My Boy Jack is a made for TV movie starring Daniel Radcliffe as Rudyard Kipling's son Jack as a teenager preparing for "The Great war" (WW1). Shown on Remembrance Day, here in the uk on terrestial TV (ITV1), it is a timely reminder of what people of different classes and backgrounds went through and the very different attitudes compared to today (..and some similar ones). It is well written and acted with a good pace and shows the character's as well rounded. I have never seen any of the Harry Potter movies (not my type of thing) so it was nice to see Radcliffe in action and very good he was too. This movie is a lot better than a lot of films at the cinema and for awhile you can still catch it on ITV.COM for free (Don't know how long it will be there) Definitely worth a watch!
Add a Review
-
BazBaz00112 November 2007
-
de_niro_200117 November 2007The presence of young Mr Radcliffe in the cast would naturally draw high viewing figures. Just like Ms Catrall he's inextricably associated with another role but he shows that he is a very good actor in this production. It shows what a terrible waste war is. After Jack failed his medical for the Navy Rudyard Kipling went to great lengths to get his son into the Army. Like many parents at the beginning of the First World War he was very proud of his son going off to fight for King and Country. But nothing could compensate him for the loss of his son. It is very sad where Rudyard Kipling is telling the wee lad the story about him and Jack as Bengal Lancers and then he can't continue because he's too sad. This was very appropriate viewing for Remembrance Sunday. It prompted me to dig out one of my old Blue Peter annuals which had a feature on a Blue Peter Special Assignment on Bateman's, Rudyard Kipling's house where quite a lot of this was filmed. I thought Kim Cattrall was unusual casting for this production but the Blue Peter annual told me that his wife was American! The family had moved to Bateman's because of the death of their eldest child Josephine and their previous home, The Elms, was too much associated with her. Kipling had more than his fair share of heartbreak. Arguably My Boy Jack makes good family viewing and there's no doubt many children watched it for the reason I gave above. Harry Potter has definitely brought about an upsurge in kids reading and I hope some will be prompted to read Kipling's stories rather than watch DVDs of the Disney version of the Jungle Book which definitely would not have been endorsed by Kipling. I'd also recommend The Man Who Would Be King which is in fact a story by Kipling, not just a great film with Sean Connery. David Haig gives a great performance as Kipling and he's better than Christopher Plummer in The Man Who Would Be King. He is good in the scene where he is telling the local children the story of How The Rhino Got His Skin (a story I can remember my teacher at primary school reading to the class and it was one I liked). Anyway, an excellent play.
-
chikinlikinlou11 November 2007I found his very interesting, not least because it fascinated me, one who generally finds programs about war repetitive, distasteful and untrue of reality. This film seemed so hopeless because you know he has no chance but really it is not about the boy in many ways, it is about the father and his conviction and his choking pride that takes precedence in the film. Daniel Radcliffe, unfortunately, did not play a totally convincing role as Jack, the son, but since he was much younger and far less experienced in the world of serious acting I think he was simply out performed.
The main character of the film was Rudyard Kipling and everything you feel is aimed at his loss and guilt for pushing his son to do something where he was destined to underachieve in, due to his "disability" (poor eyesight). I think this rigid but heartfelt performance was brilliant. The score was orchestral and built up atmosphere and sadness throughout, while the camera-work was inventive, intuitive and well shot throughout, including some rather experimental frames.
I think that the film as a whole really captured the feeling of grief and guilt that many must have felt at that time, the sense of irretrievable loss of something so precious. I think this is a great achievement as a film. I recommend anyone should see it who is interested in any aspects of film, it gives its best in all areas. -
JamesHitchcock19 November 2010Although Rudyard Kipling was a poet of genius, he is also one of the most controversial figures in English literature, largely because of his close association with British imperialism. Yet to my mind the greatest blot on his reputation is not his support for the British Empire- an institution which had more merits than many of its detractors are willing to allow- but his passionate advocacy of British entry into the First World War, something motivated less by "King and Country" patriotism than by an obsessive hatred of Germany and the German people.
"My Boy Jack" examines the relationship between Kipling and his son John, who died in the war; John Kipling is always referred to as "Jack" in the film, although there has been some debate as to whether he was ever called Jack in real life. The title, however, derives from Kipling's bleak and haunting poem, written to express his grief at his son's death:-
" 'Have you news of my boy Jack?' Not this tide. 'When d'you think that he'll come back?' Not with this wind blowing, and this tide.
When war breaks out in 1914, Jack is sixteen years old, and like many young men of his generation is eager to serve his country in the armed forces. Unfortunately, he suffers from poor eyesight and is turned down on that ground by both the Royal Navy and the Army. Kipling, however, has powerful friends, including King George V and the famous General Lord Roberts, and by pulling strings is able to obtain Jack a commission as a Second Lieutenant in the Irish Guards.
Despite his youth and his disability, Jack proves an exemplary officer; he is a disciplinarian, but fair and popular with his troops. He is also courageous, as he is to prove when in September 1915, the day after his eighteenth birthday, he is ordered to lead his platoon into action in the Battle of Loos. During the attack, however, he disappears and, beyond a telegram to say that he is missing in action, the family hear nothing about him for the next two years. The rest of the film deals with the efforts of Kipling and his American wife Carrie to find out what has happened to their son and their grief as they gradually come to accept that he will not be returning from the war.
Rudyard Kipling is played by David Haig, who also wrote the play on which the film is based. Haig certainly bears a close resemblance to the real Kipling, and although his tone of voice and testy manner occasionally reminded me a bit too much of John Cleese's Basil Fawlty, it was overall a moving performance, especially in the later scenes when the ardent jingoist gives way to the anguished father, haunted not only by grief but also by guilt at the part he played in obtaining his son a commission.
Daniel Radcliffe, who plays Jack, and Kim Cattrall, who plays Carrie, are both actors who might suffer from typecasting, Radcliffe struggling to escape the shadow of Harry Potter and Cattrall that of Samantha in "Sex and the City". Even away from Hogwarts Radcliffe seems doomed to play mild-mannered, bespectacled teenagers. Cattrall here shows that she can play in serious dramas and that her range as an actress is wider than I had previously suspected; even so, I doubt if in real life Carrie Kipling had quite so much of the "sexy older woman" about her.
I have never seen Haig's original play, but I understand that it continued to follow Kipling's life into the 1930s. The film does not, but ends when Kipling and Carrie track down one of Jack's platoon who tells them how their son died. I think that in this the film missed an opportunity to examine the wider question of Kipling's guilt, not his guilt as a father who sent his son off to war, but his guilt as an opinion-former who helped to whip up war-fever in 1914, when he was an immensely popular and influential figure. We never learn whether Kipling ever regretted his role in creating a climate of hatred against Germany.
Kipling learns that Jack died bravely leading an assault on a German machine-gun position; by the standards of 1915, or even 1918, he was a hero who had selflessly given his life in a noble cause. By the time Kipling himself died in 1936, however, the world was starting to look very different. During the First World War no great ideological gulf had separated the two sides, and the leaders on both sides had justified their decision to go to war through a campaign of increasingly hysterical hate-propaganda which proclaimed that only the total victory of Our Side (Good) over Their Side (Evil) could ensure peace, freedom and the survival of European civilisation. After victory in 1918 Britain and her allies pretended that these noble ideals had finally been achieved, but by the 1930s it had become clear that all the war had achieved was to test that civilisation close to destruction, to facilitate the rise of totalitarian ideologies and to pave the way for a second conflict which threatened to be even more destructive than the first. (To Kipling's credit, he was, at the end of his life, one of the first in Britain to see the dangers of Nazism). The patriotic rhetoric of 1914, and the ideals for which John Kipling had died, were starting to look very hollow. 7/10 -
sg279012 November 2007Initially i wasn't too pleased with the film at first, i found some aspects were missing, however when the film gets going it really does get going so don't give up hope! I won't go into too much detail of the story. There's sort of two parallel stories going on. John'Jack' Kipling who struggles to get into the Navy because of poor eyesight and then the story of his father, who wrote the jungle book and became heavily involved in the propaganda of Britian during WWI- from what I've gathered from the story! As i said before i initially didn't like the story, and like most people my age was most likely watching it to see Daniel Radcliffe out of context. But i have to say this was an extremely moving story once you get to know the characters - who at times are a bit rigid but the well written story i felt covered this up.
I really am not one to cry and films i think thats just stupid but i was sooo tearing up, not just because of the film but the reality that this actually happened to the men. I would advise getting this its a great bit of film to commend various heroes in the war.
It's a deeply moving story and i think Daniel Radcliffe did a great job- considering it was a completely different role hes done before. Also the girl you was in Doctor Who who played his sister...cant think of her name :/ - she was extremely good as well. The women from sex in the city...not too sure about her.
But anyways! really do watch this film, if your from out of the UK i heard you can watch it online at-
http://www.itv.com/Drama/perioddrama/MyBoyJack/default.html I THINK!
also its coming out of DVD soon :) -
malcolmgsw12 November 2007This is a very sad film shown on Remembrance Sunday.It is the story of Jack Kipling who is commissioned into the army despite his inadequate eye sight due to the pressure excerpted by his famous father Rudyard Kipling.Jack Kipling is killed in the first battle in which he is a participant invoking feelings of guilt and rage amongst the Kipling family,What is not made too clear is whether Jack Kipling actually wanted to go to fight or whether he was pressurised into it by his father.Jack Kipling was only too aware of his limitations due to his shortsightedness and the film does seem to imply that it was his fathers wish for him to serve in the armed forces rather than his own desire.The film skillfully evokes the atmosphere in England when World War 1 is declared and the horror of the trenches.
-
buiger20 January 2011I basically agree with the consensus of the critics. This is another good, solid, made-for-TV production that leaves little to be desired.
Well produced, well filmed and well acted, finally a movie with a script, with intelligent, meaningful dialog. What a welcome surprise! My compliments to David Haig, not only for the aforementioned script, but also for his acting, which was nothing short of excellent. His Kipling is a real, living creature, we can see him, we can hear him, but we can also feel him, his pain is real, when he hurts, it is almost as if we do too.
If there is a flaw to this film, it is only that of not having dared to dig even deeper into the emotions of the main characters, which would undoubtedly have made it a much longer movie, but in my opinion also a better one. -
lasscalledlaura11 November 2007I was very impressed, an excellent and highly sensitive production that documents the famous author Rudyard Kipling's efforts to gain his heavily short sighted son John (Jack) Kipling an officer's commission in the armed forces.
I was impressed by the acting on all accounts, particularly David Haig, and his and Kim Catrell's interaction as husband and wife is notably natural and moving. Daniel Radcliff also performed well. Many have doubted his skill as an actor, I like many have never been overwhelmed by his performances in the Harry Potter films, but I have never been his severest critic either, believing much of his defiances to be due to weak screenplays. His performance here - with far better material to work with - stands up well to scrutiny, as he manages to project a sensitive combination of youthful ambition, the upper classes belief that they were the natural leader of the common man, and the basic fear of war and death. To those who have scorned at his casting, I can think of no other actor who would be able to draw the attention of the younger generations to such a subject.
It must be noted that the quality of this production was superb, with trench life realistically recreated to the extent that it was shown. The contrasting camera work between the home and trench environment, may seem obvious but it was skillfully done, creating the right tensions between circumstances, without making you feel nauseous. The locations, costumes, set e.t.c were unnoticeable in the best possible way, in the sense that nothing jarred on your mind or felt modernized or out of place. Again this may seem an obvious comment but often period pieces (unfortunatly often produced by ITV) fall into this trap.
Above all this though, what impressed me most was how skillfully 'My Boy Jack' portrayed attitudes to war.
It manages to portray realistically the proactive and enthusiastically patriotic attitudes to war and empire that were predominant within the middle and upper classes in the Edwardian era. The vigor with which this is done is impressive as it would easy to dilute such attitudes for the modern pallet, especially considering Rudyard Kipling's popularity as a children's author. This attitude is combined superbly with Rudyard's disillusionment after his son's death. His personal grief and guilt jars movingly against his empire ideals, which he clearly clings onto in a belief that his son was doing his duty for a cause he believed in. It is an internal conflict which I'm sure holds just as much resonance for todays soldiers and their families. -
MOscarbradley9 March 2008If the point of Brian Kirk's television film, adapted by David Haig from his stage play and starring Haig as the writer Rudyard Kipling, was to show just how much of a horse's ass Kipling actually was and just how awful it is to send young men, some merely boys, out to fight a war, any war, then it succeeded in spades. But I'm not quite sure that was the point and its screening on Remembrance Sunday was no coincidence. While we were certainly there to weep at the loss of Jack, Kipling's son, drummed into the army by his father's jingoism, as well as the hundreds of thousands of others who died in The Great War, I think we were also meant to applaud their bravery, if not their foolishness, then and now. Parallels to present conflicts are unmistakable.
Of its kind, of course, it's well enough made. England was a green and pleasant land, certainly on Kipling's estate. Unfortunately it was also a bit like Neverland with Kipling coming over as a cross between J M Barrie and Gandolf. And the trenches weren't much better. The rain and the mud had a sanitized look about them. We never really got away from the studio and I always think that sort of thing looks better in black and white.
What finally distinguishes it are the two central performances. Haig makes Kipling a splendidly priggish boor proving he is a much better actor than he is a writer. As his sacrificial son, Jack, that sprogget Daniel Radcliffe, (he isn't very tall, is he?), finally shook off the mantle of Harry Potter with a marvelously nuanced study of a boy forced into manhood before his time. (Radcliffe turned eighteen during filming just as his character turned eighteen prior to his death). It was a touching, exploratory piece of acting that seemed to me to be as much about Radcliffe as it was about Jack. Both players add a dimension to the drama that it lacked elsewhere and if it finally moved me, and it did, it was due to their performances. In every other respect it's just a typical made-for-television costume drama. -
mhandsley200112 November 2007Excellent cast, beautifully shot and well scripted TV movie about the Kipling family at the start of the First World War. Premiered in the UK on Remembrance Day (11/11) this poignant tale has Daniel Radcliffe in the title role, showing once again (after his on stage appearance in Equus) that there's more to this young actor than the caricature that Harry Potter has become. His clipped and stilted performance completely captured what it must have been like to be the put upon son of a successful, middle-class author in late Edwardian England.
David Haig plays Rudyard Kipling (there's a remarkable resemblance) who many will remember from previous UK TV series 'Thin Blue Line' and 'Soldier Soldier' as well as the massively successful 'Four Weddings and a Funeral'. Haig captures the British Imperialist that Kipling had become perfectly, as well as the emotional turmoil that Kipling went through as he realised just what he had helped to achieve by sending his young son to war. Haig also wrote the original play and screenplay so the resulting TV movie must be pretty much what he wanted.
The supporting players, Kim Catterill as Rudyard's American wife, and Martin McCann as the Irish Guardsman who goes to war with young John to name two, give excellent, measured performances which compliment the two lead roles, giving the whole production a rounded, glossy finish.
This is superb TV catch it if you can (but don't forget the hankies!) -
SnoopyStyle22 December 2015It'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. -
i_aint_your_pimp11 November 2007Masterpieces are rare, but every so often a film such as this comes along and delivers.
The story is of the son of the famous writer Rudyard Kipling during the first world war. Jingosim is the main subject of this story and Rudyard Kipling transformational arc on his views of sending his son to war.
Despite this being made for TV its at a standard that puts many blockbusters to shame, The screenplay is impeccable and the performances astounding. David Haig as Rudyard Kipling is perfect. Daniel Radcliffe despite being the famous face of Harry Potter makes the role his own as Jack. And Kim Cattrall proves shes more than being the slutty one from Sex And The City.
Thought provoking and emotional without being Cliché i feel i cannot give this film anything but a perfect score, a truly beautiful film.
I hope this film receives the attention it deserves. -
jboothmillard12 November 2007It looked like a really good one-off drama, and I was impressed to learn after that one of the star's wrote the play and screenplay. Basicially, it is 1913, and Britain has declared war against Germany (World War I), and the British Empire's greatest apologist, Rudyard Kipling, the writer of The Jungle Book (played by the writer, Four Weddings and a Funeral's David Haig) is at the peak of his literacy fame. The story mainly concerns his only son, 17-year-old John/Jack (Daniel Radcliffe, in a good break away from Harry Potter) who is ambitious and determined to get into the army. Unfortunately, his need for spectacles/poor eye sight are causing problems for his eye tests, and this is holding him back. Eventually though, his father manages to persuade a member of one of the forces to let him try out for a position, and risk the spectacle problem, and it seems to pay off in tests. Finally, Jack is now a fully trained leader of soldiers, and with a grown moustache can fool anyone as an older man. The father, mother Caroline (Sex and the City's Kim Cattrall) and sister Elsie Kipling (Carey Mulligan) are very proud of him, but worry will come later. When Jack finally gets to the trenches, and the day of his 18th birthday, soon he is reported missing, believed wounded, and this is what finally causes argument in the family for allowing him to go. Two years later, a fellow soldier finally shows up to tell what happened to Jack, and Rudyard struggles to confront the guilt and loss, but at the same time, he knows it was Jack's decision and bravery. Also starring Nick Dunning as Ferguson, Peter O'Meara as Capt. Viney, Peter Hanly as Col. Sparks, Robbie Kay as Arthur Relph, Laurence Kinlan as Guardsman Doyle, Julian Wadham as King George V, Martin McCann as Guardsman Bowe, Rúaidhrí Conroy as Guardsman McHugh, Jason Maza as Reporter, Bill Milner as Peter, John-Paul Macleod as Ralph, Peter Gowen as H.A Gwyne, James Holmes as Photographer, Richard Dormer as Corp. O'Leary, Adam Goodwin as Capt. Bruce and Fred Ridgeway as Hobdon. A very good drama with some good acting, and a good biographical story. Very good!
-
irish2320 April 2009Great 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. -
HallmarkMovieBuff21 April 2008There are no ladies knitting back home in the capitals of Europe, but "My Boy Jack" does a topnotch job of portraying the horrors of World War I by focusing on one particular drawing room in England as Rudyard Kipling, his wife and daughter await word of the fate of son Jack, "missing, presumed wounded," in his first battle one day past his eighteenth birthday.
Familiar with David Haig only as the bumbling Detective Inspector Grim in the British comedy series, "The Thin Blue Line," I had no idea he could act so dramatically, let alone write so moving a piece as this. Of all the "Masterpieces" on public TV, this is one of the most deserving to be seen.
Young Daniel Radcliffe, in the middle of his run as the lead in the Harry Potter movie series, turns in a surprisingly effective performance in the title role here, a role quite different from that of the schoolboy wizard. And young Carey Mulligan, who's become nearly ubiquitous as somebody or other's daughter in U.K. dramas shown on American TV, is equally affecting as the Kipling daughter, Elsie.
U.K.-born, Canadian-bred, and U.S.-trained (at least in part), Kim Cattrall plays Kipling's American wife, with the accent to match. This piece was shown as a "Masterpiece Classic" on America's PBS, followed by behind-the-scene interviews with the three principals, Haig, Radcliffe, and Cattrall. Cattrall's interview was perhaps the most articulate of the lot, which may have been a surprise to viewers familiar only with "Samantha", Cattrall's sexpot in The City (NYC) from the popular HBO series.
All in all, VERY highly recommended. -
Doylenf20 April 2008David 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. -
SB10029 June 2020Generally straightforward biopic of events in the family of the author Rudyard Kipling in the period 1914-1915, when his son John was killed in WWI. The tensions in the family are well portrayed and I though Kim Cattrall did well in the difficult role of the mother, torn in loyalties. Carey Mulligan is given less opportunity to shine as John's brother, with some rather obvious lines. David Haig, whose play was the basis of the film, plays Kipling well, showing his gradual realisation as to the consequences of his gung-ho attitude. Daniel Radcliffe puts in a thoughtful performance as John showing different sides of his character and growth after he joins the army. The war scenes are effectively done although there is perhaps not enough to show the background to the Battle of Loos, in which John died. The part of the film devoted to the family's efforts to find out what had happened to him is perhaps the best. There is an historical error near the start of the film; Kipling is shown speaking at a public meeting on the day war was declared, 4 August 1914 and behind him is the famous Kitchener recruiting image; but this was only conceived in the following month - although Kitchener was Secretary of State for War, having been appointed the previous day.
-
csipiorski1 February 2009Saw 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. -
barryrd23 March 2009I have been viewing Masterpiece Theatre for many years and I have trouble thinking of one episode that surpasses the excellence of this production.
The main actors all give great performances in this story of how Rudyard Kipling, poet laureate and a member of an important government war committee, persuaded the authorities to enlist his son Jack despite failing two health examinations because of his poor eyesight. The rest of the movie deals with the dilemma that never seemed to cross Kipling's mind: what moral responsibility would he bear if anything happened to his much-loved son?
As we see in the run-up to the declaration of war, Kipling, played by David Haig, was a fervent supporter of taking on the "Huns". In the commentary following the film, we learn that he never served his country on the battlefield. Instead, he put his expectations on his son Jack. The scenes from the Great War tell the horror of the conditions in the rat-infested trenches as soldiers coped with open wounds in the rain and the mud. Then cutaway to the Kipling home in pastoral English setting...the contrast is vivid.
Kipling's wife (Kim Cattrall) and daughter (Carey Mulligan)are extremely upset at the prospect of John "Jack" Kipling going off to war. Daniel Radcliffe performs the role of the dutiful son who also proved to be more than a capable leader of the young men in his charge. Martin McCann, who plays the soldier Bowe who saw the younger Kipling die in battle, gives an extraordinary performance when he visits the Kipling estate to tell the story of Jack's death.
A very noteworthy scene takes place at the end of the movie when Kipling visits George V, the reigning monarch, and a personal friend. In this scene, the King expresses his sympathy to Kipling and then mentions that his own son recently died. This is a reference to the youngest child of George V and Queen Mary, who was an epileptic, and died suddenly following a seizure. This event was treated quietly by the press at the time. However, whether or not this meeting happened, it is an interesting side-bar to the movie, with the King and his poet laureate sharing their grief.
I have always been interested in the story of Jack Kipling from the time I read a newspaper article about how a Canadian who worked for the Commonwealth War Graves Commission was able to locate the burial plot of Jack Kipling towards the end of the 20th century, many decades after he died. This was something the Kipling family had tried in vain to find.
For me, this movie adds an extra dimension to that story and to the ongoing cinematic treatment of a war that is now almost 100 years ago. -
jeffreyhillen-364-94538122 July 2015My 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. -
ktvalve12 November 2007I'm not a fan of the Harry Potter films and in all honesty don't know to much about Daniel but after watching this moving film I have to say I was very impressed with young Daniel's acting.As someone else said ,the last 30 minutes of the film were very sad .David Haig also gave a great performance as Jack's father Rudyard Kipling ,as you watched ,it was heart breaking seeing him pushing his boy through the medicals with his poor sight knowing that Jack would be killed. This is the sort of thing the BBC used to make but now its left to ITV to make real drama.The battle scenes are very realistic ,as the men await the order to go over the top ,the fear and terror they feel is highlighted brilliantly without much speech .A fantastic film which shows the horror of war better than most.
-
jeroduptown20 October 2021Kipling helps send his son (Radcliffe) to WWI. It's a true-story tragedy that isn't especially dramatic - but has some really strong acting. Mulligan and Cattrall are also excellent.
-
kaaber-27 April 2008"My Boy Jack" is the second film that successfully portrays Kipling as a character - Huston's "The Man Who Would Be King" being the first. Whereas Huston's film was a great allegory of the British Raj or empire-making in general, "My Boy Jack" relates the writer's personal tragedy at the death of his only son who died at Loos in 1915, and in what was called "the Great War" back in the days when no one knew that a greater still was shortly to come. The tragedy was compounded by the fact that Kipling had used his influence to get Jack into the Irish Guards in spite of a medical examination which Jack failed due to poor eyesight inherited from his father.
The film is more than brilliantly acted by scriptwriter David Haig (Kipling), Kim Cattrall (Carrie Kipling), Daniel Radcliffe (Harry Potter graduated from Hogsworth to play Jack) and Carey Mulligan (Elsie Kipling), but it sets out to paint a slightly hindsighty and overly pacifist picture of what actually occurred. David Haig's screenplay shows us a family at war with each other, with the boy almost pressurized by his father to join the army (after he fails the Navy examination), and it shows Carrie and Elsie openly blaming Kipling for Jack's death in scenes that are more reminiscent of a modern day soap opera than a portrait of the clear-sighted Kipling and his staunch and ever-supportive American wife.
There is a faint odor of post-Vietnam pacifism over the entire film, although never too explicit and always clashing with the stark realities of WWI that are also duly included: that Britain simply could not allow Germany and Austria to run rampant across Europe. Action was indeed called for, and there was no doubt about it, for, as Orwell once put it: pacifists are the objective allies of tyrants.
Kipling has been called a jingoist and warmonger (a title later ascribed to Churchill whose similar stand would save Europe from the Germans some twenty years later) and Kipling has been called an imperialist but mainly by people who fail to understand his writings or, indeed, haven't read them. Kipling did not change his view of war or of the empire after the death of his son, he was always a realist although a subtle one and remained so.
The film ends with a very fine and subtle dialog between Kipling and George V. The king relates the death of his own young son. The film lets George V find the body of the prince, still warm, which he counts a blessing this forms a heartrending contrast to Kipling who never recovered the body of his son at all, but there is yet another contrast in the deaths of the two sons when Kipling quotes his poem "My Boy Jack" that closes the film, indicating his small comfort found in the fact that John Kipling gave his life to a worthy cause in an ultimately inevitable war: "Then hold your head up all the more, this tide and every tide; because he was the son you bore and gave to that wind blowing and that tide." -
HotToastyRag31 January 2022Don't you love when a movie is made chronicling the backstory of a famous work of art? I do, and I always flock to see movies like Girl with the Pearl Earring or Shakespeare in Love. They're usually highly fictionalized, but that doesn't stop me from watching them. My Boy Jack is a television special based on Rudyard Kipling's poem. The author is played by David Haig, and his wife is Kim Cattrall (I know, an odd choice). Their teenaged children are Carey Mulligan and Daniel Radcliffe, who later inspires the famed poem. A very patriotic family, David pushes for Daniel to enlist in the service during WWI. At first, he's rejected due to poor eyesight (can anyone say 'Oculus Reparo'?), but David pulls some strings and gets him admitted anyway.
Might this be a mistake? Might some tragedy befall Daniel and fill his father with unspeakable guilt? This is a tearjerker, folks. This is not a feel-good family-friendly movie that reminds you of the years when you saw all the Harry Potter movies on Thanksgiving. This is an emotional drama with lots of guilt and sorrow. It's certainly anti-war, so know what you're getting into if you decide to rent it. -
didi-51 December 2009David Haig wrote and starred as Rudyard Kipling in 'My Boy Jack', a drama about the brief life of John Kipling, who went to war despite his appalling eyesight and died in the trenches as a teenager.
Jack is played by Daniel Radcliffe, who carried all the baggage of being better known as Harry Potter - however his performance is understated, moving, and well crafted. He also has a resemblance to Haig which makes it all the more convincing that they are father and son.
The real revelation of this drama though is the casting of Kim Cattrall, Sex and the City's Samantha Jones, as Jack's mother - she is brilliant and this film proves she really can act.
The film presents the realities of war without sentiment, and also does justice to the reputation and work of Kipling. Excellent viewing.