Having watched the brilliant 'Price of Coal' I had high hopes for this his first feature film since the equally brilliant 'Kes' but unfortunately this is a long way from either of them. Loach's usual use of improvisation using non actors is wholly unconvincing here and comes across no better than an average school production. A good story might have helped but this is also not adapted well.

The plot is pretty interesting, it kept me in suspense for the entire film. It's essentially sweet tale that could turn tragic at any moment. All I really knew about this going in was that it was an inspiration for Moonrise Kingdom by Wes Anderson, though it's similar it's not all you think about while watching this.

It's a very good period peice as well, it never feels like people are from our current times pretending to be from the 1700's. Everything has a very authentic dirtiness to it, even the mansion of the rich family has a door with heavy wear marks on the handle. Its extremely real feeling.

The child acting as well in this film is so good you forget they're child actors. It's really mind blowing the acting level of everyone is equal theres no dumb and corny kid acting, it's very mature for such a young age.

If you're wondering whether or not you should watch it I'd say go for it. I really have to admit I'm suprised this film doesnt get more praise, it's very good.

We all know that in the years that the film is represented, people grew very fast and soon they had to be older. But in this movie is too. Apart from the headline this confused and leads you to expect things that do not happen. The whole movie I've been thinking that if they really thought we'd believe the script.

Spoiler:

It must be the dubbing, which is very bad, to the fullest of evils. But I'm sorry, I do not believe any characters except Louise Cooper, yes. But of course he could not be less and puts a few dialogues at times like when he tells Stephen Hirst that he wants nobody to believe them.

Does anyone believe the bribe sequences? Knowing above that at that time, a child would have been given two cakes and would have been thrown out of the house. When he comes back and asks for money and they bargain and give it to him. Only I have told myself, and you give it to him? And when he catches the house after killing the father. Does it help you? I must be very weird but I find the whole script incredible.

Why is the title so named? If it is a secondary role that does not paint anything. And it presents him as if it were to be very important. Of course, anyone would have jumped to see the dead rise. The boy does not clear, why? And it turns out that the boy paints us very responsible, but leaves his job and goes with the resurrected, well.

It turns out that the child who is proving to be very successful, but that yes, when he goes to look for the girl to the asylum, does not try and enter in any way, is going and will return, I do not understand.

I do not like photography, as is normal in Ken Loach, who always does it as if it were a video camera, as if it were a fake documentary. That's if there are false documentaries that go photograph have. And let's not say the address. He is a specialist director putting the camera a hundred meters from the action and leaving everything to the free choice of actors. I guess he thought that's the way to go. At least if there is something good, make-up, hairdresser and wardrobe.

Anyway during the whole movie I wondered if this movie was seriously shot or if they were laughing at all