Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (2011)

Tom Hardy and Gary Oldman

For a slight change of pace, we decided to review Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy. It is rated R for violence, language, and some brief sex and nudity. It was nominated for 3 Oscars, including Best Adapted Screenplay and Best Actor.

Mark-
I went into this movie with really high expectations, despite not really knowing much about it.  Unfortunately my lack of background concerning this film is what deterred me from enjoying it more than I did. I’ve never read the book or seen the mini-series concerning this story, which having done would provide a much greater understanding of how this movie ultimately comes together.

The general plot of this film revolves around the British Intelligence during the Cold War. When an operation in Budapest goes wrong, the head of the operation team (Control), along with a senior member (Smiley) are forced to resign. When Smiley is approached a short time later by a rogue agent, he is informed that the true operative of the Budapest mission was to discover if there was a mole within the British Intelligence. Smiley agrees to explore and investigate the situation, working to determine which of four remaining senior agents may be the Russian mole.

There is no doubt that the acting in this film is unbelievable.  While Gary Oldman has received the majority of the notoriety for his portrayal as Smiley, the film would not be the same without its huge contributions of the supporting cast.  I expected a much bigger role from Colin Firth, but the real gems of the supporting cast for me were John Hurt, Toby Jones, Benedict Cumberbatch, Mark Strong, and Tom Hardy.

The unfortunate downfall for this film is that it was incredibly confusing.  There are a lot of inferences made about different situations and characters in the film, but there is little to no actual finality to the inferences. Sadly, I don’t feel that rewatching the film would provide any more answers, but instead the only way to really know what the inferences mean would be to read the novel, or possibly watch the mini-series from the 1970s.

I love a good spy movie, and especially love twists and turns, but the confusion of the plot was just a little too much for me. I still really enjoyed the performances of the cast, but they weren’t enough to help me enjoy the film more than I did.  3 ½ *’s out of 5.

MY RANDOM THOUGH FOR TINKER, TAILOR, SOLDIER, SPY: I don’t think that I’ve been as excited about the possibilities of an actors career as I am for Tom Hardy right now. I’m really hoping that he gets, and takes, the opportunity to have more roles like he did in this film, and not end up being known simply as a tough guy action star. It’s crazy how much he reminds me of Russell Crowe.

Dan-
Let me begin by saying that this movie seems like it would be the most accurate portrayal of espionage from the Cold War era ever shown in movies. There are no unbelievable action sequences like you would see in a James Bond or Jason Bourne movie and no fancy gadgets either. All of the action and intrigue is cerebral and internal because I never knew who to trust. And while it is to be commended for being grounded in realism,  it unfortunately did not make a great movie. The source material is a much beloved novel (unread by me) which was previously adapted into a successful BBC miniseries from the 1970s (unseen by me) starring the original Obi-Wan Kenobi himself, Alec Guinness, I hoped for good things. But sadly, my expectations did not meet the reality of the movie.

The plot of finding a Russian mole working inside British Intelligence in the midst of the Cold War made it sound intriguing, and the cast seemed like it couldn't miss. Unfortunately, the script just couldn't get into the unspoken details that surely were in the source material. There just isn't enough time in a two, or even three, hour movie to explain more. When the identity of the mole is ultimately revealed (don't worry I won't spoil it!) the problem for me was that while I wanted to know, it didn't quite have the impact that I thought it should have. Too much was left unsaid, too many details went unexplained, and too many questions were left unanswered. It perhaps requires multiple viewings to flesh out the characters a little better and catch details that went unnoticed the first time, not to mention trying to keep all the characters straight as there were so many that are involved.

It was a little difficult to jump right in to this story considering that the structure of the movie did not seem to flow for me, not to mention that there isn't much dialogue in the first 20 minutes of the movie either. A large portion of the story is told in flashback and the times when the scenes switched back and forth didn't work and were confusing. It became difficult to remember everyone's names and whether or not I had seen them in the flashback or the present, and what significance they held. There were several shots of characters staring at pictures as well as lingering camera shots of the faces of them as if I was supposed to be reading the mind of who was on screen at the moment. It also seemed like there was a homosexual subtext happening with a few of the male characters. Now I admit that I could be completely wrong about that aspect, but I doubt it.

Much is to be said about the strength of the cast, which made this movie very watchable so that I wanted to know what happened with all of them. Gary Oldman as George Smiley was nominated for Best Actor, but I found the other supporting characters more compelling, particularly Benedict Cumberbatch (best name ever!) as Peter Guillam, Tom Hardy (Bane himself!) as Ricki Tarr, and Mark Strong as Jim Prideaux. These characters were easiest to identify with and credit goes also to the rest of the big-name cast for doing so much with so little screen time, particularly Colin Firth, who has such an engaging screen presence in everything he does.

I give this movie 3 out of 5 stars, which seems high considering how much I didn't like it. The performances elevated this movie, but I couldn't figure out for the life of me the 'why' of it all at the end. I realize that some people enjoy this type of plot structure and screenplay because it is open to endless interpretation by the audience. And while this may work for a film studies class it did not work on an entertainment level.

Nerd Note: Of all the memorable characters that Gary Oldman has played, this movie resulted in his first Oscar nomination! This is the same guy that was Commissioner Gordon in The Dark Knight Trilogy, Sirius Black in the Harry Potter movies, as well as pure evil embodied as Stansfield in Leon: The Professional. He also has an amazing voice talent to further disappear into his roles and as a result I did not know he was British until after I saw an interview with him before he showed up in the Harry Potter movies. I don't think I've ever seen him look or act the same in any two movies that weren't part of a series. He is truly an original actor.

Gosford Park (2001)

The entire cast of Gosford Park

Here we have the Oscar winner for best original screenplay from 2001: Gosford Park. It is rated R for a few F-bombs and a very brief sex scene (there are racier sex scenes in some PG-13 movies). Honestly though, if it was released today it may only have been rated PG-13. Neither of us could understand why it was rated R. Maybe we're too desensitized.

Dan- 
So this movie was directed by Robert Altman, most famous for directing a bunch of movies that are beloved by critics and elitists such as MASH, Kansas City, and Nashville, none of which I have seen. But having now seen this movie and a couple of his others (Cookie's Fortune and A Prairie Home Companion) I have noticed two things are common throughout them. One: The dialogue will almost always overlap in order to necessitate multiple viewings for a full appreciation of what is happening, and Two: There are a LOT of characters in his movies who are connected in unlikely ways. Imagine if all of the people in the picture above have dialogue (which they do) and are referenced by name throughout (which they are) and you will have some idea about how much one needs to pay attention. And I still don't know who half of them are! I did find it easy to remember some characters as I had seen them in other movies and they just stood out better, like Clive Owen, Ryan Phillippe, Kelly MacDonald (the Scottish girl) and Maggie Smith.

But that's not to say the movie isn't well-made. It is. And the screenplay is fairly brilliant. I'm just not smart enough to catch everything or fully appreciate how witty and clever this movie is after just one viewing. Hint: turn on the subtitles. Movies like this are designed for repeat viewing, which is both good and bad. Good because it can make a good movie into a great one, like Shawshank Redemption. And bad because it can just get taxing if you don't like the movie and with each subsequent viewing you stretch further into boredom, like Gangs of New York.

This could almost be considered a comedy, but the last 15 minutes of the movie shift the tone toward more of a drama. I'm calling it a dramedy because there was so much humor in it (See: Stephen Fry's bumbling inspector who reminded me of Inspector Clouseau from Pink Panther fame). I was appreciative of my oldest brother who lived in London for several years and gave me some instruction in the art of British humor. People behave in odd or terrible ways and the stuffy Brits just ignore it as if nothing is wrong, because to acknowledge it would be to encourage it (See: Maggie Smith in just about every scene she's in, deserving that Oscar nomination for supporting actress).

I would like to see this movie again to see how much more I can catch and follow, but it won't be anytime soon. To paraphrase Roger Ebert, this is a movie that is about characters and the situations they are each in as opposed to a structured plot. The difficult part is that there are so many characters that you don't seem to get to any of them well enough to care about what happens to them. And the ones you do get to know turn out to be not what they seemed.

I feel like I want to, and should, give this movie another chance but it won't be anytime soon. I probably would like it more upon repeat viewings. I'm giving this movie 3½ out of 5 stars, with an option left open to increase the rating upon subsequent viewings.

Side Note: I would suggest watching it all at once so it becomes easier to keep track of everyone. As you all may be aware, each movie we watch is in 1 hour or less increments so as to fit into our lunch break at work.

Mark-
Let’s just start by letting you know that in my opinion this film was very over-hyped and didn’t live up to its expectations. The tagline for this movie is "Tea at four. Dinner at eight. Murder at midnight.", and sadly if you were to consider this film in terms of being 24 hours long, entertainment wise nothing really happens until just before the 24^th hour. If you were simply to go off of the tagline for this movie you would most likely feel deceived at the movie; I know I did. I would have preferred much more of the focus to have been on the murder, and much less on the tea and dinner.

This film takes place in the 1930s in an English countryside manor, and details the lives, relationships, and interactions of two distinct groups of individuals. The first group is upstairs individuals, which comprises friends and family of a well-off estate holder. The upstairs group seem mostly lost without someone else there to do everything for them, and thus we have their interactions with the downstairs individuals. This second group is comprised of the cooks, butlers, maids, menservants, and drivers.

My biggest criticism for this film is that it simply lacks a sense of flow to it. The first 3/4 of this film takes so long to set up the last 20-30 minutes, that it caused me to lose interest and miss some of the very important points I was supposed to be paying attention to.

I will give a lot of credit to the actors and actresses in this movie. It no doubt helped that there are a lot of very well known and respected actors in this film, and each of the characters did an excellent job at portraying the role they were assigned. The interactions between the two groups is interesting to view, although I wouldn’t necessarily go as far as to call it entertaining. I love how they are able to bring everything together at the end, but it would have been nice to have a little more of the characters backgrounds during the first part of the movie, and not have to try to make sense of so many convoluted messes at the end.

Last of all would be a little suggestion for anyone considering watching this movie. Dan and I turned the subtitles on while we watched this film and it helped immensely. It was difficult to follow the dialog at times due to accents and the numerous conversations which have everyone speaking over one another. 2 ½ * out of 5

My Random Thought For Gosford Park: I can’t think of another movie where all of the characters play such balanced supporting roles, and no one in particular has a starring role.