Bad Acting and worse Bad Screenplay

The film creates a perfect balance between action and depth of basic needs, in the midst of an infertile atmosphere.

I didn’t really have many expectations going into the movie (good or bad), but I actually really enjoyed it. I really liked the characters and the banter between them.

It is an exhilarating, distressing, funny and profound film, with one of the more memorable film scores in years,

Though I haven't read the book yet and I also had no idea this was split into two TV-movies. It came out as one single very long movie on DVD in Germany, so I watched it like that. It did appeal to me, especially acting, though some choices seemed weird. For a TV movie it is surprising I reckon that there is nudity. For regular TV I guess, but then again, we're way past that already.The structure does seem fitting for a novel and it makes more sense in the book form (or at least seems to). Even without having read it, you can do more in the head of a reader than in a film. Still this seems more than decent enough to stand on its own, especially if the viewer is unaware of its source material.

Single handedly, the "actor" Eddie Redmayne destroyed a so-so adaptation of a wonderful novel by giving a wooden, stiff, and even gross performance. He must be the most repellent "leading man" in the history of film. Of course, the script, direction, and ridiculous set design gave him a big boost in turning this into incredible junk, but it was Redmayne who was so completely unsuited to his role and who caused many to turn away in disgust with his fish-like kisses during the love scenes. These were crucial to the story and he made them repulsive beyond all comprehension. The rest of the cast was good but they were up against a brick wall with Redmayne. Of all the actors available in the UK, excellent actors with charisma and a bit of sex appeal, why was this weird, sexless person cast in the pivotal role? If the creative team behind this disaster set out to make a film that would be a complete failure, they couldn't have succeeded much more effectively. It isn't simply bad, it's terrible, and they had to do this to one of the most popular and moving novels ever published in Great Britain. Couldn't they find something less important to stick this lackluster and stomach turning "star" in?

I feel I've wasted valuable chunk of my life watching this - the pace was so slow that it was painful at times. Eddie Redmayne in the main role was extremely wooden, as he seemed to spend most of his time staring expressionlessly into space for what seemed like an eternity. I understand that this actor has a number of awards in other roles (this is the first time I'd seen him) and he may well be more comfortable on stage rather than screen, but on the basis of this sample it would be doubtful if he could make a case for remaining in an acting career. There were occasional idyllic rural scenes which looked visually appealing, and one or two of the supporting actors put in reasonable performances, but these did little to offset the overwhelming tedium of the whole thing.

If you've read the book you may be one of those people who get it set in their mind 'as the book' and can't move beyond it, but the book is one thing and the movie another and if you've the ability to consider the worth of both then I believe you'll find value in both. In this review I deal with the movie as I loved the visuals of all of it from the setting of beautiful scenes with lush costuming and sets were magnificent. The costumes thought out each scene to the Nth degree in that they almost told a story them self. Eddie Redmayne costumes suit the scenes of the love story when the love story needs to have a special feel as do all the most extraordinary dress and skirts and blouses of Clémence Poésy. In addition she had a delicate beauty that was perfect for the role while Marie-Josée Croze was perfect as her not the not so beautiful sister, but never-the-less possessed her own sort of beauty with the need element of strength. The was scene were everything you'd expect of war in WWI in trenches that were literally a few feet apart with all the gore and horror and fear you'd expect. Also, the costuming there was amazing as it wasn't exact, as it wouldn't have been under the circumstances, but for the most part it was nearly as perfect as I'd want. Now I'd like to take a step back and talk about Eddie Redmayne. I'd not heard of him until I saw the name attached to the actor who would play Marius in the upcoming version of 'Les Mis'so I looked him up, found a movie he was in to watch and came away from seeing it wondering why him in either this story or in Les Mis. Suffice it to say he does not have you classical good looks. BUT, after watching the BBC version of 'Birdsong' he won me over. He is one outstanding actor, with the unbelievable subtle expression he makes using not only his entire face, but just his eyes alone. He was, simply put, beyond belief and will be perfect as Marius, but back to his playing Stephen Wraysford. He play the full range of the character to perfection. I even found myself finding him a beautiful man even though not typically so ... All things considered it may not be a perfect copy of the book, but it stands on its own and that's what counts.