graestella The amount of cigarettes smoked in this film reached ludicrous proportions. Despite wartime rationing there seemed to be continually one on the go with every character, apart from the babies. it was so silly after the first hour or so I began to laugh out loud. Was the film funded by Imperial Tobacco or Forest ? If it was the BBC must be held to account.Did concerts really take place in bomb shelters ? Did soldiers really take Sten Guns and grenades and live ammo home on leave ? Did British women really wear trilby hats ? This looked like 21st Century boho chic, not the 1940's. The scene were the paratroopers jumped out of the Dakota with the Stens in their hands was really silly. They would have lost them in the slipstream. Also I'm sure no one actually appeared to be wearing a parachute.Without the crypto lesbian stuff this film would have had no interest at all. Even with it there was next to none. It seemed added to add tabloid prurience to an otherwise deathly dull film. The acting was actually quite good. It just seemed that the script was total pants from start to finish. I actually felt sorry for the cast by the end who all deserved better than this.

toria555 To really enjoy this movie, I feel it's important to know that MOST, not all, of the events of this movie are real events. Dylan Thomas is a famous poet, most known for "Do Not Go Gentle Into that Good Night". The people are real people, however parts of their "relationships" are not known for sure. When I first watched this movie, I had no idea about any of this, I watched it a second time after researching some of it and it gave me a greater respect for the film. The actors in the movie were great, the script could've used some work though. I would suggest Googling the names Dylan Thomas and William Killick after seeing the moving. You can see some good articles about some of the real events that did happen and are shown or hinted at in the movie, but again I would do that AFTER you watch the movie or you will spoil some of the surprises for yourself. Good Luck!

ceche When you think of a "menage à trois", this film is certainly not the first to come in mind: the story itself, revolving around the close friendship between Caitlin MacNamara (Sienna Miller) and Vera Phillips (Keira Knightley), respectively wife and former (?) lover of Welsh poet Dylan Thomas (Matthew Rhys), however true, is irrelevant when taking into consideration the strong points of this film. The film acquires pace and intensity only halfway through, when Vera's husband, William Killick (Cillian Murphy), returns after having fought in World War II and has to come to terms with the horrible trauma he suffered while feeling that no one around him is capable of understanding such pain. Consequently, Vera is devastated by the radical change her husband has undergone and becomes obsessed with his recovery, whilst burying her frustration by being a model mother; on the other hand, Caitlin's dissatisfaction resolves in more and more frequent extra-marital affairs and Dylan dives deeper into his art, forgetting about everything else. By a cruel joke of fate, the only genuinely normal relationship seems to be the one between the two women, falling together in the abyss of incommunicability which separates them from their respective husbands. The actors are all at their best, perfectly conveying the sense of irreparable defeat which drives the characters to such extreme behaviours, and it's not merely coincidental that the predominant colors of the various settings are grey, brown and a dull green, as if to point out the road to perdition the characters are treading along. The finale, which of course I won't reveal, brings forward a question: Can we allow the very same love that made us atone for its sins to lift us back up on our feet? What is the nature of this love? I don't presume to reply, nor shall I dwell on the significance of the word "edge", which can assume a variety of shades, all present, depending upon the undertone one chooses to attribute to it.

tedg I'm increasingly aware of two kinds of ordinary narrative. One is simple storytelling. However well done it is, the point is to display a life changed without changing that of the viewer. Another is a powerfully constructed machine designed to fundamentally touch the viewer. It depends both on real shared passion on both sides (maker and viewer) and sharp design.Projects like this try to bridge the profound gap between them. The story itself is linear and uncomplicated. The camera and method are invisible as usual for these. But the subject is a great artist. You surely know he is by his or her fame and in some cases you will have been touched by that artist outside of the story.The power of your experience (or what you imagine could be) is inherited -- or hoped to be.Inetrestingly, I compare this movie to "Nora" and the comparison is striking because the two writers Dylan and Joyce stand rather like the two kinds of movies. Which is most powerful depends on the size of your table, appetite and hunger.I thought "Nora" was far better because it understood better the notion of body and poetry, sex and powerful writing. Women as the sea, as more than a drink but something you immerse in.There is an effective scene here directly addressing the embodied poem and the body itself. And then birth and war. Clear, obvious unaffecting."Nora" on the other hand had a much deeper scene along these lines that I will never forget. It is simply Nora having breakfast and her robe falling open when it shouldn't matter. Because it is Joyce, it burns.Ted's Evaluation -- 1 of 3: You can find something better to do with this part of your life.