuel died of fever. William was not shot on a beach as depicted, and Mary did not escape with her two children only to be recaptured. And of course little Emanuel was not buried at sea.

After this the tale veers back to a reasonable actuality, give or take a few omissions. On May 5th 1792, Mary's three-year old Charlotte died and her body was indeed committed to the deep, and Mary, when reaching London, was imprisoned in Newgate as an escaped felon, sentenced, but then released due to public pressure. She returned to Cornwall, remarried, and faded into obscurity.

The historical inaccuracies noted above do not however take away the fact that this is a superb drama, which highlights to great effect the barbaric treatment of transported convicts in the 18th century (most of whom were probably unjustly sentenced in the first place), and as a drama I couldn't fault it one iota. I would recommend this outstanding piece of work as one not to be missed. It is TV story-telling at it's very best.

Even though two books had been written about her, Mary Bryant probably was little known outside of British and Australian historians or seafaring buffs before this mini-series was produced for TV. At first, I thought this might be a female version of "Les Misérables." But, this film is about a real person – not based on a novel of fiction. Yet, for a biopic it strays way too far from the facts and real story. Nor, does it have a true hero in the sense of Victor Hugo's Jean Valjean in "Les Misérables."

"Mary Bryant" is very loosely based on the events of a short period in the life of Mary Broad Bryant. It could have been a great movie about a true event in history. The elements were all there — the harsh British penal laws, typical of most European laws of the time; the establishment of Australia as a British penal colony; a head-strong woman's instinct for her survival and that of her children; a convict's desire for freedom; a daring prison escape by way of an incredible sea voyage; and the pardon and freedom of prisoners. Instead, this film reduces all that to sentimentalism (a poor starving girl arrested for stealing a picnic lunch, which is false), exaggerated heroism, fictitious people and relations, and much sex.

Mary Broad was a real person. She was a highway woman and petty thief in Plymouth, England. She was among the first English criminals sentenced to the new penal colony at Botany Bay – present-day Sydney, Australia. There, she married another prisoner, William Bryant. She did help lead an escape that took a small group of prisoners and her two children more than 3,000 miles over sea. But, much of the rest of this story – and more than 75 percent of the film, is devoted to a fictitious romance with a British officer, high living by the prisoners on Dutch Timor, and a fictitious pursuit on Timor

This two-part movie suffers in some technical areas as well, and in the script and direction. Some other reviewers found the same difficulty with the film that I did. The large number of close-ups were very disconcerting. The full-face and full-screen shots and scenes repeated so often and seemed to last so long. Maybe the filmmakers didn't consider that audiences would be watching this on much larger home TV screens. The faces were hugely overblown and frequent distractions from the film.

For all the time spent on the ship from England to Australia, the movie gave so little time to the daring escape and sea journey in a small boat. Yet that 66-day, 3,000-plus mile journey was the incredible event for which Bryant became known.

A huge part of the film was Bryant's romantic or feigned romantic relationship with Lt. Clarke. His character was totally fictitious. The film has Clarke and British marines hunting down Bryant on Timor, a Dutch possession. At least one other reviewer noted the absurdity of British troops operating in another country's territory.

Finally, the idea that the prisoners, none of whom were refined or educated, could have pulled off a ruse by making the Dutch officials think they were landed gentry or merchant survivors from a ship wreck is hilariously absurd. In reality, the Dutch weren't fooled. They sent Mary and her group to England as suspected escapees, for international relations.

The filmmakers apparently didn't need history advisers or editors for this film – or they didn't care if the film was judged absurd on these points. I'm willing to allow "Hollywood" license to filmmakers for fictitious elements of most films, especially those based on fiction and novels. But, biopics are another matter. By their very definition, these should be as close to accurate representations of people and events as records provide.

I think an accurate historical biopic of Mary Bryant could have been done in one full-length film. It would show her as a petty thief and highway woman who gets caught in Plymouth, England, and sentenced to the new penal colony. It would show the harsh conditions aboard ship, without the romance of the fictitious British officer. It would show the struggles in the penal colony, and Mary's marriage and her care for her two children. It would show the plans for escape and the actual flight. Finally, it would show her return to England, the long time for the trial, lawyer and writer James Boswell's defense, and her pardon and regained freedom. Still, one would be left to wonder about her fate. As in the end of the movie, since there apparently is no other record of what happened to such a famous or notorious person after that.

The unfortunate thing about films like this is that many viewers, who don't bother to check further, go away with sentimental notions based on stories that are not true. Thus, we get false history that deceives our culture and inherent drive for truth and justice. This movie is interesting, some of the cinematography is very good, and the acting is good, but not great. For these medium qualities, with its inaccuracy, significant fictional alterations, and clearly absurd scenes, I can rate it only a 5.

Although this is a wonderful movie, well acted, beautiful scenery, emotive scenes. So I was very disappointed when I wanted to learn more about the 'true story'. I went to several websites & was annoyed to find that about 70% of the film was 'artistic license'!

Lt Clarke was fictitious, so therefore his relationship with Mary was too (this took up a huge part of the film). Depending on where you look, between 7 & 11 other men escaped with Mary, Will & the 2 children. Will let slip in Timor (while drunk) about who they really were & the Dutch turned them in (so, it was not the British turned up & told the Dutch who they were). Will wasn't killed in Timor (he & his son Emmanuel died of 'fever' on the voyage back to England). Charlotte died later in the voyage. Four more of the escapees arrived back in England, not just Mary & 2 men. Mary was tried ALONE upon her return & her surviving companions were tried later.

Why oh why, when people make films made 'based on a true story' do they not stick to the real story? Why do they have to be glamorised or sexualised at all? If it's good/interesting enough to tell why change it?

Watching this again after first seeing the mini-series on TV a few years back, I am again left stunned by "Mary Bryant". It has to be one of the best productions to have ever come out of Australia. Based on the true story of a female convict who escaped the harsh penal colony in the 1700's, this is an absorbing, well-acted work.

Romola Garai turns in her best performance thus far as Mary Bryant. Garai makes Mary alternately fascinating, infuriating, gutsy, heartless, direct and selfless. The film opens with Mary Bryant, nee Broad, running along the Cornwall coastline (actually Kiama, NSW), with voice-over from Garai. Born of a fishing family, Mary is 17, wild, independent-minded and starving. Convicted of theft, she is transported to Botany Bay. In the opening five minutes, the three protagonists are effortlessly produced. Garai boards the ship, and the camera pans to fellow convict, the laughing, handsome Will Bryant (Alex O'Loughlin), who will become Mary's husband and soul mate. We then cut to Lt Ralph Clarke (Jack Davenport), the man who will be passionately, obsessively in love with her, and will stop at no lengths to have her at his side.

Davenport's Clarke is, for me, the most interesting part of this excellent production. He gives a wonderful performance as the strict soldier who will order a ferocious whipping or hanging then tenderly caress Mary's face. The film is cut and shot in a way that actually makes us sympathize, and associate Mary more with Clarke than her husband. Garai and Davenport share a volatile chemistry in these scenes, and the viewer is torn between Mary's determination to have the best for her struggling family and her use of Clarke as merely a sexual tool for her to get the key to the supply room for their daring escape. When they meet again on the beaches of Timor, the confrontation is surely one of the most emotionally moments I have yet seen. And, later, emotion does not get any rawer than Garai's speech in the courtroom back in England.