zabokrugby8 If you believe like I do, that war is utterly futile, then you should view Breaker Morant. There is no better film that captures that essence. Even after 10 viewings, this film still captivates my complete attention.And there are many reasons. Just to list a few: the plot is riveting, the actors are superbly cast in their disparate roles and the natural backdrop and scenery are simply stunning. Amidst all of that lies the core attraction of this film: courtroom drama. Even The Bard would have had much difficulty replicating such suspense, emotion and linguistic eloquence in a play. Speaking of suspense, during the military court-martial, each and every utterance from the main players had my full and complete attention.Not many, if any one film of a similar genre has ever done that before.If there is one weakness though, the film is Aussie biased; so much so, that I got the impression the directors/producers blamed Britain solely for the execution of two of their native sons. Yes, the 'Thin Red Line' was culpable for committing atrocities against the Boers (concentration camps in Northern Transvaal) but were the British the lone culprits?Now, hold on a New York minute! It's true that Lord Kitchener sought a quick way to extricate himself (and the Brits) from this 'dirty' war. And it's implicit in the film that, Morant and at least one of his two lieutenants were expendable BUT it's also clear that two of the Aussie colonial volunteer soldiers did commit murder: the German pastor. And the soldiers were even unabashed about the events leading up to the heinous deed during the court martial. In the dock, they all admitted their 'hate' for the German pastor's partisan stand. Their words..."He helped the Boer cause, solely. And we warned him about the consequences, many times."And justice was served; the fact that it came by a British military court martial is moot. As soldiers, those Aussies knew the penalty. And the one (George) who was spared execution, probably knows now or should have known then, that he was only 'pardoned' because of his young age. Although, judging by the film's plot, his 'role' in the atrocities was deemed negligible even by the prosecution. The judges though didn't exactly state a compelling case for his innocence either.Not convinced? Watch this film and 'judge' for yourself...

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.

simon_pdavid-1 I have been a fan of "Breaker Morant" for many years. It is brilliantly written, acted and shot and is definitely one of my ten favourite movies of all time. Among Australian movies only "The Year My Voice Broke" comes close. There is but one problem - the central premise is a load of nonsense.Morant shot no prisoners until his friend Captain Hunt was killed. The vague and conflicting orders under which he supposedly laboured, at the behest of cold blooded cynical politicians, did not, up to that point, move him to murder. And judging by the fact that he remained in his command there was apparently not, up to that point, a backlash from higher authorities. He was praised as an effective officer - so he did actually manage for most of his career to fight an unconventional war while remaining within some bounds of basic decency. What happened subsequently was purely an act of personal revenge. The crimes were not committed in the heat of battle. There was no pressing military exigency at stake which may excuse a blurring of the lines. No doubt Morant was disturbed at the loss of his friend, but you could say the same of many murderers. The law permits self defence, not revenge. In any case how did he know that the missionary was passing on information? Could he not have questioned him or impounded him for a couple of days instead?I appreciate the power of the "new war for a new century" sentiment and agree that we live in difficult times where the enemy are not always in uniform. But I cannot make the logical leap to the next level of self-justifying amorality. The British had plenty of facilities for prisoners in the Boer War - they ran entire concentration camps. I fail to see the moral complexity that is involved in the decision to shoot an unarmed prisoner or even the particular military purpose that could possibly be served by it. This is not The Caine Mutiny - Morant did not save the lives of his crew. It is precisely because your friends and enemies now look the same that you need to be more careful, not less. No doubt this is difficult both in Africa and in Iraq, but hey that's your job as a professional soldier (Morant was not a conscript). The alternative is the slippery slope to fascism upon which we've recently embarked. The power of this film is that it succeeds in making you believe that black is white.