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).
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.
mkmumof3
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?
jaimywds
Mary Bryant was a simply brilliant portrayal of a young woman's strength, vitality, courage and determination. The story encapsulated her desires for love and lust in a new world of discoveries and unforgiving hardships. From a historical perspective I felt I was there, a truly realistic picture of English on foreign soil, bringing their flag of imperialism progressivist ideals, and ethnocentricities. Going back in time the story revealed the capacities of the unrelentless human spirit, pushing the boundaries in both mind and body. Being a young woman myself the character of Mary Bryant truly inspired me, as I thought I have endured hardships. This realistic account of a woman's tale lived 200 years ago discloses how spoilt our lifestyle has become. I am a patriotic Australian and very proud of the blood sweat and tears of our forefathers that made this country. I have placed the movie in my top three movies of all time. The script and the actors were fantastic.
