Good concept, poorly executed.

It's a mild crowd pleaser for people who are exhausted by blockbusters.

At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

We here at Indie Friendlie love this kind of feature film: literate, unexpected, and powerful.We loved the talented ensemble of world-class actors playing original, well-drawn characters with lovely contradictions, making surprising but believable choices.The film retains its balance as it weaves in and out of characters' lives, while never short-changing any of them.We must say that Naomi Harris consistently gives powerful performances. See her also in "The First Grader". Historically fascinating, personal, and top shelf.

This review is in part a response to the patently negative and, I felt, horribly inaccurate review given by rt61. I am by nature somewhat cynical, but rt61 beats me hands down in that department. Yes, there were aspects of the script that were clichéd (to condense the author's eloquent prose) but at no point did I feel "bludgeoned" by the film's themes. Given the volume of material produced, it's probably pretty hard to AVOID clichés these days, in either film or literature, when it comes to the subjects of following your heart and standing for your dreams - both topics are done to death by American move makers. In my view, the treatment of those clichéd topics was not of itself clichéd. I also didn't feel that these topics were by any means the main elements of the film.The writer says the film is supposed to be about "normal people leading normal lives". Oh really? How is the story of Jamaicans trying to adapt to life in post-war Britain, and what they had to go through to do so, in any way normal?? How many Jamaicans did that? Dozens? One or two hundred? I have no idea, but I doubt the numbers were large enough to warrant the way the Jamaicans were living in post-war Britain being labelled "normal". Of course a world war is a watershed event, but the war itself was peripheral to the story; it was merely the catalyst for Michael and Gilbert leaving Jamaica to go to the defence of and utimately living in the "mother country". To me this aspect of the film is about British colonialism and its consequences, not remotely about the war.Next the writer states that "the only racists in the film are Americans, not British (conveniently whitewashing history - recall that the concept of the White Man's Burden was invented by Englishman Rudyard Kipling)". Did he/she actually watch the film? To the best of my recall there was only one scene in two hours portraying racism that involved Americans - that involving the soldiers and MPs when Arthur is shot; thereafter, one Briton after another, including Queenie's neighbours and returned husband, made life miserable for the Jamaicans. The racism portrayed was not exaggerated - that's exactly the way it was. Nor were the Jamaicans portrayed as lily white (!) just because they were black.Quote: Perhaps more egregious than the act itself is that the film clearly wants to portray her adultery as "sympathetic," as if she had no choice in the matter, as if that was the only way she would experience "true love in life," her husband, who was off at war, be damned.Again ... oh really? I did not see that the film (sic) wanted to do anything of the sort. I don't believe the film makers were trying to place any particular spin on the events which took place. I certainly felt sympathy and admiration for Queenie when she gave up her child but did not feel sympathetic towards her for having had an affair. She just did. People do. People always have and always will. People fall in love inappropriately, within and outside racial boundaries - ditto the do, did and always will. Telling a story involving these events doesn't make the film makers guilty of accepting or trying to engender acceptance of them. There are many, many Hollywood movies patently accepting of and even promoting immoral sexual behaviour, drug use and so forth that I would take issue with long before complaining about Queenie's brief affair with the feckless Michael when she was lonely and had never before experienced physical love - certainly not with her wet wimp of a husband.Enough with the rant about the flaws I perceived (note, I PERCEIVED) in someone else's review. For my part, I thoroughly enjoyed the storyline, the characters and the locations. There was just enough lightness to balance the weightiness of the topics of racism and so forth. The always-brilliant David Oleyowo was endearing as Gilbert, Naomie Harris excruciatingly convincing as the anglophile Hortense, and Ruth Wilson made a great and understated job of portraying Queenie.If there was one big negative for me it was the schmaltzy voice over - unnecessary and sometimes at downright inappropriate moments. Overall though, two hours well spent.

This compelling two-part Masterpiece Theatre offering is another reason why people should support public television. A period piece placed in the not too distant past, Director John Alexander has assembled a fine cast to portray expatriated Jamaicans who, for a variety of reasons,choose the English Motherland over their Caribbean homeland. Set in the postwar years following Hitler's defeat, "Small Island" explores racial issues and colonial ideology. It also provokes viewers to examine the concepts associated with legitimate birthrights and those who are heir to less than noble beginnings.I may hate the pledge drives, but quality public programming makes for satisfying presentations like "Small Island" worth all those gift mugs and tote bags.

I wasn't sure what to expect but being the BBC I knew it should turn out to be a good short series. I wasn't disappointed, as the story was well told and has a way of gently pulling you in right from the start, where you can really get to empathise with the main characters. This is a tale of two very different places (England and Jamiaca) and where fate plays a big hand in bringing four people together. The setting is based around the second world war, during which the Jamaicans were actively encouraged to fight for the commonwealth and take a trip into the unknown..The unknown being a dark, cold and stark looking London, where times were hard. Apart from the cleverly weaved story it certainly shows you how hypocritical we can be at times and how racial undertones can so easily dominate if you don't stand up to the small minded. The main character Queenie (Ruth Wilson)was excellent, capturing the mood of the era and showing how human spirit can overcome adversity and prejudice. So if you want a well told human story this is well worth a look. I would thoroughly recommend it