siesta-3 James Edwards, play-write and star of this movie, died this week (January 2007). He was 89. Turns out he was only ever pleased that his story, however modest, was made into a movie (and that he sat in a full Cinema, albeit somewhat overwhelmed, to see it for himself). This story was faithfully true to real-life events despite the fact that it might have seemed sentimental. I'd recommend watching this movie. It reflects a moment in time in NZ when conscription separated families, as it does always. Jim's story is as relevant today as it was in NZ's war-time history. Craig McLaughlin's performance is faithful to the character he portrays. He is calm despite the frustrations of his predicament - I wonder if he knew of the genuine commitment Jim felt for Daisy despite their youth?

the_ashwee A previous comment on AWOL stated that the film was stereotypical, empty and pretty much lame with a typical story.This is such a false accusation. The film is based on the ACTUAL EVENTS of James Edwards and Daisy who went AWOL. This isn't just a work of fiction created to wow audience. My Great Uncle wrote this story as dedication to his wife Daisy about what he had to go through to be by her side.The movie while not spectacular is enjoyable, authentic and has an innonce about it that captures real life desperation.Watch it. Learn about it. Don't just write about it in your own arrogance.

christophaskell The problem with this movie wasn't in the story. This was, I felt, a very touching story about a man who chooses to stay with his wife even after a miscarriage (when the whole reason for the marriage was the pregnancy). A sappy testament to the power of love, the director (John Laing) had a perfect story for the Lifetime channel, especially since it was based on a true story. The acting was good enough, and being shot in New Zealand, the scenery was beautiful. The film failed, I believe, on the fact that the way in which the story was told would have made a great TV show, perhaps done over two weeks, or, if all at once, with some commercials to break it up. It was, unfortunately, a feature length film, and I think there needs to be a difference, and in this there was none. Rating: 18/40

nhoney1 The total lack of originality in the title was an omen of what the film was like. The movie was uninspired, unoriginal and full of every World War II cliche. My thoughts as I watched the film was that this looked like a made-for-TV historical drama, but maybe I am being unfair on TV movies.The story was set in NZ in 1942 and was effective in its portrayal of Kiwis and NZ society at that time. But it was the cliches that was too much for me. I will give just two examples of this.The soldier goes absent without leave so that he could escort his wife from Wellington to Auckland. Why she couldn't get on a train and go on her own was unclear. At the train station he drops his suitcase and it bursts open, revealing his military uniform. This of course happens all the time, you are always seeing people in train stations and airports all over the world dropping their suitcases and having them burst open. After the soldier gathers everything together, a voice calls out 'Hey you, stop' and somehow I just knew that the soldier had dropped something and it was being returned, which was the case.Later the couple were working on a farm, helping with the harvest. As one does when one is urgently trying to get to Auckland so that the soldier can return to the army. Then a warplane flew overhead. There appears to be a law of nature that when a warplane is flying over friendly territory and there is a camera below, the engine will fail and the plane will crash. And of course that is what happened here.The film truly was 'absent without leave', but what was absent was an originality.