My Boy Jack

I basically agree with the consensus of the critics. This is another good, solid, made-for-TV production that leaves little to be desired.

Well produced, well filmed and well acted, finally a movie with a script, with intelligent, meaningful dialog. What a welcome surprise! My compliments to David Haig, not only for the aforementioned script, but also for his acting, which was nothing short of excellent. His Kipling is a real, living creature, we can see him, we can hear him, but we can also feel him, his pain is real, when he hurts, it is almost as if we do too.

If there is a flaw to this film, it is only that of not having dared to dig even deeper into the emotions of the main characters, which would undoubtedly have made it a much longer movie, but in my opinion also a better one.

Excellent cast, beautifully shot and well scripted TV movie about the Kipling family at the start of the First World War. Premiered in the UK on Remembrance Day (11/11) this poignant tale has Daniel Radcliffe in the title role, showing once again (after his on stage appearance in Equus) that there's more to this young actor than the caricature that Harry Potter has become. His clipped and stilted performance completely captured what it must have been like to be the put upon son of a successful, middle-class author in late Edwardian England.

David Haig plays Rudyard Kipling (there's a remarkable resemblance) who many will remember from previous UK TV series 'Thin Blue Line' and 'Soldier Soldier' as well as the massively successful 'Four Weddings and a Funeral'. Haig captures the British Imperialist that Kipling had become perfectly, as well as the emotional turmoil that Kipling went through as he realised just what he had helped to achieve by sending his young son to war. Haig also wrote the original play and screenplay so the resulting TV movie must be pretty much what he wanted.

The supporting players, Kim Catterill as Rudyard's American wife, and Martin McCann as the Irish Guardsman who goes to war with young John to name two, give excellent, measured performances which compliment the two lead roles, giving the whole production a rounded, glossy finish.

This is superb TV catch it if you can (but don't forget the hankies!)

Sad, extremely well acted tale of the senselessness of war and one family's experience. The father in this story is famous but it doesn't make their struggles any less universal. Daniel Radcliffe is terrific once again showing that he will be able to have a lifelong career far removed from Harry Potter. This is really a four person story and he is matched in excellence by the other three players, David Haig, Kim Cattrall and Carey Mulligan. Kim completely moves away from her Sex and the City persona with a performance of quiet control. She's always been a versatile actress but her identification with Samantha is such that her former more varied work is often forgotten. A very moving story presented with great skill.

As a Kipling fan from the age of 8, 50 years and more ago now, I was knocked out by "My Boy Jack." David Haig, as writer and actor, is beyond brilliance, and though I found Daniel Radcliffe a bit stiff and modern, he too was excellent.

Kim Cattrall: surprisingly good. But I was totally distracted by her American pretending to be English pretending to be American bizarre accent. Let her use her natural speech (and yes, I know she was born and spent time in England) or else hire a good dialogue coach.

Though the whole production was gorgeous (Bateman's!) and moving in its interrelationships, the bookending of the scenes with friends King George V and Rud just tore my heart out. The King having just lost a "boy Jack" of his own (young Prince John, an epileptic, subject of another fantastic Masterpiece series, "The Lost Prince", some years ago), Rudyard recites the poem he wrote for his Jack. I sobbed through the whole recital, and was still weeping when I went to sleep a few hours later. Staggeringly wondrous. And cathartic in the sense in which all tragedies should be. Fine, fine work by all concerned.

I found his very interesting, not least because it fascinated me, one who generally finds programs about war repetitive, distasteful and untrue of reality. This film seemed so hopeless because you know he has no chance but really it is not about the boy in many ways, it is about the father and his conviction and his choking pride that takes precedence in the film. Daniel Radcliffe, unfortunately, did not play a totally convincing role as Jack, the son, but since he was much younger and far less experienced in the world of serious acting I think he was simply out performed.

The main character of the film was Rudyard Kipling and everything you feel is aimed at his loss and guilt for pushing his son to do something where he was destined to underachieve in, due to his "disability" (poor eyesight). I think this rigid but heartfelt performance was brilliant. The score was orchestral and built up atmosphere and sadness throughout, while the camera-work was inventive, intuitive and well shot throughout, including some rather experimental frames.

I think that the film as a whole really captured the feeling of grief and guilt that many must have felt at that time, the sense of irretrievable loss of something so precious. I think this is a great achievement as a film. I recommend anyone should see it who is interested in any aspects of film, it gives its best in all areas.