Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy (Tomas Alfredson)

[Watashi]

UTrMc4bRcu0

Surely we can all get behind this one? Colin Firth, Gary Oldman, Mark Strong, Tom Hardy, John Hurt, Benedict Cumberbatch? From that dude who directed Let the Right One In?

[Mara]

Ooooh, interesting. Great cast.

[Ezee E]

I really like that piece of music, whatever it was.

[Watashi]

I really like that piece of music, whatever it was.
It's Danny Elfman's score to The Wolfman.

EFuxWoztMbA

[Dukefrukem]

I will support anything with Oldman.

[megladon8]

Ooooh, interesting. Great cast.


:|

Jen just posted the trailer on my FaceBook wall, and that was almost exactly what I said in response.


Are you..........me?

[Acapelli]

anyone see the bbc miniseries adaptation starring alec guiness?

[Chac Mool]

With a cast like that (Oldman may be my favorite actor of his generation) and pedigree in both story and crew, this could easily be a sleeper hit...

[DavidSeven]

I approve.

[Raiders]

Yeah, looking forward to this one quite a lot. Didn't even mention probably my favorite actor in the film, Cirian Hinds.

[Watashi]

At first, I thought that was Bill Nighy there instead of Gary Oldman.

He even sounds like him.

[Morris Schæffer]

Looks great.

[megladon8]

Yeah, looking forward to this one quite a lot. Didn't even mention probably my favorite actor in the film, Cirian Hinds.


I love him. He's so great.

I still really need to see Persuasion.

[transmogrifier]

As long as it is better than the overrated Let the Right One In, I'm there. Always down for a good spy thriller.

[Boner M]

As long as it's as good as the about-right-rated Let the Right One In, I'm there. That said, I'm usually bored by spy thrillers.

[Rowland]

As long as it's superior to the solid but overrated remake Let Me In, I'm there. Maybe it's a spy thriller with a vampiric twist?

[transmogrifier]

As long as it's as good as the about-right-rated Let the Right One In, I'm there. That said, I'm usually bored by spy thrillers.

This is why you fail.

[Morris Schæffer]

http://www.empireonline.com/images/image_index/hw800/52911.jpg

[Ezee E]

New, Awesome Trailer (http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=80689)

[Morris Schæffer]

Yeah E, that looks tremendous!

[number8]

Christ, now that's how you sell a spy thriller.

[Mara]

This looks like what The Good Shepherd should have been, and was not.

[Fezzik]

Damn, everything I see about this movie makes me want to see it more.

Its gotta be atop my most anticipated list for the rest of the year.

[[ETM]]

That's true SUATMM stuff.

[Irish]

Great looking trailer. Curious how they're going to pull this off as a period piece. That seems tricky given the subject matter.

[Morris Schæffer]

Empire Magazine Uk review (not sure it is spoiler-free, but from comments on the Empire site, the review appears more detailed than it needs to be so proceed at your own risk)

http://www.empireonline.com/images/stars/large_5.gif


Plot

London, the 1970s: After a fiasco of a covert operation, British Intelligence spymaster Control (Hurt) and his right-hand man George Smiley (Oldman) are sacked. Then shocking but persuasive information that a Soviet mole has penetrated to the heart of the secret service prompts the Whitehall wallahs to task Smiley with spying on the spies.

Review
It was certainly a brave undertaking, tackling what is not only one of the greatest espionage novels ever, but one whose 1979 serialisation by the BBC lingers in the memory of everyone of a certain age. It’s a pleasure and a relief, then, that the film succeeds in its own right. It is a superior whodunnit thriller and a very grown-up one, devoted not to guns, girls, gadgets and glamour, but to the little grey cells. And in plumbing George Smiley’s grey matter, Gary Oldman has understood the illusion of being a nondescript sort of little man with a remarkable mind, authority and a gut full of secret sorrows and sins behind the serious spectacles.

The starting point is a fine screenplay by Peter Straughan and the late Bridget O’Connor that rings a few changes to John le Carré’s tale. Most of them are subtle, sensible, and a couple are even a touch humorous. It probably goes without saying that the sterling cast is uniformly on top of things, undoubtedly delighted to find themselves in such excellent company. The real stroke was recruiting Tomas Alfredson. With Swedish melancholia in vogue, the Let The Right One In director proves an ideal choice to turn a baleful gaze on le Carré’s perfectly miserable spies — a breed of men he characterised as unromantic figures prone to unpleasant stomach ailments and trouble with their wives. Alfredson is clearly a kindred spirit of both le Carré and Smiley, intently focused and with a dispassionate eye for the small, telling detail: on a face, in a room, from a conversation.

Pulled back into the Cold War spy game to unmask the traitor in the Circus that is MI6, Smiley learns that Control (John Hurt) had sniffed the mole and assigned code names for his principle suspects. Tinker is smug Percy Alleline (Toby Jones). Tailor is sardonic Bill Haydon (Colin Firth). Soldier is bluff proletarian Roy Bland (Ciarán Hinds). Poor Man is prissy émigré Toby Esterhase (David Dencik), and sadsack Smiley, also a suspect, Beggarman. Evidently Control grasps Smiley’s two weaknesses: his love for faithless wife Ann, and his fascination with Soviet counterpart Karla. It’s a great decision that we never see the faces of Ann or Karla, shadowy figures who loom large in Smiley’s capacious memory. In one particularly arresting scene, Smiley relates his sole face-to-face encounter with Karla years earlier — not through flashback, but an anecdote in which he becomes uniquely animated, re-enacting his dialogue with the cruelly astute Russian.

Other key players in the chess game include Mark Strong’s dutiful, tragic Jim Prideaux, dangled as bait, betrayed and abandoned… to become a teacher. Nowadays, of course, it is hard to imagine even the most third-rate public school engaging a darkly mysterious man with no past and permitting him to entertain small boys to tea in his rackety-packety caravan, but it’s in keeping with the seediness that deliberately pervades the whole shebang, from the desiccated Control, with his messy rooms and his paranoid plotting, to the nicely cheesy selection of Julio Iglesias warbling La Mer over the end montage.

It’s probable Benedict Cumberbatch had the most fun as Peter Guillam, Smiley’s trusted legman (amusingly, TV’s Sherlock plays what Ian Nathan aptly described as Smiley’s Watson) with a groovy narrow-cut suit, fruity ties and a ’60s pop-star haircut. He features in a showpiece nail-biter of a sequence; it’s the good old filching-of-secret-documents routine, but his progress from the security entrance and through the corridors of The Circus — brushing by suspects and the suspicious — is achieved with sweat trickling in suspense. Tom Hardy is the bit of rough Ricki Tarr, a foot soldier at the thuggish end of field work, but one with the instincts to know when he’s been sent on a fool’s errand and when to run. It is the return of AWOL agent Ricki that raises the alarm and sets Smiley on the right track. It’s wonderful to see Kathy Burke cajoled back into acting for a key scene as boozy Connie, the researcher forcibly retired to shut her up and shelve her encyclopedic memory. There’s even a cameo from le Carré, who can be seen among the Circus staff drunkenly hailing the arrival of Santa Lenin at the ghastly office Christmas party revisited in a series of discreetly revelatory flashbacks.

Those who have not read the book or seen the BBC version do not need to worry overmuch about plot complexities or following the threads — Ricky Tarr’s odyssey out in the cold, the workings of Alleline’s pet project Operation Witchcraft, the language of the ‘service’ — although they are well laid out. What matters are the layers and levels of betrayal, to country, cause, colleagues, lovers and to self, from great to small, like a nested Russian doll.

Rarely do critics complain that a film isn’t long enough, but this is the almost freakish exception. The film is so well paced over its two-odd hours, but another half-hour could have been used to give the suspects more to do and to generate yet more suspense and concern about which of them is the traitor. It’s really the revelation of the mole that lets the side down — it doesn’t deliver the punch to the gut one wants. Of course, if you haven’t worked out who it is by then, you must be very innocent in the ways of these things. Of course it is him. It had to be him. But his all-of-a-sudden apprehension and the tableau greeting the latecomer arriving at the scene of the double-dealer’s downfall, while laudable in its restraint and lack of histrionics, is a trifle too cool.

Oldman’s performance is most eloquent and expressive in his fluent command of body language. The set of his shoulders and his posture, the occasional adjustment of his spectacles, tell you precisely what’s going on in Smiley’s mind. There is a moment near the end when we only see him from the back but feel an electric thrill, knowing with certainty by his stance that his heart has leapt at what he has seen. Alfredson is startlingly adept at envisioning how Smiley’s mind works; you can almost see the wheels turning as the pieces of the puzzle click together (at one point you literally see tracks converging as he nears his ‘Eureka!’ moment), and a clever piece of sound editing filters conversations through Smiley’s thought process until he homes in on a phrase that is the key to everything. And then there is his face in his final shot; we recognise the sweet taste of game over, game well-played in his mouth.


Verdict

Utterly absorbing, extremely smart and - considering this is a sad, shabby, drably grey-green world of obsessives, misfits, misdirection, disillusionment, self-delusion and treachery - quite beautifully executed.

[Boner M]

Seeing this tomorrow. :pritch:

[Qrazy]

Debating whether or not to watch the mini-series first.

[SirNewt]

Debating whether or not to watch the mini-series first.

Debating whether or not to read the book first. I've never read anything by this cat.

I've been pretty excited about this for a few weeks now. Thrillers are probably my favorite kind of flicks and pretty much have been since I saw 'Nick of Time' when I was 14ish. Wonder if that movie holds up?

[Boner M]

Ehh... this felt a bit freeze-dried to me, with the drab atmospherics and devotion to shabby interiors and pensively-glowering Brit thesps getting monotonous toward the end. Oldman's good, Hardy's phenomenal, but most of the characters feel undernourished; can't speak for the source material but I'm guessing the mini-series will remain the definitive version. It's obviously an accomplished film, and I probably owe it another viewing, but I felt pretty indifferent towards it throughout and afterwards.

[[ETM]]

Hmm, didn't expect the backlash to start so early.

[Boner M]

;373846']Hmm, didn't expect the backlash to start so early.
Backlash ≠ one negative opinion.

[[ETM]]

I was joking, of course.

Ever since the trailer came out, I've been looking forward to it. I was fully expecting almost universal acclaim. Whatever came out before, I didn't worry because "there's always Tinker, Tailor...".:)

[Qrazy]

Ehh... this felt a bit freeze-dried to me, with the drab atmospherics and devotion to shabby interiors and pensively-glowering Brit thesps getting monotonous toward the end. Oldman's good, Hardy's phenomenal, but most of the characters feel undernourished; can't speak for the source material but I'm guessing the mini-series will remain the definitive version. It's obviously an accomplished film, and I probably owe it another viewing, but I felt pretty indifferent towards it throughout and afterwards.

I'm hoping this is good but I do find that to be a problem with a number of political thrillers. Many thrillers feel bloodless, focused on minute plot mechanics while letting their characters fall by the wayside.

[Morris Schæffer]

So little people saw this? I should see it wednesday. Perhaps we can move thread?

[Ezee E]

Whoever was in charge of the release of this movie needs to be axed. They've lost all award potential, hence, all possibility of getting this seen pretty well.

[TGM]

So little people saw this?

It didn't freaking release anywhere!

[Morris Schæffer]

Blooody hell!

[Fezzik]

It didn't freaking release anywhere!

Wide release January 6th, according to an ad I saw today.

[TGM]

Wide release January 6th, according to an ad I saw today.

:pritch:

[Morris Schæffer]

Well, that was as dry as a doorknob which is, of course, (nearly) entirely part of the charm. It's funny, but my girlfriend was bitching during the first hour that she had no idea what was going on. Then, when the movie was over, she was explaining some of the finer points to me. :)

It's that kind of a movie. Talk about it, discuss it and it'll feel like it was a trip totally worth taking, but there was never a "holy crap!!" moment for me. A release of some kind even if there was moment towards the end when an important character seems to have figured out something crucial, a personal "holy crap" moment for him although I'm at pains to explain what it means. Ditto for the ladyfriend.

@boner: I'm talking about the audio recording Oldman listens to. He's hearing something about russians in the upper echelons laughing, joking and the main Russian Karla appreciated that. The recording is repeated for the viewer and Smiley clearly has an epiphany. What Am I missing there?

[Melville]

I'm talking about the audio recording Oldman listens to. He's hearing something about russians in the upper echelons laughing, joking and the main Russian Karla appreciated that. The recording is repeated for the viewer and Smiley clearly has an epiphany. What Am I missing there?
It's just how he finds out that the big British spy operation (Sorcery? Wizardry? Something like that) is actually a ploy by the Russians, who are feeding useless intelligence to the Brits through it while using it to get the good intelligence from their double agent. The Russians are laughing at the Brits for thinking the intelligence is gold when it's really shit. Or was there something more you were thinking of?

[Morris Schæffer]

I got the feeling that smiley found out the id of the mole there, but as you are saying, it was merely the russians laughing at the fact the brits were getting crap intel.b

The moment just felt bigger to me as Smiley must have already realized by that point in the movie the concern of the mole was genuine.

Witchcraft ;)

[Melville]

I got the feeling that smiley found out the id of the mole there, but as you are saying, it was merely the russians laughing at the fact the brits were getting crap intel.b

The moment just felt bigger to me as Smiley must have already realized by that point in the movie the concern of the mole was genuine.

Witchcraft ;)
He knew the concern about the mole was genuine, but he didn't know precisely how the mole was operating. I think Witchcraft=bad was the big realization he got from the tape; I didn't think he knew the identity of the mole until he captured him in the house near the end, though it's been a few months since I saw it and I could be misremembering.

Edit: I guess the initial conversation that led to the tape should have immediately made clear to him that witchcraft was getting crap and giving gold, so the repeated listens wouldn't have accomplished much if that's all he got from it. So I probably am misremembering.

Awesome wallpaper, anyway.

[B-side]

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy is historical theater. "Circus", "games", "treasure." It's a fantasy world of Cold War espionage walled off from the citizenry. The hierarchical system places top officials in sound proof rooms that are compartments inside of a larger floor. Alfredson employs the usual window-peeking to emphasize secrecy, but takes it one step further in a Tati-esque move and sometimes places his camera even further outside of buildings and observes several rooms and the action therein in a single frame. While occasionally a bit of a slog, it's a slog with purpose. The convoluted web of deceit lost me a bit, but Alfredson kept the proceedings toiling away with an icy cool veneer of professionalism.

[TGM]

Well, Gary Oldman was pretty good, but I was far more impressed by the supporting cast all around. In fact, this is probably the best ensemble performance I've seen in a movie in 2011. But other than that, eh, I dunno, I guess it was alright. Didn't really do much for me, though I probably just need to let it settle in a bit...

[Sxottlan]

It's just how he finds out that the big British spy operation (Sorcery? Wizardry? Something like that) is actually a ploy by the Russians, who are feeding useless intelligence to the Brits through it while using it to get the good intelligence from their double agent. The Russians are laughing at the Brits for thinking the intelligence is gold when it's really shit. Or was there something more you were thinking of?

I think you got it. I was a little confused at that moment too. I was trying to figure out what exactly he was hearing that was setting him off. I thought perhaps he was hearing a personalized phrase over and over again that another one of the suspected traitors said on a regular basis. But like you said, Karla laughing at them itself was the point.

[Wryan]

Goddamn this was stately, and a little bloodless now and then. But great performances and a lot of subtle suggestion. Worked for me.

[Wryan]

And poor Ciaran Hinds. Basically just gets to stand around being Ciaran Hinds, which is okay. He had more lines in Harry Potter 7B.

[lovejuice]

It's really hard to follow. Reading -- though not finishing -- the book beforehand helps. This movie is among the rare cases in which the adaptation surpasses the original.

As someone whose hobbyhorse is adapting, I want to go back and finish the book. It's very curious how they restructure the movie. The book itself is hardly linear, but neither is the movie. Can't help but wonder why they want to replace one jumbling narrative with another.

[Fezzik]

I found this disappointing. Not that it was bad, but I was looking forward to it so much that I think i was expecting too much.

It was very deliberate in its pace and drier than a good martini. It was almost interminable until Hardy showed up at Oldman's house. After that the pace improved.

Still, the performances were great so it was worth seeing, but thats really all I can say about it.

[Raiders]

I thought this was incredible. I was stunned leaving the theater. I don't think it is bloodless at all. The film is pulsating with the menace that comes from the starkness of the Circus interiors and the way everything is kept at a distance, through a glass and the whole puzzle is scarcely ever seen. The entire film is obsessed with perception and viewing the world from behind a window; whether it be behind Smiley's glasses, Prideaux's loner student who simply observes, or through the wonderful motif of showing insidious packages being delivered by panning up through the floors of the Circus, distanced and safely behind a window pane of course. It is also a film obsessed with the male perspective and the impotence of the crushing enigma of the Circus. Despite many scenes suggesting or discussing something sexual in nature, there is no warmth or happiness and almost no women to speak of except for one who runs a female boarding school and in her own words is "seriously under-fucked." It's a tragic film, but not for any one character but rather the entire bloody system. I found the room where the "top men" sit to be sad and pitiable, a prison cell for their dim futures and ineffectual power struggles. The image of John Hurt's Control, slumped in a hospital bed is both heartbreaking and pathetic. Gary Oldman's soliloquy on his one, single meeting with his arch nemesis where he can recount all the little details his mind has obsessed over but have amounted to nothing and then, at the end of it all and in a moment of sad irony, he can't even recall his face. As said before, the impotence of these men with cheating wives, unrequited love and lovers forced to be abandoned, is wrenching. And on top of all this is Alfredson's impeccable direction, so fluid and smooth and catching just the right angles to show us the milieu without getting too personal or intimate with the details (except when he closes in on a character's face to highlight the futility or loss in their expression, especially when one is shot in the face and the blood slowly runs from his eye). I don't even need to speak to the performances, which are outstanding across the board.

Stunning, just stunning.

[Ezee E]

#1 of the year Raiders?

[Raiders]

#1 of the year Raiders?

Easily.

[Pop Trash]

Easily.

Have you made a 2011 top five/ten yet?

[Raiders]

Have you made a 2011 top five/ten yet?

Not sure. Probably not. I still have a couple key films to see.

[ledfloyd]

i wouldn't call it stunning, but i enjoyed it quite a bit. it is without doubt one of the best directed films of the year, on a purely visual level it's incredibly engaging. however, i do feel like many of the characters are merely sketches. for key players there isn't much behind cumberbatch or hinds. there is slightly more to toby jones character, but not by much. this wouldn't be such an issue if i cared about the plot, but i'm afraid i didn't. whenever flashbacks are triggered and it becomes weighed down with exposition it loses me a bit, and that happens a great deal.

i kept coming back to zodiac while watching this. the sober attention to detail and settings are reminiscent of fincher's film. but i couldn't figure out why that film felt so vital in comparison to tinker tailors' stateliness. until i realized, zodiac was an incredibly funny film with well rounded characters, and this film's biggest weakness is it's lack of a sense of humor or humanism.

which isn't to say i didn't like it. i would recommend it, for alfredson's direction if nothing else. but it also features an all-star cast of british thespians, and a rather good score by alberto iglesias that unfortunately seems to pop up less and less as the film proceeds.

[Raiders]

Isn't the lack of any real knowledge of these characters outside what we can explicitly observe, or rather even further, what they allow us to explicitly observe, kind of the entire point of the film? I also don't think there is anything wafer thin about Oldman's Smiley either. He's not dynamic in the sense we get to witness any great change or revelation, but from the context (the party flashbacks, his wife's distinct lack of appearance, his soliloquy, and finally the very final shot showing perhaps the ultimate non-triumphic return) show a character with a lot of anguish, mystery and depth. He, Prideaux and Tarr are purposefully the only characters we get any good handle on as they are the only ones who have been able to, even if only for a second, separate themselves from the Circus. The other characters are mere cogs, extensions of the antiquated and suffocating Circus, epitomized by the very fact that their best descriptors are made-up names given by a paranoid-but-right aging spy. Even still, each and every character is as much defined by their place in the narrative, a beautiful summation I thought to the way the film shows the sad, mournful dominance the Circus has over their lives, so much so that each of them has essentially sacrified all their life to the point that it would be trivial to try and make them well-rounded; their service, this life, this mystery itself is all that they are--it is what they have been reduced to become.

I found the film overwhelmingly melancholic and just remarkably and palpably tragic.

[lovejuice]

this film's biggest weakness is it's lack of a sense of humor or humanism.
I have to disagree with you on this account.

A lot are going on between Strong's and Firth's character. They are best friends; one is a spy; Firth's presumably negotiates with Clara to the release of his friend; and Strong's has to be the one who takes care of the other, redeeming as much as revenging.

Granted, I don't think all these are well translated. Clarity is not this movie's strongest suit.

And it does contain humor. The title itself -- that chess piece motive -- is an evident of how it doesn't go overboard taking itself way too seriously. If anything, I appreciate its sense of humor more than even in Casino Royale.

[Adam]

Performances uniformly great and I agree the film's not wholly humor-less, but this was kind of a slog for me. How can these guys' stories be tragic if there's no indication they haven't always been such complete shells of real human beings? Are you supposed to be convinced by that one scene where Kathy Burke's character is going on about the glory days?

I'll also echo Mike D'Angelo and say that this film seems to have been purposefully edited so as to totally minimize fluidity and comprehension.

[Skitch]

Wow. The love this film is getting is downright baffling to me. I thought I was an incomprehensible mess.

[Kiusagi]

I thought this was good stuff. It is a lot to take in and I'd be lying if I said I kept up with everything, but there was a lot to like.

A lot of people are saying this shouldn't be classified as a thriller because it is more of a slow drama and there are no thrills to be found. I can see that point of view, but I thought there were quite a few thrills. I guess the film is more of a character analysis than it is a mystery, but I thought the suspense was well done.

One other note, I know Gary Oldman was getting a lot of Oscar buzz for this, but I don't think it's going to happen. The cast is so great all-around that nobody really stands out, Oldman included. Though I certainly wouldn't object to him getting a nod.

[DavidSeven]

I'll also echo Mike D'Angelo and say that this film seems to have been purposefully edited so as to totally minimize fluidity and comprehension.

Thanks for referencing D'Angelo's review. I'm in complete agreement with this part:


there seemed to be no relationship between contiguous scenes, or frequently even between contiguous shots. Soderbergh has talked about how he cuts the film in his head as he's shooting it; Alfredson apparently does whatever the opposite of that would be. Same deal here, only this time in a much more convoluted context—I was able, with some effort, to follow what was going on, but practically every cut found me screaming (out loud on one occasion; I live alone) WHAT THE MOTHERFUCK AM I LOOKING AT? I can handle the occasional jarring edit for effect, or even a nonstop barrage of them in something explicitly experimental (e.g. Container), but an adaptation of an author as stubbornly plot-heavy as Le Carré needs to flow, to guide us expertly through the thicket. I felt repeatedly stranded, and not in a productive way. And find it inexplicable that I seem to be alone (apart from otherwise admiring reviews conceding that the story is confusing, which they invariably abscribe to the source material rather than to the direction). Odds are I would have found this underwhelming even had it been crafted with more care, as there seems to me precious little emotional purchase in Smiley's professional detachment—the revelation involving his wife at the very end should cut deep, yet even the invented Christmas-party flashbacks expressly designed to achieve that purpose...no, you know what, that's a function of how they were directed/edited as well. Fuck this dude...

[Skitch]

That is finely stated indeed. I completely agree.

[Benny Profane]

Yeah, I couldn't make much sense of the plot developments, the characters weren't given enough background, and therefore the ending had zero impact on me. The "loyalty" confrontation with Toby especially. I had forgotten that character was even in the film. Thought it had potential but was ultimately weak.

[eternity]

Ditto D'Angelo/Skitch/Benny/etc.

[Acapelli]

i thought the filmmakers gave us plenty of time to absorb the story beats

loved this movie. easily my favorite movie of '11, although that's not saying much

zGcp3_OT2-0

[Boner M]

easily my favorite movie of '11, although that's not saying much
Bad year or minimal viewing?

[Acapelli]

Bad year or minimal viewing?
minimal viewing

not as much of a movie guy as i used to be

[[ETM]]

*points out the typo in the thread title*

[ledfloyd]

http://www.davidbordwell.net/blog/2012/01/23/tinker-tailor-a-guide-for-the-perplexed/

bordwell deconstructs the film and tries to figure out why so many people are saying it's incomprehensible.

[Boner M]

Ha, I was waiting for a Bordwell post on the film. Will read later.

[StanleyK]

A great movie, which falls just short of being masterful. Its direction is gorgeous, but I wish it lingered on its shots a bit longer (which it certainly would have it if were made in the 70s, the decade the film tries hard- and mostly succeeds- to emulate). And as well-delineated its conflict and main players are, almost none of the characters feel more like real people than just serving their function in the plot (I gather that's kind of the point, but it's still a bit unsatisfying). The biggest strength of Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, other than of course Gary Oldman, is its storytelling. I don't see what people are finding so elusive or incomprehensible about it; I didn't have any trouble following it. It's smart and economical, respecting the audience's intelligence and rewarding active investment with some superbly and unconventionally thrilling scenes.

[Sycophant]

The part I couldn't follow is what proper nouns or code names referred to what. I think I'd figured it out mostly by the end of the film, but the first half still feels confusing to me, which made the back half confusing. A second viewing might well clear it up.

It seems there's a fair bit of exposition at the beginning and I think my brain might have refused it because it was overload.

[Ivan Drago]

Yeah, I couldn't make much sense of the plot developments, the characters weren't given enough background, and therefore the ending had zero impact on me.

Glad I'm not the only one who thinks this. As great as the actors were, and as visually well-directed it was, following the plot and story felt like my first viewing of Syriana. Still, it's resonating with me.

[Grouchy]

Wow, this was incredible. Amongst the best thrillers I've seen in recent years. I agree with Raiders in that it's a film about knowledge and perspective. I can't understand anyone who labels it as humorless. The story is filled with humor, maybe not the laugh-out-loud kind, but it features plenty of irony.

Gary Oldman adds another jewel to his crown. He's an actor frequently exploited for his histrionics and famous for his over-the-top villains, but George Smiley is the complete opposite - a character so self-controlled he knows everything about everybody but doesn't quite do anything about it.

Tomas Alfredson just gets better and better. I can't wait to see what's coming next from him.

[Boner M]

Yeah, there's a lot of great dry wit in the film. Kathy Burke's "I don't know about you, George, but I feel seriously underfucked" is probably the best line-reading of 2011.

[Ezee E]

When this movie has sequences in mind, it's amazing. Cumberbatch's sneak through "the Circus," Hardy's concern over the girl. Alfredson may just be a master of atmosphere after this and Let the Right One In.

However, the movie is a mess to follow otherwise. It's certainly the point to not have any expository dialog, or make things easy, but it's another thing to completely baffle a person into what's going on. And this isn't something that can be deciphered like a David Lynch movie. Perhaps it's to show what it may do to the characters on screen? If so, I don't see it there. It just seems like a sequence of events that are mixed up without direction. As mentioned, when there's a focus of what's going on, it's better then anything else we've seen this year.

Frustratingly amazing? Perhaps.

[Skitch]

When this movie has sequences in mind, it's amazing. Cumberbatch's sneak through "the Circus," Hardy's concern over the girl. Alfredson may just be a master of atmosphere after this and Let the Right One In.

However, the movie is a mess to follow otherwise. It's certainly the point to not have any expository dialog, or make things easy, but it's another thing to completely baffle a person into what's going on. And this isn't something that can be deciphered like a David Lynch movie. Perhaps it's to show what it may do to the characters on screen? If so, I don't see it there. It just seems like a sequence of events that are mixed up without direction. As mentioned, when there's a focus of what's going on, it's better then anything else we've seen this year.

Frustratingly amazing? Perhaps.

That's the first positive review I've read that's honest. Kudos.

[Raiders]

That's the first positive review I've read that's honest. Kudos.
WTF?

[Derek]

WTF?

Liar.

[Grouchy]

Well, I for one am not dishonest. I enjoyed the way that the film concealed information and made it obligatory for the viewer to connect each character to the main plot. I think Alfredson wants the viewer to act the detective just like George Smiley does.

[DavidSeven]

I think D'Angelo saying he felt "repeatedly stranded" by Alfredson's direction/cutting is pretty spot on. I found the film's abstruseness wholly unproductive. As E alludes to, there is difference between the sort of enlightening or evocative ambiguity employed by the likes of a Lynch, Coen or Malick and what Alfredson does here. I can, however, understand that there are those who were drawn in by the film's aesthetic qualities, dry humor and mannered performances. Personally, I felt like I was basically excluded from participating in this film by its haphazard cutting and didn't find the film's other qualities to be exceptional enough to compensate.

[Raiders]

I think D'Angelo saying he felt "repeatedly stranded" by Alfredson's direction/cutting is pretty spot on. I found the film's abstruseness wholly unproductive. As E alludes to, there is difference between the sort of enlightening or evocative ambiguity employed by the likes of a Lynch, Coen or Malick and what Alfredson does here. I can, however, understand that there are those who were drawn in by the film's aesthetic qualities, dry humor and mannered performances. Personally, I felt like I was basically excluded from participating in this film by its haphazard cutting and didn't find the film's other qualities to be exceptional enough to compensate.

That's fine, but someone telling me I am being dishonest because he disagrees with me is the height of obnoxiousness.

[DavidSeven]

That's fine, but someone telling me I am being dishonest because he disagrees with me is the height of obnoxiousness.

Definitely not disputing that. Just using the thread-bump as an opportunity to clarify my own thoughts on the film.

[Skitch]

That's fine, but someone telling me I am being dishonest because he disagrees with me is the height of obnoxiousness.

That's not really what I meant. Sorry, I meant no offense. I was just being curt. I'm not good at discussing films like this, because I'm so appalled that anyone could find the editing of this film in any way competent or good. Different strokes, I guess. I'm glad you enjoy the film. I'll leave now.

[Skitch]

I think D'Angelo saying he felt "repeatedly stranded" by Alfredson's direction/cutting is pretty spot on. I found the film's abstruseness wholly unproductive. As E alludes to, there is difference between the sort of enlightening or evocative ambiguity employed by the likes of a Lynch, Coen or Malick and what Alfredson does here. I can, however, understand that there are those who were drawn in by the film's aesthetic qualities, dry humor and mannered performances. Personally, I felt like I was basically excluded from participating in this film by its haphazard cutting and didn't find the film's other qualities to be exceptional enough to compensate.

Yes, this. Sorry guys, I wasn't trying to ruffle feathers or be a troll.

[Raiders]

That's not really what I meant. Sorry, I meant no offense. I was just being curt. I'm not good at discussing films like this, because I'm so appalled that anyone could find the editing of this film in any way competent or good. Different strokes, I guess. I'm glad you enjoy the film. I'll leave now.

I didn't mean to seem like a curmudgeon, I was just taken back by the way your post read. I don't mean to discourage you from saying what you wasn't or discussing films here.

[Skitch]

I didn't mean to seem like a curmudgeon, I was just taken back by the way your post read. I don't mean to discourage you from saying what you wasn't or discussing films here.

I know, man, but rereading the page, my comment did sound stupid, and I really didn't mean it quite like that. I meant it as complimentary to his review, and not insulting to others. What DavidSeven posted was spot on to what my brain meant, but my fingers just shat that fragment out.

[Grouchy]

Think of it like this. Most thrillers produce exposition so obvious that you can watch them with half your brain turned off and still follow the plot mechanics. This movie demands that you are at least half as intelligent as the characters on screen.

The exposition is there. It's just not obvious.

[Skitch]

Think of it like this. Most thrillers produce exposition so obvious that you can watch them with half your brain turned off and still follow the plot mechanics. This movie demands that you are at least half as intelligent as the characters on screen.

The exposition is there. It's just not obvious.

I truly understand what you are saying, and I love when movies challenge the viewer to pay attention. But I hate it when its intentionally so ambigious that you have to wait for the movie to tell you what happened because its impossible to guess the outcome based on clues they've given you. I felt that way with this film, as though it was impossible to deduece the answers without them telling you.

[Grouchy]

I truly understand what you are saying, and I love when movies challenge the viewer to pay attention. But I hate it when its intentionally so ambigious that you have to wait for the movie to tell you what happened because its impossible to guess the outcome based on clues they've given you. I felt that way with this film, as though it was impossible to deduece the answers without them telling you.
Well, that's true. As a whodunit is definitively impossible to figure out. I can understand disliking that.

[Qrazy]

Yeah, this was very good. Can't say I found it confusing.

The only thing I'm a little baffled by is...

Why Jim didn't know Bill was the mole immediately after he was taken down in Budapest. I guess the film just wants us to believe he was in massive denial all this time because they were lovers? I mean if only he, Bill and Control knew about Budapest that Bill was a mole seems like the obvious conclusion for any agent to make.

[Winston*]

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy - B+
Life Without Principle - B+
Children Who Chase Lost Voices from Deep Below - B+

Things are looking up.

[Qrazy]

Things are looking up.

Indeed.

[Qrazy]

I truly understand what you are saying, and I love when movies challenge the viewer to pay attention. But I hate it when its intentionally so ambigious that you have to wait for the movie to tell you what happened because its impossible to guess the outcome based on clues they've given you. I felt that way with this film, as though it was impossible to deduece the answers without them telling you.

Actually it is possible. Many here are complaining the film is bloodless, human relations are pushed to the fringes, etc but that's precisely the point. The clues to who the mole is are in the momentary glimpses we have of the relationships people actually care about.

For example, Ricki Tarr is shown seducing Irena or also potentially vice versa earlier in the film. Then we are shown Peter having to break up with his gay lover. We are also shown Ann cheating on Smiley and told who she is cheating on him with. And the importance of this relationship is communicating at the very beginning of the film with Smiley looking at the painting given by Bill (we find this out later). I didn't notice many clues as to Jim's homosexuality earlier in the film but I suppose they are probably there.

So based on all this we now know that a real spy will stop at nothing to achieve their ends. The most logical suspect is Bill given that he has seduced Smiley's wife.

edit: A quick revisit confirms some more clues in relation to Jim. In a flashback to the Christmas party in the first third of the film he's seen talking with Bill right before Bill makes eyes with Ann. In the scene just after we cut to the present day with Jim as a schoolteacher and he kills the owl after that he's talking to the new kid 'Bill' and drinking hard alcohol. He states, "Bill, the unpaid Bill, anyone ever called you that? There were a lot of Bill's in my time. They've all been good one's. What are you good at? ... You're a good watcher though."

[Pop Trash]

Maybe it plays better in a theater, but I couldn't get into this at all. Gave up after 45 minutes. I was expecting it to be dry and hard-to-follow, but I didn't expect it to be like eating rice cakes inside a calculus class.

[Boner M]

Maybe it plays better in a theater, but I couldn't get into this at all. Gave up after 45 minutes. I was expecting it to be dry and hard-to-follow, but I didn't expect it to be like eating rice cakes inside a calculus class.
Naked, Attack the Block and now this... what's with you bailing on British movies?

[Raiders]

Maybe it plays better in a theater

Re-watched it at home and nope, still the best film from last year.

[Pop Trash]

Naked, Attack the Block and now this... what's with you bailing on British movies?

Guess what?

I didn't think The King's Speech deserved best picture either.

:eek:

[Pop Trash]

Now I'm actually trying to think of the last British film I really liked...Bright Star or is that too Aussie?

[MadMan]

Review to come soon-needless to say I found the movie completely engaging and surprisingly fast paced for its run time. While Gary Oldman was fantastic last year (and well deserving of his Oscar nomination) I still think that the Oscar should have gone to George Clooney for The Descendants. Regardless, Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy easily cracks my Top 10 for 2011.