Black Jack

I haven't read the book, so don't know whether the fault lies with Garfield or Loach, but the over-inflated amounts of money bandied about completely ruined the otherwise reasonably convincing look and feel of the 1750s in this film. The few stars I've given are for the sets and costumes.

As an example, near the beginning, Jack is given over 3 POUNDS for helping to push a coach out of a pothole - not remotely feasible, given a farm labourer's wage around that time was in the order of 10 SHILLINGS per WEEK.

Similarly, the amounts demanded by the urchin Hatch are also off the scale. I found the credence given to him by the doctor and father equally unbelievable - I'd have thought they'd have been more likely to cart him off to the local constable or watch, or send him packing with a kick.

These anachronisms, and the amateurish acting in places, meant I gave up before the end of this movie. So disappointingly poor compared to Loach's Kes (1969). That film I saw as a child around the time it came out and it had a huge impact on me.

The plot is pretty interesting, it kept me in suspense for the entire film. It's essentially sweet tale that could turn tragic at any moment. All I really knew about this going in was that it was an inspiration for Moonrise Kingdom by Wes Anderson, though it's similar it's not all you think about while watching this.

It's a very good period peice as well, it never feels like people are from our current times pretending to be from the 1700's. Everything has a very authentic dirtiness to it, even the mansion of the rich family has a door with heavy wear marks on the handle. Its extremely real feeling.

The child acting as well in this film is so good you forget they're child actors. It's really mind blowing the acting level of everyone is equal theres no dumb and corny kid acting, it's very mature for such a young age.

If you're wondering whether or not you should watch it I'd say go for it. I really have to admit I'm suprised this film doesnt get more praise, it's very good.

Having watched the brilliant 'Price of Coal' I had high hopes for this his first feature film since the equally brilliant 'Kes' but unfortunately this is a long way from either of them. Loach's usual use of improvisation using non actors is wholly unconvincing here and comes across no better than an average school production. A good story might have helped but this is also not adapted well.

Leon Garfield's novel was said to be quite popular in Britain; as for me, I have not even heard of the author's name until now, let alone read the book.

This tale of adventure, set in Yorkshire in the year 1750, is a most underappreciated film by Ken Loach. Indeed, Ken Loach himself adapted Leon Garfield's novel of the same title for the screen.

Ken Loach is among my most esteemed filmmakers, and I hold a particular fondness for his Kenneth Loach era. The enchantment of that period is palpable in this work as well.

Across the ocean, the film premiered at the Toronto International Film Festival and the New York Film Festival, whilst it garnered an award at the Cannes Film Festival during the same season.

By the by, Bob Pegg's musical compositions are truly remarkable.

Endearing and charming children's adventure convinces with a good cast, excellent period details and especially Chris Menges' beautiful cinematography.