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.
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.