Luke Webber I don't know if this movie has a plot, because I was too distracted by the sight of Redmayne's and Poesy's extraordinary soppiness. They spent the entire movie mooning and making faces. These actors have managed some fine performances in other shows, but in this, they are utterly unwatchable.

mrs elizabeth a eden The scenery was very good and the acting of Jack Mawle as Firebrace was superb but that is the best that I can say about this film.After reading Faulks' amazing book it was a huge disappointment; Eddie Redmayne spent a lot of time staring, Clemency Poesy often looked to be in pain and their "love-making" lacked any sign of love; it was crudely portrayed.I am sorry to say that my husband and I have made two attempts to watch it and each time given up from boredom before the end. More than once we asked ourselves if we would have known what was going on had we not read the book.The flash backs were intrusive and the pace of the film slow; no wonder Sebastian Faulks expressed his misgivings about the making of a feature-length Hollywood movie.

spheckma 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.

Roger Brunyate My main positive point is that this was a visually beautiful production from the title typography onwards. It would be hard not to manage effective monochromes in the khaki-and-dirt scenes in the trenches, but the subtle control of a limited color range extended to the scenes of opulence and rustic contentment as well. What else? The women were beautifully cast, especially the two sisters, who really looked alike. And I certainly share the acclamation for Joseph Mawle, who outshone Eddie Redmayne (a fine actor woefully miscast) in the main role.Nobody has mentioned the dreadful music: a three-note figure repeating endlessly in a vaguely minimalist texture, whether appropriate or not. My main quarrel, however, is with the adaptation of a one of my favorite novels of all time. I remember the book principally for the incredible reality of mining in tunnels under the enemy lines — something that interested me a lot since my father was also a lieutenant of sappers at the same place and time. Nothing of this came over in the movie, however, which took place almost entirely in broad, beautifully lit underground corridors.Faulks constructs his story in three time periods (1910, 1916-19, and 1978), interweaving in clearly delineated sections. I can understand the decision to omit the modern story, but the scriptwriter compensated by alternating the prewar and wartime scenes in short takes that combine to occupy an imaginary space in which nothing seems real. I must say, however, that I got a stronger sense of the prewar romance than I had from the book (and watching on American television, I was spared that anachronistic oral sex). But the main loss from the modern story was the wonderful way in which Faulks ties everything up; the television ending was so limp that I couldn't believe the movie was over.