Wordiezett So much average

Listonixio Fresh and Exciting

Afouotos Although it has its amusing moments, in eneral the plot does not convince.

TrueHello Fun premise, good actors, bad writing. This film seemed to have potential at the beginning but it quickly devolves into a trite action film. Ultimately it's very boring.

MartinHafer "My Boy Jack" is set during WWI--a war in which many millions of young men were killed for absolutely nothing (between 5-6 million of these were Brits). However, instead of being the story about a battle or large groups of men, it's about one individual--Jack Kipling, the only son of Rudyard Kipling. What makes it so compelling is that Jack shouldn't have even been in action--he was practically blind and had been repeatedly rejected for service. But, since his father was a public figure and had pushed so much for the war as well as the whole 'duty to King and country' rot, it wasn't surprising that the boy felt compelled to push and push to get into the thick of the action. What happens next isn't at all surprising--and gives his family a chance to reassess their values and commitment to the cause as well as their own part in the tragedy.This is a very effective film. Much of it is because of the fine acting by Daniel Ratcliffe (as Jack), Carey Mulligan, Kim Cattrall (as his American mother) and David Haig as Rudyard Kipling. What makes it a little more interesting is that the true story was based on a play written by Haig himself. Overall, it's a wonderful but incredibly sad film that puts an individual face on tragedy. Well worth seeing and filled with emotion--so much so that you really should have some Kleenex handy. One of the better made for TV movies I have seen.

Gunn Although it starts out with author Rudyard Kipling as a gung-ho imperialist, there is redemption in its final scenes as he realizes the consequences of his pride. As said, it is an excellent film in all respects: acting, especially by David Haig as Rudyard Kipling, who also wrote the screenplay equally impressively. The music score by Adrian Johnston is both rich and somber and ultimately moving. The cinematography is stunningly beautiful and the art direction is brilliant and gritty. Daniel Radcliffe (John 'Jack' Kipling) is more than Harry Potter and shows his acting chops here, as do Kim Cattrall (Caroline Kipling), Carey Mulligan (Elsie 'Bird' Kipling) and Martin McCann (Bowe of the Irish Guard), who relates the details of what happened to Jack. This is an entertaining message movie.

irish23 Great acting, great production values, good direction.But the script starts out with great pacing and interest in the first half and then falls apart in the second half. We're clear on character and motivation for the first half but then the second half leaves many questions unanswered.The conflicts raised are compelling but the follow-through is weak. For instance, we're very clear that Rudyard Kipling is pro-war but we don't know if that philosophical stance changes through the course of the film.This is the sort of picture that makes me want to look up the facts in history books. I don't feel I can rely on the film to get a clear idea.The depiction of the war itself is heart-breakingly accurate, though the women's lack of enthusiasm doesn't reflect the war hysteria that swept Britain at the time. Perhaps this is historically accurate; like so much in this film, I simply don't know.

George Wright I have been viewing Masterpiece Theatre for many years and I have trouble thinking of one episode that surpasses the excellence of this production.The main actors all give great performances in this story of how Rudyard Kipling, poet laureate and a member of an important government war committee, persuaded the authorities to enlist his son Jack despite failing two health examinations because of his poor eyesight. The rest of the movie deals with the dilemma that never seemed to cross Kipling's mind: what moral responsibility would he bear if anything happened to his much-loved son?As we see in the run-up to the declaration of war, Kipling was a fervent supporter of taking on the "Huns". In the commentary following the film, we learn that he never served his country on the battlefield. Instead, he put his expectations on his son Jack. The scenes from the Great War tell the horror of the conditions in the rat-infested trenches as soldiers coped with open wounds in the rain and the mud. Then cutaway to the Kipling home in pastoral English setting...the contrast is vivid.Kipling's wife (Kim Cattrall) and daughter (Carey Mulligan)are extremely upset at the prospect of John "Jack" Kipling going off to war. Daniel Radcliffe performs the role of the dutiful son who also proved to be more than a capable leader of the young men in his charge. Martin McCann, who plays the soldier Bowe who saw the younger Kipling die in battle, gives an extraordinary performance when he visits the Kipling estate to tell the story of Jack's death.A very noteworthy scene takes place at the end of the movie when Kipling visits George V, the reigning monarch, and a personal friend. In this scene, the King expresses his sympathy to Kipling and then mentions that his own son recently died. This is a reference to the youngest child of George V and Queen Mary, who was an epileptic, and died suddenly following a seizure. This event was treated quietly by the press at the time. However, whether or not this meeting happened, it is an interesting side-bar to the movie, with the King and his poet laureate sharing their grief.I have always been interested in the story of Jack Kipling from the time I read a newspaper article about how a Canadian who worked for the Commonwealth War Graves Commission was able to locate the burial plot of Jack Kipling towards the end of the 20th century, many decades after he died. This was something the Kipling family had tried in vain to find.For me, this movie adds an extra dimension to that story and to the ongoing cinematic treatment of a war that is now almost 100 years ago.