This was a fairly decent movie. It comes from a play that was written by David Haig (the producer/director/star of this film) and it comes off feeling very staged and play production feeling. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing. And the story is one almost fairly well known (depending on the level of attention you pay to literature, and being an English major, I kinda knew the story in advance). Rudyard Kipling, writer of the Jungle Book (played with great vigor by Haig) is the doting father in this film.

Radcliffe did really well in this film by playing the child who grew up too fast and had to fight for something his father may have believed in more than he actually did. He played the part of the young man who would be lost just like so many others completely effectively. Only problem was his little porn stache he had near the end of the movie. Really kind of chuckle-inducing.

And Kim Catrall. Playing a mother to two older children (one in her early 20s and the other a late teenager) actually came off convincing. She played the American wife of Rudyard, so no terrible accent was necessary, she just got to play someone in her actual age-bracket who wasn't a sex-crazy psychopath/sociopath (you pick). It was strange to see her not really chewing the scenery as her Sex and the City character, and it was the most low key I've seen her in a movie in probably forever.

The special effects, camera work, and overall production quality of the film come off like a standard BBC production and come off almost as if a stage play.

It doesn't have the same vibes as say a Sci-Fi original, but it still comes off slightly shoddy.

There are a few sequences in particular that feel slightly disjointed. The director, Haig, made some choices, specifically with the war sequences, that took me and the movie in a completely different direction. Where most of the film is played very straight-forward and safe, the second Radcliffe steps foot on the battlefield, all of that goes out the window for a seemingly higher production value.

But it doesn't work. His idea of changing the pace of the film involves flipping the camera over (about 5 or more times) every time an explosion happens and a character hits the ground, and throws a very gray filter over everything. It works to differentiate the lush green lands Rudyard lives on and the harshness of the battleground, but it separates the two worlds almost completely. One feels straight out of Masterpiece Theater or any of the multitude of Jane Austen films and the other feels as if taken/lifted directly from Steven Spielberg.

It takes you completely out of the movie. Especially the scene where Radcliffe's character dies. It should be emotional, it should be played to the vest, but in reality, it just seems almost satirical. It just doesn't have the effect it should have, especially when the movie is called My Boy Jack and is all about this character dying.

As the sum of the parts, the movie works. Taken apart, it seems to falter and stumble, especially near the end. If you want a good show of character work from the child who was and will forever be known as Harry Potter (and don't have the money or the means to see Equus), this is a good way to see that talent. Radcliffe wins the show with this movie. He doesn't grate on the soul, he doesn't take away from the character too much by looking almost exactly like his Potter character, he almost makes you feel for all the characters in the movie. Almost. It's a shame that the director/star couldn't have spent more time on the character of Jack and less time trying to cry for his lost son. It would have been a much better film.