Michael Collins Reviews

• Jordan and Neeson's crowning achievements.

  
  By A1XX5797TIZT5Q on 2002-10-07
  Digging back into their roots, director Neil Jordan and actor Liam Neeson have respectively delivered their most memorable and deep-cutting works to date. Michael Collins has nagging flaws, but in the sweep of the passionate filmmaking and performances, all else is moot. You will be carried forth by the conviction of the story.

  Neeson was simply born to play this role. An actor of tremendous power, Neeson is here given a role that's multi-dimensional enough for him to show his formidable chops. The Michael Collins character is alternately a boyish, dashing ladykiller and a tactician with a steel will, and just watching Neeson tackle the character's inner and outer demons is worth the price of the movie. He indeed projects the power and charisma of a great leader in his "our refusal" speech. There's more -- Aidan Quinn gives his best performance as friend-turned-enemy Harry Boland; Alan Rickman utilizes his deadpan comic timing and hidden deviance to perfection as Eamon de Valera; Stephen Rea is great as usual as English traitor Ned Broy. The one weak link is of course Julia Roberts, as Harry and Mick's love interest Kitty, with her bad Irish accent and vacant presence. She's paralyzed by the scope of the historical drama and comes off stiff as a result, injecting the character with neither warmth nor power, and none of her signature girlish exuberance. However, this was one case where the filmmaker's sacrifice of a character was to the benefit of the film. In directing the film, Jordan sliced down Kitty's importance and makes her mostly a footnote; the result is that we are now free to interpret Mick and Harry's split as a philosophical and political one, rather than the ol' romantic triangle. And for the better.

  The cinematography is terrific, and the script ranks among my favourite of the '90s. Jordan is deeply tapped into the behaviour and concerns of these characters, and he fills every minute with humour, danger, urgency, and personality. The writing translates onto the screen beautifully, giving the audience an insight into not only the sociological scape of the film, but also the psychological. And the pacing and editing never let up -- from the perfectly chosen "in medias res" opening to the brilliant "Bloody Sunday" assassination montage.

  A great neglected classic.
  
  

• A much better film than I had imagined...

  
  By A3LU79BYMWZEW9 on 2000-06-05
  What a shame that whenever this film is mentioned nowadays, it's almost always referred to as a Julia Roberts flop. It's actually scarcely a Julia Roberts film at all. Her role is quite minor-and it's commendable that she took it on, really, since she was already a star. I gather she was looking for serious roles in meaty films in an effort to beef up her acting credentials.

  And this certainly was a meaty film. It is, in fact, a much, much better film than I had ever imagined from the reviews of the time. I only regret never having seen it on the big screen, because its epic sweep and beautiful cinematography would have been all the more impressive.

  Americans, including Irish-Americans like myself, have only the vaguest notions of Irish history. We learn the basics in school, and probably, most educated Americans have an idea of approximately when and how the Irish Republic was established. We may also know that six counties in the North remained under British rule and are still part of the UK (at least, I hope we do--after 30 years of reports on the "troubles").

  "Michael Collins" goes some distance toward filling in those informational gaps. I am aware that many critics have challenged writer/director Neil Jordan's interpretation of Irish history (in particular his making Eamon De Valera, the President of the Irish Republic, something of a villain). To that, one can only respond that historical dramas are by definition an interpretation of history. I see that a few of the reviewers below have mentioned that this film inspired them to seek out more information about Irish history. Those of us that do will eventually get a more balanced view, perhaps. It was not Neil Jordan's job to provide us with that perspective. His job as an artist was to tell as engaging a story as he could. On that score, he has succeeded very well indeed.
  
  

• Absolutely stunning.

  
  By A2VGKGXSG81KAS on 2000-02-13
  Historical films are notoriously inaccurate. ("Braveheart", for example, is a terrific movie but all over the place historically.) Drama, after all, is oftentimes inconsistent with the tides of history. Which was why I was so impressed to read a magazine article some time ago touting the film's attention to detail and accuracy. I made a special note of wanting to see "Michael Collins". Am I ever glad I did. This is a wonderful, wonderful movie.

  "Michael Collins" is the story of a member of the Irish Republican Army who succeeded in leading Ireland to independence, but at great cost. A participant in the famous "Easter Rising" of 1916, Collins was arrested and became a leader in the Irish independence movement. Collins was an extraordinary leader who devised guerilla warfare tactics to fight the English army that would later be used by the Viet Cong, and daringly rescued Eamon DeValeria, the man who would become the leader of Ireland and whom many believe was responsible for Collins death. Collins also negotiated the treaty which ended 700 years of English rule in Ireland, and as Commander of the Irish Provisional Army was forced to fight against guerillas opposed to the treaty (which left the northern six counties a part of England and delayed full independence). The irony was that Collins was forced to hunt down and kill the very men he trained. Many in Ireland look on Collins as a hero, others as a traitor. His death is, like the Kennedy assassination, a great controversy- nobody has the faintest idea who killed him. As historical figures go, few are as controversial or as romanticized as Collins. The film covers the 1916-1922 era of Collins life, from the Easter Rising until his death.

  Writer & Director Neil Jordan clearly has passion for the project and it shows. Collins is a real hero to Jordan and the director goes to great lengths to be as accurate as possible and to show us Collins in action.

  Perhaps Jordan's best move was in casting Liam Neeson in the part. Neeson is a very talented actor who delivers a terrific performance in the title role. Neeson's Collins is firey, angry, passionate, hates war, longs for peace. It is hard to imagine anyone else in the part.

  The rest of the cast is good- Alan Rickman is impressive as Eamon DeValeria, a difficult role to play given how much DeValeria and Collins are at odds with one another in the end. Aidan Quinn, Julia Roberts, and Stephen Rea are all also good in their supporting roles as Collins best friend, the woman the two men compete for, and the English agent who provides Collins with critical intelligence.

  In terms of location and cinematography, it is hard to do better than this. Jordan has painstakingly recreated Ireland & Dublin of 1916-1922, and it looks stunningly beautiful and stunningly realistic. One actually feels like you are seeing the real Ireland of the early part of the century instead of a recreation.

  "Michael Collins" is a wonderful film that history lovers and people fascinated with Ireland will adore. Highly recommended.
  
  

• A Film That Truly Changed My Life

  
  By A30CNC7G21P49D on 1999-11-01
  It's tough to rate and accurately review a movie that means a great deal intellectually and emotionally. It was October of 1996 when I watched this film at the theater and I walked out forever changed. Prior to viewing the film, I had no idea about the life of Collins and I did not realize how young Irish independence truly is. Both the tragic elements of Collins's death and Liam Neeson's stirring performance led me to learn more about the life and times of Collins by voraciously reading anything I could find on the topic. It can be a rare thing for a historical film to pack a punch that seems relevant to modernity, but _Michael Collins_ does just that.
  The plot, essentially, is this: A young man named Michael Collins (Liam Neeson) and his close friend Harry Boland (Aidan Quinn) are working for the cause of Irish independence. At the beginning of the film, they are taking part in the Easter Rising. A vivid and riveting portrayal of the executions faced by the Rising's leaders is juxtaposed with Eamon DeValera (Alan Rickman) writing a letter to Collins explaining ostensibly why he would not be killed (he was of American birth). Michael travels around the country and works tirelessly with Harry for the cause. He is thrown in jail, he is beaten during a campaign speech and he meets an intriguing woman, Kitty Kiernan (Julia Roberts). Collins falls for her but Harry does too. Initially, she is dating Boland but in time, her heart goes to Collins. During this romance, Collins is both running from death and ordering it for his opponents. He taps the resource of Ned Broy (Stephen Rea) a veritable double-agent working as a G-man. Collins is chosen to negotiate on the Irish side of treaty talks, though this event is covered rapidly in the film. He returns home and is engaged to Kitty only to find that he and Harry are on the opposite sides of whether the Anglo-Irish Treaty should be ratified. There is plenty of drama and some comic relief here and there. I won't go into the details of the ending, though I am sure most people reading this review already know or can guess how the story concludes.
  If you are interested in Irish history or "war films" in general, _Michael Collins_ is a film for you. If you view it and find yourself as drawn into the actual biography of Collins as I did, I highly suggest you pick up a good book on the subject. Though the film makes for an excellent introduction, it can in no way compare to the wealth of real, tangible information out there.
  
  

• A tremendously important, albeit somewhat problematic movie.

  
  By A3D6TFYRMIV3ZL on 2004-02-25
  "Some people are what the times demand, and life without them seems impossible," Michael Collins's associate Joe O'Reilly (Ian Hart) says at the beginning of this movie. "But he's dead. And life *is* possible. He made it possible."
  
  Much more than a comment on Collins's assassination, these lines instantly set the tone for Neil Jordan's controversial biography of "The Big Fellow," one of Irish history's most divisive personalities: the first modern terrorist leader, who invented urban warfare but also went to London to negotiate the 1921 agreement creating the Irish Free State which, realizing its widespread unacceptability, would-be President Eamon de Valera (reportedly) hadn't wanted to bring home personally, and which Collins himself prophetically referred to as his "death warrant."
  
  Michael Collins was born in 1890 in West Cork, a farmer's son, and introduced to the quest for Irish sovereignty by his schoolmaster, a member of the Irish Republican Brotherhood, which Collins soon joined as well and in whose ranks he began to rise during his nine years as a London clerk (1905-14). Returning to Ireland, he participated in the unsuccessful 1916 "Easter Rising" and, in the barely six remaining years of his life, created the Irish Republican Army as an organized terrorist group with the single aim of ending British rule, and with a small assassination command directly answering to Collins himself, nicknamed "The Twelve Apostles." After the 1921 treaty had polarized Irish politics to the point of civil war, leaving Collins and de Valera on opposite sides (the most divisive issue being the required oath of allegiance to the British crown; not, as indicated here, Partition), Michael Collins was shot in an ambush near his home in County Cork; ironically in a place known as Beal na mBlath ("Mouth of Flowers").
  
  Several years in the making, Neil Jordan's movie likely was made possible only by the (short-lived) 1995 ceasefire in Northern Ireland. Ambitiously conceived and according to Jordan himself his most important film, it sets out to explore the manifold contradictions within Collins's personality; stopping short, however, of showing him to ever personally commit murder or other acts of violence - which is amply exhibited otherwise - and ultimately espousing the side of those who wish Collins to be remembered more for his contributions to Irish sovereignty than for his acts of terrorism.
  
  Liam Neeson stars in the title role, for which he is a perfect match: physically (both in height and, to some extent, even in facial features) and also because, like Collins, he was born in rural County Cork, and brought an intuitive understanding to the part no outsider could have had. And he gives a tour-de-force performance, one of his best ever, bringing to life a man who could be ruthless and charming, proud and humble, exuberant and desperate, often within mere minutes of one another. Alan Rickman likewise brings his extraordinary talent to the role of Eamon de Valera - although I would have wished the script had allowed him to more fully display the multiple facets of this politician who, far more than merely Michael Collins's rival, was one of 20th century Ireland's most important statesmen, drafter of the 1936 constitution which equates national and territorial unity (a claim only modified after the 1998 Good Friday Agreement and still not uniformly abandoned) and establishes the primacy of both the Gaelic language and Catholicism; and founder of Fianna Fail, one of modern Ireland's major political parties. Nevertheless he comes across here, and certainly through no fault of Rickman's, as much more devious, coldblooded and sometimes even small-minded than he probably was. Problematic is also Jordan's choice to have Collins and de Valera communicate, the night before Collins's assassination, through an intermediary who is later seen as the assassin himself: If Jordan, as he insists, indeed didn't intend to suggest that de Valera had anything to do with Collins's death, this plot device - not grounded in fact anyway - is easily misinterpreted.
  
  As important as Collins's interaction with de Valera is that with his best-friend-turned-foe Harry Boland (Aidan Quinn, who likewise gives a tremendous performance, although it's a pity to see him type-cast yet again as the honorable man turned bitter after losing out to an ostensibly more charismatic rival) and their - real-life! - love triangle with Kitty Kiernan (Julia Roberts, whose badly coached Irish accent detracts from her performance's other merits). Although Jordan again takes liberties with historic facts here - most notably, Boland didn't die in the sewers but was shot in a hotel room - Neeson and Quinn have incredible on-screen chemistry; and the slow change of their relationship, ground to shreds between political intrigue and rivalry for the hand of the same woman in a development both are unable (and ultimately unwilling) to prevent, is one of the film's greatest strengths.
  
  Lastly, Stephen Rea deserves mention for his wonderfully unassuming portrayal of Ned Broy, the intelligence operative who finds Collins so "persuasive" that his assignment as his "shadow" eventually makes him turn the tables on his British superiors and secretly provide Collins with information, while simultaneously preventing his capture (and who, far from being tortured and killed as shown here, would go on to head the Irish gardai).
  
  Commercially "Michael Collins" undoubtedly suffered from the comparison with "Braveheart" which, released only a year prior, while likewise not shying from the graphic display of violence, takes an even grander, unapologetically epic approach to a rebel leader's life. Moreover, some of Collins's lines sound eerily familiar to those who had heard William Wallace declare his desire for "a home, and a family ... but it's all for nothing if we don't have freedom." (Similarly, Collins tells Boland that he wants "peace and quiet ... so much [he'd] die for it," and when challenged "You mean you'd kill for it first," he responds, "No, not first. Last.") But financial bottom line and directorial liberties aside, this is a tremendously important movie, well worth watching by anybody interested in Ireland's recent history.
  
  Also recommended:
  The Big Fellow
  A Memoir
  1916: The Easter Rising
  Battle of the Boyne 1690
  Irish Freedom: The History of Nationalism in Ireland
  The Crying Game (Collector's Edition)
  Cal
  In the Name of the Father
  The Boxer (Collector's Edition)
  The Making of Ireland: A History
  
  
• Bad movie, lousy history
  By A5TIT5HLQ6TYT on 2001-06-23
  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. Irish public are violent louts whose innate thuggery must be harnessed by a fellow thug in order to behave loutishly towards bigger thugs?
  
  Did anyone actually read the facts about the IRA campaign of guerilla warfare? We get the idea that the whole war, though outwardly aimed at England, is just an internal squabble - which is exactly how the English tried to portray it.
  
  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 Eamon de Valera would. Their lives had real cinematic qualities - heroism, political vision, idealism etc, that is lacking here. Instead of fictionalising the character, which is usually necessary for a successful dramatic narrative, 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. 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. To set the record straight, all Jordan's insinuations about his motives are wrong. He did not suddenly jump from being a little, egotistical man, to one known internationally for his integrity and his opposition to imperialism - and fascism - overnight. 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 acting, 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? That's apart from the fact that they really should have given him a moustache to twirl to make him the complete stage villian. And let's not mention the woeful miscasting of Julia Roberts...)
  
  Such a pity, really. I think we all in Ireland deserve a better showing, really, after so much Hollywood misinterpretation of Ireland.
  
  
• Soul stirring
  By A2V3P1XE33NYC3 on 2004-09-19
  In an episode of the 1980's cop drama "Miami Vice," Liam Neeson put in an appearance as an IRA terrorist-or at least I think he did if memory serves me correctly. Perhaps his depiction of an Irish tough on television laid the foundation for his work in Neil Jordan's 1996 bio pic "Michael Collins." The 1990s saw several films about the "Troubles," the word often used to describe the unremitting conflict in Northern Ireland, arrive in theaters. Maybe the hopes of a lasting peace in the troubled region during the last decade, as the IRA agreed to lay down their arms on several occasions, inspired Hollywood. I don't know. Whatever the case, armchair fans of Ireland had plenty to look at in the Cineplex for a few years. While I haven't seen most of these films, I have seen "Michael Collins" several times over the last eight years, and it is difficult to imagine any of these other pictures surpassing this one in any way, shape, or form. Jordan's picture is an inspired piece of work, a beautiful yet politically complex look at how the IRA came to function as an urban guerilla operation in their efforts to secure a unified Ireland free of British oversight and influence.
  
  The film starts on a dramatic tone as Irish rebels battle British troops in the Easter Uprising of 1916. This rebellion fails despite the fact that most of England's resources are tied up in the war raging on the continent. Most of the upstarts-including Michael Collins (Neeson), Harry Boland (Aidan Quinn), and Eamon de Valera (Alan Rickman)-march off to lengthy prison sentences. The perceived ringleaders aren't as lucky: the British line up most of these chaps against the wall and gun them down. Eamon de Valera is one of the few higher ups to survive in large part because he was born in America. With their leadership decimated, Collins and his associates await their release dates so they can continue the fight with the British. It doesn't take long for the rebels to reconstitute a command structure once they get out, but the failed revolt has left its mark on many of the participants. Two schools of strategy emerge concerning future operations for freedom. De Valera and others seek to once again arise and duke it out with the English just as they did in 1916. Collins knows this option will lead to another loss and further prison sentences. He supports taking the war underground by resorting to guerilla warfare in the streets and alleys of Ireland. By striking and then hiding, Collins believes the Irish movement has a much better chance of forcing the British to the bargaining table.
  
  Collins gets his chance to launch a bloody campaign against the British when the Irish leadership heads off to jail again. With the assistance of Harry Boland, he persuades groups of young toughs to raid armories for weapons. He also manages to acquire the secret loyalty of an Irish cop working for the British, Ned Broy (Stephen Rea), to allow him access to the mountains of police files on Irish resistance groups. With an inside view of what the English will do before they even do it, Collins's campaigns of violence become amazingly effective. His boys wipe out a special detachment of Brits sent in to quell unrest. They assassinate police officers and officials. Collins is generally safe from the authorities due to a host of reasons, the least of which include his support from the people and the fact that the cops have no clue what he looks like. How the British didn't know Michael Collins on sight considering he spent time in jail is something I can't explain, but nonetheless his terror missions serve their purpose. The British seek a resolution to the conflict, and Eamon de Valera charges Collins with the task of acting as the Irish emissary. This decision is an adroit political move on de Valera's part, and one that has lasting and violent consequences for the future of Ireland.
  
  I liked everything about "Michael Collins" even though the movie suffers under the onerous burden of two key problems. First, the entire subplot involving Harry Boland, Collins, and an Irish lass named Kitty Kiernan (Julia Roberts) tends to grate. I'm sure the studio insisted on putting a romance theme in the movie in order to sell more tickets and to temper the strident political message, but doing so detracts from the power of the film. Second, historical accuracy occasionally flies out the window in lieu of dramatic license. Witness the sporting event where the British drive an armored car onto the field and promptly gun down the athletes and fire into the crowd. The documentary on the film appended to the DVD discusses this depiction in some depth, and even Jordan admits the event didn't happen exactly the way he portrayed it. But what's good works wonders. Neeson is magnificent as the revolutionary both brutal in his outrages and horrified at the results. Rickman plays de Valera with a sinister silkiness. These two actors are so good at what they do that Rea and Quinn often fade into the background. The locations and set pieces look authentic.
  
  Unfortunately, the extras don't live up to the film. You get a trailer and the aforementioned documentary (which does run for nearly an hour, at least) and that's it. I would have taken the DVD release of this film as an excuse to add a bunch of information about the Irish struggle for independence. C'est la vie, I guess. Whatever the case, the movie is definitely worth the price of the DVD. "Michael Collins" is a film I watch whenever I get the chance, and I will continue to do so well into the future.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
• Accurate, honest, profound
  By AIQ336C21SCQP on 1999-11-09
  This film brings home to us that the loser of this war was (and is) Ireland herself. "Michael Collins" is art, and it does all that art can do.

  I'd like to address something a thoughtful viewer wrote here: "I am always skeptical of love interests in historical/biographical films of this sort." OK, I buy that. But Kitty Kiernan, Mr. Collins's actual fiancee, becomes in this movie the symbol of Ireland herself/itself. The Irish people traditionally have seen their beloved land as mother, sister, "Dark Rosaleen"... and Miss Roberts's role never panders to viewer's prurient interest. She is the Ireland that both warring "brothers" love, and fight for, and the Ireland that loses them to each other... that's a tragedy of war, this war and others...

  The end of the film brings home to us that the loser of this war is Ireland herself. Film cannot *be* life; in that sense it can never be totally accurate. Film can only convey to us what we the audience can recognize. The flags, the accents, the love interests--they are not history but devices to convey history on a flat screen in two hours.
  
  

• Mostly Accurate; Entirely Inspirational
  By A5B73BZBH5GKQ on 2002-02-05
  This movie was the best I've ever seen concerning The Troubles in Ireland. I would have enjoyed more of the film covering the Easter Revolution, but it did a wonderful job of mixing entertainment with history. Although nearly all of the film was fairly well grounded on fact, I was disappointed in Julia Roberts uninspiring performance. However Liam Nelson more than compinsated with his masterful job and played Michael Collins exactley the way I would of imagined him to be. This was an all-around wonderful movie capable of educating the uninformed and inspiring the knowledgeable.
  
  
• Shallow and inaccurate
  By A37YIKWMK8JHTS on 2004-03-28
  Set just after the 1916 Easter Rebellion in Dublin, Neil Jordan's film follows the life and times of Irish revolutionary Michael Collins (Liam Neeson), detailing his relationships with Kitty Kearnan (Julia Roberts), Harry Boland (Aidan Quinn), and Eamon de Valera (Alan Rickman). It essentially covers the period leading up to the Civil War in Ireland, and ultimately Collins' untimely death.
  It must be said the movie proves to be an opportunity missed, considering the budget and all involved. While it is usual for historical epics to have inaccuracies, "Michael Collins" is rather a disaster. After a very self conscious opening scene, the film seems to loose it's way and trods a distinctly uneven and incomprehensible path. It tries to hard to be all things: epic war film, romantic movie, and politically descisive. It fails on all counts, essentially because it is biased towards one side of the argument, and ridicules the other. The script seems to make no attempt at exploring the intricacies of the politics involved which led to Civil War, and the picture ends up like something a not very knowledgable schoolboy would write in primary school. Despite Liam Neeson's historonics, the casting in disasterous - particulary Aidan Quinn as an americanised Harry Boland, and Julia Roberts resembling a cross between Maureen O'Hara and Tinkerbell. What ultimately comes across from the acting is a cast who just want to pick up their pay check as quickly as possible and move as swiftly as they can onto their next, more serious, production.
  The film is particulary offensive to those brave men and women who would not accept half measures, and took the view that the Anglo Irish Treaty was not the Republic of Easter Week 1916. Certain historical figures are missing, especially Arthur Griffith and Cathal Brugha (although Gerard McSorely appears in a brief scene with a "mcsorely" wig on his head which looks like something one would find in the middle of a cow field.

  The Boland familly in general were outraged by the production, and the film did extremely well in Ireland, but flopped like a pan cake outside our four green fields.
  It also suffers from the tendency to point to the indigenous population saying "Isn't this cool, we're all so important on this production. Yes I played such and such in the movie". I myself turned down any part of it with utter contempt, as I have taken the view that regardless of what side one was on during the Civil War, all concerned were heroes with no villins. Was Robert E. Lee any less in greatness then Grant? Both men are held with equal respect by the American populace.
  RTE produced a much rounded and interesting production "The Treaty" which deals with the period in a more mature, intelligent way. The great Brendan Gleason appears as Collins, and the equally excellent Barry McGovern as de Valera.
  "Michael Collins" is a total fiasco and an embarrasement
  
  

• Popular Irish hero gets cinematic treatment
  By A1SR3FX1EPWDB9 on 2000-06-01
  Neil Jordan's Michael Collins is a fast paced intelligent work about a early twentieth century Irish poltical activist and military leader. The film has romance, pace, action, wit and humour. Neil Jordan is probably one of the best script writers in terms of quantity and quality of product now working in world cinema. It's his intelligence and unique way of seeing a situation I find is refreshing. Dressing up a future President of Ireland of Ireland disguised as a whore is witty and fair comment on the corruption in politics in Ireland at the moment. Taking up the story of Michael Collins after a failed rebellion in Dubllin, Ireland, against British Imperial rule at the time, 1916, Jordan quickly introduces the characters of the film. Harry Boland, a Dub amusingly played by Aidan Quinn (Fans of Quinn can see him also in the fine This is my Father which he made with his brothers) Eamonn De Valera, a political intellectual leader of the republican movement well caricatured by Alan Rickman, and Kitty Kiernan, played by Julia Roberts in a performance which will steal your heart. A fine supporting cast led by english actor Ian Hart gives this film top quality drama. The performance of Liam Neeson in the role of Collins is one of the best of his career so far with the flair of his Oscar Schindler character and the strength of Collins Cork origins mixed with poignant reflective moments, this is terrific natural playing.

  Basically the story is of Collins out-witting the British administration and winning a negotiated settlement. A lot of Collins' characteristics are picked up in the movie. His cycling around Dublin under the very noses of the security forces, his playing with De Valera's children and wrestling with whoever was about as a bit of a joke. Unlike the revolutionary leaders who are said to have copied Collins, like Mao Tse Tung and Ho Chi Minh etc., Collins was more likely to say "are you on for a pint ?" than any guff about the good of the movement. His tactical talent and strategic skills are shown but his skill at managing the large amounts of intelligence information isn't as well appreciated in the film. His realization that a republic was better forged under steady transition, and more logically needed to be worked out as to its practical meaning, was a foundation stone of the current Irish state. Further his belief that a democratic decision, a popular vote, was the crux of any situation and to be defended despite any loyalties to the contrary. This latter point is made dramatically in the film as Collins and Boland find themselves on opposite sides having been pals. (For more information on Collins try Tim Pat Coogan's "Michael Collins", a better read is "De Valera" by the same author.)
  
  

• Proud to be Irish
  By A2G3MJ0CMNATES on 2000-01-10
  I had occasion to view this movie on Irish television over Christmas. It really reminded me how proud I was to be Irish. The movie itself is surprisingly accurate, and considering it is a 'Hollywood' offering, doesn't really clutter things up with needless fluff. The cinematography is amazing, and the soundtrack does justice to what is a very moving experience. I recommend anyone who is Irish, or of Irish descent, who really wants to find out about their Irish heritage, to view this movie.
  
  
• Ireland's Greatest son of All
  By A3VZ0LACTJY0PN on 2001-07-16
  I just finishing wathching the engrossing story of Michael Collins for the second time. I watched this movie the first time, a few years back when the movie was in the theaters and I didn't know who Michael Collins was. Boy, I come a long way, but anyways although I liked movie the first time, I could in no way understand the ramifications of this Irish conflict. After countless reading, I watched Michael Collins last night feeling as if I was watching the movie for the first time. Liam Neilson(sorry for the misplelling) was born to play this role and does it brilliantly. He portrays Collins's character in the light he was famous for, courageous, witty, keen, and always one step a head of the brits and even his comrads. Although I tend to agree Julie Roberts is a bit of a miscast, and I would have loved to see a truly Irish actress tackle the role of Kitty, such as the beatuful actress who played Murron in Bravehear, but all in all Julie Roberts did an admirable job. Overall this is a truly fine film, that depicts Ireland's greatest hero of all, and although he was killed he will never be forgotten.
  
  
• It has its good moments
  By A1A4Y9XS2NYKO2 on 2002-07-07
  I would almost give it 4 stars, but there are some things which can't be excused. First of all, if you are interested in Irish history- rent it. Of course it will give you a biased viewpoint on Michael Collins- its hollywood. But if you study Irish history, you will find that care went into this film from the details- notice the pin that Alan Rickman as Eamon De Valera wears to show he speaks and supports Irish/Gaelic language. Real footage plays at the end (I won't give it away for you) with music that will make your heart swell whether you supported Collins or not. From the very beginning, the movie has the feel of the times. Excellent uniforms, costumes, scenery. Great lines delivered by Rickman and Neeson. Neeson and Rickman portray the parts of Collins and De Valera- in appearance, in mannerisms, in speech- excellently. Stephen Reyes also gave an excellent performance, for however brief his part, he delivers a believable character. Downfall- Julia Roberts, not entirely her fault though. Her Irish accent (also attempted in "Mary Reilly") made me cringe. This movie should be about Ireland's struggle, not romance-caught-amidst-the-war. Are we supposed to care about her choice between two men (and are we surprised that she chooses Collins?). It doesn't blend in with the storyline well at all. That's entertainment, I guess. And there's one scene with Roberts, Neeson, a rose and a bed, which flashes between violence and then back to Robert's dialogue to her love. It is one of the worst scenes in a movie I've ever seen. I don't know whether to laugh through the melodrama or fast forward it.

  Whatever your viewpoint on the war, this film can still be of benefit. I am always happy to see any movie on Irish history and culture, and Michael Collins is a figure in it, like it or not. The division between Collins and De Valera is well done by script and actors alike, and will give a better understanding of the main forces behind the strife in Northern Ireland to the present.
  
  

• Historian is wrong
  By A3L1QIE697EFZQ on 2005-11-12
  An excellent movie even if some important facts e.g. 1918 election which legitimised the Old IRA back then were omitted.
  
  We were a colony in the sense that we had never consented incorporation into the UK. The Irish Parliament that voted the Union through in 1800 was exclusively a Protestant one, the Catholic majority (80%) having been banned from it. Also, the parliament was bribed with money, land and titles to get it to vote for Union. And the Loyalist UVF also brought in arms and ammunition from Germany through the port of Larne, Co.Antrim, including over a million rounds of ammunition and 35,000 rifles. The difference being that the British army left them alone when the guns were being brought in but opened fire when the Irish Volunteers (previous name of the Old IRA) brought in arms - far fewer by the way. And anyway, the UVF was formed before the IRA to resist Home Rule by force, so it wasn't just our side that was setting up armies to resist UK law. Also, you say the Home Rulers were elected and that the IRA "seized power". In fact, in the 1918 elections (unfortunately not covered in the movie), the Home Rulers went from 73 MPs to 6, and SF took all the lost seats. So there was clearly a democratic mandate to break away from Britain.
  
  Collins was not a terrorist because the mark of a terrorist is the intentional targeting of innocent civilians, which he did not do. In fact after independence and during the Southern Civil War against the Anti-Treaty IRA, the Irish Government actually established security-forces to protect Southern Protestants, e.g. in Co.Louth. I reject your claim about 140,000 Protestants being driven out. 50,000 of those who left were in the British army or in the families of their soldiers and were relocated to Northern Ireland. After the US became independent, a lot of former Loyalists left for Canada. After colonies become independent, many of those formerly loyal to the old regime tend to leave the country. The same happened in the former Soviet states where millions of ethnic-Russians have moved to the Russian Federation, e.g. in Kazakhstan, the Russian population has fallen from over 50% to 30%. So this is not unique to Ireland. Many Protestants did leave Southern Ireland after partition, but in the main this was voluntary and based on a feeling of not being at home in a state where they would be in the minority, and because they were mainly Unionists who wanted to live in the part of Ireland remaining in the UK. If we were to follow your line of reasoning, does this mean that Northern Irish Catholics were well treated by the Belfast Parliament from 1922-72. as the Catholic population there has grown from 31% to 41%? Certainly most historians would strongly disagree, considering the gerrymandering, discrimination in housing, burning down of Catholic areas e.g. Bombay Street in the 1960's, and the continued ethnic-cleansing of Irish Catholics from places like Carrickfergus, Larne and Ahoghill in Co.Antrim. As late as 1993, Catholics were only 7% of the RUC (the police), and the Loyalist terror group the UDA, which has killed hundreds of Catholics, was a legal organisation until 1990. The British security forces in Northern Ireland colluded with Loyalist terror groups to murder Catholics, as shown in the Stevens Report. The Stevens Inquiry was commissioned by the British government but several attempts were made to sabotage the investigation, including arson.
  
  The primary reason for the decline in the Protestant population in the South is a consistent pattern of Protestants marrying Catholics, with the children having tended until recently to have been brought up as Catholics under the Ne Temere Decree of the Catholic Church requiring this. As the Catholic Church's influence has dissipated in recent years following scandals, the Protestant population is growing again. This graph http://www.wesleyjohnston.com/users/ireland/past/protestants_1861_1991.html#decline_roi
  illustrates the decline in the Southern Irish Protestant population, and contrasts with your assertions on 140,000 Protestants leaving the State shortly after independence. As shown, their % of the South's population started at 10% (300,000). 140,000 would constitute a 50% decline to 5%. However, the 5% figure was only reached around 1950. This does not support the theory of mass-expulsions in the years immediately proceeding 1921 and independence, therefore.
  
  Regarding Irish people who fought in WW1, most Catholics doing so did this because the Home Rule leader, John Redmond, argued it would influence Britain to look more favourably on the demand for 32 county Home Rule instead of partitioning Ireland, as well as Redmond's drawing of parallels between Ireland and Belgium - countries that were both trying to attain their freedom (from Germany in Belgium's case). Hence, in both senses, Catholics joining the British army felt they were fighting for the "freedom of small nations". They were certainly not fighting to preserve the oppressive British empire.
  
  
• One of My Favorite Movies
  By on 2000-02-27
  This movie is excellent! It captures this violent period perfectly and makes me understand why the Irish want the Brits off of Irish soil. Being of Irish descent, I loved this movie. Collins is truly an important man in world history and deserves to have a film made about his life. Collins' guerrilla tactics were later studied by Mao Tse-Tong, and Israeli guerrilla, and later Prime Minister Menachem Begin adopted the code-name Micael in honor of this legendary man. Everyone of Irish descent must watch this movie.
  
  
• Good but slightly flawed bio on "The Big Fella"
  By A2P49WD75WHAG5 on 2003-11-22
  As Michael Collins is going to be one of the three individuals in the Irish independence movement from the Easter Rising to the formation of the Irish Free state that I'll be examining in my senior seminar paper next semester, I refreshed myself in rewatching this movie. Director Neil Jordan (The Crying Game) paints a vivid portrait of the history of the final and crucial Irish Revolution against the British Empire and the man who made it possible, Michael Collins, "The Big Fella," (1890-1922). If one was to make the comparison of the Pen, Voice and the Sword made on the three main people who united Italy (Mazzini, Cavour, and Garibaldi), Collins was Ireland's Garibaldi, but also its Christ.

  The movie begins with 29 April 1916, the last day of the Easter Rising, where the undermanned Irish surrendered to superior British artillery. Collins and his friend Harry Boland are captured and fortunately avoid the fate of others like Sean MacDiarmida, and socialist intellectual James Connolly, the latter who is badly wounded and is executed strapped to a chair. Eamon de Valera, future president of Ireland many times over, has his sentence commuted, partially because of his New York birth.

  Collins learns from the mistakes of the Rising and with the help of Harry and Joe O'Reilly, sets about creating a band of assassins who use intelligence, wear the uniform as the ordinary man on the street, and the element of surprise to gun down members of the Royal Irish Constabulary and G-Men. Both groups are considered collaborators with the British, traitors to Irish independence. Before long, British elite police auxiliaries, the notoriously brutal Black and Tans are sent in, and they too become targets for the IRA.

  There is a standout scene reminiscent of the final scene in the Godfather, where Collins' gunmen take out members of the Cairo Gang, British intelligence specialists who operated in the Middle East and were sent to deal with the IRA, quickly followed by the infamous massacre at a football game, where 14 people, including footballer Sam Hogan, were gunned down by the British searching for Sinn Feiners, and over a hundred wounded. Bloody Sunday indeed! While not condoning the British treatment of the Irish, it shows how retaliatory violence leads to the deaths of the innocent. But as history has shown, there was no other way for the Irish, except by fighting.

  Many aspects or themes from Tim Pat Coogan's biography on Collins have either been altered or not emphasized, which is understandable for a movie with limited running time. For example, Ned Broy, the G-man who secretly helps Collins, survived instead of being tortured and killed. Three Irishmen were tortured and executed the day before, and Jordan clearly decided to use their deaths and Broy as a composite character. Another is the band of assassins Collins uses to carry out his hits. Coogan's book refers to them as the Twelve Apostles, which using a Christ-like metaphor to Collins as the saviour of Ireland. That isn't alluded to here, which is unfortunate. And the action slows down in the final quarter hour, a contrast to the first two hours.

  The leads do well, Liam Neeson (Collins), Aidan Quinn (Harry Boland), Julia Roberts (Kitty), Alan Rickman (de Valera), and Ian Hart (Joe O'Reilly). The latter two would be reunited in the first Harry Potter movie as Professor Snape and Quirrel, respectively.

  Those who know the story of Michael Collins will know how the story ends, but there is cutting back and forth of scenes of Kitty trying out her wedding dress to the final ambush, with Sinead O'Connor haunting rendition of the traditional "She Moved From The Fair" making it all the more poignant. And de Valera is portrayed as someone who wants independence but with strategic violence, not the bloodbath Collins spreads, and but in the end, a Machiavellian manipulator. Indeed, he did say that Collins legacy came at the cost of de Valera's own standing, and that is definitely true in this movie.
  
  

• Correction regarding the Irish Flag
  By A3LT1DRN8PN89O on 1999-11-27
  If you haven't seen this film yet, you must. This tells a true story of some history rarely taught in schools today. Michael Collins is an excellent piece of work!

  In regards to the Irish Flag, in a way, it does represent the separation of the North and South. The Green is a representaion of the Catholic, Gaelic speaking Republic and the Orange (which came from William of Orange from who later came the "Orangemen") represents the Protestant North. The white between signifies peace between the two sides.

  Anyhow, buy the movie, watch the movie, enjoy the movie.
  
  

• All of Irelands heroes are martyrs ...
  By AMTK6J6103WZQ on 2001-10-10
  ...goes the saying in Ireland, and Collins was one of them. Liam Neeson is great. There is a dark, dreary and incredibly passionate atmosphere to the whole film that makes you understand the fury and vision of this man. A must for Ireland lovers.
  
  
• An excellent visual biography.
  By A1W1ONKNMIHP99 on 2004-07-28
  Not being Irish, and being ignorant of the true history of the IRA and the conflict between England and Ireland, I cannot hope to offer any guidance as to the historical accuracy of this movie, nor its bias (or lack of it), but if you watch the documentary on this DVD you will see that the Director (Neil Jordan) himself says that some of the incidents in the movie were slightly changed. However that is to be expected of most movies that try to present history in an entertaining way.
  
  And entertaining it is. Divorced from the reality from which it is based, the movie makes excellent drama; you have the classical David and Goliath scenario here with the British Empire being brought to its knees by a handful of very amateur assassins. I thought Liam Neelson was great as Collins and so was the 'supporting' cast, with the exception of Julia Roberts. I don't think you can help but make comparisons between this movie and Braveheart. While I was watching it, I imagined Collins being the modern day Irish equivalent of that old Scottish hero.
  
  As other reviewers have mentioned, if you want to know more about the history of this struggle, it would be best to hit the history books rather than the play button. But if you want an entertaining film that gives you a rough idea of who Michael Collins was and what he stood for; this is as good a film as any.
  
  
  
• A Solid 4
  By ALX2RTJW3NF0O on 2004-11-24
  This movie was one of the suggestions I selected from an Amazon "page I just created" list. Having an Irish background, I am sad to say I did not know who Michael Collins was before I purchased this movie. So I took a look at it from both an educational and entertainment point of view. In the end I felt it did both, educate and entertain.
  
  Overall I thought the casting was just OK. I liked Liam Neeson and Aidan Quinn, however I didn't care for Julia Roberts as the Kitty Kiernan character for some reason. I liked the story-line, but I am not sure as to the historical accuracy of this portrayal. The overall story seemed to have a few gaps in it.
  
  If you enjoy movies like The Patriot, Braveheart, and Gladiator and are looking for entertainment versus authenticity then this is a movie for you.
  
  
• Good factual based SERIOUSLY MISLEADING film
  By A3RDCCWDW0ZUDG on 2005-06-13
  The film was enjoyable. However, it failed to point out in
  its material anywhere due to its propagandist tone ..
  
  1. The Home Rule Bill was already passed in 1912 which was
  suspended due to the calamatous great war. So effectively
  Collins' actions were pointless as Ireland would have had
  home government without the 80 subsequent years of Bloodshed
  caused by the stream of propaganda aimed at self justification.
  
  2. Collins only returned to Ireland as he was due to be
  conscripted having been living in London for 12 years. It
  was alleged that he could have gone to live with his brother
  in Chicago .. could he have afforded the ticket to go ?
  
  3. Ireland was NOT a colony but part of the UK so effectively
  the implications of Irish "separation" from Britain were
  wide ranging. There have been similar nationalist movements
  since from Wales, Scotland etc.
  
  4. The film "implied" there was conscription in Ireland
  - there wasnt at any point.
  
  5. The film "implied" there wasnt a democratic process -
  there was.
  
  6. It failed to point out that the guns supplied to the
  pro-crown loyalists and similarly the nationalists came
  from the Kaiser in an attempt to keep Britian out of the
  First World war. So the current situation in Ireland
  was not forced by the IRA but more as a consequence of a tired
  nation just wanting to settle a thorn in its side. Ireland
  wasnt being oppressed in any way.
  
  7. Ireland was part of Britain (see note 3.) and is still
  represented on the Union Flag.
  
  8. It failed to point out that the incident in the
  gaelic football match was a direct knee jerk response to
  the murder of the "alleged" Cairo gang who it was never
  proved were anything other army officers.
  
  9. Sinn Fein never won the 1918 elections. They were ballot
  box rigged and the opposition were intimidated into not
  standing against them by murder and so forth. Only Sinn Feins
  bully boys had guns.
  
  10. It failed to point out COMPLETELY the unionist perspective.
  
  11. The main issue in the insurgents being executed was
  that they themselves agreed to being treated more harshly
  on the grounds that their men be given clemency.
  
  12. The executions of 14 leaders of the 1916 rising were
  fair and square. Their actions as traitors to their government
  could have seriously damaged morale in the coming battle
  of the Somme and they were most likely executed for that
  reason alone, not out of spite as it seemed to imply.
  
  13. It also failed to point out that the 11 million dollars
  raised in the united states by DeValera to arm and pay these
  men salary during the unfolding events.
  
  14. No mention whatsoever of the Irish Nationalist party
  and the fact that Irish MP's were several times over
  represented in Westminster.
  
  Good film .. but extremely one sided. Written from the
  Nationalist perspective.
  
  
  
• Wonderful! Captures the essence of the man who was Collins
  By on 1999-06-01
  Though some of the film was not historically acurate-- the movie captured the feel of the times: The brutality of British tyranny, the struggle for Irish freedom, and the difficult choices that were made regarding that freedom. Michael Collins was a man whose roll in history is very complicated. I believe Liam Neeson did an excellent job in portraying him. This is a must see for anyone interested in Irish History.
  
  
• Neil Jordan Does Irelnd and the Irish a Great Service
  By on 2000-08-01
  Neil Jordan has done Ireland and Irish history a service by introducing to the world one of the most fascinating revolutionary leaders in any country and the only successful revolutionary leader in Irish History. Collins' exploits were long kept under a veil because of the enmities and guilt that resulted from the Irish civil war, where former comrades were pitted against each other and many on both sides felt betrayed. Jordan has brought to light again the incredible accomplishment of a largely self-educated country boy from county Cork who finally managed to lead his country to freedom after 700 years of British oppression. In doing so, he beat the British at their own game, destroying their intelligence network in Ireland and demoralizing their police force. His was a unique combination of courage, charisma, wit, ruthlessness, audacity, cunning and love of country, and it was high time his story was told. Thank you, Neil Jordan.
  
  
• A movie worth watching
  By AHYPS5FZPVSEW on 2002-07-02
  I badly wanted to see this movie when it came out in theatres, but I was home with my newborn boy so I settled for renting it months later. This film is spectacular - I love anything to do with Ireland as well as political figures so this was a treat for me. Liam Neeson is superb as the main character, Michael Collins, whom I had never heard of and learned about through watching this film. How historically accurate it is is debatable, but bear in mind this is just a movie. If you would like accurate historical facts, there are many books right here on amazon.com that provide just that. But this is just a movie, and as such, should be taken with a grain of salt.

  This is a downright good film about a brave and passionate Irishman who loves his country and independence and will fight for them until death. (Which, of course, is his fate.) Collins struggles against English imperialism as almost all Northern Irishmen do, the difference being that Collins has wit and an extra boost of courage and will.

  The cinematography is beautiful - very well done. The story moves along at a good pace and the rest of the actors are pretty good, too, except for Julia Roberts, whom I think should not have been in this film. Aidan Quinn is Collins' sidekick who seems to have a trivial role, but is good nonetheless.

  Is Collins a terrorist? Is his character as portrayed in this movie a hero or a bad guy? Who actually killed him? (We see a young boy kill Michael Collins, but who put him up to it?) The answers are arguable and you will not actually find them in this movie. However, my amazon friends, this is a very moving film and one worth seeing more than once. I recommend it highly!
  
  

• Film review??????
  By A16T1XK8H5B4RG on 2005-12-28
  To the person from the states who has reviewed this film stating Ireland was not a colony, Collins was a terrorist etc. Your claims about the German cash etc relate only to the opening few minutes of the film. Most of what is viewed comes after the end of WW1. To call Collins a terrorist would be like calling Mandella, or even George Washington terrorists. All rebelled against the government in power. I think that the Irish soldiers who fought in WW1 (my great grandfather was one) for the British did so as much out of hunger as for any other reason.
  
  The film itself is great. Yes there are some inaccuracies (the character of Broy was based on 3 informants of whom Broy was one) but it is watchable and generally gives a good impression of Britsh rule and the uprising.
  
  
• History and Politics of the Irish Republic
  By A3VIOCJZ22JZXT on 2006-10-22
  Rarely does a movie have as much historic accuracy, political insight, character development, and dramatic action as does this film.
  
  The film covers 6 highly chaotic and transitional years in Ireland, from the 1916 Easter Rising in Dublin to the 1922 assassination of Michael Collins in Cork County.
  
  Many Americans, even if they are of Irish ancestry, know little of Irish history, particularly the relationship between Ireland and England. Since the reigns of Henry VIII and Elizabeth I there has been domination of the Irish people by the English government. After almost 400 years of domination, the rise of the Irish Republic was an amazing accomplishment. Much of that accomplishment must be attributed to Michael Collins, the founder of the Irish Republic Army, and the master strategist in the first 6 years of the rebellion. The film takes us through the final hours of the Easter Rising where the English military suppresses one of the first uprisings and challenges to their authority. The film shows the firing squad executions, one by one, of the leaders of the uprising. The film takes us to the guerilla tactics of Michael Collins, with an emphasis on killing the English leadership in Ireland. As the English send more and more ruthless enforcers of England's power, the IRA carefully kills them and creates chaos in their administration. Michael becomes a national hero but his first diplomatic mission is in some ways a set up. This leads to the political intrigue within the film.
  
  The character of Eamon De Valera, the man who was repeatedly elected President of Ireland, is indeed complex as the film demonstrates. De Valera sends Collins to negotiate with the British under the explanation that Collins has earned this priviledge andthat the English wish to know who is so they can negotiate face to face. Michael is not able to negotiate for the independence of all of Ireland, primarily because the English wished to hold Northern Ireland where the majority of English protestant settlers had lived for generations after generations. However, De Valera refuses to accept a partial victory, undermining Collins' leadership and popularity with many of the Irish people. Very crafty thinking and manipulating were involved in this sequence of events. Was De Valera actually that Machiavellian? The film would indicate so.
  
  The acting is superb, with Lian Neeson, Alan Rickman, Stephen Rea, Ian Hart, Aiden Quinn, and Jonathan Rhys Meyer offering first class performances. Julia Roberts takes an understated back seat which serves the film well. Neeson is indeed highly powerful as the robust manly decisive Collins, a man who goes from being a street fighting terrorist to a hero and statesman. Rickman is super as De Valera. He plays De Valera as calculating, never revealing his whole hand, and extremely strategic. Especially strategic was De Valera's trip to the USA to gain funds and support from Irish Americans. Ian Hart plays Collins' right hand assistant through thick and thin. Hart is superb here. Aiden Quinn plays Harry Boland, a friend of Collins' who competes with him for Julia Robert's affection and then turns on him during the Irish Civil War. A young brash handsome Jonathan Rhys Meyer plays the young assassing who kills Collins as he comes to Cork to negotiate with De Valera. There is so much history to relate that the director and writers wisely de-emphasized the romantic in favor of the historic.
  
  The scenes of Ireland are superb, the cinematography of urban Ireland was exceptional. A very fine film.
  
  
  
  
• "Who'll Take My Place?" ~ The Art Of 20th Century Warfare And Doing The Unexpected
  By A141HP4LYPWMSR on 2007-05-20
  The '96 release of `Michael Collins' chronicles the life and death of the famous, or infamous depending on your perspective, of the Irish freedom fighter Michael Collins. I can't vouch for the historicity of the events chronicled in this film since I know very little about the early years of the IRA, I can only judge it for its entertainment value and message.
  
  First, the cast is excellent with the likes of; Liam Neeson (as Michael Collins), Aidan Quinn, Alan Rickman, Stephen Rea and Julia Roberts. There's even a short appearance at the end of the film by Jonathan Rhys Meyers. With such a cast in place it's no wonder that the acting superior and highly believable. The storyline is also superior and perfectly captures the angst of a country in turmoil. It clearly and expertly shows that the problem is not simply black and white, England versus Ireland. This multi-faceted and layered plot also explores the divided loyalties and passions of a people in search of a cohesive vision of freedom.
  
  Factual or not `Michael Collins' is a stirring and emotional story that explores a form of warfare that is essential to understand in today's world, giving some clarification to the all important question, "Who is the patriot and who is the terrorist?
  
  
• excellent
  By A1AOL4N9Z5SMJR on 2000-03-14
  This film is brilliantly acted, Rickman a very covincing Dev, and Nesson brilliant as the mercurial Collins.Only one problem I wish it was not so inacurate, Ned Broy was not killed he went on to be Garda Commissioner; and Harry Boland was not chased through the Dublin sewers, he was killed in an Hotel in Howth.Having said that the film was enjoyable and beautifully shot.
  
  
• Epic saga of the struggle for Irish freedom
  By A2JS2OU5SBH1XQ on 1998-12-05
  If you thought that oppression in the 20th century was limited to dictatorships or 3rd world countries, you thought wrong. Starkly depicted is the truculent domination of the British over their close neighbors, the Irish. Neeson is perfect as the charismatic, determined, and troubled leader of the Irish movement (I know, people will argue and say it was Griffith or De Valera, but Collins was responsible in no small way for Irish Independence). Moving, compelling drama with perfect soundtrack, marred only by horrible accents from Roberts and Quinn. I highly recommend this film, especially if you know little about the history of Eirann.
  
  

• The Wind That Shakes the Barley
• In the Name of the Father
• The Field
• Bloody Sunday
• The Boxer (Collector's Edition)