Baseshment I like movies that are aware of what they are selling... without [any] greater aspirations than to make people laugh and that's it.

Invaderbank The film creates a perfect balance between action and depth of basic needs, in the midst of an infertile atmosphere.

Logan By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

Billy Ollie Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

Steven Torrey A great film despite the caveat that a film rarely interprets a historical event with accuracy. (And the liberties with reality this film takes are too important to be glossed over.) But the question has resonated since ancient days. Agamemnon sacrifices his daughter for the sake of naval warfare; only after Troy is defeated, is he challenged on that decision. And in the Nuremburg War Tribunals, the response--"I was following orders"--was not acceptable. And the cop on the beat shooting a 13 year old teenager walking around with a toy replica of an AK47, defends himself as acting in the best interest and safety of the community. It is a very human expectation to ask and answer whether responses were suitable to the exigencies of the moment. (And if somebody needs to ask the question, then chances are, the response was NOT appropriate and in need of challenge to say nothing of criminal prosecution.) I recommend the movie but clearly, Harry Morant is not the saint or the good guy portrayed. The movie did portray him and the events fairly accurately. The truth of the matter, he had POWs shot out of an act of vengeance; he shot in cold blood the Lutheran Minister who witnessed this atrocity. (Depicted in the movie.) So the sanctity of Breaker Morant is left much in doubt. In other words, his court martial and execution were a just punishment.But as a movie establishing a thematic question--no matter how shaky in reality--it is worth seeing. Just keep that important caveat in mind.

werefox08 Breaker Morant is probably the best movie ever made in Australia.Director Bruce Beresford does everything right (working with a small budget). All of the acting is well above average, but Edward Woodward and Jack Thompson deserve a special mention. This is yet another film about the meaninglessness and futility of war....where nothing is fair and there are no rules. What makes this so good is the way we get to know the characters..we care about them. They are only pawns in a detestable game ..Woodward as Lt. Harry "Breaker" Morant, Lewis Fitzgerald as Lt. George Witton and Bryan Brown as Lt. Peter Handcock. Its 1902 and the Boer War is grinding on. The Germans are upset about the killing of a German missionary and are threatening to enter the war (on the side of the Boers) The British top brass (under Lord Kitchener) are keen for a speedy end to the war. The sacrificing of 3 Australian soldiers seems like a small price to pay to achieve both objectives. However there is a problem....the 3 soldiers are not guilty of the "crimes" they are alleged to have committed. The kangaroo court scenes are unsettling...but brilliantly handled by Beresford. The closing speech by Thompson is truly memorable. Wars will continue to go on.....we need to be reminded of the madness, the brutality, the injustices and the pure evil of conflict. Breaker Morant is a movie that shows some of the hell--- that is war.

Jefbecco-1 First of all let me get all the mandatory praising out of the way. This film has several brilliant performances,it's writing is witty and intelligent. I own it and I can't count how many times I've watched it, but I never tire of it. Now for weightier matters.This movie definitely addresses the issue of ethics and morality in wartime. it's shows that soldiering is a dangerous profession in so many ways. One will often have more than one foe. There is the armed foe that one has been sent to fight and then there is one's superiors and peers. Warfare is the business of nations, which means there are often many things on the table besides defeating ones enemy. Politicians have a way of changing their objectives and not informing the soldiers of the changes. Previously condoned behavior can suddenly become "inconvenient" and the soldier find him or herself the scapegoat.What I get from this superb movie is that sacrificing one's own beliefs and ,doing what you know to be wrong, because one's superiors say it's all right, is a dangerous thing indeed. It isn't worth it. Warfare is a grim activity. Killing and survival often are and holding on to one's ethics are often the only thing one may have. As I said earlier, danger for a soldier doesn't always come from the enemy, sometimes it comes from ones own. Never sacrifice your morals for politicians,they aren't worth it.

dolphin9731 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.