henrypat6
The Incredible Journey of Mary Bryant is a period piece mini-series that is unlike most period pieces you'll see. Most period dramas are romantic and glossy, or they are gothic and dark, or they are whimsical and fun. This one is just gritty and real. It's loosely based on the life of Mary Bryant and British girl convicted of theft who's sent to the Australian Penal Colony. It's disturbing, interesting,and well-acted (Romola Garai is fantastic as usual).
SnoopyStyle
Mary (Romola Garai) is starving and steals food from a lady on a picnic. She is transported to the penal colony of Botany Bay in Australia along with other petty criminals like Will Bryant (Alex O'Loughlin). Idealistic Lt Ralph Clarke (Jack Davenport) takes pity on Mary and takes care of her. She lets out that she's pregnant from another jailer and he's taken aback by rumors of possible moral impropriety. At the colony, Will becomes the only fisherman and marries Mary. Together they start a family. However the colony is hit with riot, rapes, drought and starvation. Mary seduces Ralph in a plan to steal the only sea-worthy boat and supplies as the group of outlaws escape the colony under Gov. Phillip (Sam Neill)'s harsh rule.Mary Bryant is a wonderful character daringly performed by Romola Garai. I'm conflicted about the story. It's not correct historically and I don't think it works dramatically. It would flow better to fictionalize the story even more. The first part is amazing. The last half of the second part struggles with various turns and slower parts. It's a great character in a historical drama.
SimonJack
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 TimorThis 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.
bardsleys
This was an excellent and entertaining movie, with convincing costumes and settings. The depiction of the horror of the sea voyages, the appalling nature of life in the convict settlement (scarcely better for the overseeing officials then for the convicts) and the relative luxury and colour of life in the Dutch colony of Timor were all powerfully vivid and evoked a strong sense of place and time. However, too perfect teeth are a recurring difficulty in period movies! The casting of the main characters was first rate, with Romola Garai as Mary shedding the fragility and innocence we saw in 'I Capture the Castle', and displaying considerable depth and emotional strength. Jack Davenport's outstanding performance as one of the marine officers was characterised by moral ambivalence and confusion in someone half a world away from his cultural certainties. Alex O'Loughlin as Will Bryant was a very effective counterweight to Davenport, giving a compelling account of a convicted Cornish smuggler and fisherman struggling within his own clear if unconventional moral framework. This fine team were supported by equally strong performances from the rest of the cast. Authenticity of detail of costume and setting was not however matched by authenticity of narrative – the script takes liberties with events, relationships and the fates of some characters. Although much is not known about Mary's life, some known facts were abused! However the main thrust of Mary's story retains its integrity and the movie provides a welcome testament to an otherwise neglected extraordinary figure from English – and Australian - history.
