Just perfect...

It's fun, it's light, [but] it has a hard time when its tries to get heavy.

If the ambition is to provide two hours of instantly forgettable, popcorn-munching escapism, it succeeds.

One of the film's great tricks is that, for a time, you think it will go down a rabbit hole of unrealistic glorification.

For me, this film was a success because it captured that horrified sense of loss not only of a battle, or of lives, but of a whole culture and the 650-year history that had produced it. The decision to focus only on the ordinary foot-soldiers (to the extent that none of the three leaders had a single line to speak, and William did not even appear on screen) was a good one, since it allowed the story to represent the fate of peoples instead of just the fate of kings. The narration, in a good imitation of the style of Anglo-Saxon epic poetry, was mournful and measured, and the revelation of the narrator's identity at the end nicely rounded out one thread of the story. Despite the constant bloodletting, the characters were attractive: Leofric the happy-go-lucky coward who does the right thing in the end; Hrothgar the weary general always trying to rally his weary men for one more fight; and Snorri the captured Viking who becomes a mainstay of the English at Hastings. The final stages at Hastings reminded me of the poem commemorating another English defeat, 75 years before:"Thought shall be harder, heart shall be keener / Spirit shall be greater, as our might lessens." (The Battle of Maldon, 991)

This ' DocuDrama ' follows the battle of hastings through the eyes of the peasants (portrayed brilliantly by their respective actors) and the Huscarl they're forced into following; and where their journey takes them across the UK and tries to show the opinion of what life was like for a lowly foot-soldier of the era.Its nowhere near the high production values of Gladiator or any other blockbuster medieval romp... But it can hold its head high whilst standing next to them.Because they've used their budget effectively and tell the story well...It's not a history lesson.. But it does a great job of being sneaky and educating you whilst you're watching. I completely agree with another reviewers' assertion that it was great to learn how Tolkiens own 'middle earth' tales had taken inspiration and where he had adapted a lot of terminology from.I gave this 9/10 because i thought the acting was brilliant, the story was well told given the obvious budget restrictions (they were clearly trying to show the massive scale of the conflict but didn't have hundreds/thousands of people to work with) and personally i found the music/soundtrack to be icing on the cake.Which is why i'm here 3 years later writing a review.

1066 was broadcast with the subheading The Battle For Middle Earth which probably suggests it's marketed to tie in with LORD OF THE RINGS . Unfortunately when this historical drama was broadcast last year many people had forgotten about the film trilogy . Fellowship topped the IMDb top 250 for a couple of months but had rapidly fallen out of the top ten . Of course the books remain popular but you get the impression the producers are clutching at straws hoping that its flaws will go unspotted by a more critical audience . The sad truth is even Stevie Wonder will be able to see what's wrong with this historical mini-series From the outset we see contrived scenes where olde Anglo-Saxon characters state words like " Elves " and a caption flashes up giving the origin of said words . It becomes very tiresome as well as patronising but I guess it saves on the budget . What budget ? Exactly . Through out the running time you're left feeling that the producers have employed an amateur dramatics company and stuck them in someones garden . It's certainly amusing watching the climatic battle scene at Stamford Bridge take place which is at odds with the on screen verbal warning of" 1066 contains graphic and bloody battle scenes " which confused me since a word seems to missing somewhere and the word is " funny " that should appear between after bloody and before battle in the above sentence . The Vikings stand at one end of the bridge while the Saxons stand at the other . Remember in those old Bruce Lee films where the villain is let down by his guards and the guards undergo a trail of combat where they ultimately pay with their lives ? Well the same thing happens here . One after another a Saxon is forced at the front of the queue who gingerly advances up to the Viking who kills him , but not before at least one Saxon has the famous last words of " Stop pushing at the back there " . Honestly if Stamford Bridge was composed of pink tents it wouldn't have been more camp than what's on screen here Unlike me you may not have fallen in love with Peter Jackson's film version of Tolkien's book but you can appreciate the technical achievements and aesthetic beauty he brought to the cinema version . 1066 can show quiet clearly how easy it is to ruin a historical epic if you don't have much of a budget or directorial skills

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.