Neeson was simply born to play this role. An actor of tremendous power, Neeson is here given a role that's multi-dimensional enough for him to show his formidable chops. The Michael Collins character is alternately a boyish, dashing ladykiller and a tactician with a steel will, and just watching Neeson tackle the character's inner and outer demons is worth the price of the movie. He indeed projects the power and charisma of a great leader in his "our refusal" speech. There's more -- Aidan Quinn gives his best performance as friend-turned-enemy Harry Boland; Alan Rickman utilizes his deadpan comic timing and hidden deviance to perfection as Eamon de Valera; Stephen Rea is great as usual as English traitor Ned Broy. The one weak link is of course Julia Roberts, as Harry and Mick's love interest Kitty, with her bad Irish accent and vacant presence. She's paralyzed by the scope of the historical drama and comes off stiff as a result, injecting the character with neither warmth nor power, and none of her signature girlish exuberance. However, this was one case where the filmmaker's sacrifice of a character was to the benefit of the film. In directing the film, Jordan sliced down Kitty's importance and makes her mostly a footnote; the result is that we are now free to interpret Mick and Harry's split as a philosophical and political one, rather than the ol' romantic triangle. And for the better.

The cinematography is terrific, and the script ranks among my favourite of the '90s. Jordan is deeply tapped into the behaviour and concerns of these characters, and he fills every minute with humour, danger, urgency, and personality. The writing translates onto the screen beautifully, giving the audience an insight into not only the sociological scape of the film, but also the psychological. And the pacing and editing never let up -- from the perfectly chosen "in medias res" opening to the brilliant "Bloody Sunday" assassination montage.

A great neglected classic.


A tremendously important, albeit somewhat problematic movie.   February 25, 2004
 22 out of 25 found this review helpful

"Some people are what the times demand, and life without them seems impossible," Michael Collins's associate Joe O'Reilly (Ian Hart) says at the beginning of this movie. "But he's dead. And life *is* possible. He made it possible."

Much more than a comment on Collins's assassination, these lines instantly set the tone for Neil Jordan's controversial biography of "The Big Fellow," one of Irish history's most divisive personalities: the first modern terrorist leader, who invented urban warfare but also went to London to negotiate the 1921 agreement creating the Irish Free State which, realizing its widespread unacceptability, would-be President Eamon de Valera (reportedly) hadn't wanted to bring home personally, and which Collins himself prophetically referred to as his "death warrant."

Michael Collins was born in 1890 in West Cork, a farmer's son, and introduced to the quest for Irish sovereignty by his schoolmaster, a member of the Irish Republican Brotherhood, which Collins soon joined as well and in whose ranks he began to rise during his nine years as a London clerk (1905-14). Returning to Ireland, he participated in the unsuccessful 1916 "Easter Rising" and, in the barely six remaining years of his life, created the Irish Republican Army as an organized terrorist group with the single aim of ending British rule, and with a small assassination command directly answering to Collins himself, nicknamed "The Twelve Apostles." After the 1921 treaty had polarized Irish politics to the point of civil war, leaving Collins and de Valera on opposite sides (the most divisive issue being the required oath of allegiance to the British crown; not, as indicated here, Partition), Michael Collins was shot in an ambush near his home in County Cork; ironically in a place known as Beal na mBlath ("Mouth of Flowers").

Several years in the making, Neil Jordan's movie likely was made possible only by the (short-lived) 1995 ceasefire in Northern Ireland. Ambitiously conceived and according to Jordan himself his most important film, it sets out to explore the manifold contradictions within Collins's personality; stopping short, however, of showing him to ever personally commit murder or other acts of violence - which is amply exhibited otherwise - and ultimately espousing the side of those who wish Collins to be remembered more for his contributions to Irish sovereignty than for his acts of terrorism.

Liam Neeson stars in the title role, for which he is a perfect match: physically (both in height and, to some extent, even in facial features) and also because, like Collins, he was born in rural County Cork, and brought an intuitive understanding to the part no outsider could have had. And he gives a tour-de-force performance, one of his best ever, bringing to life a man who could be ruthless and charming, proud and humble, exuberant and desperate, often within mere minutes of one another. Alan Rickman likewise brings his extraordinary talent to the role of Eamon de Valera - although I would have wished the script had allowed him to more fully display the multiple facets of this politician who, far more than merely Michael Collins's rival, was one of 20th century Ireland's most important statesmen, drafter of the 1936 constitution which equates national and territorial unity (a claim only modified after the 1998 Good Friday Agreement and still not uniformly abandoned) and establishes the primacy of both the Gaelic language and Catholicism; and founder of Fianna Fail, one of modern Ireland's major political parties. Nevertheless he comes across here, and certainly through no fault of Rickman's, as much more devious, coldblooded and sometimes even small-minded than he probably was. Problematic is also Jordan's choice to have Collins and de Valera communicate, the night before Collins's assassination, through an intermediary who is later seen as the assassin himself: If Jordan, as he insists, indeed didn't intend to suggest that de Valera had anything to do with Collins's death, this plot device - not grounded in fact anyway - is easily misinterpreted.

As important as Collins's interaction with de Valera is that with his best-friend-turned-foe Harry Boland (Aidan Quinn, who likewise gives a tremendous performance, although it's a pity to see him type-cast yet again as the honorable man turned bitter after losing out to an ostensibly more charismatic rival) and their - real-life! - love triangle with Kitty Kiernan (Julia Roberts, whose badly coached Irish accent detracts from her performance's other merits). Although Jordan again takes liberties with historic facts here - most notably, Boland didn't die in the sewers but was shot in a hotel room - Neeson and Quinn have incredible on-screen chemistry; and the slow change of their relationship, ground to shreds between political intrigue and rivalry for the hand of the same woman in a development both are unable (and ultimately unwilling) to prevent, is one of the film's greatest strengths.

Lastly, Stephen Rea deserves mention for his wonderfully unassuming portrayal of Ned Broy, the intelligence operative who finds Collins so "persuasive" that his assignment as his "shadow" eventually makes him turn the tables on his British superiors and secretly provide Collins with information, while simultaneously preventing his capture (and who, far from being tortured and killed as shown here, would go on to head the Irish gardai).

Commercially "Michael Collins" undoubtedly suffered from the comparison with "Braveheart" which, released only a year prior, while likewise not shying from the graphic display of violence, takes an even grander, unapologetically epic approach to a rebel leader's life. Moreover, some of Collins's lines sound eerily familiar to those who had heard William Wallace declare his desire for "a home, and a family ... but it's all for nothing if we don't have freedom." (Similarly, Collins tells Boland that he wants "peace and quiet ... so much [he'd] die for it," and when challenged "You mean you'd kill for it first," he responds, "No, not first. Last.") But financial bottom line and directorial liberties aside, this is a tremendously important movie, well worth watching by anybody interested in Ireland's recent history.

Also recommended:
The Big Fellow
A Memoir
1916: The Easter Rising
Battle of the Boyne 1690
Irish Freedom: The History of Nationalism in Ireland
The Crying Game (Collector's Edition)
Cal
In the Name of the Father
The Boxer (Collector's Edition)
The Making of Ireland: A History


Absolutely stunning.   February 13, 2000
 21 out of 25 found this review helpful

Historical films are notoriously inaccurate. ("Braveheart", for example, is a terrific movie but all over the place historically.) Drama, after all, is oftentimes inconsistent with the tides of history. Which was why I was so impressed to read a magazine article some time ago touting the film's attention to detail and accuracy. I made a special note of wanting to see "Michael Collins". Am I ever glad I did. This is a wonderful, wonderful movie.

"Michael Collins" is the story of a member of the Irish Republican Army who succeeded in leading Ireland to independence, but at great cost. A participant in the famous "Easter Rising" of 1916, Collins was arrested and became a leader in the Irish independence movement. Collins was an extraordinary leader who devised guerilla warfare tactics to fight the English army that would later be used by the Viet Cong, and daringly rescued Eamon DeValeria, the man who would become the leader of Ireland and whom many believe was responsible for Collins death. Collins also negotiated the treaty which ended 700 years of English rule in Ireland, and as Commander of the Irish Provisional Army was forced to fight against guerillas opposed to the treaty (which left the northern six counties a part of England and delayed full independence). The irony was that Collins was forced to hunt down and kill the very men he trained. Many in Ireland look on Collins as a hero, others as a traitor. His death is, like the Kennedy assassination, a great controversy- nobody has the faintest idea who killed him. As historical figures go, few are as controversial or as romanticized as Collins. The film covers the 1916-1922 era of Collins life, from the Easter Rising until his death.

Writer & Director Neil Jordan clearly has passion for the project and it shows. Collins is a real hero to Jordan and the director goes to great lengths to be as accurate as possible and to show us Collins in action.

Perhaps Jordan's best move was in casting Liam Neeson in the part. Neeson is a very talented actor who delivers a terrific performance in the title role. Neeson's Collins is firey, angry, passionate, hates war, longs for peace. It is hard to imagine anyone else in the part.

The rest of the cast is good- Alan Rickman is impressive as Eamon DeValeria, a difficult role to play given how much DeValeria and Collins are at odds with one another in the end. Aidan Quinn, Julia Roberts, and Stephen Rea are all also good in their supporting roles as Collins best friend, the woman the two men compete for, and the English agent who provides Collins with critical intelligence.

In terms of location and cinematography, it is hard to do better than this. Jordan has painstakingly recreated Ireland & Dublin of 1916-1922, and it looks stunningly beautiful and stunningly realistic. One actually feels like you are seeing the real Ireland of the early part of the century instead of a recreation.

"Michael Collins" is a wonderful film that history lovers and people fascinated with Ireland will adore. Highly recommended.


A much better film than I had imagined...   June 5, 2000
 21 out of 22 found this review helpful

What a shame that whenever this film is mentioned nowadays, it's almost always referred to as a Julia Roberts flop. It's actually scarcely a Julia Roberts film at all. Her role is quite minor-and it's commendable that she took it on, really, since she was already a star. I gather she was looking for serious roles in meaty films in an effort to beef up her acting credentials.

And this certainly was a meaty film. It is, in fact, a much, much better film than I had ever imagined from the reviews of the time. I only regret never having seen it on the big screen, because its epic sweep and beautiful cinematography would have been all the more impressive.

Americans, including Irish-Americans like myself, have only the vaguest notions of Irish history. We learn the basics in school, and probably, most educated Americans have an idea of approximately when and how the Irish Republic was established. We may also know that six counties in the North remained under British rule and are still part of the UK (at least, I hope we do--after 30 years of reports on the "troubles").

"Michael Collins" goes some distance toward filling in those informational gaps. I am aware that many critics have challenged writer/director Neil Jordan's interpretation of Irish history (in particular his making Eamon De Valera, the President of the Irish Republic, something of a villain). To that, one can only respond that historical dramas are by definition an interpretation of history. I see that a few of the reviewers below have mentioned that this film inspired them to seek out more information about Irish history. Those of us that do will eventually get a more balanced view, perhaps. It was not Neil Jordan's job to provide us with that perspective. His job as an artist was to tell as engaging a story as he could. On that score, he has succeeded very well indeed.


A Film That Truly Changed My Life   November 1, 1999
 17 out of 18 found this review helpful

It's tough to rate and accurately review a movie that means a great deal intellectually and emotionally. It was October of 1996 when I watched this film at the theater and I walked out forever changed. Prior to viewing the film, I had no idea about the life of Collins and I did not realize how young Irish independence truly is. Both the tragic elements of Collins's death and Liam Neeson's stirring performance led me to learn more about the life and times of Collins by voraciously reading anything I could find on the topic. It can be a rare thing for a historical film to pack a punch that seems relevant to modernity, but _Michael Collins_ does just that.
The plot, essentially, is this: A young man named Michael Collins (Liam Neeson) and his close friend Harry Boland (Aidan Quinn) are working for the cause of Irish independence. At the beginning of the film, they are taking part in the Easter Rising. A vivid and riveting portrayal of the executions faced by the Rising's leaders is juxtaposed with Eamon DeValera (Alan Rickman) writing a letter to Collins explaining ostensibly why he would not be killed (he was of American birth). Michael travels around the country and works tirelessly with Harry for the cause. He is thrown in jail, he is beaten during a campaign speech and he meets an intriguing woman, Kitty Kiernan (Julia Roberts). Collins falls for her but Harry does too. Initially, she is dating Boland but in time, her heart goes to Collins. During this romance, Collins is both running from death and ordering it for his opponents. He taps the resource of Ned Broy (Stephen Rea) a veritable double-agent working as a G-man. Collins is chosen to negotiate on the Irish side of treaty talks, though this event is covered rapidly in the film. He returns home and is engaged to Kitty only to find that he and Harry are on the opposite sides of whether the Anglo-Irish Treaty should be ratified. There is plenty of drama and some comic relief here and there. I won't go into the details of the ending, though I am sure most people reading this review already know or can guess how the story concludes.
If you are interested in Irish history or "war films" in general, _Michael Collins_ is a film for you. If you view it and find yourself as drawn into the actual biography of Collins as I did, I highly suggest you pick up a good book on the subject. Though the film makes for an excellent introduction, it can in no way compare to the wealth of real, tangible information out there.