weezeralfalfa This made for Australian TV miniseries provides a horrifying look at the conditions many of Britain's poor and prisoners had to endure. I wish more time had been spent on their incredible voyage in a small open boat from the Australian penal colony on Botany Bay to Dutch- controlled Timor, several thousand miles away. How did they avoid being wrecked on The Great Barrier Reef? Seems like most of the time, they were on the verge of starvation. Mary was starving in her native Cornwall, because the fish her father usually caught didn't show up for at least 2 years in a row, so she stole to eat. She starved in prison and on the prison ship to Australia. She starved in the penal colony because the crops failed for several years in a row. She mostly starved on the voyage to Timor and, I'm sure on the return trip to England. About the only time she wasn't starving is when Lt. Clarke was subsidizing her, and during her stay in Timor, when the elite inexplicably lavished food, drink and clothes on the escapees, whom they thought were victims of a sunken ship. Yet, she and her children didn't appear to be any the worse for starvation, we must recognize. A number of fictional details are included. Most of them relate to the fictional character Lt. Clarke. Although there was a Lt. Clark on the voyage, his relationship with Mary is fictional. Some reviewers think that this character should not have been introduced, unnecessarily complicating things. I believe he was a useful character in most of Part 1 of the film as seen on my DVD, until the escapees make off with Governor Phillips cutter. He helps to explain how Mary and her children escaped starvation at times, and how they obtained the key to the stores house. He also provides a romantic dalliance for Mary . After that, his relationship with the escapees is largely implausible or distorts history. Supposedly, he leads some soldiers in a chase after the stolen cutter, along the shore. But, apparently he has no horses to speed his passage through territory perhaps unexplored and populated by hostile natives. To walk on the beaches invited heat exhaustion in their full soldier regalia. It's implausible that he could have caught up with the escapees, as dramatized. Later, when Clarke takes a ship back to England, the ship makes (an implausible?) stop at Dutch Timor. Clarke hoped to discover whether the escapees made it to Timor and, if so, hoped to recapture them for trial in England. However, as several reviewers have pointed out, Dutch authorities wouldn't likely grand him the favor of allowing some redcoats to go exploring in the bush for Mary. Rather, if the English had informed the Dutch of their true nature, the Dutch authorities might then have arranged for their departure in custody westward. Also, while on Timor, according to the film, the red coats assassinated Mary's husband, Will, who actually died of 'fever'(likely Malaria or Dengue) on the voyage to England. Clarke had a golden opportunity to kill Mary in private, but held back.Although the depiction of men and women inmates being housed together in large rooms at Newgate Prison in correct, the sexes were separated on different ships on the voyage. However, the women could and often did form clandestine relationships with the crew and guards.I watched the R version of the film, which is divided into Parts 1 and II. This version includes several scenes of simulated sexual intercourse and the 'rape fest' scene in the open at the colony, as well as a flogging of a woman, and a hanging.It would have been nice to finish with Mary reuniting with her family(if they still existed), instead of walking through a meadow toward Cornwall. Perhaps it was left as such in anticipation of another sequel? Apparently, nothing is known of her, after the trial, so this would have involved inventing a completely fictional story.On the whole, the film accomplishes its purpose of portraying the horrible conditions of the poor and imprisoned, and some of the difficulties involved in establishing the first British settlement on Australia. As several have noted, less time spent in facial close ups would have been beneficial. Romola Garai was good in her role as Mary, eliciting both sympathy for her plight, and revulsion at some of her methods to try to avoid starvation for her and her children.My review title comes from a comment by Governor Phillips about the escapees, and their chance of surviving their perilous journey.

Bekky_Boo I only had a chance to watch this programme today, however I thought it was absolutely fantastic. The voyage of a young woman to Australia as a convict was amazing. Not only was this film based on facts and true stories but it also showed compassion. You got the chance to look in on Mary's feelings. I felt so sorry for Mary, she was convicted for stealing money, but knowing her social class, you could understand that she was trying to provide for her family, even if it was the wrong way to go about it.Romola Garai played Mary very well. You could see all sides of Mary's personality, her compassion and love for her two children and husband, but also her more cunning side, using Lt Ralph Clarke on two occasions, the first being to avoid the conditions on the boat. The second time she used him was worse, she lead him on to believe that she had feelings for him (and as you would have already found out) and he has feelings for her. Both Jack Davenport (Lt Ralph Clarke) and Alex O'Loughlin (Will Bryant) performed their roles very well. Jack Davenport shows the audience how sensitive he is towards Mary and how easily he can fold for her, yet as a Lt he can be a hard/tough person.I would highly recommend watching this i thought it was brilliant

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?

dw2004 Talk about the most inaccurate story ever, "based on a true story" well it might be, but it certainly isn't the story of Mary Bryant. What a load of rubbish...................It starts off reasonably well, but then just goes downhill. It seems that they lost all historical fact when the fleet of ships reached Australia. I would hazard a guess that the story was sensationalised in an effort to make for better television viewing. The historical facts from that point on aren't even alluded to for the rest of the story. The sight of British Red Coats running around in Dutch Timor was the only humorous part to a pathetic story. Didn't the writers even stop and think about the impossibility of that actually happening. Why do they try and pretend it is factual when in all truth it is a work of fiction, and a poor one at that.