Watch 1066: The Battle for Middle Earth For Free

Wow! Such a good movie.

Redundant and unnecessary.

It’s an especially fun movie from a director and cast who are clearly having a good time allowing themselves to let loose.

a film so unique, intoxicating and bizarre that it not only demands another viewing, but is also forgivable as a satirical comedy where the jokes eventually take the back seat.

This is the story of the battle of the Norman Conquest of England as told through the eyes of villagers and farmers that took place in the epic war. For those of you unaware of this war, it was an Invasion and occupation of England by armies of Normans, Bretons & the French led by Duke Williams II during the eleventh century. 1066 sports impressive acting, production value and fighting. This is where I would give the DVD a positive review, that is until the producers or whoever is involved in marketing this decided to pull the wool over the viewers eyes by trying to pass this off as something involved in The Lord Of The Rings universe. Lets start with the whole, "Middle Earth" thing. Upon watching this DVD, the title of the movie was just called 1066, it's clear that after this was made, they threw "Battle For Middle Earth" on the DVD cover. Then there's the cover itself, it looks Exactly like the poster for LOTR. Last but not least, the narrator on this film is no other than Mr. Bilbo Baggins himself, Ian Holm. Sad that they didn't think this film could hold it's own with the subject matter given.

A lot of effort went into this production. Just as I think there was too much estrogen in "The Devil's Whore", another UK tail about the English Civil War, so too do I think that this suffers from a bit too much testosterone. Ton's of what veteran period aficionados call hack- n-slash, there's little in the way for much anything else. We see the grim realities of warfare in the purported "dark ages", and some of the pillaging that was characteristic of the period, but little else. The idea here being that since this show is aimed at men, and men like to see violence (and some sex), this film will therefore show lots of sword play violence, and some sex.The truth about the battle of Hastings is that both sides slugged it out on the lower grade of the hill, broke for lunch, then had at it again. The Norman forces feinted back, the English charged, and were defeated. The battle depicted in the film shows the tactics being somewhat more complex.The one thing I really like about this TV mini series are the explanations of Tolkien's inspiration for his own "Middle Earth" saga. The explanation of terms is interesting and adds something to the piece.The acting is what it is, good and passable. No one gives a bad performance. But the material the actors have to work with is a bit spartan. We essentially see a kill or be killed plot line, with little else operating as a story mechanism. That's too bad.The props are okay. The armor worn by the actors looks like the stuff you can buy off any medieval website, and I'm sure that's not too far off the mark. The cloths seem authentic, but don't feel authentic. This is, after-all, the dark ages, and the machine clean linens and overall look to the film seems a bit out of place. Most of the money seems to have gone into staging the battle sequences, and putting sword fighting onto the screen. Again, perhaps there could have been a bit more as to how and why the battle of Hastings was fought. But perhaps that's a job for another production.An interesting miniseries. I'm glad I took a chance on it, but I think it could've have been more than what it ultimately became.

I really enjoyed 1066 the battle for middle earth. I have always wanted this story to be brought to the screen. You may be amazed to learn that their has been no English speaking production depicting that battle of hasting before this production. This is why I can easily forgive the historical errors such as costume and some of the battle settings. 1066 The Battle for middle earth works mainly because it comes at its material for the perspective of the common man. It try's not to get bogged down with the rather complex politics of the time. Of course to a historian or anyone who has read more than 6th grade paper, not showing the politics could be considered a short coming. The basic story of 1066 The battle of middle earth concerns 3 men, a young newly wed 16 year old Saxon called Tofi. A farmer called Leofric and a Housecarl called Ordgar. Ordgar arrives and the small farming shire of Crowhurst on the day of Tofi's wedding to recruit able body men to join the Fyrd ( part time army) on the south coast. From then on History plays itself out though there eyes. Moving from the Sussex coast to the two battles in the north and then back to Senlac hill and the Battle of Hasting. Ian Holm provides a basic history lesson voice over. The Normans are portrayed as vicious invaders who care little about the people of England and only see the wealth to be had. Only one Norman is portrayed in a sympathetic light. The Norwegians Vikings come off in a better light . Men not unlike the Saxon's and after there defeat at Stamford bridge some Vikings are shown joining the ranks of Harold's army. You should remember that 1066 The Battle for middle earth is a very low budget production so things like costumes and weaponry are not always historically accurate. Housecarl's were a full time army and did wear a basic matching uniforms not unlike the Norman battle dress. consisting of mail or scale type armour and battle axes with matching shield's depicting the area they came from or earls symbol. they would have been in the front ranks of the battle. This is not shown in the film. Housecarls were also elite troops, so a farmer and member of Fyrd would not become a Housecarl after one battle as shown on the film. You may notice that the Norman cavalry looks a bit tacky, made up of Pony's and Shire horse's instead of Stallion chargers. This was obviously due to the fact that the battle s were filmed using re-enactment groups to save money. Also it is debatable whether the battle of Stamford bridge played out as depicted in this film. The Viking on the bridge probably did not happen. But it's a great legend. Considering this, the battles are amazing using tactics of the day with CGI bloodletting all filmed with hand-held cameras. Between the 3 battles the story plays out at a fast pace as the Saxon army criss crosses the country with stories jokes and poems along the way. The acting is good with a couple of standout performances from Frances Magee as Ordgar and Soren Byder as the Viking turned mercenary Snorri. I would recommend this film for anyone who wants to get a feel for the time period not as a history lesson . If you want a history lesson read one of the many books on the subject. I recommend Helen Hollick's HAROLD THE KING. But if you want 3 hours of 10th century battles Boar snout charges , blood splattered shield walls you could do a lot worse.

I'm going to give this 9 out of 10 - only because I'm unsure how exactly historically accurate this was - but it WAS about 90% accurate. I'm also knocking some off for being a little strangely anti-norman - I'm not sure exactly what that was all about, but I'll explain this.However, first of all - who ever is wondering why there are no Lord of the Rings elves or wizards - this is a HISTORICAL DOCUMENTARY. Its not a fantasy, and it portrays the MIDDLE AGES (though why the History Channel calls it "Middle Earth" is a little strange). I'm also unsure with the "Orc" references - it seemed a little bit of a stretch and lots of wikipedia editing it seems to get those references.However, as a student of the run-up to the Battle of Hastings, I found the movie entertaining and certainly an interesting perspective. There are a number of books - one of which is called "1066 the Battle of Hastings" which talks about the battle in the perspective of an average commoner of Anglo-Saxon England - and to be honest I was hoping for a little more of that perspective BEFORE the battles. But I guess that would have made the movie a little longer and a little drier.Now, the battle scenes aren't exactly totally gruesome - but they are gruesome enough. What comes across is that this is a violent time and men were thrust into battle with very little training or expectation of what to expect.Not sure with the portrayal of either of the Kings - one wasn't even shown, and the other was really very strange - a little too fantasy-like...OK - spoiler alert, for those who don't know the history of England and Great Britain...Yes, the Normans were French. Yes, they invaded and beat the Anglo-Saxons. Yes, they were brutal and "laid waste" villages and towns. Yes, they ended up "owning huge tracts of land for the next thousand years" etc etc But what was PAINFULLY missing from this documentary was the fact that the Norman Invaders became so INTEGRATED with Anglo-saxons that within one lifetime, England was changed forever. What was missing was the fact that prior to 1066, England was a number of warring shires - and that William, by conquering Britain, united the people under a single banner and created the first true monarchy of England, which links the British Monarchy for the next 1,000 years. What was missing was the fact that 1066 was the last time anyone successfully invaded England - that all technology, tools and foundations of defense stemmed directly from this new "invader".I missed the politics of what led up to the Battle of Hastings. What should have occurred was that they should have followed the tapestry from beginning to end. I was saddened to not see Halleys Comet even make an appearance in the movie (one of the most important "portents" and one which was in the Bayeaux Tapestry).I'm giving this a high mark, because more historical based movies should be made - knowing where we come from is always important. But, like my old history master used to say on my report card "could do better"...