Horrible, fascist and poorly acted

Brilliant and touching

A lot of perfectly good film show their cards early, establish a unique premise and let the audience explore a topic at a leisurely pace, without much in terms of surprise. this film is not one of those films.

Actress is magnificent and exudes a hypnotic screen presence in this affecting drama.

It's 1914. John Kipling (Daniel Radcliffe) volunteers for the Navy but is rejected for poor eyesight. His famous writer father Rudyard Kipling (David Haig) is a war hawk. Rudyard eagerly pulls strings to get him into the Army which angers his beloved sister Elsie (Carey Mulligan). He leads a platoon into battle and goes MIA. Rudyard and his wife (Kim Cattrall) go in search for their missing son.Rudyard Kipling is a fascinating war hawk. David Haig gives a brilliant performance. Radcliffe and Mulligan do good work. I really like the first half. The movie stops being interesting after Jack goes missing. The story drags and ultimately doesn't have a good climax. Jack going over the top is probably a much better climax. The search doesn't have enough drama.

My Boy Jack is a TV film about Jack Kipling centered in the first world war. Rudyard Kipling is an author and father of Jack. The world is in war in Germany. And Rudyard fears for an attack on Great Britain. His opinion is that every young healthy man in Britain should offer himself up for the army. He even commands his own son to do that first as a medical function in the army. But Jack has bad eyes and has glasses so they don't take him in at first. But after much effort Jacks decides he wants to fight in the army – after much work and effort he makes it and grows in the ranks. But will Jack be save home again ? His mother and sister are in worried and search him when he is missing.Brian Kirk is the Director of the TV film , nowadays known for series as Game of Thrones and Penny Dreadful. Brian Kirk did such an excellent job on camera movement and bringing all the emotions to the screen that were needed in the exact amount. Though the battleground could've improved more , you only saw what happened behind the walls where the soldiers were save. You heard the bombs everywhere, but you saw nothing really happening until at the end of the film.The performance of the cast was fantastic, especially Dan Radcliffe and David Haig gave such an outstanding performance. So real and so believable like you had the feeling those characters could have really lived during the war. Dan Radcliffe again shows why he is one of the greatest actors at the moment bringing his character to the small screen so likable and in such an emotional way.This film is so beautiful and that you desperately want to watch it again. You want a good ending , you want Jack to make it save home. Such an beautiful script. I give this film 8 out of 10, fantastic! Recommend to every fan of war and/or drama films.

Saw this movie on PBS, in passing one day at my girlfriend's apartment (she doesn't have cable, so you make do.) What initially caught my eye about this movie was the fact that Dan Ratcliffe was in it. Harry Potter? Trying to do a break out role, perhaps so.However, in all seriousness this was quite a good movie. Though parts were conflicting at times I found myself getting into this film. Specifically because you never see many good World War I movies. In my opinion Daniel Ratcliffe succeeds in breaking from his role as the wand waving wizard and takes on the role of as young Leftenant Jack Kipling. And yet the main message is a bit confusing. His mother and father, plus Bert, have mixed feelings about him going to war and in the end you see that they come to accept it, cause they have to. Still what are we to understand as the end message? War is neither honorable nor glamorous? Don't believe in Nationalism? Be all you can be? Momma's don't let your boys grow up to be British soldiers?Still it was a good film to see.

yet again , i am very pleased with a British production. while the plot and the dialogs are quiet good (quiet great blend of realism,idealism and at times original take on conservatism in its both "old" and "new" forms forms - interesting parallel to be noticed on this "aspect"), the movie's straight is found in exceptional acting(it does make a difference when one has to start his or her acting career in theatrics and "on stage", and not being "picked up" for having a "pretty face", or as trivial things as such). while the plot is very "dear" to me in its subject matter, i got distracted by David Haig awesome performance as the father and Kim Cattrall( i would have never took her as a serious actress on the washed-up commercial "sex and the city")as a very NATURAL mother.in my opinion the movie's punch line is actually delivered by Carey Mulligan as jack's sister...i do not feel like writing much at the moment; in short, this feature gives the vibe, and plays as a periodical drama (the cars are a bit too "advanced" for 1910's years), plays accordingly, yet it cultivates the viewer's attention and his/her own thoughts and ideological views on God,king,country and Family.it is a movie for mature viewing , yet any ages would find something "sweet" about it; guaranteed.yes is true; while "made for TV", this production beats down most "blockbusters" of our time. nothing commercial to be found here, which is GREAT; only exceptional acting allowed!(Daniel Radcliffe is the only one that does not seem in sync at times, but that comes out OK since he is suppose to be "naive".also he is actually a secondary character, at face value, as far as the plot goes.)i only give 9 stars because the way that King George, played by Julian Wadham, is portrayed and which goes against the features "principles". also for certain political implications i do not fully agree with