Behind the Lines (1997) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
36 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
6/10
Mutilated film
Cosmoeticadotcom16 September 2008
Warning: Spoilers
In 1998 I saw a great war film that was lost in the glare of the nearly simultaneous American film releases of Terrence Malick's remake of The Thin Red Line- which is a great film, and Steven Spielberg's cliché and stereotype-dripping Saving Private Ryan. It was a 1997 Canadian and British film called Regeneration, directed by Gillies MacKinnon (who directed The Playboys, and Small Faces), based upon the famed book of the same title by British novelist Pat Barker. The screenplay was written by Allan Scott. There were a couple of differences between it and the other films; the first being that it was set during World War One, in 1917, while the other two took place during World War Two. The second was that Regeneration may have been the best film of the trio. In the years since, I have searched for the film on DVD, but it only was available in a Region 2 DVD format. Then, I recently found it online, released by Artisan DVD, for American audiences. The DVD is as bare bones as one can get- not a single bonus feature. But, even worse is the fact that it was released under a different, and far less compelling and more trite, title of Behind The Lines. Worse yet is the fact that this film is a bowdlerized, dumbed down version of the great film I remember seeing.

While I cannot pinpoint all the changes from the original film, the overall effect on me was not as great. Oh, it's still a good film, but the greatness has been lost due to the cutting out of some scenes entirely and the trimming of others- to get the nearly two hour original film down to 95 minutes, and re-editing the film into shorter scenes that are interspersed with each other, designed to appeal to a more MTV and video game mindset. Lost in the rush to appeal to typical American idiocy was most of a small romantic subplot, and extended scenes between two of the main characters, the War Poets Siegfried Sassoon (James Wilby) and Wilfred Owen (Stuart Bunce). One has to guess that if the film had too much poetry in it that the McDonald's fed masses would be turned off. Yet, the worst cut, for me, comes about two thirds into the film, where Dr. Rivers (Jonathan Pryce), head of the asylum- Craiglockhart War Hospital in Edinburgh, Scotland, where shell-shocked soldiers go for psychotherapy, goes to London, on R&R, to visit a colleague, Dr. Yealland (John Neville), who is using a very effective form of electroshock therapy to get soldiers suffering from mutism to speak again. All these years later it was that scene, above all others, which stood out in my memory. As a mute soldier is strapped down and about to be shocked for the first time, the camera cuts away from the soldier, and as his agonal screams ripple outward, one only sees the slightly winced reaction of the doctor. It's a brilliant cut and displays the director's command of his craft, for it's a) always better to imagine such horrors, and b) the doctor is the more important character. However, in the Americanized DVD version, all that is lost. We see a standard, even generic, editing job of pain, the doctor wincing, pain, the doctor hanging his head, etc. Thanks, my native land!

The film still has, however bowdlerized, more contemporary relevance than the other two films which drowned it out in 1998, if only because- given the current U.S. treatment of both its Prisoners Of War and veterans of the Iraq War, it shows how little supposedly 'civilized nations' have come in almost a century of warfare. It also touches on smaller aspects of the war, like mail censorship, which are never shown in war films, much less even discussed in many for a regarding warfare. While The film lacks the high tech graphics of its bigger budgeted cousins from 1998, the words of some of the poems, and the reactions of the soldiers say far more than mere 'shocking' images can, for words that are well chose can never inure their readers. Images, even great ones, can do just that through sheer repetition. That said, the best images in the film are not elaborate war scenes, but those designed to show the aftereffects of war on the human body and mind. As example, there is a young soldier who is a quivering wreck, wont to running naked through the woods and mutilating himself, because, we learn, he was thrown by a shell explosion, into the air and when he regained consciousness he was lying face down in the rotted corpse of a German soldier. Hearing what caused him to become so disturbed is more effective than showing his face inside a bloodied, rotting mass of flesh, for, as in the cut scene of Dr. Rivers turning away from the sight of electroshock therapy, what is imagined is always worse than what can be portrayed, for each individual will fill in the horror with their own fears, rather than having a fixed image in their minds.

The cinematography, by Glen MacPherson, is stunningly realistic yet beautiful- especially in the sepia-tinged, color leeched war sequences, but throughout the whole film, as well; and it works well with the simple and understated musical score. It is a stark reminder that, then and now, one need not have all the high tech big budget special effects wizardry of a Steven Spielberg film to leave far more haunting images- perhaps the most effective one left in this bowdlerized film is the opening of a pair of human eyes buried in mud, so that the whites burn with startling intensity up at the viewer. If only the American distributors had not so badly butchered this film, from the title on, the rest of the film would have retained the intensity of those eyes which held me through nearly a decade.
7 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
A touching movie! Excellent.
cosmiix2 November 2001
This was an excellent movie. Amazing photography and casting and an

intelligent scenario which passes messages about how horrific war is

to the audience in the mildest yet touching way I've seen.

The story involves a hospital in Scotland where officers are sent when

they suffer a breakdown, a common phenomenon in the first and second

world wars. In there, a doctor (played by Jonathan Pryce) attempts to

treat his patients in a more humane way than the one other doctors of

the time choose. Through the stories of characters in the hospital --

including Siegfried Sassoon and Wilfred Owen, two poets who happen to

meet and become friends in the hospital -- the life of the British

soldiers in the first World War, as well as several political messages

about that affecting era for humanity are successfully transmitted to

the audience, without blood, without effects or huge battle scenes in

a way that touches and indicates its significance more than any other

film I've seen about the subject.

The performances are excellent, with Johny Lee Miller -- who apart

from this movie has not shown any signs of serious acting that I've

seen -- delivering a very good performance of a shocked and ambitious

officer and Jonathan Pryce metaphorically accepting the ideas of

Sassoon -- who opposes to the war after a point where he realises its

futility and the lack of values in the politicians driving it -- can

be though as the link between the soldiers and humanity itself.

It is definitely a movie I would recommend! Excellent.
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Trench (and/or Trochaic) Feet
writers_reign10 August 2007
Warning: Spoilers
One can only applaud Production Companies who invest in films like this which hold nothing for the Multiplex set and not even that much for the Art House circuit but in which every single person involved both Above and Below the line gives a hundred and ten per cent. What we have is an excellent adaptation of an excellent novel concerned mainly with the work of a small hospital/asylum in Scotland during World War I in which, like M*A*S*H in a much later conflict the job of the medical staff was to patch up the (in this case mentally as opposed to physically) wounded so that they can return to the Front and have another shot at getting killed. This theme is sufficient in itself to sustain a novel/film but in this case we also explore the discussions of two patients, Sigreid Sassoon and Wilfrid Owen, whose poetry about the First World War still resonates today. It's difficult to imagine an actor who could play the lead, Dr. Rivers, more effectively than Jonathan Pryce but it is churlish to single him out when every actor is worthy of praise. In short this is one of the Biggest 'small' films around and well worthy of respect.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An excellent treatment of an inglorious war
emuir-122 June 2002
There are very few films glorifying the first world war, called the "Great War" by those who fought and lived through it. If anything, Hollywood has avoided the subject and left it to a few European filmmakers, for very good reason. For sheer carnage, nothing has surpassed it. The slaughter of very young men was truly appalling. One can only imagine the reaction today if 50,000 men were dying each month to hold or advance over 100 yards of desolate mud. I went to school in England where the walls of our classroom were covered with the photos of pupils who had died in the war. Mostly aged 17. It was not until much later that I realised why there were so many unmarried middle aged women around in the 50's, when the writer Dr. Phyllis Bentley explained that there was no one for them to marry. An entire generation of men had been wiped out.

Regeneration is a thoughtful anti-war film where the paradox of war is implied in a Scottish hospital for the treatment of shell shocked officers. The doctor has to get them well so they can be returned to the front lines, where they will more than likely be killed. The script is intelligent and the acting is superb. There are some allegorical scenes which do more to underscore the pigheaded arrogant mentality of the "establishment" which continued a war until quite simply, there was no one left to fight. Even sick men with TB were sent off to fight. Perhaps the saddest aspect of watching this film is when you realize that WWII began 21 years after the first once ended, just long enough for the new generation of soldiers to grow up.
38 out of 41 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Well crafted, under done, and over rated.
=G=23 February 2001
Shell shock, war neurosis, post-traumatic stress disorder, or whatever you want to call it is the principle issue in this film which focuses on a psychiatrist and two of his patients in a British War Hospital during WWI. Additionally, the film delves into the matter of war and it's age old paradox...why must we participate in something so universally offensive. The film, a polished and civilized production with fine talent, tends to spread itself too thin with flashbacks, a smattering of romance, some tangential male bonding, poetry, musings, reflections, etc. resulting in a luke warm examination of a powerfully compelling issue.
3 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Sensitive but softened
paul2001sw-19 April 2004
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.
2 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Solid film with interesting themes
The_Triad26 September 2006
Regeneration is a film about various WWI soldiers in a mental correction facility, including the WWI poets Siegfried Sassoon and Wilfred Owen. The film achieves a lot in terms of the scope of issues it manages to cover with each of the characters. Sassoon's character is used to question the authority of the men who operate the war effort and their aims, while the Billy Prior and Capt. Rivers characters are a study on how grief affects soldiers in different ways as well as several other important ideas. It may take a while to get into, (it did for me) this is because for the first part of the film I wasn't entirely sure where it was going to go, after a while though, the film takes over and becomes a very engaging experience. The acting was a bit patchy in places in my opinion, but other than that I couldn't find much about this film that wouldn't make it worth watching. Definitely recommended.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
"and half the seed of Europe, one by one"
jennifer-31913 January 2006
The film opens with a stunning tracking shot that reminded me of Tarkovsky; the technique is used again throughout the film to register the horror of war--the mud, the dead, and the shattered, flailing bodies. Most of the film, however, takes place in an insane asylum, far from the battlefield. Yes, the film is quite "talky," but the talk is very good, very intelligent, very thought-provoking. The film focuses on a number of relationships that develop--principally, the respectful but antagonistic "father-son" relationship between the famous war hero and poet Siegfried Sassoon (who has been sent to the insane asylum for penning an anti-war statement) and Dr. Rivers (whose mission is to get Sassoon to recant and back on the front lines). But other relationships are almost equally important--those between Dr. Rivers and an angry soldier named Billy Prior, between Prior and a local "munitionette," and between Sassoon and the man who would emerge, under his tutorship, as perhaps an even greater war poet, Wilfred Owen.

The drama is based on real events, and the performances are quite stunning. Above all, Jonathan Pryce as Dr. Rivers is simply incredible, a man torn between duty and compassion, a doctor on the verge of becoming a patient himself. In a just world, he would have won an Oscar (but hardly anyone, it seems, saw this film on initial release). The handsome James Wilby gives a very fine performance as Sassoon--in fact, I've never seen him in better form. Johnny Lee Miller perfectly embodies the edgy anger, angst, and shame of Billy Prior. And Stuart Bunce brings a remarkably gentle, otherworldly quality to his haunting portrayal of Wilfred Owen. You absolutely believe that this man has a poet's soul; but he finds his voice not by contemplating beauty but by contemplating supreme horror.

There are many scenes from this film I will never forget--particularly, Dr. Rivers' trip to see another doctor cure a patient of being mute by applying electricity directly to his teeth and larynx. This scene is horrifying and, yet, like the rest of the film, restrained, in part because of the way Pryce portrays Rivers' reactions. Another unforgettable scene is the abrupt, shattering ending--but I won't give that away. Suffice it to say that words, especially the words of a great poet, sometimes are more powerful than shocking images.

This is a very intelligent, moving, humane, and important film. What a shame that it has been so overlooked.
24 out of 25 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Good, occasionally
stamper25 December 2001
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
0 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Beautiful, wrenching picture of the effect of war on the human spirit.
Emily-9816 July 1999
For me, this film was, in a quiet, deeply felt way, much more powerful overall than "Saving Private Ryan," to which everyone seems to feel they must compare it (although regardless of one's opinion about their comparative merits, it is a false analogy in some ways because "Regeneration" is a WWI movie and addresses very different questions). While the first 20 minutes of "Saving Private Ryan" are stunning and their impact incredible, after that it becomes a rather disappointingly conventional war movie.

"Regeneration" is different. It is not with graphically real blood spilled, but rather with powerfully wrenching emotion and with poetry that this film drives home what war does to the men (and women) caught up in its sweep. The film's use of the poems of Siegfried Sassoon and Wilfred Owen is stunning, and while perhaps even more of their incredible poetry could have been employed in the film, the ones the filmmaker employs are carefully and perfectly chosen.

This is a war movie because its focus is on the war's destruction of men. But do not go into this film expecting the action of the battlefield to play out on the screen. There are a few scenes from the fields of France, powerful and well-placed in the film. And throughout the movie, you can just hear the dull thudding of shells, as if from a great distance - a striking reminder of how physical distance does not mean emotional distance. But if you are interested in the emotional impact those shells had, in an examination of the struggle to recover from that impact, (through poetry, through love, and through therapy), and in the moral questions raised by war, this is a stunning, deeply moving film you will not soon forget.
32 out of 35 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
A poignant, under-stated and moving film
LukeS11 August 1999
Regeneration treats its audience with respect. The dramatic denouement and characters are not simply laid bare for a popcorn-audience to mindlessly digest. The film unfolds, the scenarios develop, the characters live and breath the ugly reality of warfare. And this all happens in a natural, credible manner beautifully shot and paced by the under-rated Gillies McKinnon.

The opening aerial shot of the bloody consequences of battle are every bit the emotional and visceral equal of Spielberg's lauded 20-minute opening sequence in Saving Private Ryan. The rest of the film - in my opinion - surpasses Ryan as a whole in terms of its drama, poetry, anguish and thought.

The performances are outstanding. Jonathan Pryce's portrayal of Rivers falling apart at the seams as he adopts the neuroses and trauma of his patients is astonishing. Johnny Lee Miller is also excellent as the (initially) mute soldier, haunted by the brutality of a trench-attack. James Wilby's Siegfried Sassoon is perhaps the toughest role to play in the film and yet he surpasses any prior (or subsequent) performances with a characterisation that swings from harsh to likeable, strong to weak, right to wrong.

All of the numerous storylines are well constructed and followed to their natural conclusion. There are no false avenues; no bum notes; no waste.

The source material is beautifully adapted for the film (by the rare breed of writer-producer, Allan Scott), losing none of its pace or characterisation. The emotional weight so prominent in Barker's novel are perfectly transferred into the movie. How wonderful for a modern film to have non-stereotypical, imperfect lead characters and lack easy conclusions. How beautifully evoked is the friendship between Sassoon and Owen. There is no sacharine sentiment in this movie; nor artificial shock to induce pity; nor a wasted scene or moment of dialogue. Equally, the period look of the film is stunning. Filmed in Scotland, the vistas are beautifully bleak and wintry. The atmosphere of the First World War is all too frighteningly real.

The music, whilst beautiful, is perfectly restrained. Harking back to the films of the seventies, long moments of silence pervade Regeneration. How did things go so badly wrong in the last twenty years in this respect?

Regeneration achieves the very rare distinction of matching (if not surpassing) the beautiful and moving novel on which it is based. Thoughtful film-goers should treat themselves to this wonderful and intelligent film.
25 out of 27 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Somewhat Stagey And Melodramatic
Theo Robertson4 April 2004
War is hell and in many ways " The Great War " has had an effect on the British psyche not a million miles removed from the way Jews see the holocaust . It killed British idealism and has made the Brits Euro-phobic or at least Eurosceptic which is a testament to the years 1914 to 1918 .

Indeed war is hell but unfortunately Gilles MacKinnon does the impossible and overstates the horrors of the conflict . " Overstates ! How is that possible Theo ? " . Look at the bizarre opening when young British soldiers wail like banshees amongst dead German counterparts as the camera comes to stop on a couple of Tommies having a brew . Are we in a British trench ? If so then why aren`t the stretcher bearers rushing to help the screaming troops ? Are we in no mans land ? If so how can British soldiers brew tea without the fear of German snipers ? Do you see the point I`m making ? The director ignores logic by painting grotesque pictures as to the horrors of war . War is hell but any movie director overstating the case does the dead a disservice , an image is only haunting if it makes sense and this kind of juxtaposition does not make sense

I didn`t like REGENERATION , it`s stagey , melodramatic , too talkey and I`m at a loss if the director , screenwriter or author of the original novel should be blamed . I`m also at a loss to explain blatent homo erotic overtones in movies featuring the first world war , REGENERATION is full of them as was the later British film THE TRENCH

If you want a taste of the conflict that killed British idealism I recommend you ignore REGENERATION ( And THE TRENCH ) and watch the 1960s BBC documentary THE GREAT WAR
3 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
A Heart-wrenchingly Different War Film
lasherxl17 December 2001
Regeneration is an amazing film, it discusses the unseen wounds left on soldiers by war. The emotional trauma it causes them and how best we can help them, if we can at all.

James Wilby gives a remarkable performance as an officer who is sickened by the war that he sees around him. He isn't so much mentally ill as disgusted with war and his contribution in it. Jonny Lee Miller is also amazing in his portrayal of an officer driven mute. When he discovers his voice he is angry and argumentative, but slowly we discover that all of his anger is a shell to protect the hurt that has built up inside of him.

One of the biggest underlying themes in this film is how useless war is, even if it is for the right cause. Mainly because it destroys the human psyche and removes hope.

This is a startling film, and touching and emotional. It cuts to the core of who we all are, as human beings.
18 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
A talky but thought provoking and original angle on War
Jasper-189 August 1999
Beginning with a fluid bird-eye-view shot tracking across the corpse-strewn muddy trenches of First World War Northern France, we are introduced to the character of the real-life war-poet Siegfried Sassoon (James Wilby), as he is shipped home and placed in Craiglockhart, a castle in Scotland being used as a military-run psychiatric hospital for soldiers suffering from war-neuroses. Sassoon's particular neurosis is little more than a conscious objection to the direction in which the war has turned in it's latter stages (1917), bringing him into conflict with the British military establishment (who had previously awarded him a Military Cross for bravery), and in particular psychiatrist Dr William Rivers (the ever reliable Jonathan Pryce), who is charged with the task of treating the various traumatised soldiers under his domain.

Taking a rather different approach from the 'war-is-hell' mass-entertainment spectacle of Spielberg's recent 'Saving Private Ryan' and Terence Malick's elliptical 'The Thin Red Line' (both made in 1998), 'Regeneration' evades easy solutions and focuses on the psychological horrors of war in a more low-key and balanced manner. The horrific battle scenes are largely eluded to in flashback, invoked during the well-meaning Pryce's therapy sessions, which utilise the entire arsenal of early Freudian psychotherapy, from dream-analysis to hypnotism as well as more quirky techniques such as putting shell-shocked officers in charge of troops of boy scouts in order to help them regain confidence in their leadership abilities. The central perplexity here is that the soldiers are being cured with the intention of sending them straight back to the front line.

With this and his following film, 'Hideous Kinky', Gillies MacKinnon is emerging as one of the most thought-provoking and technically accomplished British directors working at the moment, adopting an expressionistic cinematic style here which utilises the dark forbidding milieu of the hospital and the surrounding bleak, autumnal countryside to full claustrophobic effect. There are problems here, in the way that the script concentrates on a number of patients, including an angst-ridden Jonny Lee Miller (in his first post-Trainspotting role) who begins the film mute, without fully exploring the relationships between them, but it successfully establishes itself within a convincing historical context whilst challenging the proposition that Britain was united in its conviction to the First World War (of particular relevance today, given our involvement in the bombings of Kosovo and Iraq). Whilst not immediately accessible, it is a film that demands and rewards the closest of attention, and bodes well for future films from the director. Based on the 'Regeneration' trilogy of novels by Pat Barker.
15 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
An outstanding war film, that in my opinion is better than the book.
TheLittleSongbird3 June 2009
The book by Pat Barker (which I read as part of my present AS Level English literature course) is a very good one, very poignant at times,but there are some chapters that get a bit wordy and it gets quite complicated. In my opinion, I think the film Regeneration is outstanding, with wonderful performances, and fairly true to the book. True, Burns' encounter with the animals was done at the beginning, in alternative to halfway through the first part of the book, but either way, it would have had a big effect on me, and I thought personally that scene was a lot more disturbing in the film. The music is sensitive and very beautiful, and the direction is nothing short of solid. The cinematography is absolutely fabulous, and very realistic. Regeneration offers a different perspective of war, instead of the horrific realities conveyed in poems from Owen and Sassoon (referenced in the film), and in books like Birdsong, Regeneration concentrates on the mental and psychological effects on the soldiers sent to Craiglockhart. The result is a sometimes moving but always thought provoking account of the first world war. The performances were brilliant, especially Jonathan Pryce as the methodical but fairly sensitive Rivers. Also impressive was Johnny Lee Miller as Prior, and James Wilby as Sassoon, creating very harsh but somewhat likable characters. The exploration of other themes like role of women and politics were well developed but never interfered with the true focus of the film. All in all, a moving, intelligent and thoughtful account of the first world war, not only inferring the harsh realities but also conveying the physical, mental and spiritual consequences of the soldiers. 10/10 Bethany Cox.
8 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Brilliant
Caz196417 November 2005
I watched this film last night,i thought it should have been on earlier,ma-by 9 o clock instead of 11.15pm as it was a lot better than films they usually show at that time on a week day.It was a very moving film with some brilliant acting,and the story is actually based on fact,as Sigfried sassoon did meet Wilfred Owen in a hospital for shell shocked officers.The rest of the film is fiction.The film makes a point in saying that only the officers got this privilege of being aloud rest when they suffered battle fatigue,the lesser ranks had to carry on until close insanity before they were discharged as sick. My own grandfather was one of these. He carried on having fits into the 1930s which led to his death from a bad fall in 1935 aged only 36,these were the other casualties of ww1. The British army did not want to recognise shell-shock and was totally unprepared for it.This film portrayed a very important part of history which unfortunately is almost forgotten,i found the film to be a very moving tribute to all those who fought and died in it.
5 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
good mobie, though a bit OOC I think
youkashiYokosuka2 August 2021
Good mobie, though not as staggering as other war movies, and a bit OOC I think.
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Noteworthy
Arkaan11 March 2000
This is a vastly underrated Canadian film that deserved more recognition. Is this a conventional war film? No, not at all.

The opening scenes are done quite like a painting. They are very impressive, and the overhead shots are simply majestic. The story, however, is set in a mental institution, where Doctor Rivers (played with brilliance by Jonathan Pryce) is set on 'curing' the shell-shocked patients. There are three that the movie focuses on in particular: Siegfried Sassoon, Wilfred Owen, and Billy Prior, respectively played by James Wilby, Stuart Bunce, and Johnny Lee Miller.

Previous comments have compared this film to Saving Private Ryan, yet there are several marked differences between the two. Ignoring the fact that they are set in two different wars, Saving Private Ryan examines the idea of heroism on the field, while Regeneration takes look on how war effects men psychologically.

Certainly a worthy look, and a fine addition to any film collection.
8 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Exquisite
Eryn19 December 1999
A far greater film than Saving Private Ryan, that understands that war, to its combatants, isn't about flag-waving, or what Wilfred Owen himself termed "some desperate glory". Wonderful performances and a script which thinks about its subject, and provides few answers, which tends to make for the best kind of storytelling, the sort that lingers with you the next day, and the next.

One should see this movie if only for the moment when one patient says to the psychiatrist, about the trauma of having his head engulfed by the decaying flesh of a German corpse when it fell on him in a mortar attack, "The worst thing is, it's now a joke."

For the watcher, it most certainly is not, and that is why everyone should rent Regeneration.
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
A Look at the Plight of the Soldier in All Wars
nturner9 November 2008
Regeneration tells the story of the hospitalization during World War I of English poet, Siegfried Sassoon. It seems he was committed to a facility treating victims of shell-shock because he made the following statement about the war:

"I am making this statement as an act of wilful defiance of military authority, because I believe that the War is being deliberately prolonged by those who have the power to end it. I am a soldier, convinced that I am acting on behalf of soldiers. I believe that this War, on which I entered as a war of defence and liberation, has now become a war of aggression and conquest. I believe that the purpose for which I and my fellow soldiers entered upon this war should have been so clearly stated as to have made it impossible to change them, and that, had this been done, the objects which actuated us would now be attainable by negotiation. I have seen and endured the sufferings of the troops, and I can no longer be a party to prolong these sufferings for ends which I believe to be evil and unjust. I am not protesting against the conduct of the war, but against the political errors and insincerities for which the fighting men are being sacrificed. On behalf of those who are suffering now I make this protest against the deception which is being practised on them; also I believe that I may help to destroy the callous complacency with which the majority of those at home regard the contrivance of agonies which they do not, and which they have not sufficient imagination to realize".

Due to the influence of fellow poet, Robert Graves, Sassoon was confined to the hospital rather than being confined to prison.

The film opens with this statement after having panned from above the scenes of death in the mud so familiar to soldiers in that especially bloody war. I was struck that the statement could have been easily made by any soldier honorably serving today in the Middle East.

Even though the film is based upon a work of fiction, three of four main characters were real people - Sassoon; young writer, Wilfred Owen; and anthropologist, William Halse Rivers who did extensive work with victims of the mental trauma of war. Owen died in the war in 1918 at the age of twenty-five. Halse died in 1922 at the age of fifty-eight. Sassoon lived until 1967, dying at the ripe old age of eighty-one.

The film is expertly produced giving insight into the view of soldiers who are emotionally devastated by war as well as those treating them. Keep in mind that the general attitude was that any treatment should lead to the soldier returning to the battlefields. Halse is more sympathetic to the trials of these soldiers, but it is his aim to return them to be killed - or survive with a little luck. The battle scenes are somewhat dreamlike as most take place in the minds of the patients. Even with their grim subject, they are beautifully done.

This is not a happy film. Its subject prevents that. It is, however, a production with fine acting, authentic locations, and a script that causes you to think about the plight of the soldier in all wars at all times. It caused great sadness in me knowing that I will die thinking that mankind will never find a solution to sending young men out to be slaughtered in the name of politics or religion just as those who have died hundreds of years before me have thought. Do you suppose that people - at sometime in the future - will die knowing that political and religious differences are always settled without the spilling of blood?
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Quiet, powerful film
Fortyish8 September 1998
I liked this much better than Saving Private Ryan. It seems simpler and more focused, and very powerful. The quietness of the setting makes the horror of war (WWI) even more intense. This movie makes you understand why WWI changed completely the way that people thought.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Reasonably faithful rendition of a classic book
fisherd-224 April 2000
When a film is made of a classic book like this one, it has to satisfy two sets of viewers - those who have read the book and want to see it faithfully rendered on screen, and those who want to see an entertaining film. It is seldom easy to do both, but this film makes a valiant attempt. It is true to the original in spirit, and makes use of Pat Barker's excellent dialogues and one-to-one scenes. Criticisms of it as "talky" are difficult to justify, because to include lengthy action sequences that play no part in the book would clearly alter the nature of the story.

My main criticism would be that the Rivers character comes across as lacking in professionalism rather than simply sensitive to his patients. The scene where he quarrels openly with Sassoon in the dining room is not only unlikely but untrue to the book. The Prior sub-plot is also grossly simplified and his affair with the munitionette is made to appear more innocent than it is. This is inevitable in a dramatisation, and the oblique references to the future development of the character are probably a mistake, as they will mean nothing to those who have not read the book.

I particularly like the musical score, which adds to the atmosphere without distracting the viewer.
7 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
The Trenches....as they truly were
rea3-223 April 1999
The trench scenes at the beginning of this film are absolutely shattering. One overhead shot pans a deathscape that cannot ever be forgotten, and can only be compared to Otto Dix's triptych painting "War" (contemporary to the events portrayed in this film). In fact, the most frightening object in the scene, is the last survivor; gibbering and mad amid the shattered bodies of comrade and enemy alike. Masterful and understated acting technique all around. The fatality of this film is not unlike a Greek tragedy in its development and tempo. That poetic creation could have have sprung from the filth of the battlefield is a testament to the tenacity of the Human Spirit, and the Owen - Sassoon relationship gives a glimpse into their respective psyches and ideals. Harrowing and penetrating. A must see film, that, unfortunately, may be forgotten all too soon.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Dark and powerful
rps-212 May 2009
A stupendous film that quietly captures the futility, the absurdity, the grimness and the desperation of the third year of World War I. The acting is low key. Everything is shot in brownish tones that evoke the era. Even the weather is bleak. The general mood and tone of the film is all enveloping. The settings, the costumes and the props all seem accurate. Everything comes to-gether beautifully. In actual fact, I do not believe that the mental health of British troops was treated as compassionately i n the first war as this film portrays. Shell shock was usually dismissed as LMF (Lack of moral fiber.) No matter. It is still a gripping, powerful film with the same appeal a thoughtful stage play on the same subject might convey.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
"the war story no one ever told you"
jules-3823 September 1998
this movie takes war from three different perspective of three different men in different positions in the war and their coping methods. there is no main protagonist, therefore no hero, and we see three different ends to a horrible reality. the story is told wonderfully, with imaginative shots moving between real-time and remembrance. the only failing is the end, when the characters find their "redemption", but one man makes a choice that seems to conflict with his character...perhaps just to satisfy the need for a romantic conclusion, where a man forgets himself in the arms of a woman. beautiful and surprisingly original otherwise.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed