Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

Slow pace in the most part of the movie.

Blistering performances.

An old-fashioned movie made with new-fashioned finesse.

This movie concerns the atrocities and subsequent courts-martial of three Australian officers serving during the Boer War. Although the movie itself is quite dramatic I think it deserves mention that the defendants were all guilty of the crimes in which they were charged. The question then remains as to whether they were simply following orders or not. Yet even if they were under orders to "take no prisoners" it should also be stated that the acceptance of prisoners under a flag of truce (or any other circumstance) nullifies the order and therefore undermines any defense for executing them once they've been captured. Likewise the cold-blooded murder of a witness to the crime cannot be justified or overstated either. That being the case any implication that the three defendants were tried solely because of political considerations is rather specious. Be that as it may, as far as the movie is concerned it is still quite gripping and provocative from start to finish with good direction (Bruce Beresford) and crisp acting from all concerned. Having said that I believe it should be restated that the film itself is not an historical documentary and shouldn't be mistaken for one. Above average.

This is an excellent film about military justice. Born in London, England, Harry Morant, called Breaker by Australians for his uncanny ability to break any horse, immigrated to Australia in the later part of the 19th century. Both British colonies, Australia and New Zealand, fought for the British against the Boers in the Second Boer War. Breaker Morant is now a legend in Australia. This movie is well directed by Bruce Beresford; and Edward Woodard was excellent in his portrayal of Breaker Morant, just as Bryan Brown was excellent as his friend, Lieutenant Peter Handcock. Both Lieutenant Morant and Lieutenant Handcock were executed after a court martial for killing Boer prisoners- of-war February 1902. This film is the most honored film in Australian film history, earning 10 Australian Film Institute awards in 1980. This movie is well scripted, acted, and directed, with excellent photography. I found the movie to be gripping as it presented the court martial with evidence for and against the accused. At the end, it is you the viewer who must decide if military justice is fair or unfair. This is one (1) of my all time favorite movies.

Awesome movie here that teaches as well as entertains. In this case, it's the Boer war, which I didn't know (or care) much about. This movie is pretty much the tale of a court martial of 3 Australian soldiers on trial for killing prisoners of war and a missionary. Much of it can be applied to today, as we question how much openness can we interpret the rules of war? Although shot simply (the court martial set-up is just a few tables and a simple witness chair), the court scenes are quite done masterfully. The old acting war-horse Jack Thompson (though not really old here!) plays the the defence counsel quite brilliantly, showcasing a status switch (an improv term!) that is really quite jarringly effective. I'd heard of Breaker Morant for years, almost close to when it came out, and just watching it now makes me sad somewhat that I had neglected to see it all this time, but then again, there's tons of movies like that, and you know what? That makes me excited.

I've seen this movie at least 20 times and know every line before it is spoken. It is safe to say that it an all time favorite for me. The movie, based on a historical event, is strengthened a great deal by the quality of the cast. It's difficult to find many movies with a lineup from a talent standpoint at the top that bests Edward Woodward, Jack Thompson and Bryan Brown. The script is very well written and acted out, but as with many movies based on an actual event, they choose for whatever reason to not be totally historically accurate. That is, if Kit Denton's book about Morant, "The Breaker" is correct. In the movie, three Australian soldiers are court marshaled for murdering Boer prisoners and a German missionary. In Denton's book, he lists 4 soldiers as court marshaled for those alleged crimes as well as killing a Boer child. In the movie, they are acquitted of killing the missionary, but found guilty of murdering the prisoners, for which Morant and Handcock are executed and Witten sentenced to penal servitude for life. In Denton's book, they are acquitted for executing the prisoners and the child, and found guilty of killing the missionary, for which Morant and Handcock are executed and Witton sentenced to life in prison and Lt Ivor Compton Summers, cashiered. The Boer prisoner Visser was executed by a quickly formed firing squad in the movie. According to Denton's book, Morant shot Visser himself, after giving him a rifle and telling him to "shoot, God damn you to hell". As the simple minded Visser held out the rifle to return it, Morant stepped toward him and shot him in the face. The movie was never based on Denton's book, although it was said to be by the book's publisher at the time. It was based on a stage play by Kenneth Ross. I believe Denton is most historically correct, after reading his book, when it comes to the parts related to the events the movie is based on. Denton though, prefaces his book by saying that the British government's refusal to release a number of essential documents make it impossible to be completely accurate. Denton's book preceded the movie, and some of the lines in the movie were also in the book, although not spoken by the same person. The lines ending with "We shot them under rule 303" were spoken by Handcock in the book rather than Morant. The lines about "I wonder how more serious things could be" were not said by Handcock after being chastised for his verbal exchange with Drummond, but by Witton after he became upset with questions about interrogating of Jacob Hesse the missionary. Witton, according to Denton, was not the mild mannered and soft spoken person the movie made him out to be. That part of him was actually more like Ivor Summers. Witton was closer to Handcock in personality according to Denton. The lines in the movie being similar or the same as lines in the book lend me to believe Ross used Denton's book as a source of info to help write his play that later became the screenplay for the movie. I'd have liked to have seen the movie been actually based on Denton's book, although it was still one of my favorite movies the way it was. The event did take place, and while there are differences between the movie and Denton's book, it is good to see this travesty of justice not totally lost in history.