Intcatinfo
A Masterpiece!
Ella-May O'Brien
Each character in this movie — down to the smallest one — is an individual rather than a type, prone to spontaneous changes of mood and sometimes amusing outbursts of pettiness or ill humor.
Haven Kaycee
It is encouraging that the film ends so strongly.Otherwise, it wouldn't have been a particularly memorable film
verbusen
I really enjoyed this film. I saw it as "Regeneration" (not Behind The Lines which a reviewer said was shortened) which Amazon video recommended to me since I am a history buff and have been watching a lot of military documentaries there. I am a military veteran (US, served in Iraq), and have had nightmares in the past according to my wife, so when I watch programs about veterans I am emotionally more involved and usually in a more powerful way than a typical drama. It was a cathartic experience and a good cry for me. The film was very very interesting early on but all the different characters and a long playing time made me lose interest in spots. Watching it at home at my leisure was an added distraction.The moment that really impacted me was with John Neville's character using electro-shock in a tortuous way, very dramatic and hard to watch. I have no idea how accurate this film is (it doesn't seem very accurate with my perception of the early 1900's mental treatments, but maybe England was more advanced and war does advance medicine faster that peacetime does not), but it was a good watch for me. Great acting all around! Recommended for military drama fans, 9 of 10.
paul2001sw-1
Pat Barker's award-winning 'Regeneration' trilogy was inspired by the fact that a number of the celebrated poets of the Great War had spent time being treated in the same hospital for shell-shocked officers. Her stories of ill men being made fit to die again have a necessarily ironic, but limited, narrative trajectory, but the books offset this through the precise economy of their prose and their complete lack of sentimentality. In his film of 'Regeneration', Gillies McKinnon has been broadly faithful to the spirit of the novels, but has softened them slightly - the setting is now not Edinburgh, but a beautiful Scottish country house, and the soldiers are assigned a dignity and innocence not wholly convincing. The result is a little bland compared to the original, a tale of good men, whereas the books are simply a tale of men and all the stronger for it.
misty21
Pat Barker's novel was completly destroyed when they made this film, the film takes a thoughtful book and replaces it with a load of mindless crap!The film jumps around the sequence and events and adds things to the plot to make the film more emotive. The acting was awful especially the guy who played Sasson, one of the greatest war poets. However Jonny Lee Miller was good although his character lacked definition as they left so many vital scenes out.Although the film does try to bring to life Pat Barker's novel it fails in a miserable pile mud and if it were fighting in world war 1 then it be shot down or shelled before it took a step. The exgeration of why Sasson got his MC was appalling, i do not belive it possible to take a german trench single handedly, the film was just pure bolocks seeing as Sasson actually got his MC for saving life not taking life. The film seems to ignore the fact that Pat Barker has taken facts and woven them into a story. The facts are history and the film makers should have never changed them, Sasson and Owen, and Rivers for that matter, are national hero's who should not be sidelined by a film to make the story seem more exciting.
stamper
This film is not too bad. Although I did not enjoy most of the film too much, there were certain scenes which were definitely worth while. My favorite scenes were the war scenes, the scenes with Sassoon (especially the ones with poetry) and the last scene. As a result of this film, I must really urge you to read some of Sigfried Sassoons work and also some of Owen's. I read some in school and I found that some of their work is really fantastic.
6,5 out of 10
