Watched 'Michael Collins' as someone intrigued by the subject, an important and interesting one but difficult to translate to film, who loves a lot of biopics (regardless of how true to the facts they are) and as a big long-time admirer of Liam Neeson and especially Alan Rickman. Will admit to being wary of the casting of Julia Roberts, whose performance was, and still is, near-universally panned, and the wildly divisive opinions on the film made me conflicted.

'Michael Collins' did turn out to be a worthwhile film. It is far from perfect and could have been better, one of those films to judge as an overall film instead of something historically inaccurate and it is not surprising that the critical reaction is so mixed. With that being said, 'Michael Collins' takes a difficult to bring to film subject and highly interesting man and does so bravely, while making a film that has a lot of good qualities.

Sure, 'Michael Collins' can feel under-explored and simplified, having the British point of view included would have given it more depth and made things more balanced, and the character writing is somewhat black and white (the unsubtly negative and speculative writing for De Valera being one of the primary ones).

It loses lustre too after the signing of the treaty and while most of the acting is good, not everybody comes off well. Aiden Quinn is a bit bland, but the film's worst asset is a completely lost and out of place Julia Roberts' (cast mainly as a box office draw) performance being awful beyond description, one of the worst accents ever being one of the least of its problems.

However, Liam Neeson is excellent, bringing ounces of charm and also ounces of menace, to stop Collins from being a complete saint or vilified. Superbly cast too is Alan Rickman, who manages to give what could have been a cartoonish caricature in the wrong hands depth and nuance and like he was trying to move away from giving De Valera just one side and not the other. It is they are their chemistry where 'Michael Collins' is most compelling. Stephen Rea and Ian Hart impress too.

Visually, 'Michael Collins' looks great, the scenery and production design and evocative and beautiful on the eyes and the photography enhances that qualities. The music score rouses the spirits and touches the soul, never once intruding or being at odds with the film's tone. The script is thought-provoking and doesn't try to put it on too thick with the politics, one is moved and inspired. The very well-intended story generally is compelling, with an especially impressively photographed and staged opening Easter Uprising sequence, and there is an effort to be even-handed. It is directed assuredly by Neil Jordan, whose heart was definitely in the right place and he seems at home with the material, and the film does make one intrigued in reading further about Irish independence and Collins himself.

Concluding, interesting and worthwhile. 7/10 Bethany Cox

Liam Neeson dominates this biographical picture of the life of Michael Collins and the ultimate sacrifice he made to bring Ireland both freedom and peace. Freedom from the British Empire and peace to bring about some healing. Freedom they got, peace is still a dubious proposition in that country where they're still fighting the issues of the Reformation and Countereformation.

The years covered are from 1916's Easter Rebellion until 1922 when Ireland was hip deep in a bloody civil war that ended only with exhaustion. Collins develops the strategy the prototype of urban guerrilla warfare. It's been used ever since in every part of the globe by whomever insurgents are.

Having seen enough violence and caused enough of it Collins was sent by President Eamon DeValera as part of the negotiating team for a peace treaty. What they brought back was Dominion status for Ireland with the six Northern counties opting to remain in the British Empire and that King George V would be sovereign in Ireland. Collins saw it as a chance for the country to rest and heal with DeValera it was all or nothing. That split led to the civil war in Ireland far more bloody than the Rebellion as the casualties were 100% Irish.

Playing DeValera is Alan Rickman and he fleshes out DeValera as the rather uptight manipulator of events and people that he was in real life. Julia Roberts who does not master an Irish brogue plays the woman in Collins's life whom he was going to marry. But casting Roberts was probably made strictly for box office.

The details are fudged, but if you watch Michael Collins you'll get an idea from the film and from Neeson's performance of what the man was about and the sacrifice he made.

What worries me about films based on historical characters and events, is that a lot of people take them at face value and accept them as fact whereas very few of them are completely accurate, and this film is no exception. However, despite the inaccuracies and speculations, it's a good film. Liam Neeson in particular gives a great performance in the title role, really bringing the complexities of the character to life. Rickman is also good as DeValera. Julia Roberts is horribly miscast and I can only think she was in it to boost box office ratings - although I would have hardly thought that necessary with Neeson and Rickman as the main characters. To be fair her character was pretty superfluous anyway and only included to add some romantic interest.

Overall it's worth a watch, although if you really want to know about the British/Irish conflict read a book!