I grew up in Britian where I knew many Nigerians, many of whom were doctors, lawyers and other professionals, and I remember the Nigerian Civil War over the secession of Biafra with the news media showing footage of starving people. I knew that Nigeria was one of the richest countries in Africa, with a large population, oil reserves, that the Igbo people of Nigeria were one of several ethnic groups and tended to be Christian, better educated and thus held most of the positions of power, to the resentment of the others, mainly the conservative Muslims in the North. I knew that the population of Nigeria was composed of many, many different tribes with different beliefs, and that as they did in the Middle East after WWI, the British had lumped them all together as one country regardless of ethnic and tribal differences. I could also name and locate several of the cities. Other than that, I had little idea of what Nigeria looks like, how the people live, what their homes are like. This film at least gave me some idea of what the country was like in the 60's, and for that reason I enjoyed seeing something fresh and different.I found the film did not really address the civil war, the genocide, the famine and the religious strife other than barely touching on the subjects. Two million Igbo died in massacres and from starvation. We saw a young soldier killed at the airport after revealing that he was a Christian, but it was not made clear that their religion was one of the things held against the Igbo. The war continued for four years, and was partially prolonged by the western powers and Russia selling arms to both sides while Britain and Russia supported the Nigerian government. France supported Biafra. Once again a proxy war. the survivors continued to be persecuted after they returned to their homes, which had been taken over by others, as were their jobs. They were not reinstated nor were they compensated. Even their savings in banks were lost to devaluation and replacement of the currency, preventing them from starting over. I did have trouble keeping up with the characters and felt that some of the actors had very little to work with, Richard Churchill for example. Joseph Mawle is a fine actor, yet his character was as insipid as bowl of jello. The other actors were Nigerian, of Nigerian descent, or in the case of Thandi Newton, half Kenyan, which made for greater authenticity. Both Chiwetel Ejiofor and John Boyega are British born Nigerians.For an adaptation of a book, a film has too short a time. As other reviewers have pointed out, it would have been better as a mini series, then the time spent on the twins love life and their fiances' infidelities would not have appeared to dominate the story. Perhaps the war was intended to be merely a background to the romantic angle, but I felt we needed to see more of the war and the sufferings of the Igbo people. But that is just my opinion. It was refreshing to see a film set in Africa which was about the African people of today rather than the great white hunter and the colonial era. I have not read the book, but I will do so after seeing this film.

This is a disappointing film...and I DIDN'T read the book. But while watching it I paused the film and read about Biafra and the Nigerian civil war. This film almost poses that terribly bloody conflict as a severe inconvenience, and as such does it no justice. So that is strike 1.One interesting factor of the film is that it was one of the 2 films of John Boyega's that he made just before he became a shooting star in Star Wars. However, although you see him throughout the film, his lines are limited, so you get no real idea of what kind of actor he was then.Another interesting factor was Chiwetel Ejiofor, who is -- although I can't explain why -- a very interesting actor. There's just something different about him.The other actors do their jobs, but I didn't find any of the performers noteworthy, including Thandie Newton, who is the film's lead. I saw it as a rather flat performance.If I had it to do over again, I'd skip over this film, although I have an idea that under other direction it could have been very good.

This movie is one that captured and then diminished my interest,but then captured it again. I have seen many movies that aim to depict the struggle of a people. Often they are tainted by Hollywood-style productions, which tend to dilute the emotional power they would otherwise have.Unfortunately, there was some of this here. However. Perhaps the majority of its viewers are fully aware of the tragic history of Nigeria in this era, including the formation of Biafra and the horrors in the aftermath of independence. For those who are, I would imagine that the telling of the story would be as gratefully appreciated as would food to the hungry. We in the west have not been graced with most of that history, because, unlike the Middle East and Eastern Europe, it has not been deemed relevant to our historical consciousness. So you might say that rating this movie could be guided by the need for bread, rather than the quest for bon-bons. I do not think the acting was bad, though it was not great. The level of trauma endured by those in the focus of the movie ( both the citizens generally and the main characters) puts in perspective what first world people have difficulty grasping, and lends insight into the reality that within every crisis there are still choices of conduct, and how these matter. I would have liked more linking of the role of the U.S. and Europe, specifically England, to the misfortunes of Nigeria- perhaps that was beyond the movie's scope. The footage in any case showed the cold, calculating mentality of the Royal Family as well as the English media in their involvement.The debate within political circles, and especially around the issue of 'the revolutionary', casts light on how misplaced optimism is so easily generated when change is desired. The ending, an update on the lives of the family,saved the viewers from the final insult of these lives being entirely frustrated by the debacle. Maybe that's a sentimental observation, but that's how it felt to me. I have seen Nigerian films that are nothing but soap operas, though even these have their merits, despite the protests of the high art crowd. I have seen movies such as 'Missing' by the noted director Costa-Gavras, that did not measurably exceed this in transcending Hollywood to tell an important story. So, you might say that this is a promising start for a new director. As an aside, and in conclusion, the name Nigeria comes up in a spell check, but not Biafra.

I am currently studying the book for my literature program, so I thought I would watch the movie just to visualize things and unfortunately I wish I had not done that because now I cannot unsee it Olanna is described as a bit curvy, Kainene has a cold personality but opposite is the case in the film. Ugwu appears for a few seconds, as if he is some extra character, the Kano massacre was so vague ,the tragedies that took place were just summarized, instead the director made it all about Olanna and Kainene and their man problems. The movie lacks the depth that the novel holds and has ruined the novel's prestige,to be honest . We don't even get to see Ugwu's transition from a naive rural boy to an almost well groomed young man, now literate and able to write a novel.My advice, go buy the book and read it instead because the visuals you will have when reading are much better than this movie.