Rating: 
Summary: a beautiful adaptation of the great novel...
Review: ...but why does the american film industry feel the need to change the titles of films. this film is called "regeneration". that it has mutated into "behind the lines" in the united states is ridiculous. that film companies will do anything to the "product" in order to secure an audience means that they will sacrifice anything about the film. the title "regeneration" is an important feature of the story of this book. it is NOT a film about being "behind the lines" (we are rarely behind the lines in this film) but about, as wilfred own put it so well, the pity of war. to make it sound like some gung-ho action movie is to do it an injustice. the director takes barker's orginal narrative - suffering, torment, passificism, objection to war, homoeroticism, class conflict - and turns it into a good depiction. it cannot repressent the book but it repressents something of its own. it is well worth watching for that reason.
Rating:
Summary: a beautiful adaptation of the great novel...
Review: ...but why does the american film industry feel the need to change the titles of films. this film is called "regeneration". that it has mutated into "behind the lines" in the united states is ridiculous. that film companies will do anything to the "product" in order to secure an audience means that they will sacrifice anything about the film. the title "regeneration" is an important feature of the story of this book. it is NOT a film about being "behind the lines" (we are rarely behind the lines in this film) but about, as wilfred own put it so well, the pity of war. to make it sound like some gung-ho action movie is to do it an injustice. the director takes barker's orginal narrative - suffering, torment, passificism, objection to war, homoeroticism, class conflict - and turns it into a good depiction. it cannot repressent the book but it repressents something of its own. it is well worth watching for that reason.
Rating:
Summary: A great film adaptation
Review: BEHIND THE LINES is a film adaptation of the first volume of Pat Barker's excellent Regeneration trilogy. I was anxious to watch this DVD since I finished reading this book last week, but I had some reservations since film adaptations are often less than par. However, shortly after pressing the play button I was reassured that this DVD did the book a great justice. The directors did a phenomenal job in re-creating the atmosphere of the suffering of the soldiers and the horrific psychological consequences of trench fighting. BEHIND THE LINES follows a group of officers suffering from shell shock who are treated at Craiglockhart War Hospital outside Edinburgh. There is no doubt that what these soldiers experience can disturb even the most strong-minded individual today. The principle psychiatrist is Dr. Rivers, who suffered from his own personal demons and war symptoms. He created strong friendships with many of his patients and cared dearly for their well being. Rivers is a complex, nuanced character. While he portrays an exterior of believing in the War, he holds an internal debate of the War's philosophical warrants. As stated by a previous reviewer, the original title of this film is Regeneration *not* Behind the Lines. I have no idea why the title was changed when it was released in the United States because the current title doesn't make any sense. Another complaint is that there is a lack of any special features on this DVD. It would have been marvelous to watch a director commentary or behind the scenes footage. It's unfortunate that this is a bare bones DVD. Regardless of these two negative aspects, BEHIND THE LINES is a wonderful and deeply moving film of British soldiers suffering from shell shock during the Great War. Read Pat Barker's Regeneration trilogy and watch this film. Both are highly recommended.
Rating: 
Summary: Well-acted drama presumes too much to itself ...
Review: BEHIND THE LINES, in my estimate, fails to be the powerful commentary on war it aspires to be. Jonathan Price is excellent as the Military Psychiatrist whose duty is to return men to battle. James Wilby is fine as accomplished war hero-poet who comes to self-illumination: war may not be so "dulcet" (sweet/fitting) a path to manhood nor glorious in yielding a "sacramental" death. It's not that the film is hackneyed in exploring these themes. Rather it is too careful and overly "refined". Opening scenes move viewers through Heironymous Bosch-like images of front line horror and chaos. These are effective in IMPLYING the brutally scarred, mental landscapes dominating soldiers' minds. Yet this powerful beginning is squandered. Radical questions of duty, honor and sheer survival are treated like geometry problems rather than spiritual and emotional wounds in REALITY. The fact that the most powerful sequence in the film presents men being tortured (by a stimulus-response fanatic employing SHOCK THERAPY)into "moral" acquiescence as prerequisite for return to war is unnecessary coercion on the part of Director Mackinnon. He seems to finally realize that an abstract "poem-film" won't work. At least it didn't for me. Existential "crisis" films frequently employ irony, understatement and even boredom to comment on the human conditon. But WWI was one of the most useless wars fought in recorded history (in any Tradition). The one-in-four LOST GENERATION DEATH toll is not a story that does well in drawing-rooms of psychiatric hospitals or tea time T-groups. BEHIND THE LINES Director Mackinnon hedges his bets and makes a clever art film...forgetting(since he has chosen NOT to be entertaining)that war is humanity's frontal assault on itself. Being dulcet( the way the film often affects its own emotional terrain)is deceptive if not false. Therefore,in its own terms, mediocre as art...
Rating: 
Summary: Good film, deals efficiently with WW1's secondary effects
Review: First of all (in response to many previous reviews), "Behind the Lines" is a perfectly suitable title for this movie. It directly and accurately conveys the film's focus - literally, on what went on in one particular institution "Behind the lines" during WW1. Being in a military mental hospital certainly qualifies as being behind the lines. Maybe some are reading "behind enemy lines"? Otherwise there is NO reason for confusion here. To think "behind the lines" implies an action movie is silly. If anything it implies detachment from the action. As for the film, this is a responsible analysis of the effects of trench warfare. Some mute soldiers are treated brutally with electro-shock therapy, but Dr. Rivers takes a more humane approach, all the while questioning his work - is he simply sending soldiers back to die, and is that really noble? Overall, not terribly exciting, but certianly effective and historical (Owens and Sassoon are principles). A good film.
Rating:
Summary: Good film, deals efficiently with WW1's secondary effects
Review: First of all (in response to many previous reviews), "Behind the Lines" is a perfectly suitable title for this movie. It directly and accurately conveys the film's focus - literally, on what went on in one particular institution "Behind the lines" during WW1. Being in a military mental hospital certainly qualifies as being behind the lines. Maybe some are reading "behind enemy lines"? Otherwise there is NO reason for confusion here. To think "behind the lines" implies an action movie is silly. If anything it implies detachment from the action. As for the film, this is a responsible analysis of the effects of trench warfare. Some mute soldiers are treated brutally with electro-shock therapy, but Dr. Rivers takes a more humane approach, all the while questioning his work - is he simply sending soldiers back to die, and is that really noble? Overall, not terribly exciting, but certianly effective and historical (Owens and Sassoon are principles). A good film.
Rating:
Summary: Far, Far Away the Thudding Guns [Regeneration]
Review: Good grief, I finally found a US edition of this film so I can buy it. Can't the original title be put in brackets or something beside the 'nouveau' so you at least find it?! The philistine who came up with the new title didn't even bother to look at a Sassoon or Owens poem, obviously. My suggested title above (which admittedly may be no better as a film title) is from a Sassoon poem and I picked it more or less at random on the first page I opened in my anthology. The film did manage to get across the awful (British) Imperial jingoism without ramming it down our throats more or less exclusively. The experiences that caused such acute suffering as displayed by the inmates of Craiglockhard were presented well, as was the personal humiliation of succumbing to mental illness or "shell-shock". Less successful however, was the treatment of the worst thing a soldier can do: failing to act with stoicism and diffidence. (Sassoon for example, developed an intense hatred for civilians as a result of this fairytale "let's all pretend we're having a lovely time in Flanders because that's what they want to hear at home, and we can't go upsetting the ladies, now can we, lads?", that at least outlasted the war.) This was a well-scripted, well-acted,thoughtful and thought-provoking film. This is not a standard "tear-jerker" but if it does not make you shed a tear of sorrow and rage then you must have been multi-tasking. This film actually rekindled a schoolgirl interest in the history of the First World War and in the extraordinary change in and range of poetry resulting from the experience of those in the foul trenches of France and Flanders.
Rating:
Summary: Far, Far Away the Thudding Guns [Regeneration]
Review: Good grief, I finally found a US edition of this film so I can buy it. Can't the original title be put in brackets or something beside the 'nouveau' so you at least find it?! The philistine who came up with the new title didn't even bother to look at a Sassoon or Owens poem, obviously. My suggested title above (which admittedly may be no better as a film title) is from a Sassoon poem and I picked it more or less at random on the first page I opened in my anthology. The film did manage to get across the awful (British) Imperial jingoism without ramming it down our throats more or less exclusively. The experiences that caused such acute suffering as displayed by the inmates of Craiglockhard were presented well, as was the personal humiliation of succumbing to mental illness or "shell-shock". Less successful however, was the treatment of the worst thing a soldier can do: failing to act with stoicism and diffidence. (Sassoon for example, developed an intense hatred for civilians as a result of this fairytale "let's all pretend we're having a lovely time in Flanders because that's what they want to hear at home, and we can't go upsetting the ladies, now can we, lads?", that at least outlasted the war.) This was a well-scripted, well-acted,thoughtful and thought-provoking film. This is not a standard "tear-jerker" but if it does not make you shed a tear of sorrow and rage then you must have been multi-tasking. This film actually rekindled a schoolgirl interest in the history of the First World War and in the extraordinary change in and range of poetry resulting from the experience of those in the foul trenches of France and Flanders.
Rating:
Summary: Looking into the minds of the Great War poets.
Review: I understand the lament of some reviewers as to this film's name change from _Regeneration_ to _Behind the Lines_. The "lines" to which the title refers are not the battle lines, but the lines of poetry (and prose) of several of the film's key historical figures. (Mostly Owen and Sassoon, but Robert Graves also makes an appearance.) It is actually a very appropriate title if we understand it as investigating the cataclysm through which these authors forged their art.
This is an excellent film for anyone who wants to understand the profound psychological change the Great War imposed upon the men of this generation. It is also a good jumping-off point for a discussion of the War Poets in any history or lit class.
Rating:
Summary: Excellent adaptation
Review: Pat Barker's "Regeneration" brought to the screen with such care; it's like a miracle when a great book is duplicated by a screenwriter. The only thing I didn't like about the film [and the words, "didn't like" are really too strong] was Jonny Lee Miller as Prior; and that's strictly personal because he just didn't LOOK like my idea of Prior. I picture Prior as fair; resembling Jude Law possibly. Also, the way Prior is presented here, you really didn't get the hint, as you do in Regeneration, that Prior is "one of those" as his roommate says! But to be fair, THAT was actually developed in the other two books in the trilogy...I suppose I was not distant enough from the books to totally appreciate this film on its own merits, although I do think it's excellent. The opening overhead shot of a field of battle, AFTER a battle, is just astounding.
Why didn't this movie get more attention in America when it was released??!! Jonathan Pryce's performance is definitely Oscar caliber.
| 
