Inclubabu
Plot so thin, it passes unnoticed.
Casey Duggan
It’s sentimental, ridiculously long and only occasionally funny
Ezmae Chang
This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.
Mobithailand
I have no idea what The BBC TV movie, 'Birdsong' cost to make, but I'm sure it was a fraction of the cost of the average Hollywood movie. 'Birdsong' is a 3-hour drama, based on a best-selling book of the same name and is about the horrors of the 2nd World War, interspersed with a lingering, tragic love story involving the lead character. There are a number of trench warfare action scenes, and I have to say that the BBC has done incredibly well on what must have been an infinitesimal budget compared to the average Hollywood war movie budget. I am not saying that the BBC war scenes were superior to Hollywood's versions of WW1 warfare, but they more than held their own. This BBC adaptation was, in this reviewer's opinion, a high-class production.The characters are finely drawn and believable and we are comfortable with listening to the French characters speak English, as it is clear that they were all highly educated and the story required that they spoke English for the benefit of their 'English guests'. They even occasionally lapsed into their own tongue, (with appropriate sub-titles), when the occasion demanded it.Sure, Birdsong is a slow moving drama, and may lack some of the 'commercial' impact that a Hollywood movie might provide, but it certainly has its tense, dramatic moments; both in the trenches and in the French châteaus - and boudoirs! Indeed, the hero – or some may say anti-hero – comes back, seemingly from the dead - on no less than two occasions, and surely there was enough blood and guts, loss of life and dramatic moments to satisfy most viewers. It is a love story; a man's love of a woman who doesn't belong to him; and is set against the background of a terrible war; amongst the horrific battlefields of the Somme, Verdun, and elsewhere.
TexasRedge
First let me say that there are not enough movies made about WWI. Thats a shame.I didn't read the book, in fact I had never heard of this until one night in May of 2012, when I had promised to take my daughter to see "The Avengers" only to discover it was sold out when we got to the theater. We came back home and turned on the TV set and this movie was about to come on. Being a fan of WWI movies like "The Lost Battalion","Flyboys" and "The Trench", I thought that I'd give this movie a look.I was so glad I watched this movie. I was glued to my TV for both nights that it was on. I found the story gripping and moving. I didn't want to get out of my chair (not even to go get a soda from the refrigerator). I found the cinematography to be absolutely beautiful. The battle scenes were very moving, I felt like I was down in that crawlspace with them. I know that most people will call this a love story, but I would call it a human story. Amazing Story about coming of age, falling in love and going to war. I cant praise this movie enough.The acting is very well done, The Cinematography is amazing, the sets are very realistic, and the music score is good. I loved this movie. After watching a serious emotional movie like this, I wasn't in the mood to see cartoon-ish movie like "The Avengers" for a while.I loved this movie I purchased a copy on DVD
potter34
Let me start by saying we love just about everything on Masterpiece. We also rent a lot of British mysteries, dramas, and especially period pieces from Netflix. Our main complaint is that the male lead in Birdsong is quite possibly the most wooden and boring acting we've ever seen. Just awful. The female lead is also pretty wooden and her performance is even worse than when she appeared in Gossip Girl. I have nothing good to say about this show except the outfits were pretty.We expect quality from Masterpiece and this sure did not measure up! You'd be better off watching repeats of Poirot or Foyle's War.
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.
