Good concept, poorly executed.

best movie i've ever seen.

One of the most extraordinary films you will see this year. Take that as you want.

True to its essence, the characters remain on the same line and manage to entertain the viewer, each highlighting their own distinctive qualities or touches.

Author Rudyard Kipling and his wife search for their 18-year-old son after he goes missing during World War I. My Boy Jack has for sure it's very good moments and if there's one good thing about it was definitely Kim Cattrall's perfomance as Mrs. Kipling unfortunately tho the film is made for TV and that shows since most of the drama feels way over the top with some perfomances as well, Daniel Radcliffe does pretty much nothing since he was still working those Harry Potter movies at that time and the overall movie feels cheap, muddle, boring and meh. (4/10)

My 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.

I 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.

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.