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).

evitabarbara The reaction to the British miniseries 'The incredible journey of Mary Bryant' seems to be a sign of the times: Whereas the accolades poured in for the portrayals of Mary and her husband, the masterfully portrayed character of Officer Clarke was misunderstood / brushed over and his complex relationship with Mary largely ignored. In my book Mary was a selfish b..., solely driven by the will to survive, with little regard for the feelings of others except those of her immediate family. Officer Clarke, on the other hand, is a much more complex character: The product of a morally strict and repressive upbringing, he is basically a decent, kind man who ends up acting mercilessly (within the framework of the cruelty sanctioned or even demanded by his job) when his pride is wounded. That is his Achilles' heel. He suffers intense humiliation when Mary, in pursuit of her own selfish agenda, at first liberates him from his inhibitions and then betrays his trust and makes a fool of him in front of his peers. The realization of her callous exploitation of his kindness and his feelings seriously wounds his whole identity. Nevertheless, he can't get himself to kill her when he has her at his mercy (in his musket's visor): Twice he lets her escape; it's only the third time that he finally 'delivers her to justice' - and had Mary not once again revealed her falseness to him by sidling up to him again, he probably would have let her escape once more. All the time he finds himself in the struggle to keep his dignity. Jack Davenport's superb portrayal of this emotionally rich and complex character deserves the highest praise. To me it was the actual focus of the film. Barbara N.

benbrae76 This stirring but harrowing adventure was wonderfully produced, directed, filmed and acted. Credit must also go to wardrobe, make-up, and design crews. The sets could not have been bettered. Outstanding work. And of course the music behind it all must not be forgotten.Romola Garai in the title role played it to perfection, likewise in their roles did her two co-stars, Jack Davenport as Lt Ralph Clarke (the colony's military CO), and Alex O'Loughlin as Will Bryant, and were each more than ably supported by the whole magnificent cast of which special praise has to go to the performance of Tony Martin as his namesake (surname) character. Slightly on the downside I did feel that the highly talented Sam Neill as the colony governor was somewhat under-used, and probably as a consequence a tad under-par. But I think maybe I'm being a little over picky.It is based on the true story of young convict Mary Bryant's (nee Broad) transportation to and escape from the Botany Bay penal colony. This included a little matter of giving birth on board ship, and marriage to fellow convict William Bryant after disembarkation, in between.This two-part mini-series was gripping from start to finish. However as usual in this type of production there were a few historical mistakes and omissions in the story.A good deal of the drama centred on Mary's divisive use of the unwitting Lt Ralph Clarke (a fictional character) both for her own convenience, later for escape purposes, and his unrequited jealously obsessional love for her. Why it was deemed necessary to put this extra and completely false complication into the story I'm not sure, because the true saga stands on it's own merits without interference. It was an interesting complication nonetheless, but this coupled with his pursuit across land accompanied by marines were pure fabrication.William, as a sailor, albeit smuggler, was certainly put in charge of the fishing boats. However in no way was he given a percentage of the catch, but the black-market opportunities were too good for him to resist. He was caught selling some of the fish on the sly, and received 100 lashes for his efforts. It was at this point that William (not Mary) decided to initiate an escape attempt. And he had all the needful at hand.Once away from the colony in a cutter stolen from the Governor, the escapees were never pursued either on land or by sea, and the only skirmishes they encountered were not with the militia but with the aborigines. In fact a great many of the guards were sympathetic to the escape.This notwithstanding, the unfolding events depicted were all fairly (although not entirely) accurate until Lt Clarke landed at Timor and discovered that the escapees were there. This is where the story, historically-wise, went a little further awry.William Bryant did in fact have words with his wife, after which he informed against himself, Mary, the children and all the other escapees, whereupon they were all immediately taken prisoner, detained in the castle and strictly examined. But it was not, in the true events, the said fictional Lt. Clarke who then arrived on the scene, but a certain Captain Edward Edwards, who had been pursuing the Bounty mutineers in the Pandora. He had captured some of the mutineers at Tahiti, but then his ship was lost after it ran against a reef just south of New Guinea. He and 120 survivors escaped the wreck, and in a longboat and two yawls, had managed to reach Timor, and it was there that he was told about Mary and her comrades.Captain Edwards clapped the Bryant party in irons, put them on board the Rembang, a Dutch East Indiaman, and they were transported to Batavia where just before Christmas I791 both William Bryant and his little son Emanuel died of fever. William was not shot on a beach as depicted, and Mary did not escape with her two children only to be recaptured. And of course little Emanuel was not buried at sea.After this the tale veers back to a reasonable actuality, give or take a few omissions. On May 5th 1792, Mary's three-year old Charlotte died and her body was indeed committed to the deep, and Mary, when reaching London, was imprisoned in Newgate as an escaped felon, sentenced, but then released due to public pressure. She returned to Cornwall, remarried, and faded into obscurity.The historical inaccuracies noted above do not however take away the fact that this is a superb drama, which highlights to great effect the barbaric treatment of transported convicts in the 18th century (most of whom were probably unjustly sentenced in the first place), and as a drama I couldn't fault it one iota. I would recommend this outstanding piece of work as one not to be missed. It is TV story-telling at it's very best.

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?