A film with more than the usual spoiler issues. Talking about it in any detail feels akin to handing you a gift-wrapped present and saying, "I hope you like it -- It's a thriller about a diabolical secret experiment."

This movie feels like it was made purely to piss off people who want good shows

It’s sentimental, ridiculously long and only occasionally funny

The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

Great acting, great production values, good direction.But the script starts out with great pacing and interest in the first half and then falls apart in the second half. We're clear on character and motivation for the first half but then the second half leaves many questions unanswered.The conflicts raised are compelling but the follow-through is weak. For instance, we're very clear that Rudyard Kipling is pro-war but we don't know if that philosophical stance changes through the course of the film.This is the sort of picture that makes me want to look up the facts in history books. I don't feel I can rely on the film to get a clear idea.The depiction of the war itself is heart-breakingly accurate, though the women's lack of enthusiasm doesn't reflect the war hysteria that swept Britain at the time. Perhaps this is historically accurate; like so much in this film, I simply don't know.

I found Haig's performance over the top...too intense and aggressive. Clearly he wanted to show Kipling's zest for empire and war, but he overdid it. Radcliffe on the other hand gives a controlled performance that reaches its climax in his death scene. He was masterful there, even jerking some tears, I bet, from the most hard hearted. The kid (he's only 18) really can act given the right material. He also can be terribly funny as he was in Extras. It would be nice to see him in some good comic material. I find his acting in the Potter series okay but it is subordinate to the special effects and doesn't really give him a chance to show the range of what he can do. I think his best performances have been in David Copperfield (where his genuine innocence was perfect for the part), in Extras (real comic tour de force that), and now in My Boy Jack.

I watched My Boy Jack last night on U.S. Masterpiece Theatre. I appreciated not only the timeliness of the subject, but the tender story of the short life of John "Jack" Kipling, the son of poet Rudyard Kipling. Jack is played by Daniel Radcliffe of Harry Potter fame and it is a role perfectly suited to his age. Jack is a young man seeking his independence. Caught up in the patriotic fervor of his friends and neighbors going off to the war known as The Great War, Jack also wants to serve. His problem is that he has terrible eyesight and cannot get into any branch of the service until his renown father steps in to assist. David Haig wrote My Boy Jack as a play in 1997 and portrayed Rudyard Kipling on stage and again in this television film. He did an outstanding job on both fronts and it is uncanny how much he resembles Kipling. His depiction of Kipling is in keeping with a well to do man of the early 20th century - stoic in matters of war, interested in his family but detached emotionally. Rudyard encourages Jack to get into the war and finds him a commissioned position in the Army leaving Rudyard's wife and daughter at a loss to understand why. Jack overcomes his vision problems and succeeds at a boot camp that hastily prepares the next crop of men for war. His social status grants him the position of Lieutenant and as an officer he commands a troop that is sent to France. Ironically, as Jack struggles to become his own man, he must get his father's written permission to ship out to France as he is just shy of the legal age of 18. I am astounded by the chaos and devastation that is relayed during war briefings that Rudyard attends. Casualty statistics are given and they are unbelievable – literally thousands die in one battle, often in one day. World War I was a gruesome war in so many ways but especially so because these soldiers were at a crossroads, fighting with traditional tactics in the face of modern weaponry that cut them to ribbons. There is no doubt that in order to have war you need to have three types of people in your service, those who make a career of it, those who romanticize the cause and their obligation, and those who seek to escape. Jack, as with many young men, comprises both the second and third types. He has left his boyhood and his family to become a man. He is aware of the long odds of surviving the war despite his father assuring him that he would come through it. He is honor bound to serve his King and country.And so young Jack, celebrates his eighteenth birthday in France, bravely leads his troop into battle and tragically dies. Declared to be missing in action, his family searches for him to no avail and at last, piece together Jack's final hours through the stories of surviving soldiers who were there. His parents are devastated and Rudyard, looking for comfort, says that Jack would not have felt pain and so he was lucky. In response, Jack's mother movingly encapsulates Jack's death saying that there is nothing lucky about dying alone in the rain. My heart goes out to all families who have endured such loss. The story of Jack Kipling tells of one of the millions of sons who have died at war, all equally important to those who loved them and far less important to those who view them as expendable. Jack's body was not recovered by his family. His father died nearly twenty years later as his beloved country was on the brink of World War II.

David HAIG looks remarkably like Rudyard Kipling and gives a very strong performance, energetic and somewhat eccentric and overbearing at times, but always with a firm grip on his characterization of the man who did all he could to help his son enter the military during World War I.All the other performances are valid enough and DANIEL RADCLIFFE does a decent job as Kipling's eighteen year-old son, Jack, whose bad eyesight makes him a bit risky for serving in the military. Eventually, of course, he does become a leader of men during the trench warfare in France where he is injured and killed during combat. Thereafter, the conflict in the household comes to a core, with both Kipling's wife and daughter opposing the decision that Kipling made to push his son into service.The battle scenes are well staged, but unlike others who say there is no Harry Potter in Radcliffe's performance, I beg to differ. He has the eyeglasses, the same earnest expression and wide-eyed look that he had as Potter, the same unlined face, and not a great range of expressions. And neither did Potter. He gives a good performance but is clearly an actor whose range has not yet been tested, at least on film.The weakest aspect of the story is the last half, which dwells with too much constancy on the grieving family so that it becomes too maudlin before the conclusion.