SmugKitZine Tied for the best movie I have ever seen

ChicRawIdol A brilliant film that helped define a genre

Aedonerre I gave this film a 9 out of 10, because it was exactly what I expected it to be.

KnotStronger This is a must-see and one of the best documentaries - and films - of this year.

JohnLeeT 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?

kickapoo2-512-55328 Earlier reviewers have covered most salient aspects of the movie. As a movie showing the cruelty of a most pointless war (that the UK & Empire should have stayed out of!), I would happily give it a 10, but there is no getting past the disgraceful, caddish behaviour of Stephen who was a guest in a home, where the host was most welcoming and foolishly trusting. The man has no honour. I need not say a word about the whore of a wife. What I do not understand is why the husband did not cripple Stephen for this outrage.I was amused about an earlier critique who seems to believe that oral sex is something new. He needs to visit the erotic temples of Khajurao, India to see the act carved in stone repeatedly.

fibrofatigued *****Contains Spoilers***** Since this is currently available online, I spent my Saturday afternoon watching it. Masterpiece Classic has brought America many excellent British series. "Birdsong" was not one. It was slow and sad. I found it hard to believe that the leads were in love since they never had a conversation. A relationship based on physical attraction is LUST, not love. Also, a happy ending never gets old, so why drag us through a gruesome war and not give us one? In fact, by the end I disliked both leads. I never got a chance to like Stephen since he had very little dialogue. The writers couldn't seem to figure out who he was either. His choices were inconsistent with what they tried to tell us about his character. So I started out by feeling pretty ambivalent about him, and by the end I disliked him completely. He also wasn't very bright. I knew immediately why Isabelle left, and he didn't figure it out until Isabel's sister showed him! It's hard to believe he could be that dense. Many of the other soldiers were more interesting characters, but we didn't get to know them very well. Why did so many good men die, but Stephen had nine lives? It became completely unbelievable how many times he should have died but didn't. It seems like he was the ONLY English survivor at the end. My recollection of WWI history is a bit fuzzy, and this only made it worse. I should have given up on this and watched something else, but I kept thinking it would get better. I was wrong. I'm trying to think of something nice to say about this movie. I don't want to be that person who can only talk about the negative aspects. So after racking my brain, I will say that the sets were very real. I believed they were underground. I believed it was dark, dirty and very dangerous. The costumes were very good as far as I could tell. The lack of color overall, contributed to the bleak and hopeless feeling.This movie was poorly written, the story was hard to follow and most of the characters were lack luster and cold. If you like this time period watch "Downton Abbey." If you want to see an excellent British mini- series, watch "Cranford." There are many others, but these are the two that leap to mind for me. Don't waste your time with "Birdsong."

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.